HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - July 26, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
JULY 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 PM
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving Regular Minutes of July 12, 2022
3. Motion approving Report of Change Order for period July 1 - 15, 2022
4. Motion certifying Civil Service candidates
5. Motion approving new Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit and
Sunday Sales - Kwik Star #1158, 1910 Isaac Newton Drive, Pending favorable Department of
Inspections & Appeals Inspection
6. Motion approving new Outdoor Service Privilege to Class C Liquor License and Sunday Sales -
Time Out Ames, 120 Kellogg Avenue, Pending Final Inspection
7. Motion approving ownership update for Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and
Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Market Grille, 640 Lincoln Way
8. Motion approving ownership update for Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class
C Beer Permit (carryout beer), and Sunday Sales - Kum & Go #1215, 4506 Lincoln Way
9. Motion approving ownership update for Class A Liquor License, Sunday Sales and Outdoor
Service - Green Hills Residents’ Association, 2200 Hamilton Drive, Suite 100
10. Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses:
a. Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales & Outdoor Service - Botanero Latino, 604
East Lincoln Way - Pending Dram Shop Insurance
b. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (carryout beer), and
Sunday Sales - AJ’s Liquor II, 2515 Chamberlain
c. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales -
Cyclone Experience Network, 1800 S. 4th Street
d. Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Market Grille,
640 Lincoln Way
e. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and Class C Beer Permit (carryout beer) -
Fareway Meat Market #189, 3720 Lincoln Way
f. Class C Liquor License, Sunday Sales, Outdoor Service & Catering Privilege - Sweet
Carolines, 316 Main Street
g. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Catering Privilege, Class B Native Wine
Permit, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - The Mucky Duck Pub, 3100 S Duff Avenue
h. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (carryout beer), and
Sunday Sales - Kum & Go #1215, 4506 Lincoln Way
i. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - El Azteca, 2120 Isaac
Newton - Pending Dram Shop Insurance
j. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Es Tas Stanton, 216 Stanton
k. Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - New Hickory Holding Company, 1404
S. Duff Avenue
11. Requests from Octagon Center for the Arts for Octagon Art Festival on Sunday, September 25,
2022
a. Motion approving a blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and a blanket Vending License
for the Central Business District
b. Resolution approving closure of the following streets from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
i. Main Street, east of Clark to just west of Duff Avenue
ii. Douglas Avenue between 5th Street and Main Street
iii. Kellogg Avenue between south of the alley and Main Street
iv. Burnett Avenue between south of the alley and Main Street
c. Resolution approving waiver of fee for blanket Vending License
d. Resolution allowing usage of electricity and approving waiver of costs of electricity
12.Ames Grand Prix:
a. Ames Main Street Criterium on Saturday, August 27, 2022:
i. Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for the closed area
ii. Resolution approving closure of Main Street between Clark and Douglas Avenue, Douglas
Avenue between Main Street to Sixth Street, Sixth Street between Douglas Avenue to
Burnett Avenue, Burnett Avenue between Sixth Street and Main Street, Fifth Street
between Burnett and Clark Avenues, and Clark Avenue between Fifth and Main Streets
from 3:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m.
iii. Resolution approving closure of 187 metered parking spaces from 2:30 p.m. to 11:15
p.m. along the race route and approving suspension of parking enforcement
b. ISU Research Park Circuit Race on Sunday, August 28, 2022:
i. Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
ii. Motion approving blanket Vending License
iii. Resolution approving waiver of fee for blanket Vending License
iv. Resolution approving closure of Collaboration Place between South Riverside Drive and
University Boulevard, Plaza Loop, University Blvd from Collaboration Place to Airport
Road (northbound lane only; southbound lane to remain open to traffic), Airport Road
from University Boulevard to South Riverside Drive (one eastbound lane only; the road
will remain open to both east - and westbound traffic), and South Riverside Drive
(southbound lane only; northbound lane to remain open to traffic) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.
13.Resolution confirming appointment of City Clerk
14. Resolution approving Quarterly Investment Report for period ending June 30, 2022
2
15.Resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding with Story County to apply for grant funding
under the 2022 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and authorize application for that Grant
16. Resolution approving renewal of contract with EMC Risk Services, LLC, of Des Moines, Iowa,
to provide third-party administration of the City’s Worker’s Compensation and Municipal Fire
and Police “411 System” claims for August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023, at a cost not to
exceed $55,000
17.Resolution waiving Purchasing Policies’ formal bidding requirements and extending an
engagement with Ahlers and Cooney, P.C., of Des Moines, Iowa, in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 for legal services related to application of Iowa Code Chapter 20
18.Resolution awarding a contract for Architectural Services to SVPA Architects Inc., of West Des
Moines, Iowa, for the WPCF Administration Building Renovation Project in an amount not to
exceed $86,100
19. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to Power Line Supply of Williamsburg, Iowa, in the
amount of $25,661.81 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax) for the Padmount Switchgear
20. Resolution accepting completion of 2019/20 Multimodal Roadway Improvements (13th and
Clark)
21. 2020/21 CDBG (Infrastructure) Improvements [Baker Subdivision]:
a. Resolution approving Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $43,819.23
b. Resolution accepting completion
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.
ADMINISTRATION:
22. Discussion regarding FY 2023/24 ASSET priorities
PARKS & RECREATION:
23. Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center Property Update (Potential Alternative Sites to IDOT
Property)
PLANNING & HOUSING:
24. Staff Report on Non-Compliant Front-Yard Parking and Driveways
25. Resolution approving a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit for a Partner Developer in
connection with the development of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Units in the
Baker Subdivision
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
3
26. Resolution authorizing the immediate towing of vehicles on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from
midnight to 11:59 p.m. in the designated area of Beach Avenue west to State Avenue and Lincoln
Way south to Mortensen Avenue for certain illegal parking violations.
HEARINGS:
27. Hearing on Major Site Development Plan for 1699 Apple Place:
a. Resolution approving Major Site Development Plan for 1699 Apple Place in the Old Orchard
Mobile Home Park
28. Hearing on Rezoning, with Master Plan, 798-500th Street from “A” (Agricultural) to “FS-RL”
(Floating Suburban Residential Low Density)[Continued from June 28, 2022, and from July 12,
2022]:
a. Motion to continue hearing to August 9, 2022
29. Hearing on proposed Zoning Text Amendment to Reduce Medical Parking Rates for buildings
less than 50,000 square feet and update Medical Office Definitions:
a. First passage of ordinance
30. Hearing on Water Treatment Plant Five-Year Well Rehabilitation Contract:
a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to The Northway
Corporation of Marion, Iowa, in the amount of $141,625
31. Hearing on Story County Edge of Field Project:
a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Hands On
Excavating, LLC, of Radcliffe, Iowa, in the amount of $240,389.42
32. Hearing on Boiler Tube Spray Coating & Related Services for Power Plant:
a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Integrated
Global Services, Inc., of Richmond, Virginia, in an amount not to exceed $435,000
33. Hearing on Boiler Maintenance Services Contract for Power Plant:
a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to TEI
Construction Services, Inc., of Duncan, South Carolina, in an amount not to exceed $325,000
ORDINANCES:
34. Second passage on Proposed Amendment to the City’s Planning Project Review and Notification
Process and Approval Process related to Chapters 20 and 29 of the Ames Municipal Code
35. Second passage of ordinance increasing fines for nuisance parties on certain occasions (third and
adoption requested)
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as provided
by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
4
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA JULY 12, 2022
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO)
Transportation Policy Committee meeting was called to order by Ames Mayor and voting member
John Haila at 6:00 p.m. on the 12th day of July, 2022. Other voting members present were: Bronwyn
Beatty-Hansen, City of Ames; Amber Corrieri, City of Ames; Tim Gartin, City of Ames; Rachel
Junck, City of Ames; Anita Rollins, City of Ames; Linda Murken, Story County Supervisor; Jon
Popp, Mayor of Gilbert; and Bill Zinnel, Boone County Supervisor. Gloria Betcher, City of Ames
and Jacob Ludwig, Transit Board were absent.
HEARING ON FINAL FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS (FFY) 2023-2026 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP): Transportation Planner Kyle Thompson noted that the
Policy Committee approved the draft version of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in
May 2022, and a public input session was held. There were not any public comments received;
however, there were some comments from the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT). Those
comments were addressed in the final version of the TIP. Mr. Thompson noted that besides
addressing the IDOT comments, there were no other changes.
Mayor Haila opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Murken, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-374 approving the
Final FFY 2023-2026 TIP.
Vote on Motion: 9-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously.
POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Supervisor Murken stated that they had previously
discussed the study on the three intersections north of Ames and she wanted to verify if those would
be done in this fiscal year. Mr. Thompson said that the Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent out
about a week ago, and those Proposals are due back at the end of July; staff will then look over the
proposals and hire a consultant.
City of Gilbert Mayor Popp mentioned that there are a lot of pieces to the Federal Infrastructure Bill,
including the carbon reduction program. They are waiting on guidance on how to apply for a grant.
Mayor Popp wanted to know if there were any updates available. Mr. Thompson said that the MPO
quarterly meeting with the IDOT gave a small update; however, the IDOT is still working through
the process themselves. It is anticipated that the next fiscal year is when we will hear how any
funding is going to be distributed.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Junck, seconded by Popp, to adjourn the Ames Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization Transportation Policy Committee meeting at 6:04 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 9-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:05 p.m.
on July 12, 2022, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law.
Present were Council Members Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, and Rachel
Junck. Council Member Anita Rollins was brought into the meeting telephonically. Ex officio
Member Bryce Garman was also in attendance. Council Member Gloria Betcher was absent.
The Mayor announced that there would be no report from staff for Item No. 31: Hearing on
Rezoning, with Master Plan, 798-500th Street. Per the request of staff and the applicant, the hering
will be continued to July 26, 2022.
PROCLAMATION FOR “SUMMER LEARNING WEEK,” JULY 11 - 15, 2022: Mayor Haila
proclaimed the week of July 11 - July 15, 2022, as “Summer Learning Week.” Accepting the
Proclamation was Andy Fish, Education and Initiatives Coordinator with United Way of Story
County. Mr. Fish thanked the Mayor and Council for acknowledging “Summer Learning Week.” He
explained that the “summer slide” is what often happens to disadvantaged children during the
summer months. Findings from nearly 40 extensive studies have shown clear and consistent support
that “summer slide” affects children differently; most notably by socioeconomic status (scs). By the
end of elementary school, low scs students are almost three grades behind their higher scs peers.
Summer vacation has been identified as the strongest contributing factor of this achievement gap.
Mr. Fish commented that there is good news, as they know how to solve the problem. Summer
reading and Summer enrichment programs are proven to work. School-based, out-of-school, home-
based, and library reading programs have all been shown to slow and even reverse summer learning
loss.
PROCLAMATION FOR “PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH,” JULY 2022: The month
of July 2022 was proclaimed as “Parks and Recreation Month” by Mayor Haila. Accepting the
Proclamation was Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham. Director Abraham thanked the City
for its continued support. Courtney Kort, Recreation Superintendent, explained that the theme for
Parks and Recreation Month is “Rise Up.” She encouraged everyone to go out and take part in all
the amenities that Parks and Recreation has to offer.
PRESENTATION BY ROBERT DENSON, PRESIDENT OF DES MOINES AREA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE (DMACC), REGARDING THE “STATE OF DMACC:” Mr.
Denson said that the Board spends over 100 hours a year working with DMACC to make sure it is
focusing on the needs of every community within its district. It was noted that DMACC is in its 56th
year and it serves 5,665 square miles throughout Iowa. There are six campuses and five centers. He
2
noted that DMACC’s goal is to make sure it is within driving distance of everybody within their
area. It serves around 36,000 credit students every year and 22,000 non-credit students. 97% of
DMACC’s students are from Iowa and 95% of the students stay in the state after they graduate. Mr.
Denson explained that DMACC offers a Career Advantage enrollment that offers college credit
classes to high school students. He highlighted that around 56% of students are female and 23.3%
are minority students. DMACC provides 226 different certificates, diplomas, and degree programs.
Mr. Denson noted that around 56% of students come to DMACC for the first two years of a four-
year degree and then transfer after two years to a university. He said that DMACC’s goal is to serve
every citizen, businesses, and the communities in Central Iowa. Mr. Denson highlighted several other
ways that DMACC has improved throughout the years. DMACC was ranked #10 of 1,717 two-year
colleges in the United States. Last year Forbes had named DMACC as the number one employer in
the State of Iowa. Mr. Denson thanked the City of Ames for its continued partnership.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Junck, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve the following
items on the Consent Agenda.
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Minutes of Special City Council Meeting held June 21, 2022, and Regular
City Council Meeting held June 28, 2022
3.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period June 16 - 30, 2022
4.Motion approving ownership update for Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Welch Ave
Station, 207 Welch Avenue
5.Motion approving temporary Outdoor Service for Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service
and Sunday Sales - Tip Top Lounge, 201 E. Lincoln Way for August 25, 2022
6.Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor
Licenses:
a.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar, 105
Chestnut
b.Class C Liquor License with Living Quarters and Sunday Sales - Sportsman’s Lounge,
1236 Main Street
c.Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Huhot Mongolian Grill, 703 S Duff
Avenue, Suite 105
d.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales & Outdoor Service - La Casa Maya, 631
Lincoln Way - Pending Dram Shop Insurance
7.Requests from Youth & Shelter Services for Youth Recovery Campus Unveiling on July 19,
2022:
a.Motion approving Blanket Vending License
b.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
c.RESOLUTION NO. 22-375 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License
d.RESOLUTION NO. 22-376 approving suspension of seven parking meters and waiver of
parking meter fees on Kellogg between Main Street and Fifth Street from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.
e.RESOLUTION NO. 22-377 approving closure of Kellogg Avenue between Main Street
and Fifth Street from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
3
8.RESOLUTION NO. 22-378 approving the final construction loan application to borrow an
amount not to exceed $3,500,000 in Water Revenue Bonds (SRF loan) for demolition of the Old
Water Treatment Plant
9.RESOLUTION NO. 22-379 amending Purchase Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of
Central Iowa to extend the time for completion for the rehabilitation and sale of the single-
family home located at 241 Village Drive
10.RESOLUTION NO. 22-380 authorizing staff to administratively close Lynn Avenue as
necessary to install utility services for 120 Lynn Avenue
11.RESOLUTION NO. 22-381 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Shared
Use Path System Expansion (South of Lincoln Way Path Expansion); setting August 3, 2022,
as bid due date and August 9, 2022, as date of public hearing
12.RESOLUTION NO. 22-382 awarding contract to Wulfekuhle Injection and Pumping of Peosta,
Iowa, for FY 2022/23 WPC Biosolids Disposal Contract using unit prices bid in a total amount
not to exceed $120,312.50
13.Padmount Switchgear for Electric Services:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 22-383 awarding contract to WESCO Distribution, of Des Moines,
Iowa, for the purchase of line item 1, Electric Services Padmount Switchgear in the amount
of $22,799.61 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax)
b.RESOLUTION NO. 22-384 awarding contract to Power Line Supply, of Williamsburg,
Iowa, for the purchase of line items 2 & 3, Electric Services Padmount Switchgear in the
amount of $44,500.61 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax)
14.RESOLUTION NO. 22-385 awarding contract to WESCO Distribution, of Des Moines, Iowa,
for the purchase of Electric Services Aluminum Cable and Copper Wire in a total amount of
$210,243.23 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax)
15.RESOLUTION NO. 22-386 approving contract and bond for Water Treatment Plant Demolition
16.RESOLUTION NO. 22-387 approving contract and bond for 2021/22 Clear Water Diversion
17.RESOLUTION NO. 22-388 approving contract and bond for 2017/18 Low Point Drainage
Improvements (GW Carver Avenue & Bloomington Road)
18.RESOLUTION NO. 22-389 approving Change Order No. 3 for Ioway Creek Restoration and
Flood Mitigation project in the amount of $223,713.72
19.RESOLUTION NO. 22-390 accepting completion of 2020/21 Multi-Modal Roadway
Improvements (Vet Med Trail)
20.RESOLUTION NO. 22-391 accepting completion of Year Five of the Water Plant Well
Rehabilitation Contract
21.RESOLUTION NO. 22-392 approving Major Final Plat for Hayden’s Ridge located at 2098 W.
190th Street
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. 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 Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, said “he wishes he could do everything in his power to
make you happy, but you won’t let me.” He mentioned he was somewhat of a nudist, but likes to
4
wear clothes. Mr. Deyo commented that he is upset because he can’t be naked in his own home and
on public land. He said that he has been diagnosed as “crazy” and felt that more people would be
more considerate/tolerant of his views on public nudity if they could understand him.
The Mayor closed public forum when no one else came forward to speak.
FITCH FAMILY INDOOR AQUATIC CENTER PROPERTY ACQUISITION UPDATE
(IDOT SITE): Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham introduced Megan Down, Project
Manager with Impact7G, and Daniel Cook, Environmental Senior Specialist with the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Director Abraham stated that at the May 10, 2022, City Council meeting, staff provided an update
regarding the proposed new warm-water Indoor Aquatic Center. Based on the information obtained
in the Phase 1 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, the Council approved pursuing further
environmental investigations. Additional soil borings were done on June 7, 2022.
Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips wanted to provide a word of caution to the City Council and
the community members about how staff has gone through the process. It has been a priority of the
City Council to build an indoor aquatic facility and the decision about where and how that is done
is going to have implications for a long period of time. Because of this the City wants to get it right.
He noted that there are thousands of pages of documents related to the environmental conditions of
the site at 122 N Oak. Staff had gone through many of the pages and tried to incorporate as much
information as they could into an 18-page Staff Report. Mr. Phillips said that the one takeaway is
that it is indisputable that there is contamination at some level on the site.
Director Abraham displayed an image of the current site at 122 N. Oak and gave some site history.
On the northeast corner, there used to be a filling station; a church on the southwest corner, a former
coal gasification plant to the north; and a former leaking underground storage tank to the east. A
conceptual drawing was done, and the proposed center will have the building on the south of the site;
a walking area and multipurpose space to the east of the building; and a parking lot to the north.
Director Abraham said the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) purchased the site in 1995,
and prior to the purchase, the IDOT retained a firm to conduct a limited Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA). Nine soil borings were conducted in 1994, and contamination was detected in
three of the bores. The contaminated borings were located in the northeast quadrant of the site.
Between 2018 and 2020, IPL (Interstate Power & Light) did six additional monitoring wells, and of
those, two were contaminated.
Based on all the information received in April 2022, the City environmental consultant, Impact7G,
issued a report of its findings from the Limited Subsurface Investigation of the site. Three
environmental borings were completed and analyzed. The boring in the northeast corner of the
property detected a variety of compounds. Due to these initial results, City staff retained Impact7G
again to obtain four additional environmental borings along the northern edge of the property and
5
to collect groundwater samples from three sump basins located in the existing buildings. These
samples were collected on June 7, 2022. Director Abraham said the important thing to gather from
the Reports is that there is contamination that is present and there are a number of different
components that exceed the state-wide standard.
Director Abraham stated that there would be some risks associated with the contamination and
mediating those risks would come at a cost. One of the things that needs to be looked at is human
health. The conclusion Impact7G reached based on the results is that: “it is the opinion of Impact7G
that the detected groundwater contamination at the property represents a minor risk to human health
and the environment. Best Management Practices in the form of a Soil/Groundwater Management
Plan and consideration of building materials should be considered if construction will be disturbing
the northeast area of the property.” Director Abraham noted that there is a difference in opinion as
the DNR said that the cumulative risk calculator may not be the appropriate tool to assess risks on
the site. In conversations with the DNR, it was emphasized that the City would only be responsible
for properly handling any contamination disturbed by the City on the site. The City would not be
obligated to clean up contamination that exists now, as long as it does not become exposed or begin
to migrate due to activities such as construction and operation of the aquatic center.
Based on discussions with Impact7G and DNR, City staff is aware that additional project design
components may be impacted by the contaminated areas. These include the location and design of
the stormwater detention and treatment facilities on the site (which may be reacted in a way that does
not draw contaminated water into waterways). Additionally, the facility may require the installation
of a vapor mitigation system (akin to radon mitigation system), to ensure that the vapors that make
their way through the soil into the building have ventilation to the outside. The contaminants
identified in the site are odorous, and therefore the adjacent neighborhood may be temporarily
impacted by unpleasant odors encountered during excavation.
In order to proceed with construction on the site in light of the contamination, staff has identified a
variety of additional measures that would need to be incorporated into the design of the facility/site,
the construction process, and the ongoing operations of the facility. The costs indicated for these
measures are in addition to the purchase price of the land that would be agreed to by the IDOT.
Double Cased Geothermal Well (Additional Outer Casing)$367,080
Mitigation System with Vapor Barrier for all Petroleum Contaminants $54,000
Contaminated Soil Removal and Disposal TBD
On-Demand Soil and/or Groundwater Testing $500-600 per Sample
Monitoring Wells During Construction $10,000 - $20,000
Construction Dewatering TBD
Sump Pump Watering $400/Year
6
Stormwater Management TBD
Council Member Gartin wanted to know what the status of the site is per the State DNR. Mr. Cook
stated that the contamination was done by the other party and the good news is that the construction
of the pool would not be impacted by other construction. Mr. Gartin asked what the status of the site
was according to the DNR (opened/closed). Mr. Cook indicated that all the sites to the north have
closure letters.
Council Member Gartin asked how much it would cost to remediate the soils to bring them up to a
safe standard. Ms. Down commented that she and Director Abraham had worked through all the
mitigation strategies that were mentioned earlier. The biggest cost saving factor would be to not
disturb the northeast corner of the site. Ms. Down said she would not be able to give an estimated
cost. Mr. Gartin wanted to know if it was fair to assume that the contamination on the northeast
corner would be static or would it be possible that changes in the water tables and other areas might
cause the contamination in the northeast corner to migrate to other areas of the property that the City
will be using. Ms. Downs explained that the contamination has been the worst it is going to ever be
and the levels will slowly go down throughout the years. Mr. Cook stated that the site is in static
condition and the plume is stable, but if digging the foundation, the static condition may change and
bring the contamination to the site through the ground water. Mr. Gartin stated this decision is a lot
of responsibility for the Council and the community is counting on the Council to get it right with
respect to the health concerns.
Mayor Haila asked if a basement could be a residential safe way to help mitigate contamination. Mr.
Cook said that there are several methods that could be used to prevent the contaminated groundwater
from impacting the living space/work space and physical barriers, special types of plastic, or a
standard radon testing system.
Council Member Rollins mentioned that the designs had mentioned using geothermal. She wanted
to know more information about the filtration system for the pool. Director Abraham said that if they
did the geothermal, they could avoid putting the geothermal wells in the northeast corner, but if there
is contaminated ground water going through the sand seams, you would need to do something to
prevent the contamination from moving vertically. It was suggested to use the double casing to
correct this problem. Director Abraham stated that the pool filters will be inside the building either
at a lower level or at grade, but not sure yet as they have not designed that aspect. He indicated the
water that fills the pool will be from the tap and that water will be treated with chlorine. Mr. Phillips
said that the architect would work with the DNR to know where to place the wells that would or
would not require the double casing.
Council Member Gartin asked if the filtration system would filter out the kind of chemicals that staff
would be concerned about. It was indicated that it would not. Mr. Gartin wanted to know if there was
any way to monitor vapors. Director Abraham said they would need to use a radon mitigation
system.
7
Council Member Gartin questioned what would happen if the indoor pool was built and then later,
they found contamination. Mr. Cook said in a worst case scenario a series of wells would need to
be placed to treat the water. Mr. Phillips mentioned that during discussions with the Water Pollution
Control Department the discharge from the sump pump would be tested quarterly.
Mr. Phillips explained that since discussions had started with the IDOT about purchasing their
property, they have been very clear that the purchase price for the property will be based upon the
appraisal value of the property. Their disposal process requires that the City pays at least the
appraised value because of this a lot depends on the quality of the appraisal. The appraisal did not
indicate the state of the contamination on the property since the time the appraisal was conducted.
Unfortunately, the appraisal does not indicate within it that the status of the contamination was
considered in determining the appraised value of the property. The appraisal assumes the site is free
and clear of contamination. The appraised value was $2.9 million. After further discussions with the
IDOT the bottom line was that the purchase price of the property will remain at $2.9 million per the
IDOT. The Council will need to weigh in on what staff should do to move forward.
Director Abraham noted that the next steps would be to weigh in on the potential health impacts,
potential environmental impacts, additional costs, and impacts for delaying. He mentioned that there
was a possibility of grant funding to address the environmental contamination at the site.
Council Member Gartin stated he thought that if an appraiser is made aware of a
contamination/situation they would be obligated to do another appraisal. Mr. Phillips mentioned that
there is no evidence that shows that the appraiser knew at the time that the appraisal was done that
there was contamination. The appraiser is now saying that there was a discount applied to the
property and that should make it “square.” He noted that the City did not have a direct conversation
with the appraiser, the appraiser spoke with the IDOT, who then spoke with Director Abraham. City
Manager Steve Schainker indicated that the appraiser had indicated it was a clean site. Mr. Gartin
said that is one of his concerns as he was under the impression that if an appraiser found out that it
was not a clean site then they would be obligated to do an updated appraisal. Mr. Gartin commented
that he felt that the fact that the IDOT is now aware of the contamination and is not willing to make
an adjustment, seemed like a heavy-handed approach in negotiations. City Manager Steve Schainker
stated that the IDOT said they believe that the appraiser did make an adjustment per their
conversations with them, but the City is saying it is inconsistent as it didn’t see any data that
reflected an adjustment was made.
Council Member Junck inquired if there were any avenues for the City to contest the appraisal. Mr.
Schainker said that the procedure that was established was done administratively and there is not an
appeal process. Mr. Phillips noted that it is a voluntary sale and voluntary purchase.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know if the IDOT would honor an appraisal done by the City. Mr.
Phillips indicated that there would not be any guarantee that there would be a change as the appraisal
may come in higher than normal. Mr. Schainker said that the point is that the appraisal has been
8
discussed many times by staff and the same questions were made, but the price is $2.9 million, and
the Council needs to decide if they should buy the property or not.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if the City has exhausted all possibilities for locations. Mr.
Schainker commented that whatever site they go with has to be in close proximity to the
Reinvestment District.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to direct staff to examine any other possibilities for
locating the facility within close proximity to the Reinvestment District area.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Junck asked about the grant funding opportunity. Mr. Schainker indicated that the
grant opportunity is for funding to clean-up a site. Staff is scheduled to meet with the DNR soon to
discuss options and timing.
FINES FOR NUISANCE PARTIES: Police Chief Geoff Huff said that they are back to discuss
the increase in fines for nuisance parties on designated dates/times as passed by City Council. The
City has noticed an increase in issues the Saturday before ISU classes begin. Students referred to this
day as “801 Day.” This unofficial event is being transitioned to an official ISU event, “Cyclone
Welcome Weekend.” The University has created several activities to take the focus off alcohol use
and overuse and steer activities towards community events and safer alternatives. An additional
strategy resulting from these discussions is a focus on nuisance party enforcement. Many of the
parties include underage drinking, fights, noise above what is allowed by the Noise Ordinance,
public intoxication, spilling onto neighboring property, public urination, and other inappropriate
activities. These behaviors are grounds for a citation under the City Nuisance Party Ordinance, which
may be cited as either municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor. Currently, the fine for a first
violation of the Ordinance is $100 and $200 for the second and subsequent violations. The proposed
citation amounts would be increased on designated days to a municipal infraction of $750 for the
first offense, and $1,000 for a second or subsequent offense. Chief Huff reiterated that the Police do
not show up at a Nuisance Party and start writing tickets, they will start with education and let them
know that they will start enforcing the fines if the rules are not followed.
Mayor Haila opened public input. It was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on first reading an ordinance increasing fines
for nuisance parties on certain occasions.
Council Member Gartin commented that it was unfortunate that the Ames Tribune did not provide
any coverage over this story. He felt that if the public wasn’t aware it would be unfortunate to not
get any public feedback. Mr. Gartin noted he will be voting against the motion due to the facts that
he had previously stated at the last meeting on June 28, 2022.
Roll Call Vote: 3-2. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Rollins. Voting Nay: Gartin, Junck.
Motion failed.
9
Council Member Corrieri commented that the motion failed because they are missing a Council
Member.
Council Member Gartin stated that his concern was the amount of the fine; he was willing to support
an increase, but not to $750. He wanted to know if there were other fines that were comparable. City
Attorney Mark Lambert commented that he didn’t know of any other comparable fines, and it would
be up to the Council to set the fines. Chief Huff explained that this Ordinance can also be charged
as a simple misdemeanor. The simple misdemeanor fines are $650 for the first violation and $855
for repeat violations. Chief Huff said staff could do this now, but they tend not to use simple
misdemeanors and give the offender a municipal infraction.
Ex officio Garman said that the point of the fines for the nuisance parties was to create a deterrent,
and if you go smaller than what the maximum will allow there could still be issues. He commented
that on social media people are commenting that they will start charging fees to get into parties to
help cover the cost of the fines.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to reconsider the motion.
Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck.
Motion declared carried.
Council Member Junck asked what other charges are in the Municipal Code that are a simple
misdemeanor. City Attorney Lambert said it was assault, trespassing, and most of Chapter 17. Ms.
Junck commented that she wanted the public to see what is being considered at the same level of a
nuisance party.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to amend the Nuisance Party Ordinance to charge $650 for
the first offense and $855 for the second offense.
Roll Call: 4-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck.
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Gartin, to pass on first reading an amendment to the Nuisance Party
Ordinance to charge $650 for the first offense and $855 for the second offense.
Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck.
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of
an ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 4-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck.
Motion failed.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on second reading an ordinance increasing
fines for nuisance parties on certain occasions.
Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck.
10
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE
NO. 4473 approving an ordinance increasing fines for nuisance parties on certain occasions.
Roll Call Vote: 4-1. Ordinance declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion
of these Minutes.
TOWING FOR ILLEGAL PARKING: Police Chief Geoff Huff indicated illegal parking on
residential streets has increased to the point that in some cases emergency vehicles are unable to
travel down the street safely due to cars parked on both sides. The current penalty for this kind of
illegal parking is $10 to $15. This amount has not been a sufficient deterrent to illegal parking. In
addition, a parking ticket does not relieve the safety issue until the violator decides to move the
vehicle. To provide a deterrent to illegal parking and to address instances of it on certain days in a
timelier manner, the City Council had directed staff to draft an ordinance authorizing immediate
towing of specified types of illegally parked vehicle on certain days and in certain areas designated
in advance by City Council.
Council Member Junck asked if additional signage would be put up when the immediate towing is
in effect. Chief Huff indicated there would be. He commented that they don’t want to have to tow
anyone and want people to follow the law.
Council Member Rollins asked if there would be some communication prior to the weekend
regarding parking violations. Chief Huff stated that there will be an education process along with
a campaign by the City and ISU.
Council Member Junck mentioned she discussed the accessibility of where vehicles are towed to at
the last meeting and she appreciated that staff looked into it quickly and provided a memo regarding
if anything could be done. She said it was unfortunate that nothing could be done; however, safety
outweighs the towing concerns and she will be voting in favor of staff’s recommendation.
Public input was opened by Mayor Haila; it was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Gartin, to pass on first reading an ordinance allowing towing for
illegal parking on certain occasions.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of an
ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on second reading an ordinance allowing
towing for illegal parking on certain occasions.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
11
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE
NO. 4474 approving an ordinance allowing towing for illegal parking on certain occasions.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
ORDINANCE REZONING 3005 - 3125 GROVE AVENUE AND 3209 DUFF AVENUE
FROM RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RH) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY
(RM): Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 4472 rezoning
3005 - 3125 Grove Avenue and 3209 Duff Avenue from Residential High Density (RH) to
Residential Medium Density (RM).
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO VACATE ELECTRIC EASEMENT AT 1404 AND 1410
BUCKEYE AVENUE: The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came
forward to speak.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-393 approving
vacation of electric easement at 1404 and 1410 Buckeye Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON INTEGRATED SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION WITH CONCURRENT FINAL
PLAT AND MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 1404 AND 1410
BUCKEYE AVENUE: City Planner Julie Gould stated this area is the overall redevelopment of the
old Kmart area. The subject site was approved for two small commercial buildings, including one
drive thru restaurant use, on separate lots as part of the original approval. She highlighted that
Alternative 1A states “the applicant shall work directly with CyRide regarding the installation of a
new bus stop concrete pad for sidewalk access to the bus prior to a building permit being issued.
Paving of the improvement completed at the cost of the developer. Final occupancy permits for the
site will not be granted without completion of the bus loading area to the City of Ames
specifications,” and this is a unique condition.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Haila. It was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-394 approving the
Integrated Site Plan Subdivision, which includes concurrent Final Plat and Major Site Development
Plan Amendment approval for the properties at 1404 and 1410 Buckeye Avenue, with conditions.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
12
HEARING ON REZONING, WITH MASTER PLAN, 798-500TH STREET FROM “A”
(AGRICULTURAL) TO “FS-RL” (FLOATING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY): Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to continue the hearing on the
Rezoning, with Master Plan, of 798-500th Street from “A” (Agricultural) to “FS-RL” (Floating
Suburban Residential Low Density) until July 26, 2022.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S PLANNING PROJECT
REVIEW AND NOTIFICATION PROCESS AND APPROVAL PROCESS RELATED TO
CHAPTERS 20 AND 29 OF THE AMES MUNICIPAL CODE (CONTINUED FROM JUNE
14, 2022): Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann said that the Planning Division and the
City Manager’s office recently reviewed some of the City’s planning project review and notification
procedures and approval processes. Staff determined that modifications to defined roles would
improve administration of the Ames Municipal Code and better serve customers. The changes in
Chapter 20 and Chapter 29 relate to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Zoning Enforcement Officer,
Planning and Zoning Commission, references to the Comprehensive Plan, and various application
procedures in Chapter 29, including the addition of a formal Annexation initiation procedure.
The Zoning Enforcement Officer is currently the Building Official and the proposed change assigns
the Planning and Housing Department the responsibility for support of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment rather than the City Clerk’s Office, and empowers the Planning Director to have final
authority on interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance, in lieu of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The
Planning Director will also be responsible for approval of front yard paving related to driveways and
parking. It was emphasized that for the public, there were no outward changes in how applications
are handled as a result of these modifications. The Zoning Board of Adjustment had identified last
year that they wanted to simplify the noticing process as well as clarify the voting procedures. Staff
reviewed the notification process with the City Attorney’s office, and it was determined that they
can’t avoid the newspaper publishing requirement.
Director Diekmann said that the Planning and Zoning Commission staff clarified their role for
review of Preliminary Plats in Chapter 23. Staff took out an old section from the 70s, where the
Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to comment on street plans and other items that the
Commission has not reviewed for decades. Staff also updated how Comprehensive Plans are
reviewed. Director Diekmann indicated that there is a new application type to include Annexations
into Chapter 29. The Annexation applications were done by policy rather than an ordinance. The
current policy is to bring an Annexation request to the City Council to ask what to do next. Staff
wanted to put the steps into an ordinance. What was put in the Code was just the initiation process;
staff didn’t want to duplicate state law as once an application is initiated staff will follow state law.
By custom the City of Ames has always included the Planning and Zoning Commission in the review
of Annexations. What staff proposed was to codify the Planning and Zoning Commissions role and
have it only applied to 80/20 Annexations. The 100% Annexations are straightforward and probably
don’t need a public hearing to confirm a 100% Annexation meets City goals.
13
Council Member Gartin indicated that this new Ordinance would be effective after passage and
publication and wanted to know if there would be any timing issues with any projects that are already
in process. Director Diekmann stated that he didn’t believe anything that is already in process would
be affected.
Council Member Rollins asked for more information regarding the sign posting requirement.
Director Diekmann said that Ms. Rollins was referring to Section 29.1500 in the draft Ordinance.
He explained there are three types of notices in the Zoning section: 1) publication in the newspaper;
2) 200-foot mailing requirement; 3) posting of a sign on a property. Director Diekmann explained
that there was already some language that discussed if a sign isn’t posted or doesn’t stay in the
location it can be found to still be compliant with the notification process. Staff wanted to add the
language that the absence of a sign doesn’t void all the other notice processes.
Mayor Haila opened the public hearing.
Richard Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, stated that there was a sign posted on his front yard a few
weeks ago, and he had gone to Hunziker who stated that they didn’t know anything about it. He did
not object to anything in the rezoning, but was surprised that Hunziker knew nothing about it.
The public hearing was closed by Mayor Haila when no one else came forward to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on first reading an ordinance on the Proposed
Amendment to the City’s Planning Project Review and Notification Process and Approval Process
related to Chapters 20 and 29 of the Ames Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON PROPOSED GRANTING OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL UTILITY
EASEMENT ON THE PRAIRIE VIEW INDUSTRIAL LIFT STATION SITE LOCATED
AT 207 S. TELLER AVENUE TO INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
(ALLIANT ENERGY): The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came
forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-395 granting an
easement to Interstate Power and Light Company (Alliant Energy) at 207 S. Teller Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
2020/21 AND 2021/22 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROGRAM (PHASES
1 & 2): Traffic Engineer Damion Pregitzer said that on June 28, 2022, the Council approved the
Report of Bids and approved the final plans and specifications. The low bid received was
approximately 18% over the engineer’s estimate. Since that meeting, staff had worked with the Iowa
Department of Transportation (IIDOT) and the Finance Department to gather information to develop
potential funding options for this project. Staff suggested the City Council approve Option 1, which
14
was to use local funding budgeted for Phase 3 of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
program to make up the shortfall for Phases 1 and 2 and then reprogram the ITS Program to move
Phase 3 to FY 23/24 and move the rest of the Phases back at least one fiscal year, depending on
future funding availability. This would allow staff time to assess the increases in construction costs
and adjust the Capital Improvement Program budget accordingly.
The Mayor asked if additional funding was received. Mr. Pregitzer explained that the City did
receive two ICAAP (Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program) Grants. He indicated that staff had spoken
with the IDOT about using other state grant programs, but because the project had already been let,
staff would not be able to access any other funding without rebidding the project. Staff felt rebidding
would not be favorable due to the increase in construction costs. Mr. Pregitzer stated that when they
look at Phases 3 through Phases 6, they will be able to apply for more grants to try and catch up with
the market increases.
Mayor Haila opened public input and it was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-396 awarding a
contract to Van Maanen Electric Inc., of Newton, Iowa, for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 Intelligent
Transportation System Program (Phases 1 & 2) in the amount of $3,800,582.00
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-397 approving the
use of local funding from FY 2022/23 Intelligent Transportation System Program to cover the
funding shortfall for Phases 1 & 2.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to direct staff to reprogram Phases 3 to 6 in the FY 2024/29
Capital Improvements Plan.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: The Mayor mentioned there were
three items to review. The first was an email from Bill Haas, Managing Corporate Counsel, T-
Mobile letting the City know about the availability of T-Mobile Wireless High-Speed home internet
in Ames.
The Mayor said that the letter from Bill Haas was for informational purposes only.
The second item was a letter from John Gade, P.E., Project Manager with Strand Associates,
requesting to waive subdivision approval authority regarding a proposed Plat of Survey located at
the northeast corner of West 190th Street and Grant Avenue.
15
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to refer the letter from John Gade, P.E., Project Manager
with Strand Associates, to staff for a memo.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The last item was a memo from Police Chief Geoff Huff regarding any alternate pick-up locations
for towed vehicles. This memo was discussed earlier during Item 26.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to adjourn the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. 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
Public Works 2021/22 Shared Use Path
System Expansion - Ioway
Creel SUP (SE 16th Street to
th
Services
Pavers (Burnett to Kellogg)
Roadway Improvements
(13th & Clark)
Services &
Public Works
Study Construction B.Schmidt
Period:
Item No. 3
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA JULY 12, 2022
The Special Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission was called to order by Chairperson Mike
Crum at 10:47 a.m. on July 12, 2022. As it was impractical for the Commission members to attend
in person, Commission Chairperson Mike Crum and Commission Member Harold Pike were brought
in telephonically. Commission Member Kim Linduska was absent.
REQUEST TO REMOVE NAMES FROM AND EXHAUST CERTIFIED LIST FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY DISPATCHER: Commission Chairperson Crum summarized the request before the
Commission. On April 28, 2022, the Civil Service Commission certified the Entry Level List for the
Public Safety Dispatcher classification with seven candidates. From that List, one candidate has been
hired and one has been given a contingent offer of employment. In addition, on June 23, 2022, the
Commission approved the removal of one candidate from that List. Human Resources staff is now
asking for the following candidates to be removed from further consideration:
Justine Wildeboer (withdrew from the eligible list)
Kyle Kain (failed to respond to a written request of eligibility)
Section 4.5 of the Civil Service Commission Policies and Procedures, “Removal of Names from
Certified Lists,” allows for the removal of the names from the List.
Mr. Crum noted that staff was also requesting that the Commission exhaust the remaining List
containing two candidates. Section 4.2 of the Civil Service Commission Policies and Procedures,
“Duration of Entry Level Eligibility Lists,” allows for the List to be declared exhausted when it has
diminished to three or fewer candidates. By doing so, a new open recruitment process for the unfilled
vacancy may begin.
Commission Member Pike asked if the Public Safety Dispatcher was also known as the “9-1-1
Dispatcher.” Human Resources Director Bethany Ballou replied that was correct. Upon Mr. Pike’s
inquiry, Ms. Ballou confirmed that there are minimum staffing levels for each shift. She advised that
in order to meet the minimum staffing level, the Police Department is having to pay mandatory
overtime.
Moved by Crum, seconded by Pike, to approve the removal of Justine Wildeboer and Kyle Kain from
the List certified by the Commission on April 28, 2022, and exhaust the remaining List.
Vote on Motion: 2-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Director Ballou expressed gratitude to the Commission members for their willingness to hold and
attend a Special Meeting to take care of this urgent need. Commission Chairperson Crum voiced
appreciation on behalf of the Commission to the Human Resources Department staff for their work
to get recruitments handled as quickly as possible.
COMMENTS: The next Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission is scheduled for
July 28, 2022, at 8:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Michael R. Crum, Chairperson Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
"#$%&&&'($) *+,&-./01123 $%&&&'453)67894:4: &&=*->?(/# &&&%@ %$ " A=;"% &->/B C 25515( &&==-" ."/>;;=& +;<>?;+?C 2D45:=/ K'453)67894:4:MN.L?=/O,*+,-/+P#<>A
F$ "&@ "U.;;+VW>/+<=?;= 1:>?-N &%&&WXA+--=M->><.UW-N>/+-B( Z ( &( $%&&&&/+<=?;=!"U.;;$ +?= =/A+-!"U.;;"$==/ =/A+-
Item No. 5
'( )( ! (*+,-
7 809: 9597 ;0< <+ 090+4 =+>+?47@ A0< BC C8090;74E "!#(F G* # HI J HK(*H * LMNLO "H &"*! POOQOO "HHT" *R ! G* # HI J HK(*H * LMNLO "K "! $ OQOO "HJ (W"# X ' (HH" J HK(*H * LMNOP " HY " OQOO "H \0-[
'G^ ] GX'__'`D] GX'a T]GD]XD] GDGGTT`'__'`D]GDGGTT`'a T]GD]'`D] ^ T]_T__'`D]^ T]_Ta T]GD]
! """#$!%&'()*+'(,! """#-.-%/00+.1123 ""3 """ 93 ! '(, "*7:;<3-44.4$ "" (?@A@ "7B@ <3-4/4.3I#-.-%/K4+/22K L>:&,M*&'(7)*(J*(:*@&J'(J*NL7
D! "93 3 6@,, &S)7:&L(J,( ./7J*>" "")T'&**(A*77L@6)*>7:&*;$V3 $$(L.= /4//"$ ! """
Item No. 6
##. 2/3 </ < !(A=(%$6@! '$(2C B,.1 2
2.DD2- EB-EFGHIHF
2.J
B- ,EB-EFGHIHH
EB- +-E
2DD2- EB-B3HHHIHH +-E
2J
B- ,EB-2- EB- -C -
B,D
DD2- EB--C -
B,D
J
B- ,EB-
&'((()*&+ !!,-.!/-011!&'((()232+454 367398((, ,-.!/-011!98((('>9'&8 ? @!A ?' (/<- B92;;3;*8((#9,-.D, ? =!A/*!A<0#!A (<D,B92;4779 )232+47L 46:6 .M,1@!-NO P!!%$<@
F&8 ?(>98 9?1,AA?0UV<-0$!#A!834<#/O ('((VW@0//!X/<<$,1V/O<-0/ *Z98*VY36"4;44 (* &'(((
Item No. 7
+
/010,023%&4 > ?7@A @<@> B7C C2 7@72;D2E2F;>G H7C IJ J?7@7B>;K (L- 0M NOPQQ /RS
T, OUOO +T-T ZTV0T 0M NOP[Q
T,S,OUOO +TX0WT,0 0M NO[P[
T,S\0,Y OUOO +T %_7%"!4^ $!%/RV
\)+V(*(\RV
\)+
R /+``/*
Z\*
R /+a
\* R)Z\*
#$%%%&'#( !)*+*,#$%%%&,*,(-,./012,43%%9:;43%%%$<4$#3 " =>"$ %?!@;A4,11*1'3%%D=" '=>!56=>%!E:A4,121B4M&,*,(-,./0+-B 857=6>=>NO :6CP!Q7!
G#3 "%<43 4"8:>>5V !@57=6>=3*+!6?W %$%% X 5??=C?!!7:8 ?W!@5?;'\43' P+.[+1++%' #$%%%
Item No. 8
+
-01,234%&5 ? @8AB A=A? C8D D3 8A83< E3F3G<?H I8D JK K@8A8C?<L-- MNO1N 1P QRSRT 0UV RWRR +NN0,2.// MNO1N 1P QRSRT - RWRR +NYN MNO1N 1P QRSRT 0V RWRR +N MNO1N 1P QRSRT 0VV RWRR +N D=<B<=>? F?[?H=\8[ @8AB A=A? C8D E3F3G<?H I8D
#!% &#'##()!*&!( +,---./+0 !""#$ #!% &#'##()!*&!( +,---.1210314516667$-- / !: ;-<!& 266 7$---,=7,+$ > 9 #>, -&( ?@71662A/$--!""#/ !: > 9 #-(B*@71662A7 .121031451666 %KL M!""# )N)(9
D+$>-=7$ 7>"*##!S<( !) # $28( &M -,--<J9!&& %&(()*"<&M( !&?/V7$/U< 8W;8683 -/ +,---
Item No. 9
$$/
23 45)*6$@ A9BC B>B@ D9E E4 9B94= F4G4H=@I J9E KL LA9B9D@=N OPQ R STTUV . Q TWTT /Q 00 OPQ R STTUV
Q TWTT /Q YRQ OPQ R STTUV TWTT /QYY0Z OPQ R STTUV
[
Q TWTT /Q")^9)&%6]"!(%)2N
O-/ 0 Q
2/__2.
`O.
2/a
O. -`O.
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: July 11, 2022
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for July 26th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals
for:
•Cyclone Experience Network (1800 S 4th St) - Class C Liquor License with Catering
Privilege, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales
•Hy-Vee Market Grille (640 Lincoln Way) - Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine
Permit and Sunday Sales
•Fareway Meat Market #189 - (3720 Lincoln Way) Class E Liquor License with Class B
Wine Permit and Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
•Sweet Caroline’s (316 Main St) - Class C Liquor License, Sunday Sales, Outdoor Service,
Catering
•The Mucky Duck Pub (3100 S Duff Ave) - Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service,
Catering Privilege, Class B Native Wine Permit and Sunday Sales
•Kum & Go #1215 (4506 Lincoln Way) - Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit,
Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer) and Sunday Sales
•El Azteca (2120 Isaac Newton) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales
•Es Tas Stanton (216 Stanton) - Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday
Sales
•New Hickory Holding Co (1404 S Duff Ave) - Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday
Sales
•Botanero Latino - (604 E Lincoln Way) Special Class C Liquor License with Outdoor
Service & 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. 10
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: July 11, 2022
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for July 26th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals
for:
•AJ’s liquor II (2515 Chamberlain) – Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit,
Class C Beer Permit (carryout) & Sunday Sales
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 1 liquor law violation. During a
compliance check on February 11th, 2022, an employee sold alcohol to a minor and was
cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was completed, and no violations were
recorded.
The Police Department will continue to monitor the above location by conducting regular
foot patrols, store checks and by educating staff through training and quarterly meetings.
The Ames Police Department recommends license renewal for the above business.
Item No. 10b
1
ITEM # 11
DATE 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: OCTAGON ART FESTIVAL REQUESTS
BACKGROUND:
The Octagon Center for the Arts plans to host the Octagon Art Festival in downtown Ames
on Sunday, September 25, 2022. The event is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. and
conclude at 4:00 p.m. Booths selling art work, crafts, and food items will be in operation
that day.
To facilitate this event, the following items are requested:
1. Closure of the following streets, from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.:
a. Main Street, east of Clark (not blocking Wells Fargo Driveway) to just west
of Duff Avenue (allowing traffic to access parking lot behind businesses)
b. Douglas Avenue, 5th Street to Main Street
c. Kellogg Avenue, south of the alley to Main Street
d. Burnett Avenue, south of the alley to Main Street
2. Waiver of costs for electricity during the event (estimated at $10)
3. Approval of a Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for the Central Business
District
4. Approval of a Blanket Vending License for the duration of the event
5. Waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License ($50)
Since the event occurs on a Sunday, there is no potential loss of parking meter
revenue. Notification signs will be placed on parking meters on Saturday evening after
6:00 p.m. Public Works will provide the necessary barricades for the street closures. A
noise permit will be obtained through the Police Department. Insurance coverage for the
event has been provided by The Octagon Center for the Arts.
Ames Main Street has been informed of the Art Festival and is in support of the event.
Additionally, Octagon staff has contacted affected businesses door-to-door. Signatures
confirming the notification have been obtained from nearly all affected businesses. Fewer
businesses are open in the downtown area on Sundays as compared to other days of the
week.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requests from The Octagon Center for the Arts for the Art Festival on
September 25, 2022, including: closure of various streets from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., blanket Vending License and waiver of fee for Vending License, Blanket
Temporary Obstruction Permit for sidewalks adjacent to closed streets, and waiver
of costs for electricity during the event.
2. Approve the requests, but require payment for the Blanket Vending License and
reimbursement for electricity use.
3. Deny these requests.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This is the 51st year that the Octagon has held the Art Festival. There will be more than
one hundred artists on hand with unique, hand-crafted artwork for sale, live entertainment,
and local food vendors. No admission is charged, and Festival organizers expect 10,000
people to attend. Ames Main Street has expressed its full support of the event.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1, as described above.
1
ITEM # 12
DATE: 07/26/22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUESTS FROM AMES VELO FOR AMES GRAND PRIX
BACKGROUND:
The Ames Velo organization has proposed hosting its fifth annual Ames Grand Prix
bicycle races on Saturday, August 27th and Sunday, August 28th. The event consists of
timed races of 10 to 50 riders per race along a short circuit. It is anticipated that riders
will reach speeds of up to 35 miles per hour on the course. An estimated 300 individuals
are anticipated to attend the two days of racing.
MAIN STREET CRITERIUM EVENT:
On Saturday, August 27th, the races will take place downtown from 3:45 p.m. until
approximately 11:00 p.m. This year, the Main Street Criterium will serve as the 2022
Iowa State Criterium Championships. To facilitate this event, organizers have requested
the following:
• Closure of Main Street between Clark and Douglas Avenues, Douglas Avenue
between Main and 6th Streets, 6th Street between Douglas and Burnett Avenues,
Burnett Avenue between 6th and 5th Streets ,5th Street between Burnett and Clark
Avenues and Clark Avenue between 5th and Main Streets from 3:45 p.m. to
11:15 p.m.
• Closure of 187 metered parking spaces from 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. along the
race route and suspension of parking enforcement. City staff estimates that this
will result in a loss of $163.25 to the Parking Fund
• Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for the closed area
A finish line will be established in the 300 block of Main Street, and organizers will use a
speaker system to announce race results. A race command post will be set up on
Douglas Avenue. The speed of racers requires them to use the full width of the street
when entering and exiting turns. In this style of race, the riders tend to group together.
Therefore, organizers will manage the street closures in a way that allows for motorists
and pedestrians to cross into the center of the race area when the route is clear. The
organizers have staff that is experienced in managing street closures for bicycle races.
CyRide will detour from Sixth Street to avoid the closed streets. Organizers have
contacted Ames Main Street regarding this event, and Ames Main Street has provided a
letter of support.
2
RESEARCH PARK CIRCUIT RACE:
The following day, Sunday, August 28th, races will be held from 8:00 a.m. to
approximately 5:00 p.m. in the ISU Research Park. Riders will begin at Collaboration
Place in front of the Research Park Core Building, ride north on University Boulevard,
east on Airport Road, south on S. Riverside Drive, and west on Collaboration Place to
complete the loop.
To facilitate this event, organizers have requested closure of the following from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. the day of the event:
• Collaboration Place between South Riverside Drive and University Boulevard
• Plaza Loop
• University Boulevard from Collaboration Place to Airport Road (northbound lane
only; southbound lane to remain open to traffic)
• Airport Road from University Boulevard to S. Riverside Drive (one eastbound
lane only; the road will remain open to both east- and westbound traffic)
• South Riverside Drive (southbound lane only; northbound lane to remain open to
traffic)
The lanes dedicated to riders will be delineated with traffic cones. During the race,
vehicle traffic will be able to proceed through the University/Airport roundabout;
however, because there is only one traffic lane in the southeastern quarter of the
roundabout, vehicle traffic will be temporarily stopped from entering the roundabout
when the cyclist’s approach that intersection. Advanced warning signs will be used to
alert drivers and volunteers will be provided with handheld signs to stop traffic at the
roundabout when necessary.
For the Research Park Circuit, organizers are requesting a blanket Temporary
Obstruction Permit, a blanket Vending License, and waiver of the Vending License fee
($50). A letter of support from the ISU Research Park has been obtained for this event.
ISSUES FOR BOTH RACES:
Public Works will provide barricades and will place electronic message board signs in
each area prior to the race announcing the closures (if signs are available at that time).
Because of the high speeds of riders at these events and the potential for serious harm
if a rider encounters a roadway defect, Public Works will modify its street-sweeping
schedule to clear street debris from these routes the day prior to the race. Additionally,
City staff has requested that organizers inspect the pavement along the routes in the
days prior to the event and contact staff to patch any pavement defects that could cause
injury to a racer.
Organizers will obtain liability insurance through USA Cycling once the event is
approved by the City Council. The insurance limits proposed exceed the City’s minimum
3
requirements for special events. Additionally, City staff has asked that the participants’
hold harmless waivers also include language holding the City harmless.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requests for the Ames Grand Prix on August 27-28 including, waiver
of blanket Vending License fee as outlined above, contingent upon receipt of a
certificate of liability insurance and reimbursement for lost parking revenue.
2. Direct staff to work with organizers to find alternative locations for these events.
3. Deny the requests.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This event is a unique opportunity to bring bicycle racing to Ames. The event proposed
has the support of Ames Main Street and the ISU Research Park. Organizers have
experience hosting these events in the past and have taken precautions in their
planning to ensure a safe, enjoyable event for the community.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1, as described above.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5101 main
fax
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Steven L. Schainker, City Manager
Date: July 26, 2022
Subject: Confirmation of City Clerk Appointment
On August 1, Diane Voss is retiring as City Clerk, a role which she has held since
1998. After conducting a national search for her successor, I am pleased to inform you
that Deputy City Clerk Renee Hall has been appointed to the position of City Clerk,
effective August 2, 2022.
Section 2.26 of Municipal Code indicates that the City Clerk is appointed by the City
Manager, effective only with the confirmation of the appointment by the City Council.
Therefore, I am requesting the Council’s confirmation of Renee’s appointment to this
critical customer service and leadership role in the organization.
Item No. 13
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5119 main
515.239-5320 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ame s , IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
City Treasurer
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Roger Wisecup, CPA
City Treasure
Date: July 7, 2022
Subject: Investment Report for Fiscal Yea Ending June 30, 2022
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to present a report summarizing the performance of
the City of Ames investment portfolio for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.
Discussion
This report covers the period ending June 30, 2022 and presents a summary of the
investments on hand at the end of June 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 0.25-0.50 percent to 1.50-1.75
percent in the last quarter. The yield curve is flat, making shorter maturities pay about
the same rates as longer maturities. Future investments will be made at current interest
rates and future interest income will increase. We will continue to evaluate our current
investment strategy, remaining flexible to future investments while the Federal Reserve
evaluates the target rate.
A brief comparison of fiscal year 2021 to fiscal year 2022 follows:
FY21 FY22 Decrease
Interest Income $2,058,074 $1,628,217 $429,857
Portfolio Effective Rate of Return 0.87% 0.99%
MEMO
Item No. 14
BOOK MARKET UN-REALIZED
DESCRIPTION VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS)
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT 5,000,000 5,000,000 0
FEDERAL AGENCY DISCOUNTS 0
FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 65,912,679 63,851,223 (2,061,456)
COMMERCIAL PAPER 8,908,645 8,896,495 (12,150)
MISC COUPON SECURITIES 0
PASS THRU SECURITIES PAC/CMO
MONEY FUND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 292,567 292,567 0
PASSBOOK/CHECKING ACCOUNTS 133,118 133,118 0
US TREASURY DISCOUNTS 5,477,773 5,446,978 (30,796)
US TREASURY SECURITIES 99,801,143 96,845,996 (2,955,147)
INVESTMENTS 185,525,925 180,466,376 (5,059,549)
CASH ACCOUNTS 28,724,283 28,724,283
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 214,250,208 209,190,659 (5,059,549)
ACCRUAL BASIS INVESTMENT EARNINGS YR-TO-DATE
GROSS EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS: 1,448,916
INTEREST EARNED ON CASH: 179,300
TOTAL INTEREST EARNED: 1,628,217
AND THE ACCUMULATED YEAR-TO-DATE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
CASH AND INVESTMENTS SUMMARY
AND SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT EARNINGS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
YTM
365
Page 1
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
June 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2021-2022
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Certificates of Deposit
1.780US Bank795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/01/20231.78010/16/2019 5,000,000.00 1.756795014296 335
5,000,000.00 1.7565,000,000.005,000,000.005,000,000.00Subtotal and Average 1.780 335
Money Market
0.300First Interstate Bank4531558874 292,566.58 292,566.58 0.300292,566.58 0.296SYS4531558874B 1
292,566.58 0.296292,566.58292,566.58292,565.87Subtotal and Average 0.300 1
Passbook/Checking Accounts
0.150Wells Fargo6952311634B 133,118.38 133,118.38 0.150133,118.38 0.148SYS6952311634B 1
133,118.38 0.148133,118.38133,118.38133,118.08Subtotal and Average 0.150 1
Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing
1.017JP Morgan Commercial Paper1028-22A 1,500,000.00 1,494,936.66 11/02/20220.98003/03/2022 1,494,930.00 1.00446640QL25 124
1.017JP Morgan Commercial Paper1028-22B 1,000,000.00 996,624.45 11/02/20220.98003/03/2022 996,620.00 1.00446640QL25 124
2.734JP Morgan Commercial Paper1046-22 1,500,000.00 1,481,601.66 12/14/20222.66006/15/2022 1,481,595.00 2.69646640QME8 166
2.993JP Morgan Commercial Paper1047-22 1,500,000.00 1,474,587.50 01/31/20232.85006/17/2022 1,474,590.00 2.95246640QNX5 214
3.253JP Morgan Commercial Paper1048-22 1,500,000.00 1,467,062.50 03/13/20233.10006/17/2022 1,467,060.00 3.20946640QQD6 255
0.938Regatta Funding1025-22 2,000,000.00 1,993,832.22 10/31/20220.91002/11/2022 1,981,700.00 0.92575888XKX3 122
8,908,644.99 1.9538,896,495.009,000,000.007,645,381.23Subtotal and Average 1.980 167
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
0.600Farmer Mac0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 11/20/20250.60011/20/2020 919,473.00 0.59231422B3F5 1,238
0.092Federal Farm Credit0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,287.67 10/13/20220.16002/12/2021 1,492,200.00 0.0913133EMDA7 104
0.341Federal Farm Credit0977-21A 1,000,000.00 999,040.23 11/12/20240.30003/02/2021 936,879.00 0.3363133EMQQ8 865
0.341Federal Farm Credit0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,560.34 11/12/20240.30003/02/2021 1,405,318.50 0.3363133EMQQ8 865
0.180Federal Farm Credit0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,384.08 06/26/20230.20009/09/2021 1,947,894.00 0.1783133EM3S9 360
0.160Federal Farm Credit1005-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 12/15/20220.16010/15/2021 1,978,814.00 0.1583133EMKH4 167
0.366Federal Farm Credit1008-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,556.76 10/12/20230.27010/15/2021 1,932,534.00 0.3613133ENAU4 468
0.696Federal Farm Credit1019-22A 1,500,000.00 1,493,330.69 04/13/20230.12501/20/2022 1,470,042.00 0.6863133EMVP4 286
0.696Federal Farm Credit1019-22B 1,000,000.00 995,553.79 04/13/20230.12501/20/2022 980,028.00 0.6863133EMVP4 286
1.239Federal Farm Credit1026-22 1,000,000.00 991,310.06 06/08/20230.30002/11/2022 976,527.00 1.2223133ELG81 342
2.539Federal Farm Credit1040-22A 1,500,000.00 1,470,695.87 01/25/20241.04005/20/2022 1,460,296.84 2.5043133ENLY4 573
2.539Federal Farm Credit1040-22B 1,000,000.00 980,463.91 01/25/20241.04005/20/2022 973,531.22 2.5043133ENLY4 573
3.232Federal Farm Credit1045-22A 1,500,000.00 1,481,404.35 11/25/20252.80006/13/2022 1,481,100.00 3.1883133ENXQ8 1,243
3.232Federal Farm Credit1045-22B 1,000,000.00 987,602.90 11/25/20252.80006/13/2022 987,400.00 3.1883133ENXQ8 1,243
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 2
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
June 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2021-2022
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
0.581Federal Home Loan Bank0975-21 1,000,000.00 997,453.48 02/17/20260.30002/22/2021 909,000.00 0.5733130AL4V3 1,327
0.841Federal Home Loan Bank0978-21 1,000,000.00 990,798.41 02/11/20260.58003/15/2021 913,567.00 0.8293130AKXB7 1,321
0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,743.69 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 1,434,585.00 0.3803130ALKS2 623
0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,829.13 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 956,390.00 0.3803130ALKS2 623
1.116Federal Home Loan Bank0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,792.70 04/14/20260.50004/14/2021 2,460,866.85 1.1013130ALVT8 1,383
0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 1,423,239.00 0.4443130ALTV6 745
0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 948,826.00 0.4443130ALTV6 745
0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,760.40 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 1,422,060.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 756
0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,840.27 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 948,040.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 756
0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,497,004.18 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 1,421,346.00 0.4253130AMV66 728
0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21B 1,000,000.00 998,002.79 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 947,564.00 0.4253130AMV66 728
0.510Federal Home Loan Bank0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 08/30/20240.51007/01/2021 1,420,161.00 0.5033130AMZQ8 791
0.600Federal Home Loan Bank0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 05/28/20250.60009/03/2021 1,861,306.00 0.5923130ANKM1 1,062
0.202Federal Home Loan Bank1001-21 1,000,000.00 999,112.77 08/28/20230.12509/13/2021 967,984.00 0.1993130ANYM6 423
0.409Federal Home Loan Bank1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,266.67 09/13/20240.37509/13/2021 943,710.00 0.4033130ANR28 805
0.650Federal Home Loan Bank1013-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 09/29/20230.65012/29/2021 1,458,180.00 0.6413130AQ7J6 455
0.650Federal Home Loan Bank1013-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 09/29/20230.65012/29/2021 972,120.00 0.6413130AQ7J6 455
0.221Federal Home Loan Bank1015-21 1,000,000.00 999,634.48 09/28/20220.07012/10/2021 995,489.00 0.2183130APCM5 89
0.780Federal Home Loan Bank1016-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 12/29/20230.78012/29/2021 967,654.00 0.7693130AQ7K3 546
2.370Federal Home Loan Bank1038-22 1,500,000.00 1,462,172.95 08/28/20230.12505/09/2022 1,452,345.79 2.3383130ANYM6 423
2.250Federal Home Loan Bank1039-22 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 05/26/20232.25005/26/2022 993,994.00 2.2193130AS2B4 329
2.875Federal Home Loan Bank1043-22 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 06/14/20242.87506/14/2022 1,489,827.00 2.8363130AS6D6 714
2.870Federal Home Loan Bank1044-22 1,500,000.00 1,488,923.45 02/28/20242.12506/13/2022 1,485,156.25 2.8313130ARHG9 607
0.091Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0955-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,033.75 07/25/20220.12510/15/2020 1,498,399.50 0.0903137EAET2 24
0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 05/15/20240.36011/20/2020 951,491.00 0.3553134GXBD5 684
0.350Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 03/29/20240.35011/20/2020 954,661.00 0.3453134GWXC5 637
0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 05/15/20240.36009/15/2021 1,427,236.50 0.3553134GXBD5 684
0.254Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,948.59 11/13/20230.30009/15/2021 1,446,282.00 0.2503134GXAY0 500
0.301Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1018-21A 1,000,000.00 999,602.57 11/23/20220.20012/10/2021 991,468.00 0.2973134GXEA8 145
0.301Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1018-21B 1,000,000.00 999,602.57 11/23/20220.20012/10/2021 991,468.00 0.2973134GXEA8 145
0.898Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1024-22 1,000,000.00 993,660.71 06/26/20230.25002/02/2022 974,430.00 0.8863137EAES4 360
3.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1050-22 1,500,000.00 1,487,268.78 12/23/20243.00006/23/2022 1,485,744.00 3.3143134GXVF8 906
0.340Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1017-21 1,500,000.00 1,516,740.68 01/19/20232.37512/10/2021 1,499,713.50 0.3353135G0T94 202
1.274Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1027-22 1,000,000.00 989,848.48 07/10/20230.25002/11/2022 973,371.28 1.2563135G05G4 374
1.990Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1033-22 3,000,000.00 2,949,446.65 07/10/20230.25004/18/2022 2,921,509.67 1.9623135G05G4 374
65,912,678.80 0.96163,851,222.9066,150,000.0063,033,279.54Subtotal and Average 0.975 616
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 3
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
June 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2021-2022
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Treasury Coupon Securities
2.459U.S. Treasury0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,978,377.55 05/31/20231.62503/08/2019 2,965,314.00 2.426912828R69 334
1.540U.S. Treasury0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,064,346.23 05/31/20232.75011/04/2019 5,991,564.00 1.5199128284S6 334
0.134U.S. Treasury0954-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,929.60 07/15/20221.75010/15/2020 1,499,766.00 0.1329128287C8 14
0.156U.S. Treasury0959-20 1,500,000.00 1,502,483.57 08/15/20221.50011/16/2020 1,499,532.00 0.154912828YA2 45
0.091U.S. Treasury0967-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,636.92 07/15/20221.75012/15/2020 999,844.00 0.0909128287C8 14
0.100U.S. Treasury0968-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,020.24 07/31/20220.12512/15/2020 998,750.00 0.09991282CAC5 30
0.107U.S. Treasury0969-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,045.82 08/31/20220.12512/15/2020 1,496,016.00 0.10591282CAG6 61
0.104U.S. Treasury0970-20 1,500,000.00 1,504,348.59 09/15/20221.50012/15/2020 1,499,296.50 0.103912828YF1 76
0.080U.S. Treasury0971-21 1,000,000.00 1,001,908.20 08/15/20221.62502/12/2021 999,844.00 0.079912828TJ9 45
0.091U.S. Treasury0972-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,057.22 08/31/20220.12502/12/2021 997,344.00 0.08991282CAG6 61
0.091U.S. Treasury0973-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,126.18 09/30/20220.12502/12/2021 1,493,437.50 0.09091282CAN1 91
0.384U.S. Treasury0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,184,462.57 05/31/20242.00004/15/2021 5,890,314.00 0.379912828XT2 700
0.663U.S. Treasury0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,928,777.68 05/31/20250.25004/15/2021 5,535,936.00 0.654912828ZT0 1,065
0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,563,809.52 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 1,480,078.50 0.355912828D56 776
0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,042,539.68 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 986,719.00 0.355912828D56 776
0.515U.S. Treasury0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,969,445.52 05/31/20250.25006/11/2021 3,690,624.00 0.508912828ZT0 1,065
0.275U.S. Treasury0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,098,670.97 05/31/20242.00006/11/2021 2,945,157.00 0.271912828XT2 700
0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,534,791.15 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 1,450,782.00 0.454912828YH7 822
0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,023,194.10 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 967,188.00 0.454912828YH7 822
0.079U.S. Treasury0996-21A 1,500,000.00 1,506,243.73 09/30/20221.75009/09/2021 1,499,532.00 0.078912828L57 91
0.079U.S. Treasury0996-21B 2,000,000.00 2,008,324.97 09/30/20221.75009/09/2021 1,999,376.00 0.078912828L57 91
0.116U.S. Treasury0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,044.87 12/31/20220.12509/09/2021 987,969.00 0.11491282CBD2 183
0.150U.S. Treasury0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,718.38 03/31/20230.12509/09/2021 1,470,469.50 0.14891282CBU4 273
0.225U.S. Treasury1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,549,513.20 09/30/20232.87509/09/2021 1,497,855.00 0.2229128285D8 456
0.270U.S. Treasury1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,996,039.73 05/31/20230.12510/15/2021 2,925,468.00 0.26691282CCD1 334
0.342U.S. Treasury1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,994,782.81 09/15/20230.12510/15/2021 1,932,812.00 0.33791282CAK7 441
0.384U.S. Treasury1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,996,340.96 11/15/20230.25010/15/2021 1,926,562.00 0.37891282CAW1 502
0.518U.S. Treasury1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,169,023.72 05/31/20242.00010/15/2021 5,890,314.00 0.511912828XT2 700
0.785U.S. Treasury1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,938,540.29 05/31/20250.25010/15/2021 3,690,624.00 0.775912828ZT0 1,065
1.005U.S. Treasury1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,465,968.45 05/31/20260.75010/15/2021 3,201,954.00 0.99191282CCF6 1,430
0.550U.S. Treasury1020-22 1,000,000.00 997,519.16 01/31/20230.12501/21/2022 985,625.00 0.54291282CBG5 214
0.600U.S. Treasury1021-22 1,000,000.00 996,863.24 02/28/20230.12501/21/2022 982,969.00 0.59291282CBN0 242
0.660U.S. Treasury1022-22 1,000,000.00 996,018.80 03/31/20230.12501/21/2022 980,313.00 0.65191282CBU4 273
0.710U.S. Treasury1023-22 1,000,000.00 995,165.40 04/30/20230.12501/21/2022 977,344.00 0.70091282CBX8 303
2.641U.S. Treasury1032-22 9,000,000.00 8,372,582.17 05/31/20260.75004/14/2022 8,233,596.00 2.60591282CCF6 1,430
1.936U.S. Treasury1034-22 1,500,000.00 1,510,984.32 05/31/20232.75004/18/2022 1,497,891.00 1.9109128284S6 334
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 4
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
June 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2021-2022
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Treasury Coupon Securities
2.309U.S. Treasury1035-22 1,000,000.00 968,965.30 12/15/20230.12504/18/2022 959,375.00 2.27791282CBA8 532
2.361U.S. Treasury1036-22 2,000,000.00 1,952,920.02 12/31/20230.75004/18/2022 1,934,376.00 2.32891282CDR9 548
2.756U.S. Treasury1037-22 4,500,000.00 4,037,429.15 05/31/20270.50004/18/2022 3,972,658.50 2.719912828ZS2 1,795
2.381U.S. Treasury1041-22A 1,500,000.00 1,494,689.24 11/30/20232.12505/20/2022 1,482,421.50 2.348912828U57 517
2.381U.S. Treasury1041-22B 1,000,000.00 996,459.49 11/30/20232.12505/20/2022 988,281.00 2.348912828U57 517
2.510U.S. Treasury1042-22 2,000,000.00 1,981,055.48 05/31/20242.00005/23/2022 1,963,438.00 2.476912828XT2 700
2.948U.S. Treasury1049-22 1,500,000.00 1,476,979.17 06/30/20231.37506/17/2022 1,477,266.00 2.908912828S35 364
99,801,143.36 1.01896,845,996.00100,500,000.00101,161,438.82Subtotal and Average 1.032 684
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
0.750U.S. Treasury1029-22 1,000,000.00 998,464.81 09/15/20220.72703/18/2022 996,622.00 0.740912796U49 76
0.943U.S. Treasury1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,992,243.73 12/01/20220.91303/18/2022 1,981,088.00 0.930912796P94 153
1.065U.S. Treasury1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,492,238.87 12/29/20221.02903/18/2022 1,481,560.50 1.050912796R27 181
1.065U.S. Treasury1031-22B 1,000,000.00 994,825.91 12/29/20221.02903/18/2022 987,707.00 1.050912796R27 181
5,477,773.32 0.9505,446,977.505,500,000.005,475,709.10Subtotal and Average 0.963 152
1.059182,741,492.64 186,575,684.96 1.074 609180,466,376.36 185,525,925.43Total and Average
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 5
Par Value Book Value
Stated
RateMarket Value
June 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2021-2022
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
0.00
1.059182,741,492.64 186,575,684.96 1.074 609
0Average Balance
180,466,376.36 185,525,925.43Total Cash and Investments
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Page 1
Par Value
Stated
Rate
June 30, 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
USB795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.001.780 06/01/2023795014296 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 5,000,000.001.7801.756
5,000,000.00Certificates of Deposit Totals 5,000,000.000.001.7565,000,000.00 1.780
Money Market
FIB4531558874 292,566.58 292,566.580.300SYS4531558874B 08/01 - Monthly 292,566.580.3000.296
292,566.58Money Market Totals 292,566.580.000.296292,566.58 0.300
Passbook/Checking Accounts
WF6952311634B 133,118.38 133,118.380.150SYS6952311634B 08/01 - Monthly 133,118.380.1500.148
133,118.38Passbook/Checking Accounts Totals 133,118.380.000.148133,118.38 0.150
Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing
JPM1028-22A 1,500,000.00 1,494,936.660.980 11/02/202246640QL25 11/02 - At Maturity03/03/2022 1,490,036.661.0171.004
JPM1028-22B 1,000,000.00 996,624.450.980 11/02/202246640QL25 11/02 - At Maturity03/03/2022 993,357.781.0171.004
JPM1046-22 1,500,000.00 1,481,601.662.660 12/14/202246640QME8 12/14 - At Maturity06/15/2022 1,479,828.332.7342.696
JPM1047-22 1,500,000.00 1,474,587.502.850 01/31/202346640QNX5 01/31 - At Maturity06/17/2022 1,472,925.002.9932.952
JPM1048-22 1,500,000.00 1,467,062.503.100 03/13/202346640QQD6 03/13 - At Maturity06/17/2022 1,465,254.173.2533.209
RGAFDG1025-22 2,000,000.00 1,993,832.220.910 10/31/202275888XKX3 10/31 - At Maturity02/11/2022 1,986,754.440.9380.925
8,908,644.99Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing Totals 8,888,156.380.001.9539,000,000.00 1.980
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
FAMCA0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.600 11/20/202531422B3F5 05/20 - 11/2011/20/2020 1,000,000.000.6000.592
FFCB0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,287.670.160 10/13/20223133EMDA7 04/13 - 10/13 Received02/12/2021 1,501,695.000.0920.091
FFCB0977-21A 1,000,000.00 999,040.230.300 11/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 998,500.000.3410.336
FFCB0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,560.340.300 11/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 1,497,750.000.3410.336
FFCB0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,384.080.200 06/26/20233133EM3S9 12/26 - 06/26 Received09/09/2021 2,000,700.000.1800.178
FFCB1005-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.000.160 12/15/20223133EMKH4 12/15 - 06/15 Received10/15/2021 2,000,000.000.1600.158
FFCB1008-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,556.760.270 10/12/20233133ENAU4 04/12 - 10/12 Received10/15/2021 1,996,200.000.3660.361
FFCB1019-22A 1,500,000.00 1,493,330.690.125 04/13/20233133EMVP4 04/13 - 10/13 Received01/20/2022 1,489,523.040.6960.686
FFCB1019-22B 1,000,000.00 995,553.790.125 04/13/20233133EMVP4 04/13 - 10/13 Received01/20/2022 993,015.350.6960.686
FFCB1026-22 1,000,000.00 991,310.060.300 06/08/20233133ELG81 06/08 - 12/08 Received02/11/2022 987,700.001.2391.222
FFCB1040-22A 1,500,000.00 1,470,695.871.040 01/25/20243133ENLY4 07/25 - 01/25 4,983.3405/20/2022 1,463,220.002.5392.504
FFCB1040-22B 1,000,000.00 980,463.911.040 01/25/20243133ENLY4 07/25 - 01/25 3,322.2205/20/2022 975,480.002.5392.504
FFCB1045-22A 1,500,000.00 1,481,404.352.800 11/25/20253133ENXQ8 11/25 - 05/25 2,100.0006/13/2022 1,479,000.003.2323.188
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Page 2
Par Value
Stated
Rate
June 30, 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
FFCB1045-22B 1,000,000.00 987,602.902.800 11/25/20253133ENXQ8 11/25 - 05/25 1,400.0006/13/2022 986,000.003.2323.188
FHLB0975-21 1,000,000.00 997,453.480.300 02/17/20263130AL4V3 08/17 - 02/17 Received02/22/2021 996,500.000.5810.573
FHLB0978-21 1,000,000.00 990,798.410.580 02/11/20263130AKXB7 08/11 - 02/11 Received03/15/2021 987,500.000.8410.829
FHLB0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,743.690.375 03/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 1,499,550.000.3850.380
FHLB0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,829.130.375 03/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 999,700.000.3850.380
FHLB0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,792.700.500 04/14/20263130ALVT8 10/14 - 04/1404/14/2021 2,647,085.001.1161.101
FHLB0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.450 07/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,500,000.000.4500.444
FHLB0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.450 07/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,000,000.000.4500.444
FHLB0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,760.400.450 07/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 Received04/30/2021 1,499,625.000.4580.452
FHLB0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,840.270.450 07/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 Received04/30/2021 999,750.000.4580.452
FHLB0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,497,004.180.330 06/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 Received07/01/2021 1,495,500.000.4310.425
FHLB0991-21B 1,000,000.00 998,002.790.330 06/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 Received07/01/2021 997,000.000.4310.425
FHLB0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.510 08/30/20243130AMZQ8 12/30 - 06/30 Received07/01/2021 1,500,000.000.5100.503
FHLB0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.000.600 05/28/20253130ANKM1 02/28 - 08/28 Received09/03/2021 2,000,000.000.6000.592
FHLB1001-21 1,000,000.00 999,112.770.125 08/28/20233130ANYM6 02/28 - 08/28 Received09/13/2021 998,500.000.2020.199
FHLB1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,266.670.375 09/13/20243130ANR28 03/13 - 09/13 Received09/13/2021 999,000.000.4090.403
FHLB1013-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.650 09/29/20233130AQ7J6 03/29 - 09/2912/29/2021 1,500,000.000.6500.641
FHLB1013-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.650 09/29/20233130AQ7J6 03/29 - 09/2912/29/2021 1,000,000.000.6500.641
FHLB1015-21 1,000,000.00 999,634.480.070 09/28/20223130APCM5 03/28 - 09/28 Received12/10/2021 998,790.000.2210.218
FHLB1016-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.780 12/29/20233130AQ7K3 06/29 - 12/2912/29/2021 1,000,000.000.7800.769
FHLB1038-22 1,500,000.00 1,462,172.950.125 08/28/20233130ANYM6 08/28 - 02/28 369.7905/09/2022 1,457,040.002.3702.338
FHLB1039-22 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.002.250 05/26/20233130AS2B4 11/26 - 05/2605/26/2022 1,000,000.002.2502.219
FHLB1043-22 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.002.875 06/14/20243130AS6D6 12/14 - 06/1406/14/2022 1,500,000.002.8752.836
FHLB1044-22 1,500,000.00 1,488,923.452.125 02/28/20243130ARHG9 08/28 - 02/28 6,906.2506/13/2022 1,481,475.002.8702.831
FHLMC0955-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,033.750.125 07/25/20223137EAET2 01/25 - 07/25 Received10/15/2020 1,500,900.000.0910.090
FHLMC0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.360 05/15/20243134GXBD5 05/15 - 11/15 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3600.355
FHLMC0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.350 03/29/20243134GWXC5 03/29 - 09/29 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3500.345
FHLMC1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.360 05/15/20243134GXBD5 11/15 - 05/15 Received09/15/2021 1,500,000.000.3600.355
FHLMC1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,948.590.300 11/13/20233134GXAY0 11/13 - 05/13 Received09/15/2021 1,501,500.000.2540.250
FHLMC1018-21A 1,000,000.00 999,602.570.200 11/23/20223134GXEA8 05/23 - 11/23 Received12/10/2021 999,040.000.3010.297
FHLMC1018-21B 1,000,000.00 999,602.570.200 11/23/20223134GXEA8 05/23 - 11/23 Received12/10/2021 999,040.000.3010.297
FHLMC1024-22 1,000,000.00 993,660.710.250 06/26/20233137EAES4 06/26 - 12/26 Received02/02/2022 991,000.000.8980.886
FHLMC1050-22 1,500,000.00 1,487,268.783.000 12/23/20243134GXVF8 12/23 - 06/2306/23/2022 1,487,154.603.3603.314
FNMA1017-21 1,500,000.00 1,516,740.682.375 01/19/20233135G0T94 01/19 - 07/19 Received12/10/2021 1,533,735.000.3400.335
FNMA1027-22 1,000,000.00 989,848.480.250 07/10/20233135G05G4 07/10 - 01/10 215.2802/11/2022 985,700.001.2741.256
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Page 3
Par Value
Stated
Rate
June 30, 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
FNMA1033-22 3,000,000.00 2,949,446.650.250 07/10/20233135G05G4 07/10 - 01/10 2,041.6704/18/2022 2,937,000.001.9901.962
65,912,678.80Federal Agency Coupon Securities Totals 65,860,867.9921,338.550.96166,150,000.00 0.975
Treasury Coupon Securities
US TRE0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,978,377.551.625 05/31/2023912828R69 05/31 - 11/30 Received03/08/2019 2,899,980.002.4592.426
US TRE0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,064,346.232.750 05/31/20239128284S6 11/30 - 05/31 Received11/04/2019 6,251,220.001.5401.519
US TRE0954-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,929.601.750 07/15/20229128287C8 01/15 - 07/15 Received10/15/2020 1,542,363.280.1340.132
US TRE0959-20 1,500,000.00 1,502,483.571.500 08/15/2022912828YA2 02/15 - 08/15 Received11/16/2020 1,535,156.250.1560.154
US TRE0967-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,636.921.750 07/15/20229128287C8 01/15 - 07/15 Received12/15/2020 1,026,250.000.0910.090
US TRE0968-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,020.240.125 07/31/202291282CAC5 01/31 - 07/31 Received12/15/2020 1,000,400.000.1000.099
US TRE0969-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,045.820.125 08/31/202291282CAG6 02/28 - 08/31 Received12/15/2020 1,500,468.750.1070.105
US TRE0970-20 1,500,000.00 1,504,348.591.500 09/15/2022912828YF1 03/15 - 09/15 Received12/15/2020 1,536,562.500.1040.103
US TRE0971-21 1,000,000.00 1,001,908.201.625 08/15/2022912828TJ9 02/15 - 08/15 Received02/12/2021 1,023,280.000.0800.079
US TRE0972-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,057.220.125 08/31/202291282CAG6 02/28 - 08/31 Received02/12/2021 1,000,530.000.0910.089
US TRE0973-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,126.180.125 09/30/202291282CAN1 03/31 - 09/30 Received02/12/2021 1,500,825.000.0910.090
US TRE0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,184,462.572.000 05/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 6,300,937.500.3840.379
US TRE0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,928,777.680.250 05/31/2025912828ZT0 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 5,899,218.750.6630.654
US TRE0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,563,809.522.375 08/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,597,770.000.3600.355
US TRE0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,042,539.682.375 08/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,065,180.000.3600.355
US TRE0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,969,445.520.250 05/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received06/11/2021 3,958,400.000.5150.508
US TRE0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,098,670.972.000 05/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received06/11/2021 3,152,940.000.2750.271
US TRE0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,534,791.151.500 09/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,550,790.000.4600.454
US TRE0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,023,194.101.500 09/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,033,860.000.4600.454
US TRE0996-21A 1,500,000.00 1,506,243.731.750 09/30/2022912828L57 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,526,484.380.0790.078
US TRE0996-21B 2,000,000.00 2,008,324.971.750 09/30/2022912828L57 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 2,035,312.510.0790.078
US TRE0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,044.870.125 12/31/202291282CBD2 12/31 - 06/30 Received09/09/2021 1,000,117.190.1160.114
US TRE0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,718.380.125 03/31/202391282CBU4 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,499,414.060.1500.148
US TRE1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,549,513.202.875 09/30/20239128285D8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,581,544.760.2250.222
US TRE1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,996,039.730.125 05/31/202391282CCD1 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 2,992,968.750.2700.266
US TRE1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,994,782.810.125 09/15/202391282CAK7 03/15 - 09/15 Received10/15/2021 1,991,718.750.3420.337
US TRE1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,996,340.960.250 11/15/202391282CAW1 11/15 - 05/15 Received10/15/2021 1,994,453.130.3840.378
US TRE1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,169,023.722.000 05/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 6,231,562.500.5180.511
US TRE1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,938,540.290.250 05/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,923,593.750.7850.775
US TRE1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,465,968.450.750 05/31/202691282CCF6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,459,804.691.0050.991
US TRE1020-22 1,000,000.00 997,519.160.125 01/31/202391282CBG5 01/31 - 07/31 Received01/21/2022 995,652.730.5500.542
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Page 4
Par Value
Stated
Rate
June 30, 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 TRE1021-22 1,000,000.00 996,863.240.125 02/28/202391282CBN0 02/28 - 08/31 Received01/21/2022 994,776.390.6000.592
US TRE1022-22 1,000,000.00 996,018.800.125 03/31/202391282CBU4 03/31 - 09/30 Received01/21/2022 993,670.920.6600.651
US TRE1023-22 1,000,000.00 995,165.400.125 04/30/202391282CBX8 04/30 - 10/31 Received01/21/2022 992,596.520.7100.700
US TRE1032-22 9,000,000.00 8,372,582.170.750 05/31/202691282CCF6 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/14/2022 8,338,359.382.6412.605
US TRE1034-22 1,500,000.00 1,510,984.322.750 05/31/20239128284S6 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/18/2022 1,513,417.971.9361.910
US TRE1035-22 1,000,000.00 968,965.300.125 12/15/202391282CBA8 06/15 - 12/15 Received04/18/2022 964,648.442.3092.277
US TRE1036-22 2,000,000.00 1,952,920.020.750 12/31/202391282CDR9 06/30 - 12/31 Received04/18/2022 1,946,562.502.3612.328
US TRE1037-22 4,500,000.00 4,037,429.150.500 05/31/2027912828ZS2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/18/2022 4,018,359.382.7562.719
US TRE1041-22A 1,500,000.00 1,494,689.242.125 11/30/2023912828U57 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/20/2022 1,494,257.812.3812.348
US TRE1041-22B 1,000,000.00 996,459.492.125 11/30/2023912828U57 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/20/2022 996,171.872.3812.348
US TRE1042-22 2,000,000.00 1,981,055.482.000 05/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/23/2022 1,980,000.002.5102.476
US TRE1049-22 1,500,000.00 1,476,979.171.375 06/30/2023912828S35 06/30 - 12/31 Received06/17/2022 1,476,093.752.9482.908
99,801,143.36Treasury Coupon Securities Totals 100,317,674.160.001.018100,500,000.00 1.032
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
US TRE1029-22 1,000,000.00 998,464.810.727 09/15/2022912796U49 09/15 - At Maturity03/18/2022 996,343.830.7500.740
US TRE1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,992,243.730.913 12/01/2022912796P94 12/01 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,986,920.800.9430.930
US TRE1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,492,238.871.029 12/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,487,736.551.0651.050
US TRE1031-22B 1,000,000.00 994,825.911.029 12/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 991,824.361.0651.050
5,477,773.32Treasury Discounts -Amortizing Totals 5,462,825.540.000.9505,500,000.00 0.963
185,525,925.43Investment Totals 185,955,209.0321,338.55186,575,684.96 1.059 1.074
Portfolio 2022
AC
Run Date: 07/07/2022 - 11:40 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
0.23%
60.65%
39.13%
Portfolio by Asset Class
Cash and Equivalents
Long Term
Short Term
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
0.54%
9.92%
16.16%
5.90%
0.16%
2.95%3.75%
1.07%
56.81%
2.68%
0.07%
Par Value by Issuer Graph
FAMCA
FFCB
FHLB
FHLMC
FIB
FNMA
JPM
REGFUND
UST
USB
WF
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
0.16%0.07%
2.78%4.95%
36.61%55.43%
Book Value By Investment Type
Money Market
Passbook/Checking Accounts
Certificate of Deposit
Commercial Paper
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
Treasury Coupon Securities
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Investment Yield by Type
1
ITEM#: 15
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2022 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
BACKGROUND:
In June 2022, the Ames Police Department received notice that it is eligible for grant funds
through the 2022 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program.
Grant funds can be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training,
personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and information systems for criminal
justice, as well as research and evaluation activities that will improve or enhance law
enforcement programs related to criminal justice.
Because the Story County Sheriff’s Office provides jail services for the county, the grant
conditions require that the Sheriff’s Office participates in the grant application for funding
under this JAG program. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the City enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Story County for acquisition and use of the
funds.
Total funding potentially available to the Ames Police Department and the Story County
Sheriff’s Office through this grant offering is $16,121. This year the two law
enforcement agencies propose to use the funds to continue to enhance the
capabilities and expertise in mental health and wellness. A portion of the funds
would also be used to outfit officers with external bulletproof vest carriers, which
promote healthier backs and improved comfort for officers.
If awarded, grant funds will be used to:
1. Provide mental health programming for the Ames community titled, “Mental Health
First-Aid”. Mental Health First Aid is a groundbreaking public education program
that helps the public identify, understand, and respond to signs of mental illnesses
and substance use disorders. The program is very popular with the community and
the funding would be used to purchase participant course materials.
2. Send several staff members to “LivingWorks Applied Suicide Intervention Skills
Training (ASIST). After completing the training, staff would be able to provide a
two-day interactive workshop to the community in suicide first aid. ASIST teaches
participants to recognize when someone may have thoughts of suicide and work
with them to create a plan that will support their immediate safety.
2
3. Send two staff members with the appropriate skills and abilities to advanced crisis
intervention training as well as “Law Enforcement Resiliency and Peer Support
(LERPS). LERPS is designed to prepare first responder peer supporters with the
ability to conduct individual psychological debriefings, provide peer support, make
appropriate professional intervention referrals for peers and their family members,
as needed. Those staff members would provide support to individual law
enforcement personnel who need assistance in coping with demanding duties of
the law enforcement profession.
4. Purchase outer bulletproof vest carriers. Vest carriers can promote good back and
hip health by providing necessary support to the person wearing them. They also
can reduce the heat and discomfort experienced by other armor systems that are
designed to go under clothing or are otherwise “hidden”. Officers who are
comfortable and in good shape are more likely to be able to do their jobs safely
and without causing or incurring injury. The funds from this grant would outfit 12
officers with outer vest carriers. This is for the carrier only, not the ballistic vest
itself.
The grant requires that the Mayor sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Story
County as well as a certifications and assurances document indicating that the City will
abide by the grant terms and conditions. These documents have been reviewed and
approved by City’s Legal Department. There is no match required with this grant.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Story County to apply for grant
funding under the 2022 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Program and authorize application for that grant.
2. Do not approve the agreement with the Story County or the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program grant application.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
JAG funds have been used productively during the past few years to purchase equipment
and provide training. The program has proven to be a valuable source of funds for special
purchases and programs.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # ___16__
DATE: 07/26/22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF CONTRACT WITH EMC FOR WORKERS’
COMPENSATION AND MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE SYSTEM
MEDICAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
BACKGROUND:
The City contracts with EMC Risk Services, LLC, of Des Moines, Iowa, to provide third
party administration of workers’ compensation and Municipal Fire and Police “411
System” injury medical claims. The City’s current contract with EMC for these services
will expire July 31, 2022. EMC has provided a renewal contract for the same services
for the period from August 1, 2022 to July 31, 2023.
Services provided by EMC in this contract include workers’ compensation claims
administration for all City employees, medical bill review, self-insured loss fund
management, and pharmacy and medical expense consultation. EMC also performs
regulatory filings and maintains an online claims database accessible to City staff.
Additionally, EMC collects for medical bill review and savings identified through that
process. The fees, along with actual claims expenses, are charged to individual
departments.
The table below compares the FY 2021/22 fees to the proposed FY 2022/23 fees.
There are slight increases for medical claim set up and lost time claim set up.
Fee Component Components FY Components Change
Claim Set Up, Incident
Only $35 per claim $35 per claim 0%
Claim Set Up, Medical
Only $196 per claim $215 per claim 10%
Claim Set Up, Lost Time $1069 per claim $1099 per claim 3%
Medical Bill Review
Fees & Reimbursement
$9.50/claim
30% of Savings
$10,000/bill cap
$9.50/claim
30% of Savings
$10,000/bill cap
0%
0%
0%
The adopted FY 2022/23 City Budget includes $167,000 for Workers’ Compensation
claims and administration.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the renewal contract with EMC Risk Services, LLC, of Des Moines Iowa,
to provide third party administration of the City’s worker’s compensation and
municipal fire and police “411 System” claims for August 1, 2022 through July 31,
2023.
2. Reject the EMC renewal option and direct City staff to seek other claims
administration alternatives.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
EMC Risk Services, LLC, has been an effective provider of professionally administered
workers’ compensation claims and associated services. Its staff has been responsive
and sensitive to the needs of City employees in managing their injury and disability
claims. The online claims system makes cost and other data accessible to City staff and
provides a frequently utilized tool for analyzing injury types and safety program
effectiveness.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM #: __17___
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF ENGAGEMENT WITH AHLERS AND COONEY, P.C.,
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO APPLICATION OF IOWA CODE
CHAPTER 20
BACKGROUND:
In 2017, Iowa law related to collective bargaining for public sector employees was
modified. Due to federal protections for the collective bargaining rights of transit
employees, a dispute arose between the City and the union representing the City’s Blue
Collar bargaining unit (which includes a mix of transit and non-transit City employees)
regarding how bargaining should work under the new state law. The City engaged the
services of the Ahlers and Cooney law firm to prepare a petition to obtain clarification
from the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) about the law. The City is now
seeking judicial review of PERB’s decision.
On July 9, 2019, the City Council approved an extension of the engagement with Ahlers
and Cooney to a total amount of $50,412.58. On May 12, 2020, the City Council
approved an additional $15,000 in funding, for a total contract amount of $65,412.58.
On July 2, 2021, City staff authorized an increase of $7,000, for a total contract amount
of $72,412.58. On October 12, 2021, City Council approved additional funding in the
amount of $20,000, for a total contract amount of $92,412.58. City staff authorized an
additional $6,811.79 on June 6, 2022, for a contract total of $99,224.37.
The case has proceeded through district court and is now being briefed for an appeal to
the Iowa Supreme Court. Briefs will be completed in the next two weeks and it is
anticipated that the matter will be heard by the Iowa Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals this fall or winter. To complete the briefs and to prepare for and conduct
oral arguments, staff is requesting that an additional $25,000 be added to the
purchase order, for a total contract amount of $124,224.37.
The actual amount charged to the City is based on the hourly rates for the attorneys,
plus actual fees for copying, printing, and related services. Should additional services
be required due to, additional funding may be recommended in the future. Expenses are
distributed to the seven City departments with employees represented by this
bargaining unit.
Normally, these types of services would be retained only after a competitive solicitation
process and the evaluation of proposals. However, the City did not envision these
issues would require such extensive legal services when it initiated the engagement
with Ahlers and Cooney. It would be disadvantageous to the City to solicit proposals at
2
this time, retain a new firm, and prepare that firm to represent the City in this matter at
this point.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Waive the City’s purchasing policy requirement for formal bidding procedures
and extend the engagement with Ahlