Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
~Master - April 26, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council
AMENDED AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL APRIL 26, 2022 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public during discussion. If you wish to speak, please complete an orange card and hand it to the City Clerk. When your name is called, please step to the microphone, state your name for the record, and limit the time used to present your remarks in order that others may be given the opportunity to speak. The normal process on any particular agenda item is that the motion is placed on the floor, input is received from the audience, the Council is given an opportunity to comment on the issue or respond to the audience concerns, and the vote is taken. On ordinances, there is time provided for public input at the time of the first reading. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PROCLAMATIONS: 1.Proclamation for “Arbor Day,” April 29, 2022 2. Proclamation for “National Historic Preservation Month,” May 2022 PRESENTATION: 3. Presentation of “A Home for Everyone” Award by Ames Human Relations Commission 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. 4. Motion approving payment of claims 5. Motion approving Minutes of Special Meeting of April 5, 2022, and Regular Meeting of April 12, 2022 6. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period April 1 - 15, 2022 7. Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses: a. Class C Beer Permit with Sunday Sales - Swift Stop #2, 3406 Lincoln Way b. Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - The Great Plains Sauce & Dough Co., 129 Main Street c. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer), & Sunday Sales - Walgreens #12108, 2719 Grand Avenue d. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales - Mother’s Pub, 2900 West Street e. Class B Beer with Sunday Sales - Jeff’s Pizza Shop LLC, 2402 Lincoln Way f. Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Outdoor Service, & Sunday Sales - Bar La Tosca, 303 Welch Avenue, Ste 101 g. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service - Ichiban, 117 Welch Avenue Additional Item: Resolution approving appointment of ex officio student liaison to City Council 8.Resolution approving Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2022 9. Resolution approving FY 2022-23 Commission On The Arts (COTA) Annual Grants 10.Requests from Ames Main Street for Shop for a Cause on November 12, 2022: a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit b. Resolution approving suspension of parking regulations and enforcement for Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 12 c. Resolution approving transfer of funds from Local Option Sales Tax Fund to Parking Fund in the amount of $1,370.25 11.Requests from Ames Main Street Small Business Saturday on November 26, 2022: a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit b. Resolution approving suspension of parking regulations and enforcement for Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 26, 2022 c. Resolution approving transfer of funds from Local Option Sales Tax Fund to Parking Fund in the amount of $1,370.25 12.Requests from Ames Main Street for Snow Magic on December 2 - 24, 2022: a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit b. Motion approving Blanket Vending License c. Resolution approving waiver of Blanket Vending License d.Resolution approving closure of four metered parking spaces within the Downtown from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on December 2 to facilitate pick-up and drop-off of passengers on horse- drawn carriage rides through Downtown e. Resolution approving usage of electricity in Tom Evans Plaza and waiver of fees for electricity. 13. Requests from Ames Main Street for 515 Weekend on May 13-15, 2022: a.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit b.Motion approving Blanket Vending License c.Motion approving 5-day (May 12 - 16) Special Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service for Ames Chamber of Commerce for closed area. Pending Dram Shop Insurance d. Resolution approving closure of 41 metered parking spaces within the Downtown area impacted by event activities from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on May 13th only e. Resolution approving waiver of parking meter fees and enforcement f.Resolution approving waiver of Blanket Vending License fee g.Resolution approving usage of electricity and waiver of fees for electricity 14. Requests from ISU Homecoming Central Committee for ISU Homecoming Events on Thursday, November 3, 2022 and Friday November 4, 2022: a. ExCYtement in the Streets i. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit ii. Motion approving Blanket Vending License iii. Resolution approving closure of portions of Sunset Drive, Ash Avenue, Gray Avenue, and Pearson Avenue from 2:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. iv. Resolution approving suspension of parking regulations for closed areas from 2:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 3, 2022 v. Resolution approving waiver of Blanket Vending License Fee b. Central Campus Events I. Motion approving Blanket Vending License 2 ii. Resolution approving waiver of Blanket Vending License Fee 15.Resolution approving the designs for seven storm drains and authorize up to $1,750 in funding for the reimbursement of the cost of supplies for Storm Drain Artistic Painting Program 16.Resolution approving request to waive enforcement of the prohibition of motorized vehicles in Ada Hayden Heritage Park (Municipal Code Section 19.9) to allow the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park to provide golf cart tours to mobility-impaired individuals from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 12 - 14, 2022 17.Resolution approving Amendment to Lease Agreement with T-Mobile to authorize an emergency standby generator to be installed adjacent to T-Mobile’s existing infrastructure located at the Bloomington Road Elevated Tank (BRET) 18. Resolution approving Addendum to Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) Agreement for TAP funding for 2020/21 Shared Use Path System Expansion - Vet Med Trail (S. 16th Street to S. Grand Avenue) 19. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specification for Painting Three Pool Basins at the Furman Aquatic Center; setting May 25, 2022, as bid due date and June 14, 2022, as date of public hearing 20. Resolution approving contract and bond for Ada Hayden Heritage Park Dredging of Wetland G (Cell 1) 21. Resolution approving contract and bond for South 16th Street Improvements 22. Resolution approving contract and bond for CyRide Electric Bus System Upgrades 23.Resolution renewing contract for FY 2022/23 Hauling and Related Services for the Resource Recovery Plant with Waste Management of Ames, IA, in the amount of $15.68 per ton 24.Resolution approving contract renewal with ABM of Des Moines, Iowa, for FY 2022/23 Custodial Services for the Ames Public Library in the amount of $92,641.30 25. Resolution approving contract renewal with ServePro for Custodial Services at City Hall in the amount of $57,655.50 per year plus $26.36 per hour for emergency clean-up and additional work as authorized 26.Resolution approving renewal of contract with ChemTreat, Inc., of Glen Allen, Virginia, regarding Chemical Treatment Program for one-year period from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, in an amount not to exceed $335,000 27.Resolution approving renewal of contract with Maxim Trucking & Materials of Pella, Iowa, for FY 2022/23 Concrete and Asphalt Crushing for Public Works Department in an amount not to exceed $60,000 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. POLICE: 28. Motion approving/denying renewal of Class C Liquor, Sunday Sales and Outdoor Service - Wasabi Ames, 926 S 16th Street 3 29. Motion approving/denying renewal of Class B Beer Permit with Sunday Sales - Mongolian Buffet, 1620 S Kellogg Avenue #103 PUBLIC WORKS: 30. Pedestrian Crossing Improvements at Bloomington Road & Fletcher Boulevard Intersection: a. Motion to accept the report and direct staff to utilize the upcoming Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan to identify where enhanced investments should be implemented 31. 2022 Stormwater Utility Rate Adjustments: a. First passage of ordinance adjusting stormwater utility rates, effective July 1, 2022 32. South 16th Street Improvements (Traffic Signal Poles & Traffic Signal Controller/Cabinets): a. Resolution awarding the Traffic Signal Poles purchase to CSLA Iowa of Des Moines, Iowa, in the amount of $123,272 b. Resolution awarding the Traffic Signal Controller/Cabinets purchase to General Traffic Controls, Inc., of Spencer, Iowa, in the amount of $73,670 PLANNING & HOUSING: 33. Ames Urban Fringe Plan Update: a. Motion directing staff to proceed with completing the draft Fringe Plan Update and proceed with public outreach 34. CDBG/HOME Public Forums Follow-Up: a. Motion approving the proposed draft FY 2022-23 Annual Action Plan Program Projects and proposed estimated budget and setting August 9, 2022, as date of public hearing ADMINISTRATION: 35. Motion approving revisions to U. S. Highway 30 and Bandshell Light Show Policy HEARINGS: 36. Hearing on Rezoning with Master Plan property located at 802 Delaware Avenue from “RL” (Residential Low-Density) to “RM” (Residential Medium-Density): a. First passage of ordinance 37. Hearing on Ames Downtown Plaza: a. Motion accepting Report of Bids b. Motion directing staff to bring back recommendations to reduce project costs and identify additional funding sources to make up the projected funding shortfall 38. Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment to reduce flag lot access width in the General Industrial Zoning District: a. First passage of ordinance reducing flag lot access width in the General Industrial Zoning District 39. Hearing on 2021/22 Shared Use Path Maintenance - Little Bluestem: a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to TK Concrete, of Pella, Iowa, in the amount of $120,604.90 40. Hearing on 2022/23 Main Street Paver Replacement Program (Kellogg Avenue - Duff Avenue): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $333,333 4 41. Hearing on 2020/21 Concrete Pavement Improvements Program (Ford St., Bell Ave., S. 17th St., S. Kellogg Ave.): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $666,666 ORDINANCES: 42. First passage of ordinance increasing sewer rates by 5%, effective July 1, 2022 43.Second passage of ordinance rezoning 3210 Cedar Lane from Agricultural (A) to Floating Suburban - Residential Low Density (FS-RL) with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD) and Master Plan DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: COUNCIL COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: 5 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA APRIL 5, 2022 The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:00 p.m. on the 5th day of April 2022, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins. Ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone was absent. WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: Assistant City Manager Schildroth welcomed the City Council to the fourth Steering Committee Meeting. She noted that the meeting would serve as an informational session lead by Brittany MacLean and Erik Frenette with Sustainability Solutions Group (SSG), who joined the meeting electronically. Ms. MacLean provided an overview of the information and scenarios that will be covered in the presentation. She highlighted the revised project plan noting that the team at SSG combined the low-carbon modeling with the financial analysis due to there being a lot of excitement around the financial aspect of the Plan. Approach: Ms. MacLean provided a brief overview and review of the approach. She noted through the approach SSG used “WhatIf” technologies paired with interactive community engagement. Ms. MacLean stated that broad public engagement was completed through town halls, community surveys, with more focused engagement through the Supplemental Input Committee. She noted SSG also took the time to learn about local policies, the jurisdiction and authority of the City, and the other levels of government. She noted that the two pieces of engagement and local understanding play back and forth to influence the modeling and analysis that Mr. Frenette put together. As part of the interactive process, Ms. MacLean stated, on the technical side, Mr. Frenette modeled the physical reality on the ground and how to sequence the actions to maximize the benefits. She noted that, on the engagement side, SSG looked at local opportunities to learn about the things that people are excited about as well as the local constraints and challenges. Target Review: Ms. MacLean reviewed the low-carbon pathway selected by City Council to reach net-zero by 2050 with an 83% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. She noted that this target is in line with the fair share science-based target, which is aligned with global best practices for greenhouse gas emission reductions centered around limiting global warming to 1.5-degrees Celsius. Ms. MacLean informed the City Council that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report last week, and the Panel noted it is getting close to impossible to hit the 1.5- degree Celsius target globally if action is not taken right away. She also noted that to reach the 2.2-degree Celsius increase target, global emissions would have to peak by 2025. 2 Ms. MacLean reviewed where the emissions come from in Ames noting, that compared to the 2050 model, it is about the same due to population growth. She stated this unfortunately does not align with the set target by City Council, emphasizing the largest sector that contributes to emissions is transportation. Council Member Gartin asked for clarity on how Iowa State University fits into the model. Ms. MacLean responded that on the chart Iowa State University is lumped in with Commercial. Ms. MacLean provided an overview of the six actions that Ames can take to reduce carbon emissions and explained why these actions were identified for the model. 1. Building Retrofits – Ms. MacLean stated that there is a lot of energy use in buildings with emissions resulting from that energy use. She noted there are buildings in Ames that were built before energy and building codes were ever in place so buildings are not as efficient as they could be. She highlighted that the focus here is to maximize building efficiency in Ames. 2. Net-Zero New Construction – Ms. MacLean stated that buildings are long lasting assets and the buildings that exist are using a significant amount of energy; a pattern that should not be continued into the future making it necessary for the buildings built now to not require retrofits later. 3. Renewable Energy Generation – Ms. MacLean noted that there is a significant amount of energy in Ames that comes from natural gas, which is not emission-free. She stated more solar and wind energy are necessary to get to net-zero. Ms. MacLean highlighted that there are options to create renewable natural gas, but as a limited source, so a change towards renewable sources will be necessary. 4. Reducing Vehicle Emissions – Ms. MacLean stated this looks at moving towards electric and biodiesel vehicles. 5. Increasing Active Transportation and Transit Use – Ms. MacLean noted that there is already a great transit system in Ames that can be built upon while especially encouraging active transportation since it can be completely emissions free. 6. Reducing Waste Emissions – Ms. MacLean stated waste makes up about 3% of emissions right now, which is set to double over the lifespan of the model. She highlighted the key here is diversion and elimination of waste at the source. Engagement: Ms. MacLean discussed the results of the survey, which was open from March 2, 2022, to March 20, 2022, online or as a printed copy. She highlighted the survey included educational components so participants could understand the referenced technology, such as heat pumps. The survey yielded 626 responses with a detailed response summary available on the Climate Action Plan website. Ms. MacLean noted the demographic intake from the survey showed fewer student responses than the first survey. 3 Ms. MacLean provided an overview of the key takeaways from the survey before reviewing the other channels of engagement. Ms. MacLean stated that focus groups were conducted in which a ninety-minute presentation was provided to a specific community sector with a roundtable discussion centered around what that sector would like to see the City lead in and what areas their sector could lead in . In each of the focus groups, SSG asked the participants to provide feedback on an equity question as well. She provided a high-level overview of the comments received from the roundtable discussions noting that full notes from the focus groups will be available shortly. Two meetings were held with the Supplemental Input Committee. In the first meeting SSG presented the Six Big Moves, and in the second meeting SSG presented the low-carbon scenario with the financial analysis. Ms. MacLean noted that there was mixed feedback from the Supplemental Input Committee regarding the first model from SSG as it did not reach the target set by City Council. She provided City Council an overview of the feedback received at each of the meetings. Council Member Betcher asked for clarification on how to interpret feedback that read “Take it to the state house to overrule”. Ms. MacLean responded that the question asked to get that response was “How do you believe your sector will react based on the feedback you’ve received from your sector?” regarding the low-carbon scenario. She noted the individual who provided the feedback declined to elaborate on further details. The last form of engagement was staff engagement. Ms. MacLean noted that the Technical Advisory Team was engaged at the low-carbon scenario and financial assumptions to provide assistance in informing financials as well as to provide feedback. Council Member Rollins asked, with the 626 participants that were part of the survey, how statistically significant that might be when thinking about representing all of the City. Ms. MacLean clarified that the survey is not statistically significant because it operated differently than a public interest poll; however, the survey was reflective of the community demographics because it did reach a broad cross section of the community. Council Member Gartin asked if SSG has any sense from the survey as to the price sensitivity that was communicated by the respondents. Ms. MacLean noted that the price data was not available at the time of the survey; what SSG gathered from open-ended survey responses in regard to financials were concerns about the ability and willingness to pay. SSG also heard a lot of feedback in those comments that there was a preference towards program incentives, rather than the regulation or mandate of action at this time. Mayor Haila inquired about the value of the survey is if it had a very specific group of people who responded to it. Ms. MacLean clarified that she would not say a specific interest group answered the survey; SSG does not know who answered the survey aside from some general demographic markers. SSG created an engagement strategy to involve the public through presenting the ideas and proposals to ask for feedback. Ms. MacLean noted that the promise to the public was to tell them how their feedback was looked at and how SSG tried to incorporate it. She stated that it is 4 up to the City Council on how they want to interact with that based upon where the engagement level was set. Mayor Haila commented that there were some people who objected to the fact that an email address was required to take the survey. He asked how the City Council thinks about that given that the survey responses may not be balanced. Ms. MacLean responded that the survey was not meant to require an email to submit the response; it was a technical error when the survey went live. SSG removed the email requirement as soon as they were notified of the issue, so it was not there for the duration of the survey. Mayor Haila asked Ms. MacLean to comment on the education level of the survey respondents. Ms. MacLean noted that the education level, like the other pieces of demographic information collected through the survey, is not a marker for value. It was used for SSG to understand if they were reaching a good cross section of the population. She clarified that this objective was achieved; however, student representation in the responses was lacking. Mayor Haila noted that 76% of survey respondents had an undergraduate or graduate degree while only 1% had no degree and 1.5% had a high school diploma or GED. He stated that this seems weighted in terms of the demographic that is responding. Ms. MacLean agreed with Mayor Haila’s statement. Mayor Haila said that the same seems to be true for income. He noted that 13% of the respondents made less than $50,000 per year while 65% made more than $50,000 per year. He wondered if this accurately represented the community. Ms. MacLean noted that roughly one quarter of the respondents did not disclose their income which made it harder to understand the results. She also reiterated that the survey is not meant to be a public poll; the demographic information was there to understand whom the survey reached. Technical Approach: Ms. MacLean reviewed the low-carbon action development. SSG developed a list of potential actions and strategies based on the target, local context, and best practices. She noted that these are the modellable strategies, the on-the-ground reality based on a period of time, that will be covered by Mr. Frenette. Ms. MacLean reviewed the financial modeling process, noting that this was done by developing a financial assumption sheet before loading the data into the model. She clarified that the financial modeling reflects the investments needed at the community level, meaning it is spread across all levels of the community. She noted that because of this, the net returns are also spread across the community. Ms. MacLean stated that the other thing to keep in mind with that is the entity making the investment is not always the entity to receive the return, so a utility may be providing an incentive and the homeowner is receiving the monetary energy savings benefits. SSG did not identify who is making the investments at this point in the model. Mr. Frenette reviewed the financials and how they work in the model. Council Member Gartin asked, referring to the electric vehicle (EV) purchase, if the model also took into the account the challenge of providing that electricity. He clarified that if the City were to provide electricity to those electric vehicles at a stage where it would make a significant difference, the City may not have the capacity to provide that electricity without infrastructure improvements and wondered if those costs were incorporated into SSG’s analysis. Mr. Frenette 5 responded that the cost for the EV charging infrastructure is included in the model but the infrastructure to manage the demand for the electricity had not been included. Council Member Gartin noted that it will be an important component to consider the investment into the community to meet the energy demand as the City electrified. What Was Modeled – Run One: Ms. MacLean reviewed the “What” for each of the six actions in the model. 1. Building Retrofits – Mayor Haila asked Ms. MacLean to define “retrofit” for residential, industrial, commercial, and municipal building. Ms. MacLean responded that it means a 50% use intensity reduction and a 10% plug load reduction. Mayor Haila asked, of the 90% of residential building that need to be retrofitted as outlined on the presentation, if that was 90% of residential buildings older than 1980 or 90% of the total residential building stock. Ms. MacLean clarified it would be 90% of the stock of residential buildings in Ames up to 2018 built. She noted that SSG expects a greater percentage of the older buildings being retrofitted earlier on in the model. Mayor Haila asked how the commercial and industrial buildings, such as the school district, fit in. Ms. MacLean responded that those would fit into institutional buildings. Mayor Haila asked for clarification on if these buildings would also need to be retrofitted even though many of the Ames school buildings have been renovated or rebuilt in recent years. Ms. MacLean highlighted that the model assumed approximately 1% of the building stock would be retrofitted each year regardless of the Climate Action Plan target. She noted that since this model is at the community scale, those buildings would be covered in the 1% assumption. Council Member Gartin inquired about how the City would require 90% of the residential buildings to be retrofitted. Ms. MacLean responded in the Building Code of the State of Iowa, a municipality does not have the jurisdiction to require a building code or building code standards that are higher than what has been adopted at the State level. She stated that the way to make this happen is through education and incentives. Ms. MacLean noted that the City does not have complete control over implementation; other mechanisms must be used because the Climate Action Plan is not only the City’s responsibility , but will take community participation. Council Member Gartin commented that it would be helpful as a data point to know if there are any other communities in the United States that are spending proportionally anything similar to the proposed price tag to make these types of changes for climate action. Ms. MacLean noted that there are hundreds of other communities across the United States that have adopted similar plans. She stated that she can provide City Council with some copies of other plans that SSG has done across the United States to better understand the financials. 2. Net-Zero New Construction – Council Member Gartin inquired about how much it would cost to build a net-zero house. Ms. MacLean responded that it ranges between 1.5% to 7% in additional cost. She stated that achieving net-zero new construction is much easier than 6 the retrofits. Council Member Gartin asked that, if homeowners are going to have these kinds of savings from a net-zero home, why are homebuilders not doing it on a voluntary basis now. Ms. MacLean noted that part of why homebuilders are not investing into net- zero new construction practices is partially education and the other is the unattractive upfront cost as explained by Frenette. 3. Renewable Energy – Mayor Haila asked Don Kom, Director of Electric Services, who attended the meeting in person, what the current Power Plant capacity is. Director Kom noted that the City of Ames has four units: the two baseload units total 100 megawatts, and the two peaking units total another 45 megawatts. Mayor Haila commented that if the City were to transition to 340 megawatts of solar and wind, the Power Plant would essentially be retired. Mr. Frenette explained how waste-to-energy facility factors into the model with the renewable energy option. Mayor Haila asked for clarification from Director Kom on the current generation from the solar farm and inquired about the size of solar farm needed to generate the proposed objective of 340 megawatts. Director Kom provided an estimate that to generate the proposed 340 megawatts, the solar farm would need to be approximately 2,800 acres. Mr. Frenette clarified that, in the model provided, SSG used power purchasing agreements located outside of the City; however, he would be able to calculate the size of solar farm required based on the model after the meeting and provide that information to the City Council. Council Member Betcher asked Director Kom for the current size of the solar farm. Director Kom noted that the farm is about eight acres for the two megawatts generated. 4. Reducing Vehicle Emissions – No questions from the City Council. 5. Increase Active Transportation and Transit Use – Council Member Gartin stated that increasing transit use is something that the City Council has been working on with CyRide for decades. He asked the consultant for suggestions on ways that the City Council can move the needle on this. Ms. MacLean noted that there will be a change in land use and City planning over the next few years as Ames gets ready to welcome an increase in population, which grants an opportunity to look at new developments and orient those developments to be transit-friendly. Council Member Gartin noted that the City Council and City staff have worked hard at this, but the challenge is that the routes are maxed out. He stated that the City worked with a consultant on a project called CyRide 2.0 to try and maximize efficiency and tight constraints were identified on being able to do this, especially financially. Council Member Gartin noted that this is something that the City Council will need to discuss further at a later time. 6. Reduce Waste Emissions – Council Member Betcher asked how, as a homeowner, would she know what percentage her waste is being reduced. She noted she understands that the City of Ames Resource Recovery Plant knows how much waste is being taken in, but how 7 as an individual does she judge what her reduction is. Ms. MacLean noted that it’s not important to know exactly how much the individual resident is decreasing their waste by but providing the education on how to reduce waste is important. She stated that some consumer level waste reduction will also happen naturally over time as different manufacturing companies work to reduce packaging. Mayor Haila noted that 13 different communities in Story County bring their waste to the Resource Recovery Plant (RRP). He asked how that is factored into the model, and wondered if this would be a county-wide waste reduction or per capita. Mr. Frenette noted that SSG used the 2018 emission inventory as the baseline. Mr. Frenette and Ms. MacLean agreed that SSG can work with City Staff to identify how much waste comes to the RRP from other communities, including Iowa State University, and revise the data per capita. Results – Run 1: Ms. MacLean reviewed the results of Run 1 of the model. She noted that this Run did not meet the City Council’s target of an 83% reduction by 2030 and explained that SSG did not push the model to the 83% reduction by 2030 because extraordinary action would need to happen to make that a reality. Ms. MacLean noted that most of the emissions that are remaining in 2030 belong to the transportation sector and she discussed the options for electrification to get the model closer to target. Ms. MacLean presented the financials associated with Run 1. Mr. Frenette reviewed the fuel price sensitivity, noting that fuel prices are highly volatile and how greatly that can affect the trajectory of the model. Council Member Betcher asked how population growth fits into the trajectory of the model. Ms. MacLean noted that SSG used the same population projections in the model as they used in the reference scenario. She said SSG built into the model new residents moving into Ames adopting the same practices as current residents, meaning that new residents will be purchasing a net-zero home or retrofitting an older home and purchasing low-emission vehicles starting in 2030. Council Member Betcher asked if that assumes those moving to Ames are in a higher economic bracket and not those who might be coming in as workforce moving into more newly developed affordable housing. Ms. MacLean noted that this scenario would be similar to a resident currently living in Ames so there would be a variety of income brackets. She stated that there would need to be programs to ensure that all residents, new and established, can participate in reaching the target. Council Member Gartin commented that SSG has provided the price tag of 2.4 billion dollars, but there is not a breakdown in terms of how they arrived at that number. He stated that he assumed there are associated costs with each aspect of the plan. He asked if there is a spreadsheet with that information that SSG would provide to City Council. Ms. MacLean stated that is a possibility with a big caution of interpretation because there is interplay between the different actions and the associated costs. Mr. Frenette listed the different cost analysis that SSG would be able to provide and noted he could explain the interplay between the associated costs when the City Council reviews the spreadsheet. 8 Council Member Gartin noted he’s concerned about losing residents and businesses due to placing significant expenditures on the population. He asked the consultant how the City Council should think about selling the Climate Action Plan to the community in a way that doesn’t encourage fear of flight. Ms. MacLean noted that it comes down to the way the Climate Action Plan is framed and how the implementation is designed. She said it’s important to think about how to encourage and incentivize residents, and when regulation comes into play. She explained there is also a cost to inaction so there is a balance to find. Mayor Haila asked if it was correct that natural gas disappears from Ames. Ms. MacLean clarified that sources of non-renewable natural gas would be eliminated. She noted that there is not going to be an equal amount of renewable natural gas available as there is natural gas so there will need to be a transition to other energy sources. Mayor Haila noted the majority of houses in Ames have gas fired furnaces, water heaters, stoves, and ovens. He said that, on top of that, the City of Ames has boilers and Iowa State University has three natural gas boilers. He asked Ms. MacLean if the transition to renewable natural gas is feasible to accomplish. Ms. MacLean stated that a lot of communities have robust natural gas systems and renewable natural gas is not going to meet all the needs that are currently there. She said that it is highly unlikely that Ames will receive the renewable natural gas needed to meet the need because it is so in demand. She stated that, in the model, SSG has allocated the renewable natural gas to the utility as a backup and a switch over to electric in residential through retrofits. Council Member Betcher commented that it is interesting for SSG to mention a shift to electricity from natural gas in a community where there is one municipal electric service, but three other electric services serving Ames, one of those being Alliant Energy, that supplies natural gas. She said there could be a lot of pushback from a natural gas supplier that is not also the electric supplier. She noted that this adds a level of complexity to what must be accomplished in Ames to make the Climate Action Plan work. Ms. MacLean responded that SSG can work with Alliant Energy to start a conversation and understand its plans for the future. Mayor Haila referred to the year-over-year incremental investment and returns chart. He asked for clarification on how the data works in the chart. Mr. Frenett clarified that the chart displays the aggregate of the whole system, so the chart does not carry over the investments from the previous year. Results – Run 2: Ms. MacLean explained that Run 2 is the model that SSG ran after meeting with the Supplemental Input Committee based on their feedback. She noted that in this model there is an additional cost of $621 million, for a total cost of over $3 billion, to reach a 78% emission reduction by 2030 and 98% reduction by 2050. Financial Insights: Ms. MacLean reviewed the highly volatile financials that impact the costs associated with the Climate Action Plan. Key Takeaways: Ms. MacLean reviewed the model and emphasized that the Plan is meant to be a living plan that adapts with changing conditions over time. 9 Council Member Junck commented that the $500 per resident per year outlined in the Key Takeaways would come out to $14,000 per resident over the 28 years of the model. She asked how much of that is more heavily weighted upfront due to the aggressive nature of the Plan versus in the later years. MacLean noted that SSG has not done that calculation precisely. City Manager Steve Schainker stated that the consulting team has done a good service to the City Council by laying out what it will take to reach the aspiration goal that the City Council has set. He noted that the Climate Action Plan it going to be complex, challenging, daunting, and costly. City Manager Schainker said that this process has reached a point where City staff needs to get involved again to put the Plan into terms that City of Ames customers understand. He noted that what the citizens want to know is how much their property taxes are going to be per year and what electric rates are going to be. City Manager Schainker also noted that City staff needs to look at the feasibility of implementing as some of the actions are very labor intensive. He stated that the State of Iowa is limiting city government’s authority to legislate behavior and ability to raise funds, which means that City staff will need to look at the legality of the outlined actions and means to get there. City Manager Schainker said that the next step is to lay out an implementation plan with a financing plan that the City Council believes is feasible for the Ames community so it can be communicated to the citizens. Mayor Haila clarified Iowa State University’s plan to upgrade facilities to be more energy efficient and its commitment to making changes for a more sustainable future, noting that University staff is in the pre-study stage, as they try to understand the associated costs. Council Member Junck commented that in the presentation materials it says the City Council may add to the list of requested information. She asked if it would be possible to get information about alternative funding sources, such as State or Federal funding. Ms. MacLean responded that the Federal Government recently released a list of the funding available to states and municipalities relating to energy and emissions reductions. She noted that SSG can filter that list into pieces that might be relevant to Ames and the Climate Action Plan. Council Member Rollins stated she had a question about education and incentives. She asked SSG if they do work with best practices around that and wondered how the City Council can build those alliances and have communication across partners, but then also education for the community so everyone is involved in the process. Ms. MacLean noted that is a service that SSG provides; however, it is not what a part of what SSG was tasked to do outside of the engagement process outlined in the engagement strategy. Council Member Betcher commented on the quote in the presentation from the Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC noting that she thinks it is an inspiring quote, but she doesn’t think it is fitting. She explained that leaders in the federal government have power that municipal leaders just don’t have. The layers of government above municipal government can preempt what municipal governments are trying to do. She stated that when President Roosevelt and his administration put the Rural Electrification Act into effect, it was a hard sell. She said that she got left with the impression that anybody can do anything when she sees the quote in the presentation. She noted that she doesn’t think that is true and it is going to take a lot of effort. She said the 10 question for the City Council is going to be how much effort will be put into the Climate Action Plan and the educational component of it. Ms. Betcher asked if staff resources are available, to have the ability to sway the hearts of minds of the people of Ames to be on board with the Climate Action Plan. The City Council is dependent on the citizens for making it happen. Council Member Betcher also noted that she believes it is well worth the staff time to investigate the issue of the “how”, now that SSG has presented the “what” in terms of the Climate Action Plan. She does not think that the City Council has enough information at this time to make a decision. Council Member Gartin stated that he has asked questions tonight with the goal of trying to understand the facets of the Climate Action Plan proposal. He noted that , up until the Climate Action Plan workshop in December 2021, the City Council was unanimous on every single vote with respect to climate matters. He said that what he knows is that, with a $2.4 billion price tag, the City Council will have to max out what the City of Ames is charging citizens for property taxes and utilities. He stated that he has serious concerns that if the City Council increases the cost of living and doing business in Ames, it is going to make it easier for citizens to relocate, which will have a major impact on the community. He noted that increased living expenses will also make it much more difficult for students and families to choose Iowa State University for education. Council Member Gartin said, in December 2021, he pleaded with his fellow Council Members to not adopt a goal without understanding the price tag. Now that City Council knows the cost of the plan, Mr. Gartin proposed that the City Council take a step back to do a cost-benefit analysis, review a proposal, gather public input, and make a decision on an aggressive and robust plan for climate action through that evidentiary approach. Mayor Haila asked City Manager Schainker if what Council Member Gartin is asking for is in part a byproduct of City Manager Schainker’s recommendation to the City Council. City Manager Schainker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Haila noted the City Council needed to be careful framing the financials of the Climate Action Plan because thus far the City Council has taken no action to increase the cost of living in Ames. He stated that the City Council needed that type of information first before making a decision. Council Member Rollins asked for clarification that the $2.4 billion was never anticipated to fully be the cost for the City of Ames, and that there are multiple partners that would need to be involved in raising those funds. Ms. MacLean confirmed that Council Member Rollins was correct, noting that the model is a community level financial analysis. Council Member Rollins stated that the City Council is not making that $2.4 billion commitment, rather the City Council is asking for additional input. Council Member Gartin noted that property taxes are correlated to the City’s expenditures, expressing concern about where the money is going to come from to fund the Climate Action Plan. He stated he would like the City Council to see what is realistic and go after that aggressively. Council Member Corrieri said that not anyone who has been engaged in the climate action planning process believes the goal set by the City Council is absolutely going to be accomplished in the next several years. She said in the conversations that the City Council has had, Council Members 11 have discussed this being an aspiration goal to send a message to the community about the direction that the City Council is moving in. She noted, now that the City Council has seen the financial model, more information is needed to chart a path forward that aspires to reach the goal. Council Member Junck added it is important for the City Council to see the “how” behind what is possible in the steps presented. She noted there are jurisdictional challenges and financial issues that the City Council needs to see before making a decision to change the trajectory of the Plan. Council Member Junck emphasized that she is supportive of getting more information before making a decision and that the City Council is on the right track in this process. Council Member Beatty-Hansen agreed with comments from Council Members Corrieri and Junck. She noted that she doesn’t believe that the City Council Members are taking the cost lightly. She emphasized that she can’t explain enough her fear of the cost of inaction. She noted that she believes every level of government needs to step up to help heal the earth, and in the meantime, City Council needs to make that effort where it’s possible. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to ask staff to continue working with SSG to develop the “how” of the Climate Action Plan as City Manager Schainker outlined. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Voting Aye: Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck, Rollins. Voting Nay: Gartin. Motion declared carried. DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila noted that there is one item on the list to inform the City Council that the subdivision of 6.5 acres of land at 2359 210th street for residential use will be placed on an upcoming agenda. He stated that no action was needed at this time. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Betcher that commented she wished Council Member Gartin trusted the City Council a little bit more to make wise decisions about the finances based on complete information. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Junck, to adjourn the meeting at 8:51 p.m. Motion declared carried unanimously. __________________________________ ____________________________________ Carly M. Watson, Principal Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor __________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA APRIL 12, 2022 The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:00 p.m. on April 12, 2022, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins. Ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone was also present. PROCLAMATION FOR “FAIR HOUSING MONTH,” APRIL 2022: April 2022 was proclaimed as “Fair Housing Month” by Mayor Haila. He encouraged all citizens of the community to support and endorse Fair Housing, reaffirm their commitment to Fair Housing for all, and wholeheartedly recognize these rights and responsibilities throughout the year. Accepting the Proclamation were Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer and Human Relations Staff Liaison Deb Schildroth. Ms. Baker-Latimer said everyone knows how important it is to have fair housing in the community. During the pandemic the community saw a lot of individuals and families lose their housing. She stated it was important, now more than ever, to continue to educate the public. Especially about educating landlords, Realtors, citizens, and non- profit organizations about the importance of fair housing and how it is important to the community. She noted that the City of Ames is partnering with the Ames Human Relations Commission (AHRC) and the Central Iowa Board of Realtors to host activities for citizens to participate. Ms. Schildroth explained that the AHRC has a “Home for Everyone” award that is awarded annually. An individual has been selected and the presentation for this award will be at the April 26, 2022, City Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila stated that staff had requested to pull Item 19: Resolution approving Amendment to Lease Agreement with T-Mobile to authorize an emergency standby generator to be installed adjacent to T-Mobile’s existing infrastructure located at the Bloomington Road Elevated Tank (BRET), from the Agenda, as the signed Agreement had not been received. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda. 1. Motion approving payment of claims 2. Motion approving the Regular Minutes of March 22, 2022 and Special Meeting Minutes of March 30, 2022 3. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period March 16 - 31, 2022 4. Motion certifying Civil Service candidates 5. Motion directing City Attorney to draft ordinance modifying Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code for parking changes at various locations 6. Motion approving new Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit with Sunday Service - Liquor Land, 4518 Mortensen Road 7. Motion approving new Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit - World Liquor & Tobacco + Vapors, 111 Duff Avenue 8. Motion approving new Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit - Southgate Wine & Spirits, 110 Airport Road 9. Motion approving temporary Outdoor Service for Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Tip Top Lounge, 201 E. Lincoln Way, for the following dates in 2022: pending Dram Shop Insurance a. June 9 b. June 23 c. June 25 d. July 7 e. July 16 f. July 21 g. August 4 h. August 18 10. Motion approving Temporary Outdoor Service for Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Sips and Paddy’s Irish Pub, 126 Welch Avenue, for the following weekend in 2022: a. May 6 - May 8, 2022 11. Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses: a. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales - Cyclone Experience Network - Hilton Coliseum b. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales - Perfect Games, Inc., 1320 Dickinson Avenue c. Special Class C Liquor License with Class B Native Wine Permit - Szechuan House, 3605 Lincoln Way d. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales - Provisions Lot F, 2400 North Loop Drive e. Class C Beer Permit with Class B Wine Permit and Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Gas #5018, 636 Lincoln Way 12. Requests from Ames Main Street (AMS) for Art Walk on Thursday, June 2, 2022: a. Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and blanket Vending License in Central Business District b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-151 approving closure of 10 metered parking spaces for vendors from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. c. RESOLUTION NO. 22-152 approving waiver of parking meter fees and enforcement, usage and waiver of electrical fees, and waiver of fee for blanket Vending license for Ames Main Street from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. d. RESOLUTION NO. 22-153 approving closure of Douglas Avenue, from Main Street to Fifth Street from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. e. RESOLUTION NO. 22-154 approving usage of Tom Evans Plaza 13. Requests from Ames Main Street for 4th of July activities on July 4, 2022: a. Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and blanket Vending License in Central Business District b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-155 approving usage and waiver of electrical fees and waiver of fee for blanket Vending License c. RESOLUTION NO. 22-156 approving closure of portions of Main Street, Northwestern Avenue, Fifth Street, Douglas Avenue, Burnett Avenue, Kellogg Avenue, Clark Avenue, Allan Drive, and Pearle Avenue from 6:00 a.m. until end of parade 2 d. RESOLUTION NO. 22-157 approving closure of Parking Lot MM, south portion of Lot M, Depot Lots V and TT from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 14. Requests from Ames Main Street for Summer Sidewalk Sales on July 28 - July 31, 2022: a. Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and Blanket Vending License b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-158 approving suspension of parking regulations and enforcement for the Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, July 30 c. RESOLUTION NO. 22-159 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License d. RESOLUTION NO. 22-160 approving request from Ames Main Street for Saturday, July 30 to transfer $1,370.25 from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to the Parking Fund 15. RESOLUTION NO. 22-161 approving the accession of three sculptures for the Neighborhood Sculpture Program 16. RESOLUTION NO. 22-162 approving the designs for the seven transformer wraps for the Downtown Electric Transformer Art 17. RESOLUTION NO. 22-163 in support of the City of Ames RAISE 2022 Grant Application for the Lincoln Way Corridor Connectivity Project (North Dakota - South Skunk River) 18. RESOLUTION NO. 22-165 awarding 1-year renewal with Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., of Centennial, Colorado, to provide Health Benefits Consulting Services & Actuarial Valuation Services, beginning July 1, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $40,000 19. Ames on the Half Shell: a. RESOLUTION NO. 22-166 approving waiver of enforcement of Municipal Code Section 17.17 related to alcohol consumption in City parks with respect only to Bandshell Park from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Fridays, May 27 - June 24, 2022 b. Motion approving 6-month Class B Beer Permit with Outdoor Service - Ames on the Half Shell, Bandshell Park - pending Dram Shop Insurance 20. Transportation Alternatives Program (STBG-TAP) Application for 2025/26 Shared Use Path System Expansion (South Dayton Avenue): a. Motion approving the AAMPO TAP Application b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-167 to commit local funding in the amount of $335,000 from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund c. RESOLUTION NO. 22-168 accepting and maintaining the 2025/26 Shared Use Path System Expansion (South Dayton Avenue) in accordance with the Iowa DOT’s Application Form for Iowa’s Transportation Alternatives Program Funds 21. 2019/20 Storm Water Erosion Control Program (Ioway Creek - Brookside): a. RESOLUTION NO. 22-169 approving Water Quality Initiative Urban Conservation Demonstration Project Funding Agreement with Iowa Department of Ag Land Stewardship (IDALS) in the amount of $100,000 b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-170 approving Water Infrastructure Funding Agreement from the Iowa Finance Authority in the amount of $500,000 22. RESOLUTION NO. 22-171 awarding contract to Jaspering Electric, Inc., Ames, Iowa, for the CyRide Electric Bus System Upgrades in the amount of $282,800 (Base Bid) 23. RESOLUTION NO. 22-172 approving renewal of Tree Trimming Contract with Pitts Lawn & Tree Service of Huxley, Iowa, in an amount not to exceed $85,000 24. RESOLUTION NO. 22-173 approving contract and bond for 2021/22 Collector Street Pavement Improvements (Hoover Avenue) 25. RESOLUTION NO. 22-174 accepting completion of Art Capital Grant Project for Reliable Street, 3 Inc., and authorizing full payment in the amount of $4,725 26. RESOLUTION NO. 22-175 accepting completion of Water Treatment Plant Dehumidification Project Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum. Richard Deyoe, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, said that a couple meetings ago the Council had discussed a Naming Policy. He noted that in the Policy it mentioned “Amenities.” Several years ago he had wanted to name the dragon sculptures “Please Let Us Be Naked.” Mr. Deyoe had attended a Public Art Commission (PAC) meeting where he told a little bit of his story. He commented that PAC had decided to change what he wanted to name the sculptures to “Sunrise to Sunset.” He said that he went to a couple PAC meetings after this had happened to complain about the recommendation. Mr. Deyoe then mentioned that he felt he was an employee of the City during the times he was able to hold the door open for people. Hector Arbuckle, 2503 Bruner Drive, Ames, stated he wanted to talk about Subdivisions, but wanted to clarify that what he was going to say is not in any way related to the Ansley Subdivision. He said that the City Council is considering a new subdivision and thought the Council should consider applying a cost-benefit fiscal analysis approach to evaluating proposed subdivisions to ensure that any new subdivisions would be financially beneficial to the City in the long term. Mr. Arbuckle explained that through the Climate Action Plan the City has shown that it wants to thrive, not just today, but also for future generations. He commented that when a new subdivision is created, the City gets two things. The first would be new tax revenues and service fees and the other would be new infrastructure maintenance obligations as well as an increased land area that will require fire and police protection. Mr. Arbuckle felt the trouble with subdivisions was that the City gets a new tax revenue immediately, but the City doesn’t have to start repairing or replacing the infrastructure for a couple of decades. He noted that a subdivision might improve the City’s finances in the short term, but after a couple decades when the streets need resurfacing and the sewers need repaired, the revenue and fees from the subdivision might not be enough, making the City’s finances worse in the long run. Mr. Arbuckle asked the City to think long-term (20 or 40 years) about subdivisions being a net gain, allowing the City to maintain its low tax rates and maintain its high quality service, or will it be a net drain and for future Councils to increase tax rates, cut services, or take on more debt to maintain the streets and sewers. He asked the City to estimate the future revenues and fees of a development versus the infrastructure and service costs over multiple decades. It was pointed out that the City of Fate, Texas does that. Mr. Arbuckle said that the creation of a subdivision is an important task that could set the City of Ames up for future success or it could burden future generations with difficult burdens. He asked the Council to investigate the fiscal analysis done by Fate, Texas, in order to ensure that a new subdivision will work out. Sarah Dvorsky, 304 Main Street, Ames, said she was present on behalf of Ames Main Street. She commented that Ames Main Street had spent the last few months revisiting its visioning process for the organization and where they see the “Next Big Thing” for Downtown Ames. She invited the 4 Mayor and Council to attend upcoming public forums to discuss the “Next Big Thing.” They will be hosting three one-hour sessions, all identical, just different dates and times. Ms. Dvorsky said Ames Main Street believes that public input, including community, Downtown stakeholders, and business owners is very important to the process. The forums will be held Monday, April 18, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 19, 2022, at 7:30 a.m., and Thursday, April 21, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. All forums will be held at the Ames Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor closed public forum when no one else came forward to speak. REASSESS CHANGING LIGHTS ON HIGHWAY 30 AND BANDSHELL TO UKRAINE FLAG COLORS: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips stated that at the March 22, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council had directed staff to change the color of the lights along Highway 30 and the Bandshell to yellow and blue, in support of the nation of Ukraine. City staff does not have any specific light shows scheduled in the foreseeable future. Therefore, if the Council wished to extend the Ukraine-themed light display through late spring, there were not any scheduling conflicts. Council Member Betcher inquired about when the City makes decisions about changing the light colors for events, (e.g. Iowa State game) if it was staff’s decision to make the change for the event occurring or if there is a request submitted. Mr. Phillips confirmed it was the staff’s decision. Ms. Betcher stated that if there were not any upcoming events then the lights could be left as they are until staff has another event that would require the changing of the lights. Council Member Rollins mentioned she would like to see the lights left the color they are, but wondered if the Council should come up with a policy for requests to change the light colors. Mr. Phillips said that the current Policy primarily deals with how requests can be made for changing the lights (Highway 30 lights only). The lights can only be changed for a city, state, or federal recognized event. He noted that the lights are changed to recognize Ames High School or Iowa State University home football games. Council Member Gartin explained that the change to the Ukraine colors was an ad-hoc that came up as other cities were changing its lights to show support for the Ukraine. He commented that, for right now, it would be best to leave everything the way it already is as there has not been a demand to change the lighting. Council Member Junck noted that there were a few requests from citizens to change the lights to support the Ukraine and noted that the Council may see more requests in the future. The Mayor asked when the next anticipated event would be. It was noted it would be sometime this summer. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to leave the lights blue and yellow in support of the Ukraine until the next event that has been approved to change the lighting color. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. 5 Moved by Rollins, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to have the Council consider modifications to the current Policy for lighting in order to determine how to consider other types of events that the Council would be willing to support. Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that the lights at the Bandshell and the programmability of those lights has changed, and the Council should bring the Bandshell lighting under the same Policy as the Highway 30 lights. Ms. Rollins accepted the friendly amendment to include the Bandshell lighting into the current Policy. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ON TAX-INCREMENT FINANCING REQUEST FOR A SMALL LOT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2105 & 2421 DAYTON AVENUE: Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann explained that at the March 22, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council had reviewed a request from the developers who own 72.99 acres along Dayton Road for a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) incentive of up to $2.6 million to help pay for infrastructure components of a 13 small lot industrial subdivision. The discussion at the last meeting brought up some concerns regarding the appropriation clause. After reviewing the appropriation clause, staff had come up with three basic models for TIF development. The three models were: 1. TIF used to generate revenues to reimburse the City for the cost of basic Subdivision Infrastructure that will be owned by the City. 2. TIF Revenue used to fill a gap in the developer’s project pro-forma by rebating the Incremental Tax Revenues to the developer. 3. TIF used to generate revenues to reimburse the developer for the cost of basic Subdivision Infrastructure that will be owned by the City. After further conversations with the developer, City staff had agreed to recommend to City Council that the requirement for an annual appropriation clause be excluded from the final Agreement. Council Member Betcher said that she appreciated that staff continued to work with the developer on the appropriation clause. She asked if it was known if the non-appropriation clauses were for projects that did not involve infrastructure that would have been required anyway by the City. Director Diekmann stated that staff did not have that information. Ms. Betcher commented that it might be worth knowing that information for future projects that might need that distinction. The Mayor opened public input and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Director Diekmann noted that a Developer Agreement will not be brought back immediately, but will be brought back later after the Preliminary Plat is approved. Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Gartin, to direct staff to prepare a Development Agreement that includes the terms for approval in early fall 2022. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. 6 Council Member Gartin stated that prior discussions yielded a point that the Council did not fully understand and that is the idea of having annual votes on certain types of commitments and how it affects the City’s bond rating. In visiting with the City Attorney, it was the opinion that it may be beneficial for the Council to have some guidance from the City’s bond counsel regarding the legality and propriety of having an appropriations clause in the future. Mr. Gartin said he would defer to whatever the bonding agent says, but felt it would be helpful to work through this issue prior to the Lincoln Way project. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to direct the City Attorney to provide a legal memorandum to the Council with respect to the propriety and legality of appropriation clauses that require an annual approval. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. UPDATE ON LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN THE BAKER SUBDIVISION (321 STATE AVENUE): Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer explained that at the March 8, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council received an update on the 37-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Development Agreement with Prairie Fire Corporation and Builder’s Development Corporation (BDC) for the Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue). The application to the State for the 9% LIHTC funding was unsuccessful. Staff had reviewed other options to fund the Baker Subdivision project. One of the options was to continue the partnership with the current developer as a 4% LIHTC project and use part of the HOME funds and possibly HOME American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds to come up with $2 million. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that prior to contacting Prairie Fire, staff reviewed its HOME grant funding availability and options. Staff concluded that to fulfill the City’s funding commitment, the City should consider its current HOME allocation balance of $1.53 million, plus a portion of the anticipated 2022-23 HOME allocation. The total anticipated 2022-23 HOME allocation is $350,000. Therefore, the current HOME funding balance plus the programming portion of the anticipated 2022-23 allocation would total approximately $1.8 million of HOME funds. Staff also reviewed the guidelines for HOME ARP funds and the Program guidelines are still unclear. Further research is required before staff could recommend committing a portion of the $1.02 million in HOME ARP funds to this project. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that staff did speak with Prairie Fire about proceeding with the $1.8 million and were told that Prairie Fire could be interested in pursuing a 4% LIHTC project, but would reduce the number of units from 37 to 30 affordable housing units. The design would be similar, but would be eliminating a building located on the south portion of the site. It was mentioned that construction costs were a big concern, but the developer is hopeful that prices will start to decline. If the Council proceeded with the partnership with Prairie Fire, they would pursue applying for the 4% credits through the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA). A commitment letter from the City stating that the funding for the 2022-23 HOME allocation would be coming in at a later date and would be sufficient to proceed with the application. Ms. Baker-Latimer stated that the City is required to provide a 25% local match to the HOME funds 7 and in order to achieve this, the City may also need to consider using partial property tax abatement with the project. That detail would be determined at a later date with a Development Agreement. It was noted that if the Council desired to have this project break ground by fall of 2022 then the 4% LIHTC with local assistance would be the best option. The Mayor asked if the City provided the partial property tax abatement would it reduce the $1.8 million contribution or if it would be in addition to that amount. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained it would be in addition to as it would help get the amount closer to the $2 million. Ms. Baker-Latimer stated another option would be to request new proposals. The current Agreement with Prairie Fire was with the initial assumptions that the project would have 37 units, securing 9% LIHTC funding, and the City would assist with the land and $350,000 in HOME funds. Since the project did not receive a 9% LIHTC allocation in 2021, the Agreement is not currently binding. Before seeking any new proposals, a series of steps would need to occur. City staff would need to complete the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan for the use of CDBG and HOME funds and integrate the HOME ARP funds into the 2020-21 Action Plan. Although final allocations have not yet been received from the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), staff anticipated being able to complete the plans for submission on or by August 16, 2022. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that there is no guarantee that the City would receive any proposals or if an application was submitted for the 9% LIHTC funding that the City’s application would be selected. Council Member Rollins asked if the Council chose Option 2, then it would also involve going back out to the community with the new developer to make sure that the Plan was one that the community would be comfortable with. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that staff would go back out to the neighbor to get their input on any new proposals. She noted that the neighborhood has been made aware of the two options that were presented to the Council. Council Member Gartin said he was lost when trying to figure out the amount of the subsidy per unit for affordable housing. He noted that what was a 37-unit project is now down to a 30-unit project, so the amount of money that is going to be spent per unit would increase. He inquired if there was any idea on the amount of subsidy that each unit would be. Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann indicated that originally 70% of the project was to be funded by tax credits, but now it is closer to 40% from tax credits and 60% coming from the City. Mr. Gartin stated he was a little more concerned with the taxpayer’s portion. He felt it was important to understand the amount of subsidy of Ames tax dollars per unit. Council Member Beatty-Hansen commented that she thought all the money was federal money. Director Diekmann said that essentially it is all federal money, but any time the City spends a HOME dollar, the City has to pay $0.25 of its own money. The $1.8 million would be the match amount. He indicated that if the Council wanted to use the HOME match for what the taxpayer has to pay into the project, it would be around $15,000 per unit in the 30-unit project. Council Member Gartin asked about density. He indicated, when looking at this project, it has changed a lot since the process started. The project was initially proposed to be 50 units, then 8 changed to 37 units, and now the density has been lowered again to 30 units. He asked Director Diekmann if this were a normal project how many rental units could a property this size sustain. Director Diekmann said if it was comparable FSM Zoning, it would be similar. He indicated that it is a 2.7-acre site and would have approximately 30-40 units. Mr. Gartin felt the City was moving in the wrong direction regarding density. Mayor Haila asked for more information on timing. He mentioned that the developer still has an out if the costs come in too high and the Council doesn’t want to put more money into the project. He wanted to know when the developer would let the City know if they would be able to move forward with the project. Ms. Baker-Latimer stated if Option 1 was chosen, Prairie Fire would attempt to get its application in sometime in May 2022, and the IFA has a turn around time of about 30-45 days. Director Diekmann noted that Option 1 had a lot of next steps and a Developer’s Agreement would need to be done. If Prairie Fire is not willing to commit to the Agreement, that would be their way out and this information would come out sometime in the summer. The Mayor noted that if Prairie Fire backed out, the City would have to start all over again anyway. Director Diekmann pointed out that the entire process is not all dependent on Prairie Fire as currently the City cannot commit $1.8 million yet as the funding has not been fully received. The Mayor indicated that he hoped that Prairie Fire doesn’t back out, but wanted everyone to think of the timing and how everything could be affected. Director Diekmann noted that if for any reason everything did fall apart in August the City would still be in the perfect timeframe for the next cycle in the Spring. Ms. Baker-Latimer indicated that if HUD is true to what it had indicated, the allocations should be coming out next month. Council Member Betcher asked, if the City was to put out a new Request for Proposals (RFP), would the RFP be the same as what it was previously or would there be a need to make a lot of changes. Ms. Baker-Latimer said she felt staff would be able to revise the RFP and not start from scratch. The Mayor opened public input. Hector Arbuckle, 2503 Bruner Drive, Ames, indicated that he agreed with what Council Member Gartin said regarding the decrease in density. He said that from what he has read and studied, allowing for increased housing density tends to be beneficial for increasing the housing supply in places people where want to live, which increases affordability. He wondered if the Council considered doing another RFP, should they change the zoning from FS-RM to RH, CSC, or DSC. Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated she wanted to answer Mr. Arbuckle’s question about zoning. She mentioned that this particular piece of land has a lot of history with the zoning. The City was in a lawsuit so that the land would not become RH. She understands what is being said about density, but for this property, the Council is looking at a fair compromise as it is more than what anyone in the neighborhood wanted. Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Option 1, which states to continue the partnership with the current developer as a 4% LIHTC project with local assistance of approximately 9 $1.8 million of HOME funds. Council Member Gartin said he would be voting against the motion. He wanted to note that when the Council first heard this proposal, it was a different opportunity for the City and felt this is now an inferior project. The City had the opportunity to put in 50 units with a 90% mix and the City is now going in the opposite direction. The goal of having this project started soon is valuable, but it has to be outweighed by the possibility of getting a much better project. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Rollins. Voting Nay: Gartin. Motion declared carried. NAMING THE INDOOR AQUATIC CENTER AS THE “FITCH FAMILY INDOOR AQUATIC CENTER;” NAMING THE THERAPEUTIC POOL AS THE “MARY GREELEY THERAPEUTIC POOL;” AND NAMING THE ZERO-DEPTH ENTRY POOL AND PLAY STRUCTURE AS THE “FAREWAY FUN ZONE:” Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham stated there is a lot of information in the Council Action Form, so he won’t go into detail, but wanted to highlight a few items. Regarding donations he wanted to thank Dan Culhane, President and CEO of the Ames Chamber of Commerce, for raising over $8 million in donations for the Indoor Aquatic Center. Director Abraham said that the City does have a Parks and Recreation Naming Policy and there are three categories in which a park, facility, or major feature may be named. Those are: 1) Historic Events, People, and Places; 2) Outstanding Individuals; and, 3) Major Donations. He indicated that the three requests that were received were regarding major donations. He explained that Mary and Rich Fitch have pledged $3 million and it was recommended to name the Indoor Aquatic Center the “Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center.” Mary Greeley Medical Center had pledged $4 million and was requesting the Therapeutic Pool be named the “Mary Greeley Medical Center Therapeutic Pool.” Fareway Stores had pledged $500,000 and requested the Zero-Depth Entry Pool and Play Structure be named the “Fareway Fun Zone.” The Parks and Recreation Commission had met and voted to recommend to the City Council to approve the naming requests. The Commission also directed staff to research whether there should be a feature named in memory/honor of Geitel Winakor since her $2 million donation is being used for the construction of the Indoor Aquatic Center. Director Abraham said that on April 26, 2022, staff will be recognizing all donors for the Indoor Aquatic Center. Council Member Betcher asked about the status of naming something after Geitel Winakor. Director Abraham said that some research had been done and the people who were involved from the City’s perspective of getting the donation advised that Ms. Winakor did not have any interest in having anything named after her. The Mayor opened public input and closed it when no one came forward to speak Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-176 approving the naming of the Indoor Aquatic Center as the “Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center;” naming the Therapeutic Pool as the “Mary Greeley Therapeutic Pool;” and naming the Zero-Depth Entry Pool 10 and Play Structure as the “Fareway Fun Zone.” Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE IOWA FINANCE AUTHORITY PROVIDING $61,500 TOWARDS THE COST OF RETIRING 40 ACRES OF LAND WEST OF MOORE MEMORIAL PARK AND RESTORING IT TO NATIVE VEGETATION: Water Pollution Control Facility Director John Dunn stated that he wanted to give a high level summary of what the $61,500 will do for the City. He said the funding will restore 40 acres to native prairie. The modeling suggested that making this change will result in a 69% reduction in the nitrogen export off the area and a 98% reduction in the phosphorus loss. The grant that the City will be receiving from the Water Infrastructure Fund through the Iowa Finance Authority will cover the cost of the Contract for mobilization, clearing/grubbing, and seeding/fertilization. When everything is done the area will be ready for future improvements. Council Member Betcher said there had been some negative public reactions when the City has cleared trees in the past, especially around Ioway Creek. She wanted to know if any outreach will need to be done to ensure the public is aware of what the project is and how the City is intending to move forward. Director Dunn indicated that it would be staff’s intent to publicize what is going to be happening. The prairie restoration will take place immediately after the clearing/grubbing so the area will look restored in a fairly short period of time. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-177 authorizing the Mayor to sign the Water Infrastructure Fund Grant Agreement with the Iowa Finance Authority providing $61,500 towards the cost of retiring 40 acres of land west of Moore Memorial Park and restoring it to native vegetation. Council Member Gartin stated that Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips had provided some financial information to the Council regarding the area. He indicated that if the Council was going to make a decision that would have a financial implication, there should be a record of it. Mr. Gartin noted that Mr. Phillips confirmed that the City receives $3,050 from Iowa State University as rent for the farm; this will be money that will no longer be received. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON REZONING OF 3210 CEDAR LANE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO FLOATING SUBURBAN-RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (FS-RL) WITH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PUD) AND MASTER PLAN: City Planner Benjamin Campbell explained that the Ansley development is owned by the Burgason family of Burgason Enterprises, LLC. They are proposing to rezone and develop four parcels totaling 58.7 acres at the end of Cedar Lane on the south edge of Ames. The site is accessed from Cedar Lane, Aurora 11 Avenue, and the future extension of Lunetta Drive. The proposed development will include approximately 170 dwelling units, open space amenities, and a small neighborhood commercial area. The property was annexed in 2019 and is subject to a Pre-Annexation Agreement. The owner agreed to buy out the rural water provider (Xenia) at the time of development. The developer is responsible for extending water and sewer service to the site. The property owner is requesting to rezone from Agricultural (A) to Floating Suburban - Residential Low Density (FS-RL) with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD). The proposed PUD Overlay allows for flexibility in lot patterns, uses, and certain development standards, such as setbacks. Private streets are also permitted within a PUD. The PUD process requires common open space and amenity areas along with a description of uses and design details. A Master Plan accompanies the rezoning request to identify the range of uses and layout of the site in connection with the requirements of the PUD Overlay. At the time of approval of the PUD there is a Zoning Agreement required for administration of the Master Plan and PUD. The developer intends for Ansley to be a mix of housing types: traditional detached single-family homes; homes on smaller lots, referred to as “cottage court homes,’ clustered about short, shared driveways; and town homes clustered on several lots. Dispersed throughout the site are common open spaces and storm water management areas. The larger cottage court area in the middle of the site has a communal space that will serve as the open space for the surrounding homes. The individual yards for each property are intended to be small and the setbacks will be five feet on each side. Many of the properties will be served by alleys and many will also face onto communal space, creating a diversity of housing topologies. The application has also developed detailed architectural standards to guide the individual house construction for consistency with the vision of the PUD. The applicant requested several deviations from setbacks. A PUD requires a minimum of 10% as usable open space. Approximately 35% of this development is proposed as open space, in the form of a large retention pond and several shared green spaces in the center of the development and at the south end. The site abuts existing and planned City infrastructure. Public road extensions will tie into the site from Cedar Lane, Aurora Avenue, and the future Lunetta Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the project subject to conditions outlined by staff regarding corrections and updates to the PUD Plan for setbacks and unit types. The conditions also included: 1) complete the buyout of Xenia Water Service Territory with completion of the territory transfer prior to the Preliminary Plat approval; 2) Prior to Preliminary Plat approval, include improvement plans for Cedar lane that include dedication of right-of-way, sidewalks, and street paving from the north edge of the site to the south edge of the site; and, 3) Development of the site shall not occur until such time as the City of Ames has approved a Subdivision Plat for the site. Mr. Campbell indicated at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the applicant did request that the height of the town homes match the height of the other structures. The town homes should be at the same height as the single-family homes. Council Member Gartin stated he was having difficulty conceptualizing the access to the bike trail system. He wanted to know if there were dedicated trails within the Subdivision and how close the trails are to the existing system. Planner Campbell indicated on an overhead map where the bike trails would be. 12 Mayor Haila opened the public hearing. Keith Arneson, 4114 Cochrane Parkway, Ames, said that he is the developer of the Domani project to the north of Ansley. He stated he had two concerns that had to deal with transition. The third phase of Domani has been approved. The first two phases were 51homes that are all one- or one-half story homes. Mr. Arneson mentioned that what is confusing to some people is that the base zone of RL supports a three-story building with a two-story garage. He noted that he has been building homes since 2003, and he has never built a three-story home. He was concerned about allowing for three-story buildings adjacent to the future Domani sites that would have rear yards of homes abut the development and questioned the compatibility and transitions. He asked that the properties that will border his Subdivision be limited to a two-story house and one-story garage, and he will pledge to do the same with his third phase. Mr. Arneson noted that another concern of his was the rear setbacks and asked for some consistency shown for the outside perimeter where it abuts his property. Council Member Gartin asked what Mr. Arneson was requesting the rear setbacks to be. Mr. Arneson said 25 is consistent with all the other lots in the Subdivision and didn’t see why the three lots that border his property are different. Hector Arbuckle, 2503 Bruner Drive, Ames, said he didn’t think there should be a precedent from people on one property to subjectively use their aesthetic preferences to limit what other people can do on their land. He mentioned he lives in a townhouse and felt it was awesome. Mr. Arbuckle said there are a lot of different people in Ames that have different views on what they want to live and didn’t feel the City should limit their choice on how to live. He felt that abutting property owners should not be the ones who get to decide how other people should live their lives. Mayor Haila closed the public hearing when no one else came forward. Planning and Housing Director Diekmann said that Lots 7 and 8 backups to the Domani Subdivision and are corner lots. In the Zoning Ordinance, there is a unique standard for corner lots that establishes that corner lots do not have rear yard and corner lots have two fronts and two sides. Director Diekmann mentioned that was what Mr. Arneson was concerned about as normally rear setbacks would be 25; however, since it is a corner lot the setback is only six. Council Member Junck asked if the Domani property that abuts the Ansley property by Lot 7 and 8 are also corner lots. Director Diekmann noted that there is a 50-foot setback that Mr. Arneson agreed to with the Burgason’s, which the City was not part of, that shaped his project. Due to the private Agreement, Mr. Arneson is forced to orient the house one way. Mr. Diekmann explained that he is not trying to answer all of Mr. Arneson’s comments, but wanted to mention the setbacks for the two corner properties. Council Member Gartin said that there have been issues in other parts of the City regarding stormwater retention ponds and wanted to know if there would be an agreement for the maintenance of the ponds. Director Diekmann indicated that there will be an agreement with the Homeowners Association (HOA) for the day-to-day responsibilities; however, the City will take over the long-term 13 maintenance of the ponds. Council Member Betcher asked about the potential for three story homes being done on Lots 7 and 8 and wanted to know if any other lots in the Subdivision could potentially have three-story homes. Director Diekmann said all lots could potentially have three-story homes on them. He mentioned that town-homes were more likely to be three-stories opposed to single-family homes. Ms. Betcher said that she lives in a one-story home that is next to three story homes and she doesn’t have a problem with the compatibility; it hasn’t posed any issues. Director Diekmann wanted to clarify that if the Council chose Alternative 1, there is a long list of conditions. He said when staff does a rezoning with a Master Plan, the Code requires a Zoning Agreement to eventually come; with this and that is done during the third reading to make sure all the details are correct. When this item comes back to the Council, it will have all the relevant details packaged together to make it simpler for administration to understand what the requirements are for the PUD. Moved by Junck, seconded by Gartin, to pass on first reading an ordinance rezoning 3210 Cedar Lane from Agricultural (A) to Floating Suburban - Residential Low Density (FS-RL) with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD) and Master Plan. Council Member Gartin noted that he wanted to mention Mr. Arneson’s concern and hoped there would be some good faith between the developers to hopefully work on some of the issues between themselves. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. HEARING ON CONVEYANCE OF CITY-OWNED LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 241 VILLAGE DRIVE: Council Member Rollins said that the land was purchased by the City for $161,000 and inquired why the City would be selling the property for only $100,000. Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer noted that the City has owned the property for a while, and it was always the intent to sell the property to use the funding to go towards the Baker Subdivision. She indicated that staff had a lot of items on their plate regarding CDBG and CARES funding and they didn’t want the property to sit any longer. Staff had reached out to Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa as the City has done a lot of partnerships with them. By selling the property to Habitat for Humanity, it would guarantee a low-income family would be able to live in the home. Public comment was opened and closed by Mayor Haila when no one came forward to speak. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-178 approving the sale of city- owned land commonly known as 241 Village Drive to Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa, Inc., in the amount of $100,000. Roll Call Vote: 5-0-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Rollins. Voting Nay: None. Abstaining due to Conflict of Interest: Gartin. Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. 14 HEARING ON ADA HAYDEN HERITAGE PARK DREDGING OF WETLAND G (CELL 1): The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. Moved by Rollins, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-179 approving the final plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Nagel Construction, LLC, of Allerton, Iowa, in the amount of $118,323 (Base Bid & Alt. 1). Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON SOUTH 16TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Mayor Haila declared the public hearing to be open. It was closed when no one came forward to speak. Moved by Rollins, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-164 approving the final plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $4,085,830.80. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. ORDINANCES: None. DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila said there were two items on the list. The first item was a letter from Lee Grassley, Senior Manager, Mediacom Government Relations providing the City with information regarding its participation in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The Mayor indicated the letter from Mr. Grassley was for the Council’s information only. The second item was an email from Mary Warren requesting crosswalks to be repainted at the following intersections in her neighborhood: 1) Valley View Road and Aspen; 2) Valley View Road and Bayberry; and 3) Valley View Road and Northridge Parkway. Ms. Warren also requested to have a pedestrian crossing light or four-way stop signs be installed at the intersection of Northridge Parkway and Stange Road. Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips stated that the repainting request can be incorporated into the annual pavement marking repainting. Staff is currently waiting on paint supplies to arrive. He indicated that the other request regarding concerns about the intersection of Northridge Parkway and Stange Road has already been studied, but if the Council wanted, staff could provide a memo regarding what was found during the study. Council Member Junck asked how long ago the last memo was sent out. Public Works Director John Joiner said a study was done in 2015 and it was then updated in 2020. 15 The Mayor asked if there was any indication that another study would be warranted for the area. Director Joiner said the area was reviewed two years ago and at that time the enhanced crosswalks and dynamic feedback signs were appropriate. He indicated that this has been the only citizen comment regarding the intersection lately and it would be hard to say if anything has changed within the past two years. Council Member Betcher asked if the 2020 study was done during COVID traffic conditions when there were not as many cars out and about. Director Joiner said it was. The Mayor stated that if the Council does not want to move forward, he would like to respond back to the citizen regarding the prior studies. Moved by Junck, seconded by Gartin, declining to initiate a new traffic study for the intersection of Northridge Parkway and Stange Road. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Ex officio Poundstone said that the next ex officio has been named, and it will be Bryce Garman. He said that Mr. Garman works for the Story County Board of Supervisors, so he has some experience with local government. Mr. Garman will be confirmed by the Student Government. Mr. Garman will be attending the City Council meeting on April 26, 2022. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. __________________________________ ____________________________________ Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor __________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk 16 REPORT OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact Water & Pollution Control Improvements LLC Pollution Control Period: Item No. 6 Smart Choice 515.239.5133 non-emergency Administration fax To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department Date: April 1, 2022 Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda The Council agenda for April 26th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals for: •Ichiban (117 Welch Avenue) - Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service •Swift Stop #2 (3406 Lincoln Way) - Class C Beer Permit with Sunday Sales •The Great Plains Sauce & Dough Co (129 Main St) - Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales •Walgreens #12108 (2719 Grand Ave) - Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer), and Sunday Sales •Mother’s Pub (2900 West St) - Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales •Jeff’s Pizza Shop (2402 Lincoln Way) - Class B Beer with Sunday Sales •Bar la Tosca (400 Main St) - Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Outdoor Service 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. 7 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: April 26, 2022 SUBJECT: Appointment of ex officio Student Liaison to the City Council It is my understanding that Trevor Poundstone, ex officio representative to the City Council, will no longer be serving in that capacity. Consequently, an appointment needs to be made to fill this vacancy. I have recently been informed by Jacob Ludwig, President of the Student Government, that Bryce Garman has been selected to serve as the City Council’s ex officio representative. Therefore, I request that the Council appoint Mr. Garman, representing Iowa State University Student Government, as the ex officio Student Liaison to the City Council. JAH/alc Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service 515.239.5119 main 515.239-5320 fax 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811 Am es, IA 50010 www.CityofAm es.org City Treasurer M EM O To: Mayor and City Council From: Roger Wisecup, CPA City Treasure Date: pril 7, 2022 Subject: Investment Report for Quarte Ending March 31, 2022 Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to present a report summarizing the performance of the City of Ames investment portfolio for the quarter ending March 31, 2022. Discussion This report covers the period ending March 31, 2022 and presents a summary of the investments on hand at the end of March 2022. The investments are valued at amortized cost; this reflects the same basis that the assets are carried on the financial records of the City. All investments are in compliance with the current Investment Policy. Comments The Federal Reserve raised the federal fund rate from 0-0.25 percent to 0.25-0.50 percent in the last quarter. The yield curve is normal, making shorter maturities pay at a less rates than longer maturities. Future investments will be made at the lower interest rates and future interest income will decrease. We will continue to evaluate our current investment strategy, remaining flexible to future investments while the Federal Reserve evaluates the target rate. Item No. 8 BOOK MARKET UN-REALIZED DESCRIPTION VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS) CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT 18,000,000 18,000,000 0 FEDERAL AGENCY DISCOUNTS 0 FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 57,608,720 55,982,420 (1,626,300) COMMERCIAL PAPER 8,973,010 8,952,159 (20,851) MISC COUPON SECURITIES 0 PASS THRU SECURITIES PAC/CMO MONEY FUND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 292,559 292,559 0 PASSBOOK/CHECKING ACCOUNTS 133,115 133,115 0 US TREASURY DISCOUNTS 5,464,819 5,456,017 (8,802) US TREASURY SECURITIES 90,125,876 87,917,734 (2,208,142) INVESTMENTS 180,598,099 176,734,004 (3,864,095) CASH ACCOUNTS 22,371,815 22,371,815 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 202,969,914 199,105,819 (3,864,095) ACCRUAL BASIS INVESTMENT EARNINGS YR-TO-DATE GROSS EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS: 1,002,381 INTEREST EARNED ON CASH: 91,257 TOTAL INTEREST EARNED: 1,093,638 AND THE ACCUMULATED YEAR-TO-DATE CITY OF AMES, IOWA CASH AND INVESTMENTS SUMMARY AND SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT EARNINGS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2022 YTM 365 Page 1 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value March 31, 2022 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificates of Deposit 2.660Great Western Bank144303455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 06/01/20222.66004/16/2019 4,000,000.00 2.624144303455 61 2.990US Bank433071659 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 06/01/20222.99005/24/2018 6,000,000.00 2.949433071659 61 1.710US Bank795014295 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/01/20221.71010/16/2019 3,000,000.00 1.687795014295 61 1.780US Bank795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/01/20231.78010/16/2019 5,000,000.00 1.756795014296 426 18,000,000.00 2.33518,000,000.0018,000,000.0018,000,000.00Subtotal and Average 2.367 162 Money Market 0.300Great Western Bank4531558874 292,559.12 292,559.12 0.300292,559.12 0.296SYS4531558874B 1 292,559.12 0.296292,559.12292,559.12292,558.61Subtotal and Average 0.300 1 Passbook/Checking Accounts 0.150Wells Fargo6952311634B 133,115.02 133,115.02 0.150133,115.02 0.148SYS6952311634B 1 133,115.02 0.148133,115.02133,115.02133,114.79Subtotal and Average 0.150 1 Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing 0.093Credit Agricole0993-21 1,000,000.00 999,897.09 05/12/20220.09009/03/2021 997,510.00 0.09122533UED1 41 1.017JP Morgan Commercial Paper1028-22A 1,500,000.00 1,491,220.83 11/02/20220.98003/03/2022 1,487,475.00 1.00446640QL25 215 1.017JP Morgan Commercial Paper1028-22B 1,000,000.00 994,147.22 11/02/20220.98003/03/2022 991,650.00 1.00446640QL25 215 0.288MountCliff Funding1014-21A 1,000,000.00 999,408.89 06/16/20220.28012/10/2021 998,503.00 0.28462455BFG5 76 0.288MountCliff Funding1014-21B 1,000,000.00 999,408.89 06/16/20220.28012/10/2021 998,503.00 0.28462455BFG5 76 0.123Bank of Canada0995-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,695.00 06/01/20220.12009/09/2021 1,498,729.50 0.12163307MF12 61 0.938Regatta Funding1025-22 2,000,000.00 1,989,231.66 10/31/20220.91002/11/2022 1,979,788.00 0.92575888XKX3 213 8,973,009.58 0.5778,952,158.509,000,000.008,810,667.63Subtotal and Average 0.585 138 Federal Agency Coupon Securities 0.600Farmer Mac0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 11/20/20250.60011/20/2020 931,445.00 0.59231422B3F5 1,329 0.154Federal Farm Credit0952-20A 2,000,000.00 1,999,994.75 04/08/20220.14010/15/2020 1,999,830.00 0.1513133EMCJ9 7 0.154Federal Farm Credit0952-20B 3,000,000.00 2,999,992.12 04/08/20220.14010/15/2020 2,999,745.00 0.1513133EMCJ9 7 0.092Federal Farm Credit0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,541.50 10/13/20220.16002/12/2021 1,492,207.50 0.0913133EMDA7 195 0.341Federal Farm Credit0977-21A 1,000,000.00 998,938.72 11/12/20240.30003/02/2021 944,021.00 0.3363133EMQQ8 956 0.341Federal Farm Credit0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,408.08 11/12/20240.30003/02/2021 1,416,031.50 0.3363133EMQQ8 956 0.180Federal Farm Credit0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,481.45 06/26/20230.20009/09/2021 1,956,942.00 0.1783133EM3S9 451 0.160Federal Farm Credit1005-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 12/15/20220.16010/15/2021 1,982,024.00 0.1583133EMKH4 258 0.366Federal Farm Credit1008-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,124.78 10/12/20230.27010/15/2021 1,982,399.00 0.3613133ENAU4 559 0.696Federal Farm Credit1019-22A 1,500,000.00 1,491,707.39 04/13/20230.12501/20/2022 1,476,385.20 0.6863133EMVP4 377 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11 Report Ver. 7.3.11 YTM 365 Page 2 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value March 31, 2022 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Federal Agency Coupon Securities 0.696Federal Farm Credit1019-22B 1,000,000.00 994,471.60 04/13/20230.12501/20/2022 984,256.81 0.6863133EMVP4 377 1.239Federal Farm Credit1026-22 1,000,000.00 989,514.31 06/08/20230.30002/11/2022 981,944.00 1.2223133ELG81 433 0.134Federal Home Loan Bank0947-20 1,500,000.00 1,507,509.15 06/10/20222.75009/17/2020 1,506,271.50 0.1323130AEBM1 70 0.581Federal Home Loan Bank0975-21 1,000,000.00 997,277.99 02/17/20260.30002/22/2021 923,062.00 0.5733130AL4V3 1,418 0.841Federal Home Loan Bank0978-21 1,000,000.00 990,161.38 02/11/20260.58003/15/2021 926,816.00 0.8293130AKXB7 1,412 0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,706.12 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 1,443,852.00 0.3803130ALKS2 714 0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,804.08 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 962,568.00 0.3803130ALKS2 714 1.116Federal Home Loan Bank0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,646.95 04/14/20260.50004/14/2021 2,502,283.70 1.1013130ALVT8 1,474 0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 1,433,364.00 0.4443130ALTV6 836 0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 955,576.00 0.4443130ALTV6 836 0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,731.45 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 1,432,302.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 847 0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,820.97 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 954,868.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 847 0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,496,628.13 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 1,431,115.50 0.4253130AMV66 819 0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21B 1,000,000.00 997,752.09 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 954,077.00 0.4253130AMV66 819 0.510Federal Home Loan Bank0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 08/30/20240.51007/01/2021 1,430,991.00 0.5033130AMZQ8 882 0.600Federal Home Loan Bank0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 05/28/20250.60009/03/2021 1,881,510.00 0.5923130ANKM1 1,153 0.202Federal Home Loan Bank1001-21 1,000,000.00 998,921.28 08/28/20230.12509/13/2021 972,571.00 0.1993130ANYM6 514 0.409Federal Home Loan Bank1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,183.33 09/13/20240.37509/13/2021 951,163.00 0.4033130ANR28 896 0.650Federal Home Loan Bank1013-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 09/29/20230.65012/29/2021 1,466,656.50 0.6413130AQ7J6 546 0.650Federal Home Loan Bank1013-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 09/29/20230.65012/29/2021 977,771.00 0.6413130AQ7J6 546 0.221Federal Home Loan Bank1015-21 1,000,000.00 999,256.35 09/28/20220.07012/10/2021 995,158.00 0.2183130APCM5 180 0.780Federal Home Loan Bank1016-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 12/29/20230.78012/29/2021 974,102.00 0.7693130AQ7K3 637 0.091Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0955-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,160.31 07/25/20220.12510/15/2020 1,497,172.50 0.0903137EAET2 115 0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 05/15/20240.36011/20/2020 957,875.00 0.3553134GXBD5 775 0.350Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 03/29/20240.35011/20/2020 960,819.00 0.3453134GWXC5 728 0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 05/15/20240.36009/15/2021 1,436,812.50 0.3553134GXBD5 775 0.254Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,501,122.11 11/13/20230.30009/15/2021 1,453,702.50 0.2503134GXAY0 591 0.301Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1018-21A 1,000,000.00 999,445.11 11/23/20220.20012/10/2021 992,573.44 0.2973134GXEA8 236 0.301Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1018-21B 1,000,000.00 999,445.12 11/23/20220.20012/10/2021 992,573.45 0.2973134GXEA8 236 0.898Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1024-22 1,000,000.00 992,303.57 06/26/20230.25002/02/2022 979,329.00 0.8863137EAES4 451 0.340Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1017-21 1,500,000.00 1,524,350.08 01/19/20232.37512/10/2021 1,510,485.00 0.3353135G0T94 293 1.274Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1027-22 1,000,000.00 987,320.00 07/10/20230.25002/11/2022 977,768.28 1.2563135G05G4 465 57,608,720.27 0.44255,982,419.8857,650,000.0058,416,279.05Subtotal and Average 0.449 617 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11 YTM 365 Page 3 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value March 31, 2022 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Treasury Coupon Securities 2.963U.S. Treasury0835-18 2,500,000.00 2,495,790.03 05/31/20221.87510/15/2018 2,505,860.00 2.923912828XD7 60 2.964U.S. Treasury0836-18 2,500,000.00 2,495,303.42 05/31/20221.75010/15/2018 2,505,470.00 2.923912828XR6 60 2.459U.S. Treasury0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,972,486.41 05/31/20231.62503/08/2019 2,989,689.00 2.426912828R69 425 1.540U.S. Treasury0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,081,877.68 05/31/20232.75011/04/2019 6,058,128.00 1.5199128284S6 425 0.134U.S. Treasury0953-20 1,000,000.00 1,001,384.77 04/30/20221.87510/15/2020 1,001,250.00 0.132912828X47 29 0.134U.S. Treasury0954-20 1,500,000.00 1,506,972.01 07/15/20221.75010/15/2020 1,504,453.50 0.1329128287C8 105 0.146U.S. Treasury0957-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,974.35 04/30/20220.12511/16/2020 1,499,766.00 0.144912828ZM5 29 0.150U.S. Treasury0958-20 1,500,000.00 1,504,925.78 06/15/20221.75011/16/2020 1,503,984.00 0.1489128286Y1 75 0.156U.S. Treasury0959-20 1,500,000.00 1,507,505.89 08/15/20221.50011/16/2020 1,503,282.00 0.154912828YA2 136 0.105U.S. Treasury0963-20 1,000,000.00 1,001,407.76 04/30/20221.87512/08/2020 1,001,250.00 0.104912828X47 29 0.117U.S. Treasury0964-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,013.36 05/31/20220.12512/08/2020 999,531.00 0.115912828ZR4 60 0.120U.S. Treasury0965-20 1,000,000.00 1,003,347.92 06/15/20221.75012/08/2020 1,002,656.00 0.1189128286Y1 75 0.121U.S. Treasury0966-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,011.07 06/30/20220.12512/08/2020 998,906.00 0.119912828ZX1 90 0.091U.S. Treasury0967-20 1,000,000.00 1,004,776.86 07/15/20221.75012/15/2020 1,002,969.00 0.0909128287C8 105 0.100U.S. Treasury0968-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,081.62 07/31/20220.12512/15/2020 997,813.00 0.09991282CAC5 121 0.107U.S. Treasury0969-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,114.18 08/31/20220.12512/15/2020 1,494,844.50 0.10591282CAG6 152 0.104U.S. Treasury0970-20 1,500,000.00 1,509,555.46 09/15/20221.50012/15/2020 1,503,516.00 0.103912828YF1 167 0.080U.S. Treasury0971-21 1,000,000.00 1,005,766.99 08/15/20221.62502/12/2021 1,002,656.00 0.079912828TJ9 136 0.091U.S. Treasury0972-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,142.58 08/31/20220.12502/12/2021 996,563.00 0.08991282CAG6 152 0.091U.S. Treasury0973-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,252.35 09/30/20220.12502/12/2021 1,492,969.50 0.09091282CAN1 182 0.384U.S. Treasury0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,208,442.70 05/31/20242.00004/15/2021 5,949,378.00 0.379912828XT2 791 0.663U.S. Treasury0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,922,692.02 05/31/20250.25004/15/2021 5,585,628.00 0.654912828ZT0 1,156 0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,571,292.34 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 1,496,719.50 0.355912828D56 867 0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,047,528.23 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 997,813.00 0.355912828D56 867 0.515U.S. Treasury0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,966,834.76 05/31/20250.25006/11/2021 3,723,752.00 0.508912828ZT0 1,156 0.275U.S. Treasury0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,111,498.19 05/31/20242.00006/11/2021 2,974,689.00 0.271912828XT2 791 0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,538,642.72 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 1,464,609.00 0.454912828YH7 913 0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,025,761.82 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 976,406.00 0.454912828YH7 913 0.079U.S. Treasury0996-21A 1,500,000.00 1,512,487.45 09/30/20221.75009/09/2021 1,505,157.00 0.078912828L57 182 0.079U.S. Treasury0996-21B 2,000,000.00 2,016,649.94 09/30/20221.75009/09/2021 2,006,876.00 0.078912828L57 182 0.116U.S. Treasury0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,067.18 12/31/20220.12509/09/2021 990,313.00 0.11491282CBD2 274 0.150U.S. Treasury0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,624.50 03/31/20230.12509/09/2021 1,476,328.50 0.14891282CBU4 364 0.225U.S. Treasury1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,559,394.12 09/30/20232.87509/09/2021 1,516,407.00 0.2229128285D8 547 0.270U.S. Treasury1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,994,960.74 05/31/20230.12510/15/2021 2,938,125.00 0.26691282CCD1 425 0.342U.S. Treasury1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,993,706.25 09/15/20230.12510/15/2021 1,943,126.00 0.33791282CAK7 532 0.384U.S. Treasury1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,995,677.67 11/15/20230.25010/15/2021 1,937,812.00 0.37891282CAW1 593 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11 YTM 365 Page 4 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value March 31, 2022 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Treasury Coupon Securities 0.518U.S. Treasury1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,190,996.81 05/31/20242.00010/15/2021 5,949,378.00 0.511912828XT2 791 0.785U.S. Treasury1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,933,288.80 05/31/20250.25010/15/2021 3,723,752.00 0.775912828ZT0 1,156 1.005U.S. Treasury1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,463,802.80 05/31/20260.75010/15/2021 3,255,000.00 0.99191282CCF6 1,521 0.550U.S. Treasury1020-22 1,000,000.00 996,464.22 01/31/20230.12501/21/2022 987,969.00 0.54291282CBG5 305 0.600U.S. Treasury1021-22 1,000,000.00 995,683.72 02/28/20230.12501/21/2022 986,406.00 0.59291282CBN0 333 0.660U.S. Treasury1022-22 1,000,000.00 994,691.74 03/31/20230.12501/21/2022 984,219.00 0.65191282CBU4 364 0.710U.S. Treasury1023-22 1,000,000.00 993,996.57 04/30/20230.12501/21/2022 982,314.15 0.70091282CBX8 394 90,125,875.78 0.66387,917,733.6589,500,000.0094,017,357.94Subtotal and Average 0.673 572 Treasury Discounts -Amortizing 0.750U.S. Treasury1029-22 1,000,000.00 996,626.63 09/15/20220.72703/18/2022 995,663.00 0.740912796U49 167 0.943U.S. Treasury1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,987,630.52 12/01/20220.91303/18/2022 1,984,344.00 0.930912796P94 244 1.065U.S. Treasury1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,488,336.86 12/29/20221.02903/18/2022 1,485,606.00 1.050912796R27 272 1.065U.S. Treasury1031-22B 1,000,000.00 992,224.57 12/29/20221.02903/18/2022 990,404.00 1.050912796R27 272 5,464,818.58 0.9505,456,017.005,500,000.002,467,564.69Subtotal and Average 0.963 243 0.763182,137,542.72 180,075,674.14 0.773 513176,734,003.17 180,598,098.35Total and Average Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11 YTM 365 Page 5 Par Value Book Value Stated RateMarket Value March 31, 2022 Portfolio Details - Cash Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date 0.00 0.763182,137,542.72 180,075,674.14 0.773 513 0Average Balance 176,734,003.17 180,598,098.35Total Cash and Investments Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11 Page 1 Par Value Stated Rate March 31, 2022 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Certificates of Deposit GWB144303455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.002.66006/01/2022144303455 06/01 - At Maturity04/16/2019 4,000,000.002.6602.624 USB433071659 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.002.99006/01/2022433071659 06/01 - 12/0105/24/2018 6,000,000.002.9902.949 USB795014295 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.71006/01/2022795014295 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 3,000,000.001.7101.687 USB795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.001.78006/01/2023795014296 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 5,000,000.001.7801.756 18,000,000.00Certificates of Deposit Totals 18,000,000.000.002.33518,000,000.00 2.367 Money Market GWB4531558874 292,559.12 292,559.120.300SYS4531558874B 08/01 - Monthly 292,559.120.3000.296 292,559.12Money Market Totals 292,559.120.000.296292,559.12 0.300 Passbook/Checking Accounts WF6952311634B 133,115.02 133,115.020.150SYS6952311634B 08/01 - Monthly 133,115.020.1500.148 133,115.02Passbook/Checking Accounts Totals 133,115.020.000.148133,115.02 0.150 Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing CACPNY0993-21 1,000,000.00 999,897.090.09005/12/202222533UED1 05/12 - At Maturity09/03/2021 999,370.000.0930.091 JPM1028-22A 1,500,000.00 1,491,220.830.98011/02/202246640QL25 11/02 - At Maturity03/03/2022 1,490,036.661.0171.004 JPM1028-22B 1,000,000.00 994,147.220.98011/02/202246640QL25 11/02 - At Maturity03/03/2022 993,357.781.0171.004 MCFUND1014-21A 1,000,000.00 999,408.890.28006/16/202262455BFG5 06/16 - At Maturity12/10/2021 998,537.780.2880.284 MCFUND1014-21B 1,000,000.00 999,408.890.28006/16/202262455BFG5 06/16 - At Maturity12/10/2021 998,537.780.2880.284 NABKCN0995-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,695.000.12006/01/202263307MF12 06/01 - At Maturity09/09/2021 1,498,675.010.1230.121 RGAFDG1025-22 2,000,000.00 1,989,231.660.91010/31/202275888XKX3 10/31 - At Maturity02/11/2022 1,986,754.440.9380.925 8,973,009.58Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing Totals 8,965,269.450.000.5779,000,000.00 0.585 Federal Agency Coupon Securities FAMCA0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.60011/20/202531422B3F5 05/20 - 11/2011/20/2020 1,000,000.000.6000.592 FFCB0952-20A 2,000,000.00 1,999,994.750.14004/08/20223133EMCJ9 04/08 - 10/08 Received10/15/2020 1,999,600.000.1540.151 FFCB0952-20B 3,000,000.00 2,999,992.120.14004/08/20223133EMCJ9 04/08 - 10/08 Received10/15/2020 2,999,400.000.1540.151 FFCB0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,541.500.16010/13/20223133EMDA7 04/13 - 10/13 Received02/12/2021 1,501,695.000.0920.091 FFCB0977-21A 1,000,000.00 998,938.720.30011/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 998,500.000.3410.336 FFCB0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,408.080.30011/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 1,497,750.000.3410.336 FFCB0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,481.450.20006/26/20233133EM3S9 12/26 - 06/26 Received09/09/2021 2,000,700.000.1800.178 FFCB1005-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.000.16012/15/20223133EMKH4 12/15 - 06/15 Received10/15/2021 2,000,000.000.1600.158 FFCB1008-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,124.780.27010/12/20233133ENAU4 04/12 - 10/12 45.0010/15/2021 1,996,200.000.3660.361 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11 Report Ver. 7.3.11 Page 2 Par Value Stated Rate March 31, 2022 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Federal Agency Coupon Securities FFCB1019-22A 1,500,000.00 1,491,707.390.12504/13/20233133EMVP4 04/13 - 10/13 505.2001/20/2022 1,489,523.040.6960.686 FFCB1019-22B 1,000,000.00 994,471.600.12504/13/20233133EMVP4 04/13 - 10/13 336.8101/20/2022 993,015.350.6960.686 FFCB1026-22 1,000,000.00 989,514.310.30006/08/20233133ELG81 06/08 - 12/08 525.0002/11/2022 987,700.001.2391.222 FHLB0947-20 1,500,000.00 1,507,509.152.75006/10/20223130AEBM1 12/10 - 06/10 Received09/17/2020 1,567,800.000.1340.132 FHLB0975-21 1,000,000.00 997,277.990.30002/17/20263130AL4V3 08/17 - 02/17 Received02/22/2021 996,500.000.5810.573 FHLB0978-21 1,000,000.00 990,161.380.58002/11/20263130AKXB7 08/11 - 02/11 Received03/15/2021 987,500.000.8410.829 FHLB0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,706.120.37503/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 1,499,550.000.3850.380 FHLB0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,804.080.37503/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 999,700.000.3850.380 FHLB0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,646.950.50004/14/20263130ALVT8 10/14 - 04/1404/14/2021 2,647,085.001.1161.101 FHLB0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.45007/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,500,000.000.4500.444 FHLB0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.45007/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,000,000.000.4500.444 FHLB0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,731.450.45007/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 Received04/30/2021 1,499,625.000.4580.452 FHLB0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,820.970.45007/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 Received04/30/2021 999,750.000.4580.452 FHLB0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,496,628.130.33006/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 Received07/01/2021 1,495,500.000.4310.425 FHLB0991-21B 1,000,000.00 997,752.090.33006/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 Received07/01/2021 997,000.000.4310.425 FHLB0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.51008/30/20243130AMZQ8 12/30 - 06/30 Received07/01/2021 1,500,000.000.5100.503 FHLB0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.000.60005/28/20253130ANKM1 02/28 - 08/28 Received09/03/2021 2,000,000.000.6000.592 FHLB1001-21 1,000,000.00 998,921.280.12508/28/20233130ANYM6 02/28 - 08/28 Received09/13/2021 998,500.000.2020.199 FHLB1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,183.330.37509/13/20243130ANR28 03/13 - 09/13 Received09/13/2021 999,000.000.4090.403 FHLB1013-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.65009/29/20233130AQ7J6 03/29 - 09/2912/29/2021 1,500,000.000.6500.641 FHLB1013-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.65009/29/20233130AQ7J6 03/29 - 09/2912/29/2021 1,000,000.000.6500.641 FHLB1015-21 1,000,000.00 999,256.350.07009/28/20223130APCM5 03/28 - 09/28 Received12/10/2021 998,790.000.2210.218 FHLB1016-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.78012/29/20233130AQ7K3 06/29 - 12/2912/29/2021 1,000,000.000.7800.769 FHLMC0955-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,160.310.12507/25/20223137EAET2 01/25 - 07/25 Received10/15/2020 1,500,900.000.0910.090 FHLMC0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.36005/15/20243134GXBD5 05/15 - 11/15 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3600.355 FHLMC0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.35003/29/20243134GWXC5 03/29 - 09/29 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3500.345 FHLMC1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.36005/15/20243134GXBD5 11/15 - 05/15 Received09/15/2021 1,500,000.000.3600.355 FHLMC1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,501,122.110.30011/13/20233134GXAY0 11/13 - 05/13 Received09/15/2021 1,501,500.000.2540.250 FHLMC1018-21A 1,000,000.00 999,445.110.20011/23/20223134GXEA8 05/23 - 11/23 94.4412/10/2021 999,040.000.3010.297 FHLMC1018-21B 1,000,000.00 999,445.120.20011/23/20223134GXEA8 05/23 - 11/23 94.4512/10/2021 999,040.000.3010.297 FHLMC1024-22 1,000,000.00 992,303.570.25006/26/20233137EAES4 06/26 - 12/26 250.0002/02/2022 991,000.000.8980.886 FNMA1017-21 1,500,000.00 1,524,350.082.37501/19/20233135G0T94 01/19 - 07/19 Received12/10/2021 1,533,735.000.3400.335 FNMA1027-22 1,000,000.00 987,320.000.25007/10/20233135G05G4 07/10 - 01/10 215.2802/11/2022 985,700.001.2741.256 57,608,720.27Federal Agency Coupon Securities Totals 57,661,298.392,066.180.44257,650,000.00 0.449 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11 Page 3 Par Value Stated Rate March 31, 2022 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Treasury Coupon Securities US TRE0835-18 2,500,000.00 2,495,790.031.87505/31/2022912828XD7 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2018 2,407,100.002.9632.923 US TRE0836-18 2,500,000.00 2,495,303.421.75005/31/2022912828XR6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2018 2,396,362.132.9642.923 US TRE0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,972,486.411.62505/31/2023912828R69 05/31 - 11/30 Received03/08/2019 2,899,980.002.4592.426 US TRE0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,081,877.682.75005/31/20239128284S6 11/30 - 05/31 Received11/04/2019 6,251,220.001.5401.519 US TRE0953-20 1,000,000.00 1,001,384.771.87504/30/2022912828X47 10/31 - 04/30 Received10/15/2020 1,026,835.940.1340.132 US TRE0954-20 1,500,000.00 1,506,972.011.75007/15/20229128287C8 01/15 - 07/15 Received10/15/2020 1,542,363.280.1340.132 US TRE0957-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,974.350.12504/30/2022912828ZM5 04/30 - 10/31 Received11/16/2020 1,499,531.250.1460.144 US TRE0958-20 1,500,000.00 1,504,925.781.75006/15/20229128286Y1 12/15 - 06/15 Received11/16/2020 1,537,830.000.1500.148 US TRE0959-20 1,500,000.00 1,507,505.891.50008/15/2022912828YA2 02/15 - 08/15 Received11/16/2020 1,535,156.250.1560.154 US TRE0963-20 1,000,000.00 1,001,407.761.87504/30/2022912828X47 04/30 - 10/31 Received12/08/2020 1,024,660.000.1050.104 US TRE0964-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,013.360.12505/31/2022912828ZR4 05/31 - 11/30 Received12/08/2020 1,000,120.000.1170.115 US TRE0965-20 1,000,000.00 1,003,347.921.75006/15/20229128286Y1 12/15 - 06/15 Received12/08/2020 1,024,730.000.1200.118 US TRE0966-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,011.070.12506/30/2022912828ZX1 12/31 - 06/30 Received12/08/2020 1,000,070.000.1210.119 US TRE0967-20 1,000,000.00 1,004,776.861.75007/15/20229128287C8 01/15 - 07/15 Received12/15/2020 1,026,250.000.0910.090 US TRE0968-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,081.620.12507/31/202291282CAC5 01/31 - 07/31 Received12/15/2020 1,000,400.000.1000.099 US TRE0969-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,114.180.12508/31/202291282CAG6 02/28 - 08/31 Received12/15/2020 1,500,468.750.1070.105 US TRE0970-20 1,500,000.00 1,509,555.461.50009/15/2022912828YF1 03/15 - 09/15 Received12/15/2020 1,536,562.500.1040.103 US TRE0971-21 1,000,000.00 1,005,766.991.62508/15/2022912828TJ9 02/15 - 08/15 Received02/12/2021 1,023,280.000.0800.079 US TRE0972-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,142.580.12508/31/202291282CAG6 02/28 - 08/31 Received02/12/2021 1,000,530.000.0910.089 US TRE0973-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,252.350.12509/30/202291282CAN1 03/31 - 09/30 Received02/12/2021 1,500,825.000.0910.090 US TRE0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,208,442.702.00005/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 6,300,937.500.3840.379 US TRE0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,922,692.020.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 5,899,218.750.6630.654 US TRE0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,571,292.342.37508/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,597,770.000.3600.355 US TRE0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,047,528.232.37508/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,065,180.000.3600.355 US TRE0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,966,834.760.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received06/11/2021 3,958,400.000.5150.508 US TRE0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,111,498.192.00005/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received06/11/2021 3,152,940.000.2750.271 US TRE0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,538,642.721.50009/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,550,790.000.4600.454 US TRE0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,025,761.821.50009/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,033,860.000.4600.454 US TRE0996-21A 1,500,000.00 1,512,487.451.75009/30/2022912828L57 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,526,484.380.0790.078 US TRE0996-21B 2,000,000.00 2,016,649.941.75009/30/2022912828L57 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 2,035,312.510.0790.078 US TRE0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,067.180.12512/31/202291282CBD2 12/31 - 06/30 Received09/09/2021 1,000,117.190.1160.114 US TRE0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,624.500.12503/31/202391282CBU4 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,499,414.060.1500.148 US TRE1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,559,394.122.87509/30/20239128285D8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,581,544.760.2250.222 US TRE1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,994,960.740.12505/31/202391282CCD1 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 2,992,968.750.2700.266 US TRE1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,993,706.250.12509/15/202391282CAK7 03/15 - 09/15 Received10/15/2021 1,991,718.750.3420.337 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11 Page 4 Par Value Stated Rate March 31, 2022 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Treasury Coupon Securities US TRE1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,995,677.670.25011/15/202391282CAW1 11/15 - 05/15 Received10/15/2021 1,994,453.130.3840.378 US TRE1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,190,996.812.00005/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 6,231,562.500.5180.511 US TRE1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,933,288.800.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,923,593.750.7850.775 US TRE1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,463,802.800.75005/31/202691282CCF6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,459,804.691.0050.991 US TRE1020-22 1,000,000.00 996,464.220.12501/31/202391282CBG5 01/31 - 07/31 Received01/21/2022 995,652.730.5500.542 US TRE1021-22 1,000,000.00 995,683.720.12502/28/202391282CBN0 02/28 - 08/31 Received01/21/2022 994,776.390.6000.592 US TRE1022-22 1,000,000.00 994,691.740.12503/31/202391282CBU4 03/31 - 09/30 Received01/21/2022 993,670.920.6600.651 US TRE1023-22 1,000,000.00 993,996.570.12504/30/202391282CBX8 04/30 - 10/31 283.1501/21/2022 992,596.520.7100.700 90,125,875.78Treasury Coupon Securities Totals 90,507,042.38283.150.66389,500,000.00 0.673 Treasury Discounts -Amortizing US TRE1029-22 1,000,000.00 996,626.630.72709/15/2022912796U49 09/15 - At Maturity03/18/2022 996,343.830.7500.740 US TRE1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,987,630.520.91312/01/2022912796P94 12/01 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,986,920.800.9430.930 US TRE1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,488,336.861.02912/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,487,736.551.0651.050 US TRE1031-22B 1,000,000.00 992,224.571.02912/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 991,824.361.0651.050 5,464,818.58Treasury Discounts -Amortizing Totals 5,462,825.540.000.9505,500,000.00 0.963 180,598,098.35Investment Totals 181,022,109.902,349.33180,075,674.14 0.763 0.773 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 04/07/2022 - 15:47 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11 For Quarter Ending March 31, 2022 0.23% 57.00% 42.77% Portfolio by Asset Class Cash and Equivalents Long Term Short Term For Quarter Ending March 31, 2022 0.83% 0.56% 0.56%10.27% 14.52% 5.28% 1.39% 1.39% 2.38% 1.11% 1.11% 52.76% 7.77% 0.07% Par Value by Issuer Graph BKCAN CRAGRI FAMAC FFCB FHLB FHLMC JPM FNMA GWB MTCLIFF REGAT UST USB WF For Quarter Ending March 31, 2022 0.16% 0.07% 9.97%4.97% 31.90% 49.90% 3.03% Book Value By Investment Type Money Market Passbook/Checking Accounts Certificate of Deposit Commercial Paper Federal Agency Coupon Securities Treasury Coupon Securities Treasury Discounts For Quarter Ending March 31, 2022 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Investment Yield by Type 1 ITEM # __9 __ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FY 2022/23 COMMISSION ON THE ARTS ANNUAL GRANT CONTRACTS BACKGROUND: The City Council authorized the Commission on the Arts (COTA) to allocate up to $216,470 in arts agency funding for FY 2022/23. At the City Council’s FY 2022/23 Budget Wrap-Up Session, the Council received COTA’s recommendations for each arts agency. Additionally, COTA recommended reserving $10,000 of its allocation to use for fall and spring special project. The City Council has allocated funding in the FY 2022/23 Budget for these grants. Contracts were prepared for each agency receiving a COTA annual grant. These contracts have been mailed to arts organizations and returned with signatures and are now presented for City Council approval. A summary of the COTA funding for each agency is attached. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the COTA Annual Grant contracts as recommended by the Commission on the Arts and approved in the FY 2022/23 budget. 2. Request further information from COTA prior to approving these contracts. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council has allocated funding in the City Budget to fund arts activities, and the Commission on the Arts has received applications and made awards that meet the criteria for COTA funding. Contracts are required to define the scope of services that will be met by each organization receiving funding. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 2 COTA 2022-23 Annual Grant Contract Amounts Organization TOTAL COTA Funding Agency Award Subtotal $ 206,470 Reserve for Special Project Grants 10,000 TOTAL COTA FUNDING $ 216,470 1 ITEM # 10 DATE: 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REQUESTS FROM AMES MAIN STREET FOR SHOP FOR A CAUSE BACKGROUND: Ames Main Street (AMS) has submitted requests to facilitate Ames Main Street Shop for a Cause, to be held on November 12, 2022. At this event, downtown businesses can promote a non-profit of their choice through sales and other partnership efforts. To facilitate this event, organizers are requesting suspension of parking regulations and enforcement for the Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 12 ($1,370.25 estimated loss to the Parking Fund). A blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit has also been requested. In February 2020, the City Council adopted a new policy regarding metered parking waivers: Metered parking fees will not be waived for special events. Any event organizers intending to provide free parking or to close metered parking spaces must reimburse the City’s Parking Fund for the lost revenue. The City Council may consider waivers to this policy on a case-by-case basis for parking spaces that are obstructed by the event area (not for area-wide free parking). For FY 2022/23, the City Council allocated $5,489 in the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to reimburse the Parking Fund for Downtown special events where free parking or parking closures are to take place. Therefore, for this event, the City Council is requested to authorize a transfer of $1,370.25 from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to the Parking Fund. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the requests for Shop for a Cause as requested by Ames Main Street, including the waiver of fees and transfer of funds from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to the Parking Fund. 2. Deny the requests 2 CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Ames Main Street Shop for a Cause aims to attract people to the Downtown, promote shopping locally, and support non-profit organizations through partnering businesses. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # 11 DATE: 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REQUESTS FROM AMES MAIN STREET FOR SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY BACKGROUND: Ames Main Street (AMS) has submitted requests to facilitate Small Business Saturday on November 26. To facilitate this event, organizers are requesting suspension of parking regulations and enforcement for the Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 26 ($1,370.25 estimated loss to the Parking Fund). A Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit has also been requested. In February 2020, the City Council adopted a new policy regarding metered parking waivers: Metered parking fees will not be waived for special events. Any event organizers intending to provide free parking or to close metered parking spaces must reimburse the City’s Parking Fund for the lost revenue. The City Council may consider waivers to this policy on a case-by-case basis for parking spaces that are obstructed by the event area (not for area-wide free parking). For FY 2022/23, the City Council allocated $5,489 in the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to reimburse the Parking Fund for Downtown special events where free parking or parking closures are to take place. Therefore, for this event, the City Council is requested to authorize a transfer of $1,370.25 from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to the Parking Fund. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the requests for Small Business Saturday as requested by Ames Main Street, including the waiver of fees and transfer of funds from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to the Parking Fund. 2. Deny the requests 2 CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Small Business Saturday is an annual event for the Downtown. This event aims to attract people to the Downtown and promotes shopping locally to kick off the holiday shopping season. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # __12___ DATE 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AMES MAIN STREET REQUESTS FOR SNOW MAGIC BACKGROUND: Ames Main Street (AMS) plans to host its Snow Magic Celebration from Friday, December 2 through Saturday, December 24. The event will kick off on December 2 with the tree lighting ceremony, open houses, and horse and carriage rides. To facilitate this event, Ames Main Street has made the following requests for December 2: • Closure of four metered parking spaces Downtown from 1:00 to 8:00 p.m. on December 2 to facilitate the pick-up and drop-off of passengers on horse drawn carriage rides through the downtown (Approximately $5 loss to the Parking Fund) • A blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and a blanket Vending License from December 2 through December 24 to allow stores to display and sell merchandise and waiver of Vending License fee ($50 loss to City Clerk’s Office). • Use of electricity in Tom Evans Plaza and waiver of fees for electricity (approximately $10 loss to the Electric Fund). The City Council’s policy regarding parking meter closures allows the City Council to consider requests for waivers on a case-by-case basis. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the requests made by Ames Main Street as indicated above, including the requested waiver of fees. 2. Approve the requests as indicated above, but require reimbursement for the blanket Vending Permit ($50), electricity use ($10), and lost parking meter revenue ($5) 3. Deny the requests. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Snow Magic provides an opportunity to draw residents and visitors to the Downtown and supports local businesses during the holiday shopping season. It is therefore the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # __13__ DATE 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AMES MAIN STREET REQUESTS FOR 515 WEEKEND BACKGROUND: Ames Main Street (AMS) plans to host “515 Weekend” from Friday, May 13 through Sunday, May 15. This event was implemented by Ames Main Street in 2021 with the intention of celebrating our area code, 515, through a variety of activities – 5 hours and 15 minutes of live music, 515-themed specials in businesses, and giveaways to attract individuals to Downtown Ames. The activities on Friday May 13 include a beer garden and live music on Douglas Avenue and a family activity zone on 5th Street. The events are free to the public to attend. Organizers expect up to 1,000 people to participate in the activities. To facilitate this event, Ames Main Street has made the following requests for May 13: • Closure of Douglas Avenue from Main Street to 5th Street, and 5th Street from Kellogg Avenue to Douglas Avenue from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. • Closure of 41 metered parking spaces in the event area and waiver of fees (estimated $71.75 loss to the Parking Fund) • Use of City electrical outlets and waiver of fees for electricity (estimated loss to Electric Fund of $10). • A blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and a blanket Vending License for Downtown for May 13-15 to allow stores to display and sell merchandise and waiver of Vending License fee ($50 loss to City Clerk’s Office). • Approval of a Special Class C Liquor License and Outdoor Service Privilege. Organizers have hired private security to check IDs and staff the four entrance/exit points to the beer garden area. Additionally, Ames Main Street staff and volunteers will monitor the crowd and staff the road closures. The City Council’s adopted policy regarding waivers of parking meter fees requires reimbursement to the Parking Fund for district-wide suspension of parking regulations. Closure of a smaller number of parking spaces, such as this request, is to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Council should note that the request letter from AMS includes a request to suspend enforcement of Section 17.16 of Ames Municipal Code (Minors Prohibited on Certain 2 Premises), with the intent to allow minor children to enter the beer garden area with their parents. However, this section of Municipal Code already provides for such an exception, at the discretion of the license-holder. Therefore, no suspension of Section 17.16 is necessary. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the requests for 515 Weekend as described above, including the requested waiver of fees. 2. Approve the requests as indicated above, but require reimbursement for the blanket Vending Permit ($50), electricity use ($10), and lost parking meter revenue ($71.75) 3. Deny the requests. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: 515 Weekend provides an opportunity to attract visitors to Downtown Ames. The events include family friendly activities and promotions that support local businesses. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 2 Applicant NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY AMES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NAME OF BUSINESS(DBA) Ames Main Street BUSINESS (515) 232-2310 ADDRESS OF PREMISES 100-400 block Main Street, 400 block kellogg, douglas, Burnett and clark, 200-400 block 5th Street PREMISES SUITE/APT NUMBER CITY Ames COUNTY Story ZIP 50010 MAILING ADDRESS 304 Main Street CITY Ames STATE Iowa ZIP 50010 Contact Person NAME Emory Widlowski PHONE (515) 782-8952 EMAIL emory@ameschamber.com License Information LICENSE NUMBER LICENSE/PERMIT TYPE Special Class C Liquor License TERM 5 Day STATUS Pending Dramshop Review EFFECTIVE DATE EXPIRATION DATE LAST DAY OF BUSINESS SUB-PERMITS Special Class C Liquor License Page 2 of 2 PRIVILEGES Outdoor Service Status of Business BUSINESS TYPE Nonprofit corporation organized under chapter 504. Ownership Individual Owners NAME CITY STATE ZIP POSITION % OF OWNERSHIP U.S. CITIZEN Ames Chamber of Commerce Ames Iowa 50010 Owner 100.00 Yes Insurance Company Information INSURANCE COMPANY Illinois Union Insurance Company POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE DRAM CANCEL DATE OUTDOOR SERVICE EFFECTIVE DATE OUTDOOR SERVICE EXPIRATION DATE BOND EFFECTIVE DATE TEMP TRANSFER EFFECTIVE DATE TEMP TRANSFER EXPIRATION DATE ITEM # 14 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REQUESTS FROM ISU HOMECOMING CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR ISU HOMECOMING EVENTS BACKGROUND: From October 29 through November 4, the Homecoming Central Committee at Iowa State University is again planning to host its annual Homecoming activities. The events this year include Homecoming Kickoff Event on Saturday October 29 at the ISU Alumni Center, the traditional ExCYtement in the Streets lawn displays on Thursday November 3, and Mass Campaniling on Friday, November 4. Organizers have also proposed hosting food trucks at all the events. The Kickoff Event on October 29 will be held at the ISU Alumni Center in partnership with ISU Athletics, the Ames Farmers Market, and the Blue Sky 5K Race. ExCYtement in the Streets consists of Greek Week lawn displays on Thursday, November 3rd. These displays will be exhibited between approximately 2:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. To facilitate this event, organizers are asking the City Council to approve the following requests: • Closure of Sunset Drive from Ash Avenue to just west of the intersection with Beach Avenue • Closure of Ash Avenue from Gable Lane to Knapp Street (Knapp and Gable will remain open) • Closure of Gray Avenue from its intersection with Gable Lane to Greeley Street • Closure of Pearson Avenue between Greeley Street and Sunset Drive • Temporary Obstruction Permit for the closed areas as well as the Greek Triangle, which will be used for the judging of the displays. • A blanket Vending License and waiver of the fee ($50 loss to the City Clerk’s Office) Streets will be closed at approximately 2:00 p.m. and will be reopened by 6:30 p.m. On- street parking will also be prohibited on these streets from 2:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 3. Public Works will provide the barricades necessary for the street closures along with “No Parking” signs. Organizers will be responsible for staffing the barricades while they are in place. Organizers have indicated they will notify affected non-Greek residents by going door-to-door with information. Mass Campaniling will be held on Central Campus on Friday, November 4. Organizers also plan to hold the annual fireworks display on Central Campus as part of Mass Campaniling. Therefore, a fireworks permit request for a ground effects firework display on Central Campus will be coming before the City Council at a later date. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the requests from the Homecoming Central Committee for street and parking closures and Temporary Obstruction Permit for Thursday, November 3, and a blanket Vending License without a permit fee for all three dates. 2. Approve the requests from the Homecoming Central Committee as outlined above, but require reimbursement for Vending License. 3. Deny the requests. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Iowa State University Homecoming Central Committee plans Homecoming events that are inclusive to all students, faculty, staff, and community members with the intent to try and get as many people involved as possible. It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # __15___ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: STORM DRAIN ART SELECTIONS AND FUNDING BACKGROUND: The City Council included $10,000 in the FY 2020/21 adjusted budget for a pilot project to paint storm drains with artistic and educational designs. The Public Art Commission (PAC) was tasked with administering this project. Twelve storm drains in the Downtown area and ten storm drains in the Campustown area were identified as suitable locations. PAC advertised a call for artists and received seven design submissions from six individuals. A committee reviewed the submissions and is recommending approval of all seven designs, as follows: Storm Drain 1 2420 Lincoln Way Jessica Baker 2 133 Welch Avenue Jane Marie Degeneffe 3 103 Stanton Avenue Amani Diedrichs 4 500 5th Street Amani Diedrichs 5 214 Main Street Ella Grail 6 312 Main Street Elizabeth Heckmann 7 515 Douglas Avenue- by Ames Public Library Danielle Sanders The submitted designs for these locations are attached. If approved, each artist will receive up to $250 to reimburse the cost of supplies to paint their design. The designs will be painted this spring. Prior to painting the Traffic Division of Public Works will power wash the area and provide a sand additive to the artists. Each artist will add the sand to the paint for slip resistance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the designs for the seven storm drains as recommended by the Public Art Commission, and authorize up to $1,750 in funding for the reimbursement of the cost of supplies. 2. Do not approve the storm drain designs. 3. Refer this item back to Public Art Commission for more information. 2 CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Public Art Commission has solicited and received proposed designs for seven storm drain areas in the Downtown and Campustown areas. The artistic designs represent a variety of themes that the selection committee found desirable to display at these selected locations. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. 3 4 #1 - 2420 Lincoln Way 5 #2 - 133 Welch Avenue 6 #3 -103 Stanton Avenue Note: The spelling of “environment” will be corrected on the installation 7 #4 - 500 5th Street 8 #5 - 214 Main Street 9 #6 - 312 Main Street 10 #7 - 515 Douglas Avenue- by Ames Public Library 1 ITEM # _ 16 _ DATE: 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REQUEST TO WAIVE ENFORCEMENT OF PROHIBITION OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN ADA HAYDEN HERITAGE PARK BACKGROUND: Each September from 2004 through 2011, members of the local Moose Lodge provided golf cart rides around Ada Hayden Heritage Park (AHHP) for older adults with mobility impairments. Lodge members determined that if they did not provide this service, these individuals may never get to experience the overall beauty of the 437-acre site. Although motorized mobility devices (e.g., electric wheelchairs, motorized mobility scooters, etc.) are allowed on the trails, many individuals do not have this type of device that enables them to enjoy the park system. In 2016 through 2019 and 2021, the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park (Friends) provided this valuable service to individuals with mobility impairments. Due to the COVID- 19 Pandemic, the golf cart tours were not held in 2020. When the tours have been held, the Friends have received many positive comments. As a result, the Friends are proposing to offer tours on Monday, September 12 and Tuesday, September 13, 2022, between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The Friends will rent golf carts, provide volunteers as drivers and interpreters, and provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance to cover liability. Tours will be promoted, and reservations will be taken for various time slots. Municipal Code Section 19.9 restricts motorized vehicles to streets and parking lots. Therefore, the Friends are requesting City Council waive the enforcement of this Ordinance on Monday, September 12 and Tuesday, September 13 between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM at AHHP. In the event of inclement weather, they will use Wednesday, September 14 as a rain date. This request is attached. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this request at its April 21, 2022 meeting and recommended City Council grant this waiver. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Waive enforcement of Ordinance 19.9 between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Monday, September 12 and Tuesday, September 13, as well as Wednesday, September 14 if needed for a rain date, at Ada Hayden Heritage Park to allow the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park to provide golf cart tours to mobility impaired individuals. 2. Deny the request. 2 CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: The Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park are proposing to provide a tremendous service for members of our community that otherwise would not have the opportunity to tour this park in its entirety. Therefore, it is City Manager’s recommendation to approve Alternative #1 as stated above. 3 April 14, 2022 Keith Abraham and Ames Parks Commissioners Director of Ames Parks and Recreation kabraham@city.Ames.is.us Dear Keith and Parks Commissioners: Friends of Ada Hayden would like to provide an opportunity for Ames area residents who have mobility issues to access Ada Hayden Park in the Fall ’22. We would rent golf carts, provide a driver/interpreter for each cart and facilitate a 1.5 – 2-hour tour of the park. In 2021 the reviews were outstanding, with 60-70 people participating. In 2022 we are proposing to expand the activity to 2 days, Sept. 12 & 13 (14th would be a rain date). Our principal contacts have included the ever-growing senior housing operations. Northcrest, Green Hills, Northridge, The Meadows and others would welcome the event to continue. We are planning to expand the audience with increased publicity and additional contacts. We would like to offer this activity again in the Fall ’22. Tours would be conducted beginning at 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the proposed days. We will provide liability/hazard insurance for both the City and the golf cart company. We are seeking approval from both the Parks Commission and the Ames City Council for a temporary suspension of the “no motorized vehicles” rule on the trails to hold this special event. The Friends of Ada Hayden are happy to provide this service to the mobility challenged residents of the community at no cost to the City or the Parks Department. We appreciate your partnership and that you will approve this request. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about the event. Thank you. James Patton, Board Member Friends of the Ada Hayden Heritage Park 1829 Waterbury Circle Ames, Iowa 50010 712-830-3736 Jlpatton.rotary@gmail.com 1 ITEM # 17 DATE 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: LEASE AMENDMENT WITH T-MOBILE BACKGROUND: In December 1996, the City entered into an agreement with Western PCS (subsequently, Western Wireless, subsequently Iowa Wireless Services, subsequently T-Mobile doing business as iWireless, now T-Mobile Central, LLC) where space on top of the Bloomington Road Elevated Tank (BRET) was leased for the purpose of placing and operating cellular phone antennas. The lease also granted space adjacent the water tower on the ground for the placement of equipment. The lease periodically renews in five-year increments, provided both parties are agreeable, with the monthly rental rates adjusting using a formula based on changes to the CPI. The rent was last adjusted in January 2022, and is now $2,011.36 per month. Periodically, cellular companies desire to replace or upgrade their equipment. When those requests include an expanded footprint, either on the ground or on top of the tank, the rental rate is renegotiated with the cellular company. If the work does not expand the footprint or does not alter any of the other terms of the underlying master lease, then the improvements are approved without modifying the monthly rent. Because the lease includes descriptions of the equipment installed, an amendment to the lease is still executed when there are changes to update the attachments to reflect the current equipment present on the site. 2 Like many infrastructure entities, T-Mobile desires to install emergency standby power for its antennas on BRET. The drawings provided by T-Mobile show the standby generator located entirely within the existing fenced space already leased by T-Mobile. There would be no increase in the space consumed by adding the equipment, and it would not appreciably increase or complicate the City’s operation and maintenance of the tank. The specifications for the fuel tank include a requirement for spill containment at the fill port, and that the tank be an above-ground, double-walled tank with an interstitial leak detection gauge. City staff has added a requirement that places an upper limit on the size of the tank. The proposed improvements have already been reviewed and approved by the Planning and Housing Department, and T-Mobile is prepared to apply for the appropriate building permits. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the amendment to the lease agreement with T-Mobile to authorize the installation of an emergency standby generator to be installed adjacent to T- Mobile’s existing infrastructure located at the Bloomington Road Elevated Tank. 2. Do not approve the lease amendment at this time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Cellular phone infrastructure is important for citizens and the City, especially during emergency events. Increasing the resiliency of cell service is something the City supports. The improvements will have no material impacts on the use of the property for finished water storage, and staff have given their approval to the proposed improvements. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. ITEM # 18 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 SHARED USE PATH SYSTEM EXPANSION – VET MED TRAIL (S. 16TH STREET TO S. GRAND AVENUE) BACKGROUND: At its February 9, 2021 meeting, City Council approved the DOT Funding Agreement for the 2020/21 Shared Use Path System Expansion – Vet Med Trail (S. 16th Street to S. Grand Avenue) project. The DOT recently realized that draft language for another project was inadvertently included in the agreement and have prepared an addendum to the original agreement to remove this language. This project is on track for a June 21, 2022, letting through the Iowa DOT with construction in the fall of 2022 or spring of 2023. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Addendum to the Iowa DOT Agreement for TAP funding for the 2020/21 Shared Use Path System Expansion – Vet Med Trail (S. 16th Street to S. Grand Avenue) project. 2. Reject the Agreement Addendum. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of this agreement addendum with the Iowa DOT should happen before moving forward with the contract letting for this project. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above. September 2018 1 ADDENDUM TO IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT 21-TAP-159 FOR A FEDERAL-AID PROGRAM PROJECT Subrecipient: City of Ames Subrecipient DUNS Number: 061320917 Project Number(s): TAP-U-0155(704)—8I-85 Iowa DOT Addendum Number: 21-TAP-159-A This is an addendum to the agreement between City of Ames (hereinafter referred to as the Subrecipient) and the Iowa Department of Transportation, the federal pass-through entity (hereinafter referred to as the Department). Iowa Code Sections 306A.7 and 307.44, provide for the Subrecipient and the Department to enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of financing transportation improvement projects in Iowa with federal funds. Whereas the Subrecipient and the Department previously entered into Agreement No. 21-TAP- 159 for the above referenced project. Subsequent to the execution of Agreement No. 21-TAP-159 it was determined that the program funds to be obligated for the above referenced project has changed. Previously executed Agreement 21-TAP-159 shall remain in effect except as amended herein. Now, therefore, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Recipient will not receive federal funding through the Iowa’s Transportation Alternatives Program (Iowa’s TAP), as described in Section 1103 and 1122 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, which are hereinafter referred to TAP funds. 2. The Recipient will not receive federal funding through the Iowa’s Transportation Alternatives Program (Iowa’s TAP), which is funded by the Transportation Alternatives Set- aside of the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (TA Set-aside), as codified in Section 133(h) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), which are hereinafter referred to as TA Set-aside funds. 3. The Recipient will not receive federal funding through the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), as codified in Section 133 of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), which are hereinafter referred to as STBG funds. 4. Paragraph 4 of Agreement 21-TAP-159 is stricken and replaced with the following: September 2018 2 The Subrecipient shall receive reimbursement for costs of authorized and approved eligible project activities under the Iowa’s TAP program from STBG funds. The portion of the project costs reimbursed with STBG funds shall be limited to a maximum of either 80 percent of eligible costs (other than those reimbursed with other federal funds) or the amount listed ($159,000) in the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and approved in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), whichever is less. Eligible project activities will be as described in Section 133(h) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), and determined by the Department to be eligible. 5. This addendum is not assignable without the prior written consent of the Department. 6. If any part of this addendum is found to be void and unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this addendum shall remain in effect. 7. It is the intent of both parties that no third-party beneficiaries be created by this addendum. 8. This addendum shall be executed and delivered in two or more copies, each of which so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and shall constitute but one and the same addendum. 9. This addendum, as well as the unaffected provisions of previously executed Agreement No. 21-TAP-159 referenced herein, constitute the entire agreement between the Department and the Subrecipient concerning this project. Representations made before the signing of this addendum are not binding, and neither party has relied upon conflicting representations in entering into this addendum. Any change or alteration to the terms of this addendum shall be made in the form of a subsequent addendum. The addendum shall become effective only upon written approval of the Department and the Subrecipient. September 2018 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed Addendum No. 21-TAP-159-A as of the date shown opposite its signature below. SUBRECIPIENT: City of Ames By: ___________ Date , _______ Title: ___Mayor_______________________________ CERTIFICATION: I, , certify that I am the Clerk of the city, and that (Name of City Clerk) , who signed said Agreement for and on behalf of (Name of Mayor/Signer Above) the city was duly authorized to execute the same by virtue of a formal resolution duly passed and adopted by the city, on the day of , _______. Signed: ___________________________________________ City Clerk of Ames, Iowa. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Development Division 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010 Tel. 515-239-1664 By: _____________________________________ Date_______________________, ________ Craig Markley Director Systems Planning Bureau Item #: _ _19__ Date: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: FURMAN AQUATIC CENTER POOL BASIN PAINTING PROJECT BACKGROUND: This project includes preparing and painting the surface of all three basins at the Furman Aquatic Center. The facility was first painted in 2009 and again prior to the 2017 season. It is recommended to paint the basins every five to seven years to protect the concrete from the chlorinated water. This will be the sixth season since it was painted. Jeff Bartley, Engineer with Water’s Edge Aquatics, Lenexa, Kansas, developed the specifications and prepared a cost estimate. Mr. Bartley will also provide progress review visits during various stages of the process including surface prep, painting progress, and final completion. The Engineer’s estimate for this project is as follows: Engineer’s Estimate: Crack Repair, Leveling, Prepare and Paint all Basins $167,921 Engineering $ 5,000 Total Estimate $172,921 The 2022/23 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) includes $150,000 to paint all three basins which results in a shortfall of $22,921. There is $50,000 in savings from the Homewood Sidewalk Project that could be used to cover this shortfall. The contractor will be able to start the project by September 15, 2022 and will be required to complete the project by April 15, 2023. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for the Furman Aquatic Center Pool Basin Painting Project and set the bid due date for May 25, 2022, and June 14, 2022, as the date of hearing and award of the contract. 2. Do not approve the plans and specifications, delaying the Painting Project. 3. Refer back to staff for additional information. MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposed project will protect the pool basins from chlorinated water required for swimming and continue to provide the citizens with an excellent facility. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. Smart Choice MEMO 515.239.5105 main fax To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: City Clerk’s Office Date: April 26, 2022 Subject: Contract and Bond Approval There is/are no Council Action Form(s) for Item No(s). 20, 21, and 22. Council approval of the contract and bond for this/these project(s) is simply fulfilling a State Code requirement. /alc ITEM #: ___23___ DATE: _04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY HAULING TO BOONE COUNTY LANDFILL AND RELATED SERVICES BACKGROUND: On June 25, 2019, City Council awarded a contract to Waste Management of Ames (WMA) for hauling to Boone County Landfill and related services for the Resource Recovery Plant (RRP) during FY 2019/20. This bid has four optional renewal periods through June 30, 2024, contingent upon approval of funding by Council. This contract includes furnishing equipment and hauling of materials that cannot be processed into refuse derived fuel (RDF) from RRP to the Boone County Landfill. The approved FY 2022/23 budget includes $200,000 for this work. The contract is based on a per-mile, per-ton bid amount and a round trip distance of 36 miles per trip. There is a provision in the contract to allow longer hauls up to 120 miles round trip as well as a provision to cancel the contract if this type of service is no longer needed due to a change in disposal procedures. The upcoming renewal period is from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. The contract price is adjustable monthly throughout the contact period if diesel fuel is at or above $5.00 per gallon or below $2.00 per gallon. This is based on the published index for monthly diesel fuel prices for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) “Weekly Retail On-Highway Diesel Prices” for the Midwest region on the first Monday of the month. At the time of initial contract award in 2019, WMA was the single bidder at $14.14/ton with a 3.5% increase each year. The FY 2022/23 price will be $15.68/ton. At this rate, the annual cost is projected to be approximately $200,000. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the renewal option for FY 2022/23 for hauling and related services for the Resource Recovery Plant to Waste Management of Ames at the base rate of $15.68 per ton. 2. Reject the renewal option and re-bid for hauling and related services for the RRP. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Landfill hauling and related services are an integral part of RRP operations. The per-ton price for hauling is an acceptable increase and funding for these services in available in the Resource Recovery FY 2022/23 operating budget. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1. 1 ITEM # ___24__ DATE: 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES AT THE AMES PUBLIC LIBRARY BACKGROUND: All cleaning and custodial services for Ames Public Library are provided by a third-party professional cleaning service. The service includes all routine daily cleaning tasks. On May 28, 2019, Council awarded a contract to ABM to provide custodial services for Ames Public Library for the period of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. ABM indicated that the hourly rate would be $16.65/hour for the original contract period. The contract also includes four optional renewal periods. The period from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, is the third of four optional renewal periods. ABM indicated that the hourly rate would increase to $16.85/hour for this renewal period. Library staff estimates 5,498 hours of cleaning services for this renewal period, making the contract total $92,641.30. These hours are an estimate for budgeting purposes and payment will be on an hourly basis for actual hours worked. The Library has $92,641.30 budgeted for this service in FY 2022/23. On April 30, 2019, two bids were received as follows: Hourly Rates Bidder ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award the contract renewal option for the FY 2022/23 Custodial Services for the Ames Public Library to ABM, Des Moines, IA in the amount of $92,641.30. 2. Reject the renewal award and direct staff to re-bid custodial services. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: ABM is providing relatively low-cost custodial services for the Ames Public Library and ABM’s representatives will work closely with Library staff to ensure high quality results and accommodate the timing of library activities and public events. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # ___25__ DATE 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES AT CITY HALL BACKGROUND: Cleaning and custodial services for City Hall are provided by a third-party professional cleaning service. The tasks included in this service are all the routine daily cleaning tasks, and additional tasks performed periodically such as carpet shampooing, vinyl and Terrazzo floor maintenance, ceramic tile cleaning, plumbing fixture cleaning and sanitation, spot cleaning, glass cleaning, and window washing. There is also the expectation to provide unplanned emergency clean-up services. On May 20, 2021, two bids were received as follows: BIDDER – Base Bid TOTAL ANNUAL COST ADDITIONAL SERVICES COST PER HOUR BIDDER – Annual % Rate Increase by FY 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 The City Council awarded ServePro of Ames the contract on June 8, 2021 which includes four optional renewal periods. Each renewal period is subject to successful past performance and approval by Council. The contract also provides for a percentage increase on base fees for each renewal period. The period from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 is the first of four optional renewal periods. The FY 2022/23 renewal with ServePro of Ames has a 2% price increase, for a contract total of $57,655.50. The total cost for these basic daily services in FY 2022/23 will be split for budget purposes for specific areas as follows: City Hall and Police Dept $35,700.33 Gym, Community Center, & Wellness 16,855.17 Auditorium 5,100.00 TOTAL $57,655.50 This total does not include any emergency or other work in excess of the daily and periodic cleaning. Emergency and authorized additional services (e.g., event clean-up) in FY 2022/23 will be billed at the rate of $26.36 per hour. 2 The approved FY 2022/23 operating budget includes $73,218 for custodial services (daily cleaning services and additional services as authorized) from the following sources: Facilities Budget $60,000 Gym & Community Center Budget 5,887 Auditorium 3,281 Wellness 4,050 TOTAL $73,218 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award a contract renewal for FY 2022/23 custodial services at Ames City Hall to ServePro of Ames in the amount of $57,655.50 per year plus $26.36 per hour for emergency clean-up and additional work as authorized. 2. Reject the renewal and direct staff to re-bid custodial services. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: ServePro of Ames is providing relatively low cost cleaning and custodial services for City Hall and has demonstrated a commitment to meeting the expectations in a consistent and responsive manner. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. ITEM # ____26_ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CHEMICAL TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR POWER PLANT – CONTRACT RENEWAL BACKGROUND: This contract is for the chemicals and services for chemical treatment of the boilers, cooling tower, coal yard, and ash ponds at the Power Plant. The scope of work includes supplying a range of chemicals, technical expertise in boiler chemistry and analysis, the ability to train Power Plant staff in maintaining the system, and detailed monitoring and analysis of the boilers to insure they are protected from damage. All of this is essential for the operation of the Power Plant. On April 29, 2020, Council awarded a contract to ChemTreat, Inc., Glen Allen, VA, for the Chemical Treatment Program for the Power Plant. This contract included the option for the City to renew in one-year increments for up to four additional years. The period from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, is the second of the four renewal periods subject to Council approval of funding for the chemical treatment program. The proposed FY 2022/23 contract renewal with ChemTreat, Inc. includes cost increases for the majority of chemicals supplied under this contract. The proposed increase is based on two factors: 1. The overall increase in the amount of chemical the Power Plant will use due to increased operating hours on the larger Unit 8 instead of Unit 7. 2. The increase in price per pound of chemicals resulting from difficulty obtaining supplies. It is estimated that the overall impact of the proposed price changes to the chemicals will result in an increase of $77,203 more than the current fiscal year contract, or a total of $402,203. Electric Services staff reviewed the proposed increases and found them to be acceptable based on comparable market prices and considering the quality of service provided by this contractor during the past year of the contract period. The approved FY 2022/23 Electric Production operating budget includes $335,000, as compared to $325,000 in FY 2021/22 for the chemicals to be purchased under this contract. Payments will be based on unit prices bid and the chemicals and services actually delivered by the contractor and accepted by the Power Plant. Staff will make every effort to keep the chemical purchase cost within the FY 2022/23 budgeted amount of $335,000. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the contract renewal with ChemTreat, Inc., Glen Allen, VA, for Chemical Treatment Program for the one-year period from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 in an amount not-to-exceed $335,000. 2. Reject the renewal option and instruct staff to seek new competitive bids. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The chemicals and services received under this contract are critical to optimal operation of the Power Plant. Competent treatment of the water in the boiler and cooling tower systems is essential to keeping the Plant in top operating condition. It is essential to receive chemicals and related treatment services for the Power Plant at the lowest possible cost consistent with the quality required to maintain Plant operations. It is also necessary to lock in prices and accountability with key contractors. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above. ITEM # ___27__ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR ANNUAL CONCRETE & ASPHALT CRUSHING FOR PUBLIC WORKS BACKGROUND: This contract is for crushing concrete and asphalt for the 2022/23 fiscal year. Salvaged and stockpiled concrete and asphalt from various street projects will be crushed into various sizes to be reused for other projects. Bids were solicited for FY 2021/22, with two optional extensions. On March 30, 2021, the following bid was received: BIDDER ESTIMATED COST OPTIONAL EXTENION OPTIONAL EXTENION (7/1/21 – 6/30/22) (7/1/22 – 6/30/23) (7/1/23 – 6/30/24) Maxim Trucking & Materials $69,250 $75,000 $80,750 The estimated total cost is based on 8,500 tons. The approved FY 2022/23 operating budget for the Public Works Department includes $60,000 for concrete and asphalt crushing. The bid documents include unit prices for various sizes of crushed materials. Because the estimated cost exceeds the approved budget, the quantity of material crushed will be reduced so that the final expenditures do not exceed the available funding. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award the optional extension for 2022/23 concrete and asphalt crushing to Maxim Trucking & Materials, Pella, IA, in an amount not to exceed $60,000. Actual costs billed will depend on the quantity of material crushed. 2. Reject this renewal and attempt to obtain these services on an as-needed basis. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concrete and asphalt crushing allows for reuse of a waste product from street and utility maintenance operations that aligns with the goal of Environmental Sustainability. Repurposing the material through crushing reduces the amount of aggregate purchased from the quarry. The approved FY 2022/23 budget contains $60,000 for these services. The amount crushed will be reduced from the amount anticipated when bids were originally solicited, to ensure that expenditures do not exceed the available funding for this activity. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1. Smart Choice 515.239.5133 non-emergency Administration fax To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department Date: April 11, 2022 Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda The Council agenda for April 26th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals for: •Wasabi Ames (926 S 16th St) - Class C Liquor License, Sunday Sales and Outdoor Service A review of police records for the past 12 months found two liquor law violations for the above business. During a compliance check on April 16th, 2021 an employee sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was completed on June 9th, 2021, and another employee sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly for the second time. So far, the Police Department has made recommendations to improve their performance such as asking for customer identification and verifying customer age, as well as utilizing the Iowa ABD Age to Purchase mobile application to scan identifications to ensure validity. At this time, the Police Department would not recommend a renewal of Wasabi Ames’ license for the next year. However, the police department would be in favor of allowing the business to apply for a 6-month license. A 6-month license would give the business and the police department a shorter period of time to evaluate changes to ensure due diligence in keeping underage patrons from obtaining alcohol. The process to initiate this would be for the City Council to deny the requested 12-month license and inform the applicant that they are able to apply for a 6-month license. If the applicant obtains a 6-month license, during this 6-month period, the Police Department would continue to monitor the above location by conducting regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating staff through trainings and meetings. Item No. 28 Smart Choice 515.239.5133 non-emergency Administration fax To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department Date: April 11, 2022 Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda The Council agenda for April 26th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals for: •Mongolian Buffet (1620 S Kellogg Ave #103) - Class B Beer Permit with Sunday Sales A review of police records for the past 12 months found two liquor law violations for the above business. During a compliance check on April 22nd, 2021, an employee sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was completed on June 9th, 2021, and another employee sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly for the second time. So far, the Police Department has made recommendations to improve their performance such as asking for customer identification and verifying customer age, as well as utilizing the Iowa ABD Age to Purchase mobile application to scan identifications to ensure validity. At this time, the Police Department would not recommend a renewal of Mongolian Buffet’s license for the next year. However, the police department would be in favor of allowing the business to apply for a 6-month license. A 6-month license would give the business and the police department a shorter period of time to evaluate changes to ensure due diligence in keeping underage patrons from obtaining alcohol. The process to initiate this would be for the City Council to deny the requested 12-month license and inform the applicant that they are able to apply for a 6-month license. If the applicant obtains a 6-month license, during this 6-month period, the Police Department would continue to monitor the above location by conducting regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating staff through trainings and meetings. Item No. 29 MEMO 1 ITEM#: 30 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT BLOOMINGTON ROAD AND FLETCHER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION BACKGROUND: On June 8, 2021, the City Council referred to staff a letter from Jennifer Ellis, Executive Director of Friendship Ark Homes and Community Services, requesting staff to evaluate and implement improvements to mitigate a pedestrian safety concern at the intersection of Fletcher Boulevard and Bloomington Road. City staff’s understanding is that Friendship Ark worked with two families to acquire the home on Fletcher Boulevard. These residents have developmental challenges and require assistance to reside in the home. Access to public transit is a significant form of transportation for the residents; the primary bus stop used is located on the south side of Bloomington Road. At the time of the request, there were no markings or warning signs for pedestrians crossing north-south across Bloomington Road. Since that time, staff has exchanged several emails with Friendship Ark and other interested residents to better understand the requested desires for this intersection. Additionally, staff has conducted a traffic study of the north-south crossing of Bloomington Road at Fletcher Boulevard. Staff collected speed and traffic counts and evaluated sight distances at the intersection. Staff uses the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) “Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations.” The FHWA establishes best practices for uncontrolled crossings based on the speed, volume, the number of lanes, and the context of the site being evaluated. Using this guidance and the data collection, staff determined that the crossing should have high-visibility crosswalk markings and warning signs. These improvements have already been implemented. It should be noted that Friendship Ark has requested that a higher standard be applied at this location due to the resident’s developmental challenges, such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon or a traffic signal. A review of the crash history at the intersection showed two crashes, one in 2016 and the other in 2018. Both were property damage only, and neither pedestrians nor bicyclists were involved. Based upon the site conditions and the FHWA policy guidance, staff is not recommending any further crossing improvements be made until a future resurfacing or reconstruction project occurs on this section of Bloomington. The 2 Fiscal Year 2026/27 Collector Street Pavement Improvements includes work along Bloomington Road from GW Carver Avenue to Eisenhower Avenue. The 2021/22 Asphalt Street Pavement Improvements along Top-O-Hollow will include sidewalk construction along the north side of Bloomington between Fletcher Blvd and Top-O-Hollow Road, as shown in the attachment. Construction of this sidewalk is anticipated to occur in 2022. Rather than make enhanced improvements on an ad hoc basis, the FHWA guidance recommends that jurisdictions take a systematic approach to evaluate pedestrian and bike safety on a system-wide level. This process seeks to establish objective criteria to minimize wasteful investments that do not fit within a system-wide plan. A local example of this is the pedestrian signal on 24th Street, near Kent, which was installed after a citizen who is visually impaired requested it. That individual has since moved away and no longer utilizes that investment. This signal is being considered for removal as part of the FY 21/22 Concrete Pavement Improvements (24th Street) reconstruction project. Staff would expect that the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan that will begin in Spring 2022 would identify on a system-wide basis where strategic investments, including safety enhancements, should be made in the City’s non-motorized transportation system. This process will include input from various stakeholder groups. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the report and direct staff to utilize the upcoming Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan to identify where enhanced investments should be implemented. 2. Direct staff to develop alternative treatments for the crossing of Bloomington Road at Fletcher Boulevard with the expectation that these treatments be removed and replaced with the FY2026/27 Bloomington project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: By utilizing the upcoming Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan to identify where enhanced investments should be evaluated, the City can most effectively use its resources to improve transportation safety for its most vulnerable users. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. (2022 Construction) 2021/22 Asphalt Program Sidewalk Improvements with CyRide Stop CyRide Stop with Crossing Refuge Island Future 3 Lane Restriping Concept Attachment 1 O LOCATION MAP SCALE Feet 20 40 FLE T CHER BLVD TAFT AV E TOP-O-HO LLOW RDBLOOMINGTON RD ITEM#: 31 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2022 STORMWATER UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENTS BACKGROUND: The development of land in the City has increased the amount of impervious surface which has increased the costs of both operations and capital for the Stormwater utility. The increased expenditures will help to reduce overland flooding and maintain compliance with storm water runoff regulations. These proposed rate adjustments were first presented to City Council at the Budget Overview on January 28, 2022 and were discussed during the Council Budget Hearings on February 1, 2022. The increase would be effective for utility bills mailed on and after July 1, 2022. The attached updated Ordinance Section 28.802 accomplishes the adjustments as presented to City Council and supports the stormwater activities previously approved by the City Council. The proposed rate changes reflected below were reviewed in several steps of the budget process and are included in the 2022- 2023 Program Budget. Tier Impervious Area Account Range (sf) Current Rate Charge/Account (per month) Adjusted Rate Charge/Account (per month) 1 150 - 10,000 $ 4.95 $ 5.20 2 10,000.01 - 30,000 $ 9.90 $10.40 3 30,000.01 - 90,000 $14.85 $15.60 4 90,000 and above $44.55 $46.80 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the attached rate ordinance on first reading, thereby making the new adjusted rates effective as of July 1, 2022 2. Direct staff to make modifications to the rate ordinance 3. Do not make any changes to the current rate ordinance at this time CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The rate increases are necessary to fund the on-going operations budget as well as the anticipated capital improvements projects, providing approximately $100,000 in additional revenue. These rate changes in the ordinance were included in several steps of the budget process. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY REPEALING CHAPTER 28, SECTION 802(1) AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 802(1) THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENTS; REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that: Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby amended by enacting a new Section 802.1 as follows: “SEC. 28.802. RATES ESTABLISHED. (1)The rate charged for the storm water drainage system provided to customers of City utility services to be billed on or after July 1, 2022, is as follows: for each utility account which is billed for one or more City utility services, a monthly rate shall be charged, paid and collected as a rate for a storm water drainage system according to the following table: Tier Impervious Area/Account Range (SF)Charge per Account 1 150 - 10,000 $ 5.20 2 10,000.01 - 30,000 $10.40 3 30,000.01 - 90,000 $15.60 4 90,000 and above $46.80 (Ord. No. 4261, 6-14-16; Ord. No. 4313, 6-27-17).” Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any. Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Passed this day of , . ______________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor ITEM # ___32 __ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: SOUTH 16TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS – (TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES & TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS/CABINETS) BACKGROUND: This project, to reconstruct and add turn lanes at S. Duff Avenue and S. 16th Street, is one of the phases associated with the extension of S Grand Avenue. The projects have been broken into three phases to allow for flexibility in timing of construction and funding: 1) S 5th St and S Grand Ave (Ioway Creek Drive 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 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, reconstruction of concrete pavement on S 16th Street each direction of S Duff Avenue, and infill of sidewalk along the south side of S 16th Street from S Grand Avenue to just west of Menards. Revenues and expenses for this project are estimated as follows: Activity Expenses Revenue Traffic Signal (Cabinet/Poles/Camera) 196,942.00 TOTAL $20,208,997.91 $20,236,485 On April 12, 2022, bids for the traffic signal poles and controller/cabinet were received as follows: Traffic Signal Poles Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s Estimate $ 100,000.00 CSLA Iowa $ 123,272.00 Engineer’s Estimate $ 75,000.00 The construction contract for the S 16th Street/S Duff Ave Improvements was awarded at the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting. The contracts related to this City Council Action Form are to award the purchase of the traffic signal poles, cabinets, and controllers that will be installed with the construction project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Award the Traffic Signal Poles purchase to CSLA Iowa of Des Moines, Iowa in the amount of $123,272.00. b. Award the Traffic Signal Controller/Cabinets purchase to General Traffic Controls, Inc. of Spencer, Iowa in the amount of $73,670.00 2. Reject the bids and direct staff to purchase equipment as a change order through the construction project. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This action awards the contracts to purchase the traffic signal materials and equipment that will be installed with the S 16th St/S Duff Ave improvements. The estimated budget for these items was $210,000 and the low bids came in totaling $196,942. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM #: 33 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: DRAFT LAND USE DESGINATIONS FOR AMES URBAN FRINGE PLAN UPDATE. BACKGROUND: The current Ames Urban Fringe Plan (AUFP) provides policies for understanding and predicting future land uses within two miles outside the boundary of the City of Ames. While this is the area under state code where cities have extraterritorial subdivision review authority, it is also the area where land-use decisions have direct impacts on the ability of cities to grow efficiently, and where rural development can accelerate the loss of farmland, natural areas, and the rural character of the area. The AUFP includes principles for various land use designations, as shown on a corresponding Land Use Class and Framework Map (Attachments A and B). The land use designations also fall under either the jurisdiction of the city, county, or both for review of subdivision requests. In some land use designations, annexation is required prior to development. In others, development is intentionally limited to protect the county’s rural character while allowing for orderly and efficient city growth. In conjunction with the AUFP, the City works cooperatively with Gilbert and Story County through a 28-E agreement to streamline subdivision review in the County based upon the Plan. (Attachment C) The City has no 28-E agreement with Boone County and, therefore, reviews all divisions that occur in Boone County within 2-miles of the City. The current Ames Urban Fringe Plan was developed in 2006 after multiple years of public outreach and coordination with Story County and Gilbert. The basis of the Plan was the City’s 1997 Land Use Policy Plan along with interests of Story County and Gilbert. Ultimately, the Plan along with a 28-E agreement was approved in 2011. The 28E agreement was for an initial five-year period with an automatic five-year extension, for a total of ten years. The Plan was extended cooperatively by all parties in 2021 until July 2022. Ames Plan 2040 has replaced the 1997 LUPP and is the impetus for updating the AUFP. Ames Plan 2040 Growth and Land Use Chapter included basic growth management policies for the Fringe. (Attachments D and E) On February 15th, City Council directed staff to work in conjunction with Story County staff to proceed with an update to the Plan. Priority issues of both Ames and Story County Board of Supervisors are included in the addendum to this report. These priorities helped guide staff in preparation of the draft land use designations. 2 DRAFT FRINGE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Story County staff has taken the lead on preparing the AUFP update in collaboration with City staff. The process to update the Fringe Plan is designed to build off of the prior plans’ general concepts and incorporate new elements of Plan 2040 and other priorities of Story County and Gilbert. The initial step for the update is to prepare land use designations and apply these draft designations to property within the Fringe. The draft materials are being presented concurrently during the last two weeks of April to the Story County, Gilbert, and Ames Board and Commissions, before starting a public comment period in May. City and County staff have created four new base land designations and three overlays to replace the current AUFP designations. The basic intent is to describe areas intended for growth, those with rural existing development, a designation for potential rural residential expansion, and those areas set aside for agriculture and farm services. Additionally, overlays are included for Environmentally Sensitive areas, Urban Reserve for long term City expansion potential, and Mineral Extraction. Attachment F describes each designation in more detail. Each of the designations can be found on the interactive, draft Land Use Frame Work Map. This tool allows someone to explore site specific information. A draft map is also included in Appendix A to the attachment. Within each designation it describes intended uses, minimum subdivision requirements (lot size), jurisdiction over subdivision review, and intent for annexation. This approach follows the concepts of the current Fringe Plan. CITY GROWTH AREA AND URBAN RESERVE: The City of Ames would retain subdivision jurisdiction for the City’s Growth Area designations and the Urban Reserve Overlays. These Growth Areas are consistent with land use planning of Plan 2040 where the City would primarily annex land for growth. The Urban Reserve is consistent with the preliminary scenario analysis efforts used as part of Plan 2040 to formulate the adopted Growth Area and are additional areas that can be served by the City with additional infrastructure extension that could occur during the life of Plan 2040 or beyond. Growth Areas are intended for annexation with policies that support annexation by the City prior to allowing for development. The Urban Reserve designation also intends for annexation, but as drafted has some guidance on appropriate timing to support annexation into the City based upon proximity and availability of infrastructure to support future development. 3 Although the draft designations include a discussion about compatible uses and Conditional Use, details concerning implementation of the conditional uses limitations still need to be addressed. The Plan itself does not supersede County zoning or impact previously approved Conditional Use Permits. However, upon adoption it will be part of their Comprehensive Plan and will be relevant to consideration of future conditional use permits. Authority to approve or disapprove Conditional Use Permits will not be delegated to the City. OTHER DESIGNATIONS: The remaining designations (Agricultural and Farm Services and Existing Rural Residential) would waive most or all of the City’s subdivision and land use policies. Story County would retain jurisdiction and apply their zoning and subdivision policies, including the policies of a mutually adopted new Fringe Plan. Notably, the County does not foresee a need to create large area for additional rural residential development outside of previously subdivided area in the Fringe. Story County projects a need for 60 additional rural lots. This approach is somewhat different than the current Fringe Plan that included significant areas for rural residential expansion. The proposed Rural Residential Expansion designation is unmapped in the draft plan. It has been written to be applied at a later date as an amendment to the Plan. The draft includes siting criteria based upon Story County interests about growth patterns related to serving rural development and agricultural compatibility. PUBLIC COMMENT: Upon City Council, Gilbert, and Story County’s Board of Supervisors review of the draft land use designations, a public draft will be prepared for public review. Story County staff anticipate notifying property owners in the Fringe of the public review period, having outreach meetings, and having an online interactive comment tool. City of Ames will also participate in the outreach process. At the conclusion of the public comment period, next steps will be determined on how to proceed with a final draft and public hearings for adoption of the Plan this summer. Staff notes that during the development of the Plan 2040 there was input generally given regarding growth areas and some of the natural areas in the Fringe Area. A large number of comments came from the southwest area between State Avenue and South Dakota Avenue, south of HWY 30. Comments from the fall of 2021 are still posted on the City’s website for Plan 2040. The southwest area is a mix of Growth Area and Urban Reserve designations in the draft Plan, reflecting decisions made with Plan 2040 about potentially developable areas during the life of Plan 2040 and beyond. Comments received last fall during the creation of the Plan 2040 included opposition to urbanization of the southwest area and annexation to the City. Owners were also 4 concerned about Fringe Plan policies that would limit their ability to subdivide their properties in the County without annexing to the City. These same comments were expressed to the Story County at their P&Z meeting on April 13th. ALTERNATIVES: 1. City Council may direct staff to proceed with staff members from Story County to complete the draft Fringe Plan Update by initiating a public outreach effort. This effort will include in-person meetings and on-line commenting tools. 2. The City Council may direct modifications to the Plan for staff to incorporate into the draft. 3. The City Council may refer action on this item and request more information from staff. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: City of Ames staff working in conjunction with Story County staff have prepared draft land use designations and a draft Land Use Map for the Fringe Plan Update. The draft designations describe the intent for uses within each designation and the subdivision approval authority within each designation. Additional policies and elements of a complete plan will be drafted by staff to accompany the proposed land use designation and map as the project proceeds to a public outreach phase. Staff believes the draft designations are in alignment with Plan 2040 and City Council direction for the update. Primarily, the City will have authority over the City’s designated growth areas and have waived its subdivision authority for the other designations. This approach focuses the City’s policies for development to specific areas where we are most likely to grow as a city. The City’s ability to annex properties within Urban Growth and Urban Reserve Areas are maintained with the proposed designations. Rural development or annexation of lands that are not shown on the draft map would require future amendments to the Plan. Future amendments would be subject to approval by cooperators of the Plan. Issues related to conditional uses will continue to be discussed with the County in relation to their zoning standards and review processes. Staff believes appropriate safeguards are built into the land use designations to accomplish the City goals for planning in the Fringe Area and supports Story County’s policies as well. Therefore, the City Manager recommends Alternative #1. 5 Addendum Priority Issues for Fringe Update City of Ames Fringe Plan Update Priorities In addition to the policies of Ames Plan 2040 for management of the Urban Fringe Area in the Growth and Land Use Element, considering the following: o Minimizing new areas for rural subdivisions adjacent to Ames, o Limiting the minor subdivision process called Residential Parcel Subdivisions that can create in effect mulitple housing sites where only one was originally anticipated within an ag and a farm service class areas, o Addressing compatibility of conditional uses in the County within Urban Reserve areas, o Siting of Wind Energy Conversion (WEC) systems, o Planning for airport expansion, o Updating Natural Area and resource mapping with updates of related development policies, and o Enhancing integration of rural parks, open space, and trails into the land use plan. Story County has also identified issues that they have an interest in seeing addressed with an updated Fringe Plan. The County’s stated interests in some ways reinforce the City’s perspective on the benefits of urban growth over rural growth while also highlighting desires for coordinated management of the Fringe. Summary of Story County principles: • Focus housing growth within existing municipal boundaries or in newly annexed areas where development of a variety of housing types is possible. • Development in Urban Growth Areas should be required to be annexed and meet full city standards. • Map the Ames’ Urban Reserve, including the Story County Study Area, as Agriculture and Farm Service to preserve the area. • Reassess existing residential developments that the city does not foresee annexing and the amount of undeveloped rural residential-designated area. This includes siting or allowing intensification of rural residential areas based on Minimum Levels of Service (MLS) requirements to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are available, or can be provided, including access to paved roads, fire service, rural water, common wastewater treatment, and broadband. Also, encourage clustering of development and conservation design standards to protect prime agricultural land and natural areas. • Establish density maximums for rural residential development and development in Agriculture and Farm Service-designated areas. 6 • Locate new commercial and industrial uses within existing municipal boundaries or in newly annexed areas except for those activities strongly interrelated with agricultural uses. Consider if policies to limit the intensity of current rural commercial and industrial uses are needed. • Continue to limit the intensity of certain agribusiness uses. • Assess the compatibility of certain conditional uses with the various AUFP land use designations. • Discourage development in the floodplain and natural areas. 4 Attachment A 2006 Land Use Class Map Excerpt ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! kj kj kj kj kj S 5 0 0 T H A V E S 5 0 0 T H A V E GE O R G E W C A R V E R A V E GE O R G E W C A R V E R A V E DA K O T A DA K O T A AV E AV E SO U T H D A K O T A A V E SO U T H D A K O T A A V E DA Y T O N A V E DA Y T O N A V E §¨¦35 LINCOLN HIGHWAYLINCOLN HIGHWAYLINCOLN HIGHWAYLINCOLN HIGHWAY ST A T E A V E ST A T E A V E GR A N D A V E GR A N D A V E DU F F A V E DU F F A V E CAMERON SCHOOL RDCAMERON SCHOOL RD W RIVERSIDE RDW RIVERSIDE RD £¤30 £¤69 £¤30 NO R T H NO R T H KelleyKelley GilbertGilbert AmesAmes §¨¦35Rive r Squ a w C r e e k South Sk u n k Onion Creek Clear C r e e k Worle Creek Waln u t C r e e k So u t h S k u n k R i v e r Bo o n e C o u n t y Sto r y C o u n t y £¤69 (Ames Urban Fringe Plan)Su m m a ry Text from Am es Urba n Fring e P la n Legend Rural Service andAgricultural Conservation Area Ru ra l Residentia l P a rks a nd Recrea tion Area s Ag ricu ltu re a nd Fa rm Serv ice Urban Service Area Urba n Residentia l kj Com m u nity Com m ercia l Node P la nned Indu stria l kj Conv enience Com m ercia l Node Boone County Future Land UseAm es Urba n Fring e Area loca ted in BooneCou nty. Fu tu re La nd Use to be determ inedfollowing com pletion of Boone Cou nty'sCom preh ensiv e P la n Upda te a nd discu ssionwith oth er g ov ernm ents. Land Use Designations for Urban Service Area Urba n Residentia l – Villa g e residentia l dev elopm ents a t densities a bov e 8 u nits per a cre; su bu rba n/sing le-fa m ily residentia l dev elopm ents a t densities a bov e 3.75 u nits per a cre; su bu rba n/m ediu m density residentia l dev elopm ent a t densities a bov e 10 u nits per a cre; a nnexa tion; u rba n serv ices: dev elopm ent a g reem ents. P la nned Indu stria l – La rg e-sca le indu stria l u ses clu stered in indu stria l pa rks; a nnexa tion; u rba n serv ices: dev elopm ent a g reem ents. Com m u nity Com m ercia l Node – Clu stered com m ercia l u ses u p to 800,000 squ a re feet per clu ster; a nnexa tion; u rba n serv ices: dev elopm ent a g reem ents. Conv enience Com m ercia l Node -- Clu stered com m ercia l u ses th a t serv e conv enience a nd loca lized neig h borh ood needs; u p to 100,000 squ a re feet per clu ster; a nnexa tion; u rba n serv ices: dev elopm ent a g reem ents. Land Use Designations for Rural Service and Agricultural Conservation Area Ag ricu ltu re a nd Fa rm Serv ice – Fa rm ing a nd a g ricu ltu ra l produ ction; indu stry a nd com m erce th a t need to be close to a g ricu ltu re; fa rm stea ds, fa rm stea d sites a nd pre-existing h om es. Ru ra l Residentia l – Sing le-fa m ily residences a t one u nit per a cre or lower density, with ru ra l serv ices a nd decentra lized system s; protect a g ricu ltu ra l opera tions a nd env ironm ent. P a rks a nd Recrea tion Area s – priv a tely owned recrea tion, conserv a tions a nd rela ted u ses, with ru ra l serv ices a nd decentra lized system s. Land Use Designations for Rural/Urban Transition Area Ru ra l Tra nsitiona l Residentia l – Sing le- a nd two-fa m ily residences a t densities from one u nit per a cre to 3.75 u nits per a cre, prefera bly in clu sters, with ru ra l serv ices a nd decentra lized system s; in som e ca ses, u rba n serv ices for fu tu re u se or a ssessm ent wa iv ers a nd oth er a g reem ents a bou t fu tu re costs a nd a nnexa tion. P riority Tra nsitiona l Residentia l -- Sing le-fa m ily residences a t densities a bov e 3.75 u nits per a cre, prefera bly in clu sters, with ru ra l serv ices a nd com m on system s; u rba n serv ices for fu tu re u se or a ssessm ent wa iv ers a nd oth er a g reem ents a bou t fu tu re costs; dev elopm ent a g reem ents; a nnexa tion a g reem ents. Hig h wa y-Oriented Com m ercia l – Com m ercia l u ses m ost com pa tible with ru ra l a rea s, loca ted on h ig h -tra ffic roa ds a nd prefera bly in clu sters; u rba n serv ices; in som e ca ses, ru ra l serv ices a nd decentra lized system s with a ssessm ent wa iv ers, oth er a g reem ents on fu tu re costs a nd a nnexa tion. Indu stria l Reserv e/Resea rch P a rk – Ag ricu ltu ra l u ses; fu tu re expa nsion of ISU Resea rch P a rk with innov a tiv e tech nolog y com pa nies su pported by proxim ity to ISU; before dev elopm ent, ch a ng e to P la nned Indu stria l la nd u se desig na tion. Ag ricu ltu re/Su bsu rfa ce Mining – Fa rm ing a nd a g ricu ltu ra l produ ction; fa rm stea ds, fa rm stea d sites a nd pre-existing h om es; with lim estone resou rces su ita ble for su bsu rfa ce m ining . Genera l Indu stria l – Su rfa ce portion of existing su bsu rfa ce m ining opera tion. Ag ricu ltu re/Long -Term Indu stria l Reserv e -- Fa rm ing a nd a g ricu ltu ra l produ ction; fa rm stea ds, fa rm stea d sites a nd pre-existing h om es; fu tu re la rg e-sca le indu stria l u ses; before dev elopm ent, ch a ng e to P la nned Indu stria l la nd u se desig na tion. Na tu ra l Area s – Env ironm enta lly sensitiv e a rea s; sig nifica nt na tu ra l h a bita t; pu blic pa rks a nd open spa ce; fu tu re pa rks; g reenwa ys; fa rm stea ds, fa rm stea d sites a nd pre-existing h om es. Ga tewa y P rotection – La nd u ses a nd desig n th a t defines, a ccentu a tes a nd enh a nces entra nce a rea s to com m u nity. Wa tersh ed P rotection Area – Wa tersh eds for wetla nds a nd with v eg eta tion th a t protects or im prov es wa ter qu a lity; m itig a tion fa cilities; Best Ma na g em ent P ra ctices. Airport P rotection Area – La nd close to a irport; dev elopm ent ch a ra cteristic th a t protects life a nd m a inta ins integ rity of a v ia tion opera tions. Story County Study Area Am es Urba n Fring e Area loca ted in 'StoryCou nty Stu dy Area '. Fu tu re La nd Use to bedeterm ined following th e com pletion of StoryCou nty's stu dy a nd discu ssion with oth erg ov ernm ents. Refer to Am es Fu tu re La nd Use Ma p for deta iled La nd Use cla ssifica tions with in Am es. Iowa Sta te Univ ersity P roperty ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Gov ernm ent Owned la nd Am es City Bou nda ry Am es Urba n Fring e Bou nda ry Ma p u p to da te th rou g h Resolu tion 15-752, a dopted Decem ber 22, 2015.Ma p prepa red byDepa rtm ent of P la nning a nd Hou singCity of Am es, IowaDecem ber 29, 2015 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8Miles · A component of the Ames Land Use Policy Plan Rural Urban Transition Area P riority Tra nsitiona l Residentia l Hig h wa y-Oriented Com m ercia l Ru ra l Tra nsitiona l Residentia l Genera l Indu stria l Na tu ra l Area s Indu stria l Reserv e/Resea rch P a rk Ag ricu ltu ra l/Su bsu rfa ce Mining Ga tewa y P rotection Area Wa tersh ed P rotection Area Airport P rotection Area Ag ricu ltu ra l/Long -term Indu stria l Reserv e 47 P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 LAND USE: FUTURE Land Use Categories The Future Land Use Map, with its designations of various land use categories, expresses the development vision for Ames and establishes the basis for land use policy, public and private decision making, and future development and infrastructure investments and initiatives. It incorporates the growth scenario analysis and priorities described earlier in this chapter, with land use designations that also reflect the character of the built-up city of 2020. The land development categories used here differ in important ways from districts used in the city’s earlier Land Use Policy Plan (1997) or single use categories used in conventional land use and zoning maps: »Development categories recognize historic periods and patterns of development and neighborhood character, as well as specific land uses. »Development categories employ a range of development densities and intensities, rather than one specific building type or density category. As such, they may contain a number of different zoning districts. Issues of compatibility of different land uses within development categories are addressed in the compatibility standards. »The Future Land Use Map was built on the street framework identified by Ames Complete Streets Plan. This plan identified to both the function and context of streets. Within a single development category, different use intensities may be appropriate along different types of streets. Limited Development Open Space. Areas of publicly or privately owned land intended to remain undeveloped and natural in character or in permanent open space uses. These areas include environmentally sensitive areas, environmental preserves, lands with conservation easements, and passive public space. They typically do not include high activity city parks. Urban Reserve. Areas within the Ames Urban Service Area and the growth regions that should be reserved for future urban development, but are unlikely to be developed within this plan’s 2040 horizon. These include all tiers of the five projected growth areas including the southeast and other parts of the Ames jurisdiction that can be feasibly provided by urban services. Policies related to Urban Reserve areas are discussed in the Fringe Policy section of this chapter. Rural Character. Areas within the Ames jurisdiction where urban infrastructure such as water or sewer service is unlikely or not feasible. Development may include large-lot residential, low-impact agriculture, and non-residential uses appropriate to rural areas. Policies related to Rural Character areas are discussed in the Fringe Policy section of this chapter. Residential Neighborhoods RN-1 (Traditional). Neighborhoods initially developed in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, with a variety of residential development forms and developed on a traditional urban street grid. RN-2 (Established). Fully built-up neighborhoods, typically built in the second half of the 20th century to the present. Largely single-family, with some attached and duplex structures. Layout of neighborhoods often has larger blocks and curvilinear local street patterns. RN-3 (Expansion). Neighborhoods principally developed as expansion of the City since 2000 at low and medium densities. This designation includes current areas of building and subdivision activity or proposed for predominately residential development within the 2040 planning period. Includes growth areas identified on page 42. These areas include a variety of residential types and neighborhood services. The layout of neighborhoods generally followed suburban form principles with distinct areas for various uses. RN-4 (Walkable Urban). Mixed use, mixed density neighborhoods with a high degree of connectedness and an orientation to pedestrian and bicycle scale. Typically includes a distinct, mixed use activity nucleus. May include comprehensively planned developments or urban districts that evolved organically. RN-5 (Multifamily). Neighborhoods that are largely multifamily in character, and include large groupings of apartments, townhomes, and other attached housing forms. May include supporting commercial services. Multifamily development may be integrated on compatible sites into other RN areas and is not limited to RN-5 designations. Commercial Centers Neighborhood Core. Centers that serve local commercial and service needs for a neighborhood or cluster of neighborhoods. Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use. A special subset of Neighborhood Core usually associated with walkable urban neighborhoods. May be somewhat larger in scale and include residential uses, with high connectivity to the commercial area. Community Commercial/Retail. Generally single purpose centers that serve citywide and even regional commercial and service needs, originally designed for primary automobile access with large parking areas. General Commercial. Areas with a wide variety of commercial, small business, automotive, trade services, and light industrial uses, some with outdoor storage. CHARACTERISTICS P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E 51 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 LAND USE: CATEGORIES GOALS »Preserve long-term development options for efficient growth with full urban services. »Avoid impediments to future land annexation supporting urban and contiguous development. »Allow reasonable interim use of land consistent with agricultural and adjacent land uses. Urban Reserve (UR: See Urban Fringe Map) PUBLIC ACTIONS »Coordinate park and open space planning with counties. »Use Urban Fringe Plan Policies to guide specific use allowances and joint administration of extra- territorial area. Prioritize Policies for: »Specific underlying land use designations for interim use or for guiding incorporation of commercial use into the City. »Large residential and agricultural minimum lot sizes. »Limits on high intensity agricultural and extraction uses. »Limits on special uses, such as religious facilities, wind generators, campgrounds, and other uses that may not meet urban design and infrastructure needs. »Limit agribusiness facilities that do not meet urban design and infrastructure needs. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES »Require a minimum lot size large enough to prevent or discourage development of rural subdivisions and maintain a rural agricultural character. »Permit a variety of rural land uses and low-impact agriculture, excludes livestock and animal confinement operations and other high intensity uses. »Generally open or sparsely developed rural or open land. »Growth area Tiers 1 and 2 and other lands intended for near and mid-term development. »Includes growth areas in Tiers 2, 3, and 4 that are likely to be developed after this plan’s 2040 planning horizon. See also Urban Fringe policies. »Government »Agriculture »Potential conservation or fringe overlays in areas where residential uses might be existing or permitted. CHARACTERISTICS P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E 52 A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 LAND USE: CATEGORIES PUBLIC ACTIONS »Use Urban Fringe Plan Policies to guide specific use allowances and joint administration of extra-territorial area. »Establish subdivision waiver standards appropriate to very low-density rural residential developments. »Consider cumulative impacts of similar development and planned development in the general area. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES »Develop land plans and building concepts that maintain rural or open character. »Design developments that protect landforms such as steep slopes and natural drainage patterns. »Encourage use of community wastewater systems for rural development, including green infrastructure, with relatively small rural lots. »Integrate regional transportation path systems into development designs. »Promote use of conservation subdivision techniques adjacent to natural areas. GOALS »Provide locations to accommodate demand for low-density residential development that do not limit the City’s logical long-term urban growth. »Promote sustainable development within or near the City where landforms and environment make urban development impossible. »Existing large lot and acreage development, generally lacking urban infrastructure or services. »Areas within the subdivision jurisdiction of Ames but outside the urban reserve, where extensions of urban infrastructure are not expected. »Rural commercial, limited agriculture, or limited industrial/workshop uses that do not degrade rural residential character. Rural Character (RC: See Urban Fringe Map) »Potential conservation or fringe overlays in areas where residential uses might be existing or permitted. 68 P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 URBAN FRINGE: ANNEXATION AND FRINGE AREA Growth at the Edge The previous sections of this chapter focused on a Growth & Land Use Vision for the Ames urbanized area of 2040. The growth section established basic principles and identified the planned growth areas necessary to meet the emerging needs for the next twenty plus years, accommodating population growth of about 15,000 people. The land use section presented basic guiding principles and a future land use plan for 2040, based largely on character and function-based development categories, along with goals, policies, and actions for each category. Much of the land area covered by the land use plan is built up and within the corporate limits, but realization of the growth plan will require significant annexations to expand the urbanized area of Ames. In addition to annexation policies, Ames maintains a two- mile extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction and cooperative planning area, consisting largely of open space and agricultural uses, with some built up rural development areas, such as northeast of Ames. This “Urban Fringe” area was the subject of a cooperative planning effort completed in 2006 that involved the cities of Ames and Gilbert and Boone and Story Counties. This section is intended to address annexation of growth areas and provide an updated policy framework to the 2006 document. Growth Areas and Annexation In review, the Ames Plan 2040 process focused on four growth directions: north, south, east, and west/southwest. A northwest growth option, previously proposed by the City’s Land Use Policy Plan of 1997, was removed from consideration because of the extensiveness and cost of infrastructure improvements. In addition, a southeast growth area, south of Highway 30 and east of I-35, is not in the line of probable development during the planning period but holds long-term promise that could be unlocked by a new trunk line sanitary sewer and a south interchange, described elsewhere in Plan 2040. The Future Land Use Map depicts the general layout of uses and infrastructure for the four primary growth areas and sets expectations for types and intensities of uses to meet the community needs and use resources efficiently. The precise delineation of uses will occur through the application of zoning districts that address more detailed information on specific uses and development patterns. The Future Land Use Map guides decision making for zoning and is in and of itself not considered to establish a right to a specific zone or use. The projected growth areas were then divided into four development tiers, based on infrastructure availability. Tiers 1 and 2 incorporate areas served by incremental extensions of existing lines, while Tiers 3 and 4 build on that base to achieve full maturity. The criteria for annexation do not dictate a precise order for development, but instead outline factors that will affect the timing and desirability of annexation in the future. The City’s capital improvement planning is based largely upon growth within these four growth areas and their development tiers. Extensions of water, sanitary sewer, parks, and roads are all needed for full build-out of each of these growth areas. This informs the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) programming, but it does not in and of itself commit the City to the extension or timing of specific infrastructure at the City’s cost. Indeed, much of the infrastructure and improvements identified within a growth area will be the obligation of a property owner or developer and in some instances in coordination with the City. Each of the planned expansion areas includes a detailed discussion of needed infrastructure and desired outcomes. At the time of annexation the City will identify the relationship of the annexation to the scenario analysis and consider developer proposals for infrastructure extensions. The City will ensure that the extensions are logical and beneficial to overall goals for the area and not just for the convenience of one development project. The City’s priority for development is incremental growth that builds upon prior improvements and improvements funded through developer-based construction. In some circumstances, the City may find an investment in “up-sizing” or completing critical connections is vital to the long-term success of the City and its expansion through partnering with developers or moving forward with pioneer infrastructure. This Plan does not specify timing or investment obligations by the City as it will be addressed through the City’s CIP. The City will include an infrastructure extension program in 69 P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 the CIP to plan for coordinated improvements, but funding and timing will be an annual decision with the CIP budget approval. Pioneer infrastructure and oversizing interests will be addressed by the City based upon general benefit to the City and its expansion into a defined area. Timing is a critical component to having the City participate in extensions of infrastructure. City participation may include the use of development agreements for offsetting projects, connection districts, street assessments, or financial incentives based upon City policy. If a desired project is not within the 5-yr CIP a developer would need to request changes in timing or begin the project as a developer project. The City is not conferring a development right to property owners or obligation upon the City to make infrastructure available at any specific time or cost during the planning horizon of the Plan. This means that only upon rezoning and subdivision approval, when infrastructure adequacy and specific uses are evaluated, is there certainty in how to proceed with development. Annexation of Lands Other than Growth Areas In addition to the larger Growth Area Scenario analysis, there may be instances where individual properties abutting the City will also be appropriate to be annexed, to meet the needs of a growing City. These properties should be viewed in the light of their immediate serviceability or development potential compared to long-term prospects coordinated within the planned growth areas. Large areas of annexation, for example exceeding a quarter section, will require a determination of timing consistency with planned infrastructure and the vitality of the planned and emerging growth areas, meaning the areas should not directly undermine planned growth areas viability for build-out in a predictable or sustainable economic manner. Annexation of other areas may be justified due to readily available infrastructure, a large master planned community approach with a development partner, or a lack of investment or development in targeted areas and need for additional land development options. Fringe Area Policies Ames has subdivision authority based upon state law for areas within two miles of its municipal limits, referred to as the Urban Fringe. Effective management of the Fringe is essential to planning future growth options and ensure that non-urban development practices do not negatively affect the City of Ames. In addition, preservation of natural areas and development practices compatible with agricultural needs is critical to the general well-being and welfare of the City of Ames and Story and Boone Counties. Ames, Gilbert, and Story County have coordinated the management of the Fringe since 2011. The current agreement is based upon a 2006 Ames Urban Fringe Plan that identified policies for various issues that included agricultural preservation, natural areas, rural residential development, and the expansion of Ames and Gilbert through annexation. City policy is to continue to plan for the Fringe area, to work in this cooperative planning effort with Story County, and to look to expand the URBAN FRINGE: ANNEXATION AND FRINGE AREA joint planning and subdivision review authority coordination with Boone County as well. The City’s primary interests are planning for areas around the City as Urban Reserve based upon future opportunities for growth and urban services. Limited expansion of growth in the Fringe helps to meet other goals for managing natural resources and county infrastructure capacity as well. An agreement with the Counties helps to streamline policy and project review for the Fringe to help focus on City priorities in the Fringe and add design requirements that address future compatibility and service needs related to rural development. 70 P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 Guiding Principles for the Urban Fringe The following policies can form the foundation for a new and more detailed Fringe Area Plan as Part of Plan 2040 and helps coordinate multi- jurisdictional land use and subdivision planning and administration in the Ames jurisdiction. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING UF1-1: Designated Limited Area for Rural Development. Designate areas of existing rural development and limited areas for new rural development as they relate to future potential expansion for the City. A fundamental objective is for new development to occur within an urbanized area, limiting impacts to rural uses and providing urban infrastructure and services that support a compact and efficient development pattern for urban services. UF1-2: Regional Partnerships. Work on regional partnerships for mutually beneficial planning of recreational uses, conservation areas, and watershed management. RURAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS UF2-1: Existing Development. An Existing Development designation applies to previously developed areas of varying density below three dwelling units per acre. These areas were primarily developed through rural subdivisions and lack urban infrastructure. They are subject to county zoning for limited levels of residential development. Only limited development of existing lots or minor subdivisions of existing lots with existing zoning are anticipated during the life of this Plan. Minimum lots sizes should reflect the rural character of the area and limited infrastructure capacity to support development intensification. Annexation of these areas is undesirable due to the low- density of development and minimal infrastructure improvements. These developments fall under the Rural Character category of the land use plan. UF2-2: New Rural Residential. Rural Development Areas reflect county planning interests and are limited to areas that are well beyond the potential Urban Reserve areas and City limits. Designation of this land use should consider impacts to infrastructure, adjacent agricultural uses and natural areas; changes to storm water runoff and drainage basins; and cumulative effects of development near other cities on county and state highways. The low suitability of the site for agricultural uses due to a CSR score or a LESA score does not alone justify change of use to rural development. County zoning will vary for density and use, typically a rural subdivision would be limited to a minimum of 1 unit per net acre and a maximum density of 2.5 units per net acre and are to be developed as a subdivision plat. The City will review infrastructure needs for rural development and consider case by case waivers of urban infrastructure standards. UF2-3: Rural Non-Residential Development. Certain areas adjacent to the City but in the county may include activities such as mining that are not desirable as an urban use or typically compatible with surrounding uses. In addition, limited areas of pre-existing commercial or light industrial uses occur within two miles of the City. The largest such areas are within Boone County. The Fringe Area recognizes these existing uses. However, further expansion of these non-residential uses is undesirable, especially within the growth areas where they can impact the future plans for City expansion. Further development in these existing areas will be limited by current infrastructure improvements. The City will review infrastructure needs for rural development and consider case by case waivers of urban infrastructure standards. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL AREAS UF3-1: Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural areas are designated to preserve appropriate land for farming and limit the encroachment of residential and other uses into these areas. Land divisions are permissible only to allow for splitting off an existing homesite or farmstead from a farm area. Minimum lot sizes are proposed at 35 acres matching Story County A-1 zoning standard. UF3-2: Natural Area Conservation. Natural areas include sensitive areas of natural habitat, steep slopes, and waterways. Natural area designations are informational based upon the Environment Chapter and the 2006 AUFP. Creation of new parcels within these areas for new development is prohibited. Property divisions for land conservation purposes is permissible with City approval. URBAN RESERVE AREAS UF4-1. Urban Reserve District. Create an Urban Reserve area for the short- and long-term expansion of the City. These areas fall within the urban service area where municipal services, most notably sanitary sewer, can be feasibly extended. Only subdivisions that meet full urban development subdivision and improvement standards would be allowed. UF4-2: Annexation. Urban Reserve Areas are appropriate for annexation to the City to meet future growth needs of the City. Areas are planned for residential, commercial, and industrial expansion based upon the scenario and Tiers analysis of this Plan. A precise determination of use will be determined upon annexation. UF4-3: Lot Subdivision. Land divisions are permissible only to allow for splitting off an existing homesite or farmstead from a farm area. Divisions should not create parcels that can limit future annexation options. Land Divisions within the Urban Reserve Area shall meet a minimum lot size of 35 acres. UF4-4: Infrastructure. All developments are subject to urban infrastructure standards unless a conditional waiver is granted by the City Council. URBAN FRINGE: POLICY FRAMEWORK 71 P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0 D U F F AV E US HIGHWAY 30 US HIGHWAY 30 GR A N D A V E LINCOLN WAY GR A N D A V E I N T E R S T A T E 3 5 IN T E R S T A T E 3 5 INTERS TATE 35 IN T E R S T A T E 3 5 DU F F A V E UN IVE R S I TY BL V D LINCOLN WAY ST A T E A V E ONTARIO ST NO R T H D A K O T A A V E DA Y T O N A V E SO U T H D A K O T A A V E ST A N G E R D 13TH ST 13TH ST 6TH ST 16TH ST BLOOMINGTON RD DA Y T O N P L 24TH ST ST A N G E R D 4TH ST MORTENSEN RD AIRPORT RD 3RD ST HY L A N D A V E OAKWOOD RD US H I G H W A Y 6 9 US H I G H W A Y 6 9 13TH ST US HI G HW AY 69 US H I G H W A Y 6 9 Core Core Core Redir RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 Emp Emp EmpEmp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 GC GC GC GC GC GC Com CR Com CR Com CRCom CR Com CR Com CR Com CR RN-5RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC Com-CR NC NC Quarry Redir Redir RN-1 RN-1 RN-1 UCUC Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ RN-4 RN-4 RN-4 Emp RN-5 Com CR NC MU Core RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-3 GC GC Com CR Com CRRN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 GC NC MU NC Redir Redir RN-1 UC Core Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ RN-4 RN-4 Emp Emp Univ RN-3 NC-MU RN-2 RN-5 UC RN-3 GC RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 Univ RN-2 Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Fringe Land Use Designations Natural Areas Rural Character Boone CO Urban Reserve Story CO Urban Reserve Future Land Use Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1) Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2) Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3) Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4) Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multi-family (RN-5) Neighborhood Core (NC) Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU) Community Commercial/Retail (Com-CR) General Commercial (GC) Core (Core) Redirection (Redir) Urban Corridor Employment (Emp) Park/Recreation Open Space Civic Civic - University Hospital/Medical Special Area Near Campus Overlay Airport Protection Area City Limits Urban Fringe Map City of Ames, Iowa Final Draft December 8, 2021 0 0.55 1.10.28 Miles North FRINGE AREA MAP URBAN FRINGE: ANNEXATION AND FRINGE AREA Fringe Land Use Designations Natural Areas Rural Character Boone County Urban Reserve Story County Urban Reserve FUTURE LAND USE Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1) Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2) Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3) Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4) Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multifamily (RN-5) Neighborhood Core (NC) Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU) Community Commercial /Retail (Com-CR) General Commercial (GC) Core Redirection (Redir) Urban Corridor Employment Quarry Park / Recreation Open Space Civic Civic - University Hospital /Medical Special Area Near Campus Overlay Airport Protection Area City Limits Attachment F DRAFT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Detail of the proposed designations, which cooperator has review jurisdiction, what uses are permitted, and other standards are described on the following pages. A brief summary of the designations and how they differ from the current AUFP is included below: Staff is proposing four base designations - Urban Growth, Rural Residential - Existing, Rural Residential - Expansion, and Agriculture and Farm Service. The Urban Growth designation encompasses the designations that were previously under the Urban Service Area Land Use Class, including Urban Residential, Commercial Nodes, and Planned Industrial. These are areas where city growth is planned and can be supported in the short term. Instead of differentiating between these urban land uses, staff instead made one desig nation. Annexation is required prior to development and the city retains review jurisdiction in these areas. Specific, planned future land use types can be found in Ames Plan 2040. The Rural Residential—Existing designation is a new designation that applies to existing residential developments in the county. It allows existing lots in the county to be divided once into two buildable parcels if zoning and other standards are met. These types of divisions are currently allowed in the AUFP; however, the City of Ames or Gilbert currently may have joint review authority with the county and there are additional density requirements. Since the designation applies to existing, built-out developments, these types of divisions are not common. An increase in these types of divisions is not anticipated. Story County is proposing to have sole review authority over these areas. The Rural Residential—Expansion designation would allow new, rural residential development in the county. It is similar to the existing county rural residential designation in that a one-acre minimum lot size or equivalent density is required and the county has review jurisdiction over the area. However, staff has intentionally chosen not to map any area in this designation and instead provide standards for where and when the expansion of rural residential development may be appropriate. The Agriculture and Farm Service designation is largely the same as the current designation in the AUFP. The county has review authority over the area. Most areas are zoned A-1 Agricultural and 35-acres are required to construct a dwelling. In the current AUFP, only farmsteads may be divided from the remaining farmland onto a parcel one net-acre or greater in size. Staff has relaxed this standard in the proposed designation to allow parcels meeting LESA to be divided or a one-lot residential parcel subdivision to occur if a density of one unit per 35-acres is maintained. The remaining land is not considered buildable for a second dwelling. This allows smaller lot sizes but does not affect the density of the area. Staff is also proposing several overlay designations that may apply further restrictions or standards to the base designations. The Urban Reserve Overlay is a new designation designed to ensure efficient and orderly city growth beyond the AUFP’s planning horizon and prevent premature rural development. This designation applies to certain land in the Agriculture and Farm Services designation where a city could provide future city infrastructure, including waste treatment by gravity flow. Given that the area may support long-term urban growth and significant rural development pressure may occur without certain safeguards, there are additional restrictions applied by the overlay. The Environmentally Sensitive Overlay is similar to the current Natural Areas designation. It indicates where environmentally sensitive areas are located in the county and applies certain related restrictions on developments. The Subsurface Mining Overlay and Airport Protection Overlay are also similar to those existing designations in the AUFP. These overlays assist in indicating locations where existing activities may present conflicts with certain proposed land uses. URBAN GROWTH Description These are areas identified by cities as where urban growth can be supported in the immediate, short-term. City infrastructure, street, and trail connections are available, or achievable with low-cost, incremental extensions. They are contiguous to existing urban development. While these areas may include readily serviceable tiers of larger growth areas, which may not be fully developed during the life of the plan, there may also be instances where individual properties abutting a city are included. These individual properties are considered appropriate to be annexed due to their immediate serviceability and to meet the needs of a growing city, compared to long-term prospects coordinated within larger planned growth areas. Annexations Require annexation before land is developed or further divided. The annexation of individual properties not part of identified growth areas in a city’s comprehensive plan, and exceeding 40 acres in size, shall be weighed against the growth areas, planned infrastructure investments in the areas, and their viability. Annexation may be justified due to readily available infrastructure, a large master-planned community approach with a development partner, or a lack of investment or development in identified growth areas and need for additional land development options. Divisions In these areas, the county agrees to waive the exercise of its review authority for divisions for new development lots. Compatible Zoning Districts Specific land uses planned for this area can be found in Ames Plan 2040 (or in the case of other cities, in their applicable city comprehensive plan.) Annexation is required prior to development. Permitted Uses and Other Standards Specific land uses planned for this area can be found in Ames Plan 2040 (or in the case of other cities, in their applicable city comprehensive plan.) Development in the Urban Growth Area must provide infrastructure consistent with road, water, and sanitary sewer improvements required of development within the applicable city. This includes development with fire protection with water suppression systems and access requirements. It may also be required to meet city design standards, including landscaping. Where a base zoning district allows for a conditional use, Story County will consider the appropriateness of the use, recognizing the area is planned for urban densities and uses. Most conditional uses that are permissible in the county, due to their distance and isolation from other uses, will be presumed not to be compatible with Figure 3: Draft Map of Urban Growth Areas planned urban development within a growth area. For example, shooting ranges, campgrounds, energy systems, etc. Where conditional uses may be compatible with future urban land uses due to the particular nature of the use or its location in the growth area, additional site development considerations shall be made, including a use’s location on a site, lighting, buffering, landscaping, and setbacks. Conditions related to these considerations shall be applied to address future compatibility of the use with planned urban development. In some situations, it may be appropriate to have a limited duration of approval for such a use. The following conditional uses are not considered compatible with the Urban Growth Area: • Shooting ranges • Campgrounds and RV parks, except as part of a county park • Lodges and fraternal organizations • Power plants and substations • Drag strips and other similar courses or tracks • Salvage yards • Yard waste composting • Agricultural lime storage and processing operations • Bed and breakfasts • Landfills • Commercial Wind Energy Conversion Systems or Solar Energy Conversion Systems • Adult uses • Surface mineral extraction and processing • Indoor recreational facilities The following conditional uses may be considered compatible with the Urban Growth Area, wi th review by the applicable city: • Communication towers and facilities • Commercial nurseries and greenhouses, including retail sales • Golf courses • Human service uses • Home businesses • Childcare centers • Public buildings, water supply, and sewage treatment facilities • Houses of worship and other similar uses • Home businesses • Adaptive reuse RURAL RESIDENTIAL - EXISTING Description These areas may include existing rural subdivisions or clusters of dwellings with lots between one -half and five acres in size, which are zoned residential. They are typically located on privately maintained roads or access easements. Annexations Cities shall not review annexation requests in this area until such times the AUFP has been amended to designate the property as an Urban Growth Area or Urban Reserve Overlay. Divisions In these areas, cities agree to waive the exercise of their extra-territorial subdivision authority. In the case that county zoning and subdivision requirements, including standards for roads and dwellings off access easements, can be met, a division for the creation of one additional buildable lot may be permitted. For lots already platted as part of a subdivision, this shall only be allowed, if not otherwise prohibited by conditions on the platting. Compatible Zoning Districts These areas may include parcels in the A-R Agricultural Residential, R-1 Transitional Residential, and R-2 Urban Residential Zoning Districts. Other Standards A dwelling may be built on an undeveloped lot in an area designated as Rural Residential if county zoning standards and standards for roads or dwellings off access easements are met. Individual wastewater systems and wells are permitted. Figure 2: Draft Map of Existing Rural Residential Areas RURAL RESIDENTIAL – EXPANSION DESCRIPTION Description These areas may permit new rural residential subdivisions; however, they are to be located on a case-by- case basis through an Ames Urban Fringe Plan amendment process. While it is recognized that there is demand for rural housing market choices, the amount of land in this designation shall be purposefully limited in order to focus housing growth within existing municipal boundaries or in newly annexed areas. It is estimated that approximately 60 new dwellings are needed in this designation over the next 20 years. To this end, the number of lots in a proposed development may be limited. Further, developers may be required to install required public road improvements or other infrastructure at their own expense. Standards for Amendment The following standards shall be met, in order for an Ames Urban Fringe Plan amendment application to the Rural Residential Expansion Area to be accepted for further consideration. Satisfaction of the following standards does not guarantee approval of the request. • The area is adjacent to a rural residential area or rural residential expansion area developed after the adoption of the Ames Urban Fringe Plan. • The area is currently designated Agriculture and Farm Service and not located in an Urban Growth Area or Urban Reserve Overlay. • No more than 40 acres of land in agricultural production may be requested to be amended to this designation as part of an amendment request. • The area is located on a paved road(s). If an area is within a quarter-mile of a paved road, it may be considered; however, the developer may be required to pave to the development’s access at their expense. • The amount of previously approved Rural Residential Expansion area shall be considered when granting an amendment, as well as the primacy of a proposed location versus the existence of other areas that exceed the above standards. Annexations Cities shall not review annexation requests until such times the plan has been amended to designate the property as an Urban Growth Area or Urban Reserve Overlay. Divisions In these areas, cities generally agree to waive the exercise of their extra-territorial subdivision authority. However, in certain critical areas, urban services and standards may be applied. Compatible Zoning Districts The A-R Agricultural Residential District may be considered compatible with the Rural Residential Expansion Area designation. Permitted Uses and Other Standards This designation allows for dwellings at a maximum average net density of one unit per acre. All environmentally sensitive areas should be preserved as part of the subdivision platting process. A density bonus may be awarded when 50% or more of the agricultural lands proposed for development are preserved in outlots or through easements or other restrictions. The preserved agricultural land shall also remain in the Agriculture and Farm Service designation or be amended to the Agriculture and Farm Service designation as part of the subdivision platting process. The preserved area shall provide a buffer to adjacent agricultural areas. The density bonus shall be awarded so that the development yield is equivalent to the maximum average net density of one unit per acre prior to the preservation of agricultural lands. Lot sizes may be reduced to a minimum of 10,000 square feet. A maximum density bonus of 20% of the number of lots permitted by the development yield, in addition to those allowed by the development yield, is allowed. Following Iowa Department of Natural Resources requirements, minimum separation distances for dwellings and wells from open feedlots and confined animal feeding operations shall be maintained from existing operations. Appropriate buffers from other agricultural uses shall also be maintained. At the discretion of the applicable city, annexation agreements and other tools may be utilized to ensure that new development is prepared for potential annexation in the future. Urban infrastructure and subdivision standards, including streets, wastewater treatment, and potable water distribution of sufficient size to support emergency services, may be required. Common wastewater treatment systems meeting Iowa Department of Natural Resources standards are required, unless a development is required to meet urban infrastructure standards at the time of development. An agreement shall also be required that when a property is annexed to a city, the land developer and/or landowner shall be responsible for the full cost of abandoning the rural well and wastewater systems and connecting to urban infrastructure. AGRICULTURE AND FARM SERVICE DESRIPTION Description These areas encompass large areas of highly valuable farmland, with farming and agricultural production as the primary activity. They may also include other large, undeveloped tracts of land. Existing dwellings on previously created parcels under 35-acres in size may be included in this designation. Dwellings in this designation are limited to existing homes, new dwellings built on legally established lots of record, or to areas where a maximum density of one unit per 35 net acres can be achieved. Annexation Cities shall not review annexation requests in this area until such time that the AUFP has been amended to designate the area to be annexed as an Urban Growth Area or Urban Reserve Overlay. Divisions In these areas, cities agree to waive the exercise of their extra-territorial subdivision authority. Divisions for the creation of new development lots are not permitted. Parcels 35 net acres or greater in size may be divided once for the purpose of constructing a dwelling on a parcel between one and five net acres if permitted by county zoning requirements (e.g., through farmstead, LESA, or residential parcel subdivision exceptions). The remaining land shall not be considered buildable for a dwelling and is to be preserved as an outlot through a deed or by other restriction. Divisions reconfiguring agricultural lands or other undeveloped tracts of land for natural resource preservation are permitted. Compatible Zoning Districts The A-1 Agricultural and A-2 Agribusiness Districts may be considered compatible with the Agriculture and Farm Service designation. However, agribusiness uses shall be strategically located in order to: • Utilize existing adequate access and road capacity and otherwise assure the existence of adequate public facilities; • Protect productive soils and environmental resources; and • Support the continued use of these areas for farming and agricultural production. Further, the county shall limit the intensity of the storage, retail, wholesale marketing, or processing of agricultural productions into value-added agricultural products through conditional rezoning agreements as these uses may be more appropriate located in commercial or industrial areas inside city boundaries with other similar manufacturing and processing uses. Figure 1: Draft Map of Agriculture and Farm Service Areas URBAN RESERVE OVERLAY Description These are areas within a city’s urban service area, where municipal services, most notably sanitary sewer, can be feasibly extended. They may be portions of larger urban growth areas or other areas where city growth may occur in the long-term, past the planning horizon of the Ames Urban Fringe Plan. However, the areas do not currently have city infrastructure available and are not priorities for urban growth. To ensure orderly, efficient city growth in the long-term, the Urban Reserve Overlay prevents premature development of rural residential subdivisions, rural commercial development, or other uses that may impede urban growth due to lot sizes, rural infrastructure, or the nature of a use. If infrastructure becomes available during the life of the plan, these areas may be annexed. Annexations Require annexation by the city before land is developed or further subdivided. Ensure that annexation is coordinated with the timely and efficient provision of adequate public facilities and services. Annexation shall be permitted in the following situations: • Infrastructure is available or available with extensions of existing lines under ½ mile or shall be committed to be extended through the city’s Capital Improvement Plan or through developer committed funds. • Infrastructure extensions should be logical and beneficial to overall goals for the growth of an area and not just for the convenience of one development project. • Existing street network or spine trails shall be accessible or available through extensions. Divisions Divisions for the creation of new development lots are not permitted. In these areas, cities agree to waive the exercise of their extra-territorial subdivision authority. The allowance for divisions of 35 net-acre parcels in the Agriculture and Farm Service designation does not apply. Dwellings in this designation are limited to existing homes, new dwellings built on legally established lots of record or parcels 35 net acres or greater in size. Compatible Zoning Districts The A-2 Agribusiness District is not considered compatible with the Agriculture and Farm Service designation. Further, annexation is required prior to development. Permitted Uses and Other Standards Development in the Urban Reserve Overlay may be required to include provision of infrastructure consistent with road, water, and sanitary sewer improvements required of development within the applicable city. This includes development with fire protection with water suppression systems and access requirements. It may also be required to meet city design standards, including landscaping and streets. When the applicable city does not require urban standards, then the development may be required to include temporary common wastewater collection systems that meet Iowa Department of Natural Resources and city specifications, and temporary common water distribution systems, such as wells or rural water services. An agreement shall also be required that when a property is annexed to a city, the land developer and/or landowner shall be responsible for the full cost of abandoning the rural well and wastewater systems and connecting to urban infrastructure. Where a base zoning district allows for a conditional use, Story County will consider the long-term appropriateness of the use recognizing the area is planned for urban densities and uses. Most conditional uses that are permissible in the County, due to their distance and isolation from other uses, will be presumed to not be compatible with planned urban development within a growth area. For example, shooting ranges, campgrounds, energy systems, etc. Where conditional uses may be compatible with future urban land uses due to the particular nature of the use or its location in the growth area, additional site development considerations shall be made, including a use’s location on a site, lighting, buffering, landscaping, and setbacks. Conditions related to these considerations shall be applied to address future compatibility of the use with planned urban development. In some situations, it may be appropriate to have a limited duration of approval for such a use. The following conditional uses are not considered compatible with the Urban Reserve Overlay: • Shooting ranges • Campgrounds and RV parks, except as part of a county park • Lodges and fraternal organizations • Power plants and substations • Drag strips and other similar courses or tracks • Salvage yards • Yard waste composting • Agricultural lime storage and processing operations • Bed and breakfasts • Landfills • Commercial Wind Energy Conversion Systems or Solar Energy Conversion Systems • Adult uses • Surface mineral extraction and processing • Indoor recreational facilities Figure 4: Draft Map of the Urban Reserve Overlay The following conditional uses may be considered compatible with the Urban Reserve Overlay Growth Area, with review by the applicable city: • Communication towers and facilities • Commercial nurseries and greenhouses, including retail sales • Golf courses • Human service uses • Home businesses • Childcare centers • Public buildings, water supply, and sewage treatment facilities • Houses of worship and other similar uses • Home businesses • Adaptive reuse ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OVERLAY Description These areas include floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, stream and river corridors, waterbodies, and other environmentally sensitive areas including prairies, savannas, and wildlife corridors. The mapped designation also reflects larger features or areas that were identified through use of GIS data sets and visual inspection of aerial photography. They may include existing development within the sensitive areas. Not all environmentally sensitive areas are mapped and individual developments will need to con sider site-specific characteristics of any sensitive areas, regardless of whether the overlay applies to the site. Annexations The standards of the underlying designation shall apply. Divisions The subdivision authority of the respective jurisdictions will be the same as the underlying land use designation. However, divisions for the creation of new developments lots are not permitted unless the division, if permitted by the underlying designation, separates and/or otherwise protects the environmentally sensitive area from the development. Divisions that create lots that can only be accessed through environmentally sensitive areas are not permitted. Compatible Zoning Districts The standards of the underlying designation shall apply. Permitted Uses and Other Standards Further development is discouraged unless it enhances the environmentally sensitive area’s function through restoration and/or preservation. Any permitted development shall meet Story County’s standards for mitigating impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Impacts of development contiguous to the Environmentally Sensitive Overlay should be considered as part of a development application and mitigated with the development. Conditional uses shall follow the standards of the underlying designation. Figure 5: Draft Map of the Environmentally Sensitive Overlay SUBSURFACE MINING OVERLAY Description This overlay includes areas where underground mining operations, including ancillary surface operations, are occurring. Annexations The standards of the underlying designation shall apply. Divisions The subdivision authority of the underlying jurisdiction will be the same as the underlying land use designation. Compatible Zoning Districts The standards of the underlying designation shall apply. Permitted Uses and Other Standards Consider and mitigate the impacts of noise, dust, vibration, and traffic of mining operations when considering development applications in the vicinity. Figure 5: Draft Map of the Subsurface Mining Overlay AIRPORT PROTECTION OVERLAY Description This land use designation is intended to reduce risk, increase safety and promote land use compatibility between the airport and adjacent land uses. It includes the airport clear zone and planned airport expansion areas. Annexations The standards of the underlying designation shall apply. Divisions The City of Ames retains jurisdiction of subdivisions within the overlay, regardless of the underlying designation. Compatible Zoning Districts The standards of the underlying designation shall apply. Permitted Uses and Other Standards Consider the compatibility of airport operations with new development applications. Story County agrees in this designation to route any permitting applications to the City of Ames Public Works Department and require FAA Determination of “No Hazard” prior to issuing permits. Figure 6: Draft Map of Airport Protection Overlay APPENDIX A 1 ITEM #___34 _ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: FY 2022-23 PROPOSED ANNUAL ACTION PLAN PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) and HOME PROGRAMS BACKGROUND: City Council reviewed draft CDBG and HOME programs for the upcoming Annual Action Plan at their March 22, 2022 meeting and directed staff to proceed with public outreach on the draft programs and budget. On April 14th, City staff hosted two in-person/virtual public forums to gather input regarding possible projects for consideration for the FY 2022-23 CDBG/HOME Annual Action Plan as part the City’s Entitlement Program. Nine (9) persons attended the in-person forum, and three (3) persons attended the virtual forum. Attendees included representatives from The Bridge Home, Good Neighbor, Home Allies, Chamber of Commerce, Amos, and three (3) citizens from Ames. The following agenda was presented, and the forum attendees were given the opportunity to participate in a group discussion regarding the agenda items: 1. Basic overview of the CDBG, HOME and CARES-CV Programs 2. Review of the Consolidated Planning requirements. 3. Overview of the Five-year Goals and Priorities created for 2019-23 4. Proposed 2022-23 Annual Action Plan Projects 5. Group feedback 6. Tentative timeline for next steps The power point presentation of the FY 2022-23 Annual Action Plan will also be available on the Housing Division’s website at http://www.cityofames.org/housing. The public feedback was centered around the need to continue to address affordable housing and neighborhoods. Staff has summarized the public comments offered by four of the nine attendees as follows: • Seek new proposals for the HOME Program/LHTC project in the Baker Subdivision, rather than continuing the Prairie Fire proposal. • Prefer funds to be spent on brick and mortar. • Good to continue with current developer for LIHTC project. • Need a variety of bedroom sized units. Staff’s takeaway from the public input was that there still seems to be a continued consensus that affordable housing and neighborhood investment is needed in the community. As was shared at the March 22nd City Council meeting, although the President signed the 2022 omnibus appropriations bill on March 15th, the FY 2022-23 CDBG and HOME funding allocations for entitlement cities has not yet been announced. Because the City has not been notified of the amounts for FY 2022-23 program year, staff have been advised to project our current FY 2021-22 CDBG allocation of $599,177 and HOME allocation of $350,543 for budgeting for the purposed FY 2022-23 Action Plan projects. Additionally, staff is recommending the proposed programs as was initially outlined to City Council at the March meeting. The proposed programs and budget for the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan are listed in Attachment A. Staff received a memo from HUD that stated that FY 2022-23 allocations maybe announced on or around May 13, 2022. HUD also provided additional guidance for grantees in the development of their draft Annual Action Plans for the 30-day public comment period. Also, HUD suggested that grantees consider adding specific “contingency language” to their plans, if they will be publishing a budget using their current year’s (FY 2021-22) allocations as estimates. Staff does not plan to publish our 2022-23 Annual Action Plan for the 30-day comment until after HUD publishes the allocations on or by May 13th. However, if there is a substantial increase or decrease in the amounts, staff will host an additional public forum and present feedback to Council at their May 24th meeting. This should still allow enough time to prepare the final plan for the 30-day comment and conduct the public hearing on August 9, 2022, in order to meet HUD’s deadline for submitting an adopted plan by August 16th. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can approve the proposed draft FY 2022-23 Annual Action Plan Program Projects and proposed estimated budget (Attachment A) and set August 9th as the date of public hearing for approval of submitting the plan to HUD on or by August 16, 2022. 2. The City Council can approve the proposed 2022-23 Annual Action Plan Program Projects and proposed budget (Attachment A) with modifications and set August 9th as the date of public hearing for approval of submitting the plan to HUD on or by August 16, 2022. 3. The City Council can refer this item back to staff with further direction. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Although there was not a high level of participation in the Public Forums, those who attended commented that the highest priority centered around affordable housing for low- income families and how funds could be used to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. All of the proposed programs help address the needs identified in the 2019-23 Five-Year Consolidated Plan. Waiting until the FY 2022-23 allocations are announced before publishing the 30-day comment period appears to the best option. However, this is a very tight timeframe to get the plan submitted to HUD by the August 16th deadline date. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1. ATTACHMENT A 2022-23 DRAFT Proposed CDBG/HOME Annual Action Plan Projects and Budget DRAFT PROPOSED 2022-23 Action Plan Expenditure Budget: Programs Budget CDBG Homebuyer Assistance Program (Down payment and Closing Cost) $500,000 Housing Improvement Rehabilitation Program for Single-family Homeowners $225,000 CDBG-CV CARES (Rent, Mortgage & Utility) Relief Assistance $58,282 $85,000 HOME Multi-Family LIHTC Assistance New Construction $1,801,222 General Administration for CDBG, HOME & CARES HOME: $177,808 Total $3,382,427* DRAFT PROPOSED 2022-23 Action Plan Revenue Budget: Grand Total CDBG & HOME $3,382,427* *City Council should note that the anticipated revenue for the CDBG program rollover and the anticipated program income are cautious estimates being projected by staff. These projections will be adjusted when the 2022-23 allocations are announced. 1 ITEM # ____35_ DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO U.S. HWY 30 AND BANDSHELL LIGHT SHOW POLICY BACKGROUND: At its April 12, 2022, meeting, the City Council directed staff to bring potential changes to consider other events the City Council may wish to change the U.S. Highway 30 light towers for, and to consider including the Bandshell lighting within the same policy. The Council adopted the policy for the use of the U.S. Highway 30 light towers effective July 2020. This policy allows City staff to review requests for light displays against established criteria to ensure the light displays are being used for acceptable purposes. Acceptable uses include commemorating observances recognized by local, state, or national proclamation, supporting local sports, or honoring individuals who have had a profound community impact. Unacceptable uses include commercial or personal promotion, or recognition of private events or messages not pertinent to the community at large. The Bandshell lighting project completed in 2021 allows for programmable displays of a variety of colors, similar to the U.S. Highway 30 light towers. City staff has drafted modifications to the existing Highway 30 Light Display policy to include Bandshell light displays, so requests for either will be considered using the same criteria. The proposed changes are attached. Additionally, staff is recommending the inclusion of a provision to allow for recognition “of any other event of significance as determined by the Ames City Council.” This provision would provide the City Council with the discretion to determine what events, activities, or milestones are worthy of recognition, outside of the specific observances listed in the policy. If approved, City staff will work to coordinate light displays between the two locations when possible. The use of the Bandshell for events and the different staff and technologies involved may result in the light displays not being coordinated between Highway 30 and the Bandshell at all times. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the attached U.S. Highway 30 and Durham Bandshell Light Display Policy, as presented. 2. Approve the attached policy with modifications. 3. Do not approve the attached policy. 2 CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council has requested modifications to the light show policy to incorporate the lighting at the Bandshell, and has also requested potential changes to consider other events the Council may wish to change the lights for. The attached policy, with revisions suggested by City staff, allows the Council to direct the lights to be changed in recognition of events the Council believes are significant. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. U.S. Highway 30 Light Tower and Durham Bandshell Light Display Policy Background: The light towers along U.S. Highway 30 near Dayton Avenue and the lighting at the Durham Bandshell can be programmed to display various solid and transitioning colors. The displays are coordinated by the Public Works Traffic Supervisor and the Auditorium, Bandshell, and Community Center Manager, respectively. Routine displays may be shown on an ongoing basis. Any special light displays requested by outside organizations will be evaluated according to this policy, and will be programmed to take the place of the routine displays. Organizations Eligible to Request a Special Light Display: For-profit organizations may not place requests for special light displays. Special light displays may be requested by: 1. The Ames City Council or other governmental agencies 2. Non-profit organizations 3. Organizations that have an established partnership with the City of Ames, which promote the economic welfare, tourism, or industry of the City. Requesting a Special Light Display: Requests for a special light display may be placed up to one year in advance of the proposed display start date. Requests for displays must be placed at least two weeks in advance of the proposed display start date if the display requires new light programming, and at least one week in advance if it is a previously used display. Displays will be scheduled on a first-come, first- served basis. Displays may be up to seven consecutive nights in length, except where the City Council directs that a display remain in place for a longer period of time. In a situation where a Bandshell event falls within the seven-day period, the requested light display will not be shown during the event. Requests should include the name and contact information of the organization placing the request, proposed dates of the display, a statement outlining what the display is intended to recognize, and requested colors and patterns. City staff may modify displays to ensure compatibility with the display technology, viewability, and motorist safety from adjacent roadways. Requests may be placed directly with the Public Works Traffic Supervisor for the U.S. Highway 30 lights, and with the Auditorium, Bandshell, and Community Center Manager for the Durham Bandshell lights. Applicants should place their requests well in advance to ensure enough time to receive approval for the display and program it if necessary. Acceptable Light Display Uses: Light displays may be used to: • Acknowledge commemorative observances recognized by local, state, or federal proclamation (e.g., Earth Day, Public Works Week, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, etc.) • Celebrate local achievements (completion of a non-profit fundraising campaign or construction project) • Support local sports and school activities (Ames High School, Iowa State University athletics events) • Honor or memorialize individuals who have had a profound impact on the Ames community • Recognize any other event of significance as determined by the Ames City Council. Light displays may not be used to: • Promote commercial products, services, or interests; or promote political candidates, campaigns, or parties. • Recognize personal milestones, such as birthdays, anniversaries, congratulations, or retirements. • Promote messages inconsistent with local, state, or federal law (such as non- discrimination laws). • Promote messages that are pertinent only to selected individuals rather than the community at large. • Promote private events not open to the public. If a request is denied by City staff, the applicant may appeal to the City Council. The City Council’s decision regarding the request is final. ITEM #: _ 36 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: REZONE PROPERTY AT 802 DELAWARE AVENUE FROM “RL” (RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY) TO “RM” (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DESNITY) ZONE WITH MASTERPLAN BACKGROUND: Penny Lane Townhomes LLC, represented by Justin Dodge, is requesting a rezoning with a Master Plan of property located at 802 Delaware Avenue. The request is to rezone the .75 acre property from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential medium Density (RM) to accommodate the future construction of two 3-unit multi family structures. (See Location & Zoning Map Attachment A) In June 2020 the City Council approved a land use map change for the property, which changed the land use from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential in anticipation of future rezoning. The land use change at that time was done under the previous Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP). The Ames 2040 Comprehensive Plan replaced the previous LUPP. (See Current Land Use Attachment B). The Ames 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the land use on this property as Established Residential Neighborhood 2 (RN2). The RN2 land use designation allows for a wide range of zoning districts for its implementation and supports the concept of limited infill within established neighborhoods when it can be done in a contextual manner to surrounding character of the area. (See Addendum below for further discussion). This particular area of RN2 is a mix of uses and a transition from higher density uses to the north to lower density uses to the south. The zoning for the area is RL to the south and west adjacent to the site and RH zoning is further to the north. (See proposed RM zoning Attachment C) The proposed rezoning is being done as part of an infill project. Under RL zoning use of the site is limited to single family detached homes on individual lots. Staff estimates that four lots could be created from the existing parcel even though maximum density would allow for five dwelling units. With the proposed rezoning to RM, the allowed uses would include multi-family structures and the ability to build more than one building on a lot without needing to subdivide. The applicant describes and interest in constructing townhome style units on the site configured as two three-unit apartment buildings. The property is currently vacant and has been for a long period of time. The property has frontage and is served from Delaware Avenue to the west. The property also has frontage on North Dakota Avenue to the east. Access is restricted from North Dakota Avenue. Utilities are in place abutting the property to adequately serve the type of development allowed by RM zoning. A Master Plan is required with this proposed rezoning due to the addition of medium density residential zoning next to low density residential zoning. The Master Plan furthers the concept of contextual infill by describing the intended type of use as townhome apartments, rather than as single apartment buildings. The proposed Master Plan results in a cap on the number of units on the site of no more than 6 units. RM maximum density would allow for theoretically up to 16 units without a Master Plan. Six units meets minimum density requirements of RM. The final layout of the site would be approved later through a Minor Site Development Plan by staff. The Master Plan will guide the parameters of the number of units as a part of the rezoning. The Minor Site Development Plan will be required to comply with the Master Plan. (See Attachment D- Master Plan) The proposed rezoning is the first project to move forward with an attempt to provide for small infill consistent with Plan 2040 Principles and Policies of the Land Use and Growth Chapter. Plan 2040 supports select infill opportunities and emphasizes compatibility of design and use over intensity of use as the primary goal for infill. At this time there are limited tools in the Zoning Ordinance to address appropriate design and infill as described within Plan 2040. RM zoning has no specific architectural, building, or site orientation standards beyond basic setbacks and density. Updating zoning standards and design guidelines is a planned implementation measure for Plan 2040, but they do not yet exist to guide this project. The proposed Master Plan with its definition of use for the site is the best option currently available. ZONING AGREEMENT: Given that the rezoning is subject to compliance with a Master Plan a zoning agreement is required to be signed with the developer to ensure that the terms for the master plan are followed. A zoning agreement will be finalized with the developer prior to the third reading of this rezoning ordinance. The zoning agreement will enumerate the conditions on the Master Plan via a signed legal agreement in order to ensure compliance with the approved plan. The zoning agreement will require that the developer abide by the required housing type, number of buildings and number of units. In this case the following conditions of the agreement will include: • That there be no more than 6 units developed on this property. • That the development consist of at least two buildings. • That the housing type be limited to townhome building style. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 6th for the proposed rezoning. The neighbor to the south (800 Delaware) spoke against the rezoning and believed the RL density and building types were more appropriate for the site and was compatible with the existing structures in this area. The Commission discussed the RN2 designation and Ames Plan 2040 policies regarding infill and implementation of these concepts. Commission comments focused on concerns related to the proposed density with the building concept presented by the applicant at the meeting for modern architecturally styled units oriented along the north and south perimeter of the site. Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the City Council approve the proposed rezoning with the following conditions included in the recommendation: 1. That the Masterplan be amended to correct the housing types from single- family attached/detached to townhomes/apartments. 2. That the masterplan indicate that the future development consist of at least two buildings. 3. That the density of the development be capped at 6 units on the masterplan. Since the April 6th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting the developer has addressed all of the conditions in the recommendation on the Master Plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can approve the request to rezone the property located at 802 Delaware Avenue from “RL” Residential Low-Density to “RM” (Residential Medium- Density) with a Master Plan and; A. That a Rezoning Agreement outlining the requirements of the Master Plan be completed prior to the Third Reading of the rezoning ordinance. 2. The City Council can deny the request to rezone the property located at 802 Delaware Avenue from “RL” Residential Low-Density to “RM” (Residential Medium-Density) with a Master Plan if it does not believe the proposed rezoning with Master Plan is consistent with the policies of Ames Plan 2040 for infill rezoning and the RN2 land use designation. 3. The City Council can refer this matter back to staff and the applicant for more information before making a recommendation. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The request for rezoning is consistent with the adopted Ames Plan 2040 as described in the addendum. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is minimal and consistent with what has been anticipated for development in this area. The Master Plan as proposed will restrict the maximum number of units on this property to no more than 6. The future Major Site Development Plan must conform to the Master Plan for this site. A Zoning Agreement that outlines the requirements of the masterplan will be required to be signed by the Developer prior to the Third Reading of the rezoning ordinance. Therefore, the City Manager recommends Alternative #1. ADDENDUM REZONING BACKGROUND: Existing Uses of Land. Land uses that occupy the subject property and other surrounding properties are described in the following table. Direction from Subject Property Existing Primary Land Uses Subject Property North East South West Ames Plan 2040. The Future Land Use Map designates the land proposed for rezoning as “Established Residential Neighborhood 2” (RN2) which supports the many zoning options, including the “RM” Residential Medium-Density zoning district (see Attachment B – Future Land Use Map). RN2 neighborhoods will typically have current zoning of RL, RM or F-PRD (Planned Residence District). Attachment E includes the excerpt of Plan 2040 for the RN2 designation that is discussed below. Each land use designation in Plan 2040 describes its context and potential issues to be addressed or guidance for future projects as they occur during the next 20 years. Existing Neighborhood Characteristics The RN2 designation is oriented around recognizing features of existing neighborhoods have been developed in the mid-20th century through early 21st century and are predominately built out except for individual infill sites. Older neighborhoods are classified as R1 reflecting their more traditional design aspects compared to the more suburban patterns of RN2. Plan 2040 further describes RN2 neighborhoods as having been designed with suburban type development patterns with large single blocks containing a variety of lot sizes and single-family home sizes. Curvilinear streets, loop streets and cul-de-sacs will be common street characteristics. Transit service is likely limited or non-existent. Sidewalks will occasionally have discontinuity and there will be some internal sidewalk design through neighborhoods and clusters of homes. Some early Planned Developments may exist in these areas with unique designs. RN2 allows for select infill opportunities for compatible infill development in established neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods may have a majority of single-family homes with some duplexes and small-scale multi-family. RN2 is not designated for large scale redevelopment where development density would be a primary objective for an area. Growth Goals The goals of RN2 involve conservation of general neighborhood character and structural conditions. General density goals in these areas is to target 6 units per acre except where higher in multi-family clusters. This individual site would slightly exceed the 6 unit per acre assumption, but it is consistent with this target for the overall area. The areas mix of duplexes and higher density to the north were originally a consideration in supporting this site for medium density infill. Development Guidelines As these neighborhoods evolve and develop attention should be given to maintaining the character of blocks of single family residential areas and limiting infill to attached units and small townhome developments near existing attached home styles and areas of public space. Attention will be given to scale and design of infill sites. Support should also be given to increased use of key architectural features such as porches and quality façade materials. These design principles would ultimately lead to design guidelines that define compatibility priorities for orientation, access, scale, and streetscape. Currently, the City does not yet have these types of guidelines lines in place. The proposed Master Plan addresses compatibility with its limitation on units to be similar to maximum low density development allowances. Additionally, staff proposed a stipulation to require multiple buildings in order to limit construction one large budling on site that could be out of scale for the area Public Actions The RN2 category also encourages public actions that recognize the unique established urban environment and proactively develop support programs that encourage reinvestment, transit extensions, improving pedestrian access with walkability and bike facilities, historic programs that maintain essential character and the use of overlays to achieve characteristics that enhance the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood near 802 Delaware fits the anticipated characteristics of just such a neighborhood. Scale and compatible neighborhood design are important here as the surrounding area is a mix of single-family and two-family homes. A full list of RN2 guidelines and goals are found in Attachment E. The RN2 characteristics are supported further by Ames Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Principles related to infill with Growth (G3), Neighborhoods and Housing (H2) and Community Character (C3), which are also contained below in Attachment E. These sections deal further with guiding principals of creating appropriate urban fabric, housing considerations and maintaining community character. Staff also notes that the Implementation Chapter discusses rezoning and consistency with the Plan. The adopted Plan includes a compatibility matrix that was initially part of the Growth and Land Use Chapter draft that is now considered advisory for future actions regarding updates to zoning. These matrixes do not directly relate to the rezoning request, but do provide context and background for issues of infill and compatibility that were discussed during the writing of the Plan. Master Plan. The Master Plan will govern density with a maximum of 6 units allowed on the site. The future Major Site Development Plan will ensure that the design and building scale of the units is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Major Site Development Plan must also comply with the approved Master Plan. A Master Plan is required in this case based on Section 29.1507(3)(b)(iv) when “The City Council determines that due to specific conditions that exist on or around the area proposed to be rezoned, or due to situations that require more careful consideration of how the layout and design of a site affects general health, safety, and welfare, a Master Plan is necessary for consideration of the proposed zoning map amendment.” The City Council, upon approval of the LUPP amendment in 2020, required that future rezoning include a Master Plan due to differentiation of housing types in the neighborhood and medium density zoning abutting low density zoning. Proposed Zoning. The applicant proposes rezoning from “RL” (Residential Low-Density) to “RM” (Residential Medium-Density) with a Master Plan. The surrounding properties are zoned RL in this immediate area. Properties further north approximately one block are zoned “RH” (Residential High-Density) which contain small apartment buildings. The homes across the street on the west side of Delaware are duplex style homes but are zoned “RL”. The “RM” zone development standards allow for duplex homes and small apartment buildings. It should be noted that while a new Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, the existing zoning tools in the zoning ordinance do not necessarily align with or provide the best means of dealing with all goals and objectives of the Ames 2040 Comprehensive plan. Developing additional design details has not yet occurred, the Master Plan for this project addresses some of the issues of infill compatibility related to use and density. Infrastructure. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel are consistent with what is already anticipated for residential use of the property. Public utilities such as water and sewer serving this parcel are in the right-of-way for Delaware Avenue. No additional utilities or infrastructure are anticipated with future development of the site. Electricity is also available to serve the site. Site access will occur from Delaware. Delaware Avenue is adequate to serve the anticipated traffic generated by this site. Staff anticipates only one driveway to access the site. One driveway helps to keep front yards landscaped areas along the street and to minimizing paving and garage doors as the defining design features of the infill project. Development of the site will trigger sidewalk frontage improvements, however it will be disconnected on the east side of Delaware from other sidewalks. Any future extension of City utilities and connections 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 Penny Lane Townhomes LLC. 2. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(1) allows the property owner to initiate an amendment to the Official Zoning Map. 3. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the designation of “Established Residential neighborhood 2 (RN2)” identified on the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map. 4. Development in the “RM” 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. 5. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is consistent with what is already anticipated for the area. Public Notice. The City provided mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of the subject property and published notice prior to the City Council meeting in accordance with the notification requirements of Chapter 29. Attachment A- Location & Zoning Map Attachment B- Current Land Use-RN2 (Property outlined in Blue) Attachment C- Proposed Zoning Attachment D- Master Plan Attachment E- Growth & Land Use Attachment E- Cont. Attachment F- Applicants Statement for Rezoning Reasons for Requesting Rezoning We are requesting the parcel be rezoned from the current RL- Residential low Density –RM (Residential Medium Density) – to allow the development of the property as Medium Density. Consistency of this rezoning plan with the Land Use Policy Plan The parcel requested for rezoning meets the consistency and goals of , Medium Density zoning as an acceptable use for residential subdivisions. The current 2040 land use map identifies the parcel as RN-2. The original land use change was based upon the old LUPP standards which are reflected in the following: 1. Recognizing that additional population and economic growth is likely, it is the goal of Ames to plan for and manage growth within the context of the community's capacity and preferences. This project provides for additional housing to provide for the expanding population. This project is an infill project and will utilize existing utilities and infrastructure already in place. The proposed use matches the surrounding area. 2. In preparing for the target population and employment growth, it is the goal of Ames to assure the adequate provision and availability of developable land. It is the further goal of the community to guide the character, location, and compatibility of growth with the area’s natural resources and rural areas. This request fits the character and compatibility of growth of the surrounding area by providing an infill development matching the existing character and land use. 3. It is the goal of Ames to assure that it is an “environmentally-friendly” community and that all goals and objectives are integrated with this common goal. In continuing to serve as a concentrated area for human habitat and economic activity, Ames seeks to be compatible with its ecological systems in creating an environmentally sustainable community. The development planned for this area is to include landscaping and storm water management features on an infill site with minimizing mass grading and utilizing existing utilities already in place. 4. It is the goal of Ames to create a greater sense of place and connectivity, physically and psychologically, in building a neighborhood and overall community identity and spirit. It is the further goal of the community to assure a more healthy, safe, and attractive environment. The development is intended to add to the connectivity of the community by having a physical connection to the existing streets, sidewalks and trails to the east. 5. It is the goal of Ames to establish a cost-effective and efficient growth pattern for development in new areas and in a limited number of existing areas for intensification. It is a further goal of the community to link the timing of development with the installation of public infrastructure including utilities, multi- modal transportation system, parks and open space. This project is an infill project and will be cost effective as it will utilize existing infrastructure already in place and provide smart growth inside the existing City limits. 6. It is the goal of Ames to increase the supply of housing and to provide a wider range of housing choices. This development will provide for additional units for construction which will help with the availability of housing. 7. It is the goal of Ames to provide greater mobility through more efficient use of personal automobiles and enhanced availability of an integrated system including alternative modes of transportation. The development is intended to add to the connectivity of the community by having a physical connection to the existing streets, sidewalks and trails. 8. It is the goal of Ames to enhance the role of Downtown as a community focal point. This project does not propose uses that would duplicate those offered by the downtown. It would increase population which will provide potential shoppers/customers/users of downtown. 9. It is the goal of Ames to promote expansion and diversification of the economy in creating a base that is more self-sufficient and that is more sustainable with regard to the environment. The subdivision provides additional housing for people to allow economic growth. 10. It is the goal of Ames to maintain and enhance its cultural heritage. The proposed site does not negatively impact the cultural heritage of Ames. Current Zoning of the subject property The property is currently zoned Residential Low Density Proposed Zoning of the subject Property The requested zoning is Residential Medium Density Proposed Use of the Property The intended use of the property is attached single family residential housing. Legal Description of the property proposed for rezoning. PARCEL "D" PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6. TOWNSHIP 83 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., AMES, STORY COUNTY, IOWA. 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 802 Delaware Avenue, is rezoned with a Master Plan from Residential Low- Density “RL” to Residential Medium-Density “RM”. Real Estate Description: Parcel “D” Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6. Township 83 North, Range 24 West of the 5th p.m., Ames, Story County, Iowa. 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 1 ITEM # 37 DATE:04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PLAZA PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BACKGROUND: This project is to construct a Downtown Plaza in the parking lot directly east of City Hall. The main activity features of the Plaza are a water channel (runnel) and a spray pad for summer fun, as well as an ice-skating ribbon for winter activities. The plan also includes hardscape and green landscaped areas, benches, a small stage for performances, year- round universal public restrooms, and space for food trucks. There will also be parking improvements along Clark Avenue. All of these aforementioned items are included in the base bid. Due to an unexpected cost increase in the ice-skating ribbon and additional space needed for some equipment, several changes were made to the plaza design from the original concept that was presented to the City Council on November 9, 2021. On February 2, 2022, the following project changes were approved by the City Council to the project. A. Shift the ice-skating ribbon and building to the west to accommodate larger condenser unit which is needed for making ice B. Increased the size of the utility yard to accommodate the condenser unit and the addition of a small retaining wall and 6’ tall wooden fence for security purposes C. A 4’ wide dry deck added on east side of water runnel and splash pad area D. Curb on east side of water runnel raised to the seat wall height E. Provided additional turf area for flexible use/seating F. Removed walk on the west side of the feature art sculpture G. Relocated food truck parking H. Added ADA walkway to the performance stage I. Removed 5th Street Right-of-Way work Additionally, several components were removed from the base design and four add- alternates were included in the bids. One deduct alternate is included calls for the conversion of the ice-skating ribbon to a more traditional shaped ice rink. These alternates are included in the bid documents and are explained below: Add-Alternate #1 – Swinging Benches – ($65,000 for four benches) Provide all labor, equipment, materials, insurance, and other components necessary to add two (2) Swinging Benches, including footings. 2 Add-Alternate #2 – Color PCC Band at Outside Ice Perimeter – ($14,000) Provide all labor, equipment, materials, insurance, and other components necessary to add a colored concrete PCC band around the perimeter of the ice pavement. The dimensions are 2 ft wide, 9 in deep, and 365 ft in length. Add-Alternate #3 – Light Columns – ($39,000 for seven columns) Provide all labor, equipment, materials, insurance, and other components necessary to add seven light columns, including footings and electrical connections. Add-Alternate #4 – Seating Nook – ($74,000) Provide all labor, equipment, materials, insurance, and other components necessary to add a second seating nook. Add-Alternate #6 C02 Ice Rink System ($360,000) This add-alternate was added by addendum during the bidding process. A manufacturer of ice equipment made the request to use CO2 instead of a synthetic coolant. Staff agreed to the addition as the manufacturer estimated 10% in efficiency gains and CO2 is a natural refrigerant that would not be subject to any future regulations in coolants. Deduct-Alternate #5 – Ice Rink (No cost savings to switch to larger ice surface) Provide all labor, equipment, materials, insurance, and other components necessary to convert the ice-skating ribbon into an ice rink by removing the interior “island”. This includes the reduction of dasher and railings around the interior island, removal of festoon lighting, removal of synthetic turf, and removal of the PCC band (Type 4 Pavement). This also includes the addition of ice rink decking to infill of the interior island. On April 13, 2022, Bids were received as follows: BIDDERS LUMP SUM BASE BID AMOUNT Henkel Construction Company Mason City, IA $4,619,000.00 Graphite Construction Group, Inc. Des Moines, IA 3 Alternative Bids: As shown above the base bids were significantly over the engineer’s estimate of $3,938,591(this includes the artwork and FFE which were not part of the base bid). The apparent low base bidder, Henkel, is $680,409 over the engineer’s estimate. The total project cost with the low base bid is shown below Total Project Estimate: Amount Total Project Estimate $5,514,600 Total available funding for the entire project is $4,555,121. The project activities and associated funding sources for each Fiscal Year are shown below: BIDDERS ADD ALTERNATE #1: SWINGING ALTERNATE #2: COLOR PCC BAND AT OUTSIDE OF ICE ADD ALTERNATE #3: LIGHT ADD ALTERNATE #4: SEATING DEDUCT ALTERNATE ADD ALTERNATE #6: CO2 REFRIGERANT ICE RINK Henkel Construction Company Mason City, $5,000.00 $14,000.00 $39,000.00 $74,000.00 No Change $360,000.00 Construction Group, Inc. Des Moines, HPC, LLC Ames, IA Construction LLC $57,000.00 $17,000.00 $38,000.00 $104,000.00 ($195,000.00) No Bid Construction, 4 Fiscal Year Project Activity Cost Funding Sources 20,000 Hotel Motel Tax 2,184,624 Local Option Total $4,555,121 $4,555,121 These new totals result in a project funding shortfall of $959,479 based on the available funding. Discussions with our consultants indicate that rebidding the same project at a later date will likely not result in better bids. If the project is to be rebid, the scope should be modified. A review of the project indicates the only single element that can be changed from the original scope that would yield the necessary project savings would be the elimination of the ice component which is estimated to cost $1.2 million - $1.3 million. This includes the removal of all equipment and related elements for a refrigerated ice rink. As the City Council knows, this element was crucial to your vision for a four-season amenity and would not be a preferred course of action. Eliminating other large components of the project, such as the addition of parking along Clark Avenue or the water features within the Plaza do not individually provide enough savings. In discussions with the apparent low bidder, Henkel, there may be some savings to be accomplished through further value engineering portions of the project that could partially reduce the project funding shortfall. These savings could partially offset the increased costs, but staff does not believe they will substantially close the gap. Examples include the moonstone seating, polycarbonate roof over the seating area, and the landscape wall next to the runnel. If City Council wants to move ahead with the project as originally envisioned, staff will continue to work on identifying potential savings and potential funding sources to cover this project funding shortfall. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a) Accept the report of bids for the Downtown Plaza Project b) Instruct staff to bring back recommendations to reduce project costs and identify additional funding sources to make up the projected funding shortfall. 2. a) Accept the report of bids for the Downtown Plaza Project 5 b) Instruct the staff to rebid the project at a later date with the same plans and specifications. 3. a) Accept the report of bids for the Downtown Plaza Project b) Instruct the staff to rebid the project at a later date with new plans and specifications that eliminate the ice feature. 4. Reject all bids and delay moving forward with the project at this time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Developing a Downtown Plaza has been a high priority for the City Council, and once constructed it will enhance the opportunities in the downtown area for residents and visitors. While the bids were substantially over the estimate, there were five bids within a relatively close range. It appears, to move ahead with this project with the current approved level of funding, the project will need to be redesigned and rebid without the ice component, which would no longer meet the Council’s vision for the space. Also, a rebid would delay the project to opening in late 2023 or early 2024. Assuming that the City Council members desire to make every effort to move forward with this project as soon as possible to accomplish their vision for this project, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that City Council approve Alternative #1, as stated above. This action will 1) accept the report of bids for the Downtown Plaza Project and 2) instruct staff to bring back recommendations to reduce project costs and identify additional funding sources to make up the projected funding shortfall. 1 ITEM: __ _38_ DATE: 04/26/22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARDS FOR FLAG LOTS BACKGROUND: William Fedeler of H&B Properties, LLC, is seeking to subdivide his single "General Industrial" lot at 2108 East Lincoln Way into two "General Industrial" lots, one being at the rear of the property, as described in his request (see Attachment A, Applicant’s Request). The property owner requested a text amendment to allow for a flag lot with a 25- foot wide "access strip" for GI zoned properties where currently the standard requires a minimum of 35-feet. City Council authorized the property owner to apply for such a text amendment. The owner requests the change due to the location of an existing building on the lot and the related building setbacks that preclude him from meeting the 35-foot standard. The proposed rear lot would meet the minimum "General Industrial" Zone Development Standards included in Table 29.901(3) with a 25-foot frontage, but would not meet Section 29.401(c) Flag Lots, that states a flag lot "access strip" shall be no less than 35-feet in width. The City’s standards apply to all types of lots regardless of zoning, even though lot width and street frontage requirements do vary within base zoning districts. A flag lot is defined in Section 29.201(119) as “any lot having less frontage on a public way than is typical for the block in which the lot is proposed and is configured such that a narrow access corridor extends from the point of frontage to a larger portion of the lot (the "rear lot").” The description of flag lots and associated requirements are included in Section 29.401(c) Flag Lots. Notably, only one flag lot can be created from a lot of record. The General Industrial zoning district is unique in that the minimum street frontage requirement is only 25-feet, which is less than the flag lot street frontage requirement. Narrow minimum lot width requirements typically come into play with cul-de-sac lots, lots with alley access, or attached (zero-lot line buildings). The lot width requirements have been in place since 2000, where prior to 2000 there was not a lot width standard for GI zoning. In this case, applying the flag lot width standard results in a greater amount of lot width for the access flag than required for a standard lot within this zone. This is the opposite of what is typical. Usually, flag lots have a reduced width from the standard lot requirement. Within the General Industrial zoning district, there are currently 10 properties 2 configured as flag lots: five properties have a 25-foot access corridor and the other five have a 35-foot access corridor. The majority of these were developed prior to 2000. Lot frontage and width requirements are designed to create minimum spacing of lots and allow for minimal functional requirements. A 25-foot lot width and street frontage width creates potential conflicts with other development standards for access and landscaping that may not allow for full use of a property if it cannot meet City Codes. When a site’s sole point of access is only a 25-foot width, it may not meet standards. For example, a two-way driveway would require a minimum of 24 feet of width, which would not allow for adequate area for landscaping or sidewalk access if it was required. When sites have shared access or alternatives access points the lot width requirement may not be a concern. Reducing the street frontage requirement for all flag lots within the General Industrial zoning district to 25-feet would standardize lot width minimums for both standard lots and flag lots in the General Industrial zoning district. However, staff is concerned that a blanket allowance of 25-feet width for all flag lots within the General Industrial zoning district would preclude required pedestrian access along with other site improvement requirements. A 25-foot wide flag lot could accommodate a typical driveway with a 24-foot width, as long as no sidewalk access is required. Sites used for outdoor storage that do not have a primary building would not require a sidewalk and could conform to minimum access requirements. Otherwise, a sidewalk connection is required by the Section 29.404 from the street to the main entrance of the primary building which would not typically fit within the 25-foot minimum width requirement. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT; Mr Fedler proposes a simple change to the standard to except GI zoned lots from the 35- foot access strip requirement. In response to this proposed change, staff has included changes to the definition of a flag lot to improve its clarity. This change would apply city- wide, not just to GI lots. However, staff recommends language to conditionally allow for the reduced width only when easements are included that are necessary to meet sidewalk and other access requirements. Proposed text changes included in Attachment C include staff’s recommendation for conditional reductions of flag lot access strip width in GI zoning districts. The definition of flag lots is also amended to provide better clarity regarding typical widths of a lot. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission met on April 6, 2022, to consider the proposed text amendment. The Commission voted 6-0 in favor of recommending the reduction of the flag lot access width in the General Industrial Zoning District as recommended by staff and represented by Attachment C. 3 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve on First Reading a text amendment to reduce the minimum flag lot access width with conditional easement requirements in the General Industrial zoning district, as included in Attachment C. 2. Approve on First Reading a text amendment with language that reduces the minimum flag lot access width in the General Industrial zoning district to 25 feet with no conditional easement language, as proposed by the applicant in Attachment A. 3. Direct staff to prepare modifications to the proposed text amendment and return for Council consideration at a later date. 4. Do not approve the proposed text amendment. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposed text amendments clarify requirements and expectations of the flag lot requirements. Although the proposed text amendment is expected to have minimal impact and affect only a handful of properties across the City that are zoned General Industrial, the amendment will further enable taking “advantage of infill sites within the existing urbanized area to increase both the efficiency and quality of the urban environment,” a principle of the Growth & Land Use chapter in the Ames Plan 2040. In some cases, the text amendment may help with infill when a property can benefit from some form of shared access and not solely rely upon minimum lot width. The change primarily facilitates the use of land that does not include buildings due to the constraints of a narrow lot width in being able to comply with access requirements. The text amendment would continue to require all other zones with flag lots to have a minimum 35-foot-wide access strip. Staff has also included an adjustment to the definition of flag lot to create greater clarity as well. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1. 4 Attachment A – Applicant’s Request 5 Attachment B – Location Map 6 Attachment C Zoning Code: Proposed Text Changes for Flag Lots Staff proposes the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Text to be removed is shown with strike-through; text to be added is underlined. Sec. 29.201 Definitions (119) Lot, Flag means any lot having less frontage on a public way than is typical for the block in which the lot is proposed and is configured such that a narrow access corridor extends from the point of frontage to a larger portion of the lot (the "rear lot”) where the width of access strip is less than the required width of a lot. Sec. 29.401(c) Flag Lots. Flag lots may be created only if they are in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Only one flag lot, consisting of a “front lot” and a “rear lot,” may be created from a lot of record. (ii) The “Rear Lot” shall include an “access strip” no less than 35-feet wide for its entire length, providing access to and from a public street. However, within General Industrial, the width of the access strip may be reduced to 25-feet if easements are provided to allow for necessary vehicular and pedestrian access. (iii) For flag lots that are proposed to be created in residential zones, both the “front lot” and the “rear lot” that are created after the effective date of this ordinance shall have an area that is equal to 10,000 square feet or 150% of the lot area for the zone in which the flag lots are proposed to be created, whichever is greater. In all other zoning districts both the “front lot” and the “rear lot” shall conform to all minimum lot area and other dimensional standards applicable to the zone in which the lots are located provided, however, that the “access strip” serving the rear lot shall not be included in computing the minimum lot area for the “front” and “rear” lot. (iv) (iv) The front property line of the rear lot is deemed coincident with the rear property line of the front lot. (v) The front setback of the “rear lot” and the rear setback of the “front lot” for flag lots created in residential zones shall be 1½ times the distance of the setbacks that are established for all other lots in the same residential zoning district. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 29.201(119) AND 29.401(c)(ii) THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING REDUCED ACCESS STRIPS IN GENERAL INDUSTURIAL ZONES; REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that: Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby amended by amending sections 29.201(119) and 29.401(c)(ii) as follows: “Sec. 29.201 Definitions (119)Lot, Flag means any lot having less frontage on a public way than is typical for the block in which the lot is proposed and is configured such that a narrow access corridor extends from the point of frontage to a larger portion of the lot (the "rear lot”) where the width of the access strip is less than the required width of the lot. Sec. 29.401. LOT CONFIGURATION, BUILDING COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIOS, AND HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS. (1)Lot Configuration. . . . (c)Flag Lots.Flag lots may be created only if they are in accordance with the following requirements: . . . (ii)The “Rear Lot” shall include an “access strip” no less than 35-feet wide for its entire length, providing access to and from a public street. However, within any General Industrial (GI) zone, the width of the access strip may be reduced to 25-feet if easements are provided to allow for necessary vehicular and pedestrian access. . . .” Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any. Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Passed this day of , . ______________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor ITEM #: 39 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2021/22 SHARED USE PATH MAINTENANCE – LITTLE BLUESTEM BACKGROUND: This program provides for shared use path maintenance activities such as patching, joint repairs, micro-surfacing, as well as complete replacement. Locations are determined using a condition inventory, visual inspection of paths, and input from users. The improvements will enhance safety, usability, and aesthetics of the path/trail system. This project is located between Little Bluestem Court and Gateway Hill Park Drive (see attached map) and will replace the existing shared use path with a new concrete path. This shared use path section needs full replacement due to deterioration from tree root damage, soil erosion, and age. A project to address the storm water erosion, including selective tree clearing was completed in 2020. On April 20, 2022 bids were received for this project as follows: Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s Estimate $133,795.10 TK Concrete $120,604.90 Concrete Professionals $127,414.51 Caliber Concrete, LLC $144,468.03 Howrey Construction $146,087.41 There is $125,000 of Local Option Sales Tax allocated for this program annually in the Capital Improvement Plan. These funds have been accumulated and carried over into the current budget. There is an additional $68,000 available from savings from several smaller joint sealing and patching contracts through this program, resulting in approximately $193,000 being available to fund this project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2021/22 Shared Use Path Maintenance – Little Bluestem project b. Approve the final plans and specifications. c. Award the 2021/22 Shared Use Path Maintenance – Little Bluestem project to TK Concrete of Pella, IA in the amount of $120,604.90 2. Award the project to another bidder. 3. Do not proceed with this project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Awarding this project will allow for necessary maintenance activities to occur which will enhance user experience of this shared use path. The remaining funds will be used for additional future maintenance activities. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. Shared Use Path Location Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, City of Ames, IA M2021/22 SUP Maintenance - Little Bluestem 1 inch = 188 feet © City of Ames, Iowa makes no warranties, expressed or implied, including without limitation, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the City of Ames be liable for lost profits or any consequential or incidental damages caused by the use of this map.Date: 3/1/2022 ITEM#: 40 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2022/23 MAIN STREET PAVER REPLACEMENT PROJECT (KELLOGG AVE – DOUGLAS AVE) & (DOUGLAS AVE – DUFF AVE) BACKGROUND: This project replaces the pavers that were installed with the Main Street Reconstruction project in 1999. At that time, the pavers were an aesthetic upgrade to traditional concrete sidewalks. Over time, the pavers have proven to be difficult to maintain and crews spend considerable time to level or replace pavers. Additionally, ice control chemicals applied by adjacent businesses have led to accelerated deterioration of the pavers. This project includes the installation of pavers on the final phase of the Main Street Paver Replacement program, from Kellogg Ave to Duff Ave. Due to the deteriorated condition of the concrete base under the existing pavers, which was found in the first phase of the project, staff has prepared plans and specifications that include the replacement of this concrete base layer. The paver materials for this final phase project were purchased and delivered in the fall of 2021 under the second phase contract (Burnett Ave to Kellogg Ave). This was completed to ensure a uniform product and to protect against future price increases. Because the materials have already been purchased, this contract is only for installation and construction. On April 20, 2022 bids were received for this project as follows: Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s Estimate $332,458.00 Con-Struct, Inc $333,333.00 Shekar Engineering PLC $359,871.00 Funding for this final phase is included in the Capital Improvements Plan in Fiscal Year 2022/23 in the amount of $350,000. Work on this final phase will not begin until the second phase from Burnett Ave to Kellogg Ave is completed, which is anticipated to occur in June 2022. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2022/23 Main Street Paver Replacement Project (Kellogg Ave – Duff Ave) b. Approve the final plans and specifications. c. Award the 2022/23 Main Street Paver Replacement Project (Kellogg Ave – Duff Ave) to Con-Struct, Inc of Ames, IA in the amount of $333,333 2. Award the project to another bidder. 3. Do not proceed with this project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Removal and replacement of the pavers are necessary to ensure the sidewalks are safe for pedestrian use and to enhance the visual aesthetic along the Main Street corridor. Staff will carry out educational efforts to promote voluntary compliance in reducing the de-icing chemicals. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. ITEM#: 41 DATE: 04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 CONCRETE PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (FORD ST., BELL AVE., S. 17TH ST., S. KELLOGG AVE) BACKGROUND: This is an annual program to rehabilitate or reconstruct concrete streets that have deteriorated in order to prevent further breakdown of the pavement. This work will provide enhanced rideability, lower routine maintenance costs, and an improved aesthetic. Staff has completed plans and specifications for this project, which includes removal and replacement of selected deteriorating concrete panels in various locations. On April 20, 2022, bids for the project were received as follows: Bidder Base Bid Amount Engineer’s estimate $ 666,563.00 Con-Struct Inc. $ 666,666.00 TK Concrete, Inc $ 699,560.00 Shekar Engineering, P.L.C. $ 727,389.00 Tenpoint Construction Co. Inc. $ 782,765.01 Revenues and expenses for this project are estimated as follows: Available Revenue Estimated Expenses Construction (This project) Engineering/Administration $1,284,528.26 $ 666,666.00 $ 305,000.00 $ 2,400,000 $2,256,194.26 ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of for the 2020/21 Concrete Pavement Improvements (Ford St., Bell Ave., S. 17th St., S. Kellogg Ave.) project. b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project. c. Award the 2020/21 Concrete Pavement Improvements (Ford St, Bell Ave, S. 17th St, S. Kellogg Ave) project to Con-Struct Inc. of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $666,666.00. 2. Award the contract to one of the other bidders. 3. Do not proceed with this project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: By approving the final plans and specifications and awarding the contract, this project will result in lower street maintenance costs and provide a better neighborhood aesthetic. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. 1 ITEM # ___42___ DATE _04-26-22 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: SANITARY SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENT BACKGROUND: Chapter 28, Division III of the Ames Municipal Code contains the following passages related to sewer rates. Sec. 28.301. SEWER RATE POLICY. It is determined and declared to be necessary and conducive to the protection of the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the City of Ames to collect charges from all users who contribute wastewater to the City's treatment works. The proceeds of such charges so derived will be used for the purpose of operating, maintaining, and retiring the debt for such public wastewater treatment works. Sec. 28.303. USE OF RATE REVENUE. The user charge system shall generate adequate annual revenues to pay costs of annual operation and maintenance, including replacement, and costs associated with debt retirement of bonded capital associated with financing the treatment works which the City may by ordinance designate to be paid by the user charge system. Sec. 28.304. SEWER RATES ESTABLISHED (7) The City will review the user charge system at least every three years and revise user charge rates as necessary to ensure that the system generates adequate revenues to pay the costs of operation and maintenance including replacement and that the system continues to provide for the proportional distribution of operation and maintenance including replacement costs among users. Each year as a part of the annual budget process, staff updates a spreadsheet model for the Water and Sewer Funds that reflects current and projected operating and capital expenses for the utilities over the next ten years, and the resulting annual ending fund balance in each of the funds. This model is used to establish a long-range pattern of rate increases that will fully finance these self-funded enterprise utilities, including a 25% operating reserve. During the development of the FY 2022/23 budget, staff determined that a five percent (5%) increase to sewer rates would be needed, effective July 1, 2022. 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve on first reading an ordinance that increases sanitary sewer rates by five percent (5%) effective for bills mailed on or after July 1, 2022. 2. Direct staff to modify the rate ordinance to enact some alternate rate adjustment. 3. Do not take any action to adjust sewer rates and give staff direction on expenditure reductions in order to maintain a positive Sewer Fund balance. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposed rate increases are necessary to fund the on-going operations and maintenance budget plus the anticipated capital improvements projects. The recommendation is part of a consistent, predictable pattern of rate increases projected over the next ten years. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING SECTION 28.304(3) THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING SEWER RATES REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that: Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby amended by amending Section 28.304(3) as follows: “Sec. 28.304. SEWER RATES ESTABLISHED. . . . (3) For each monthly billing on or after July 1, 2022, each customer shall be charged a minimum monthly charge. The minimum charge for each location shall be twelve dollars and sixteen cents ($12.16). The minimum monthly charge may be prorated, based on a 30-day billing period, for the customer’s initial and/or final bills, provided that in no case shall the prorated minimum monthly charge be less than four dollars and sixty-seven cents ($4.67). In addition, for all water metered beginning with the first cubic foot each month, each user shall pay three dollars and eleven cents ($3.11) per 100 cubic feet. (Ord. No. 3168, Sec. 1, 4-28-92; Ord. No. 3326, Sec. 2, 5-9-95; Ord. No. 3834, 5-24-05; Ord. No. 3956, 06-10-08; Ord. No. 4037, 5-11-10; Ord. No. 4144, 5-14-13; Ord. No. 4814, 5-27-14; Ord. No. 4215, 5-12- 15; Ord. No. 4351, 5-8-18; Ord. 4408, 4-14-2020).” Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any. Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Passed this day of , . ______________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor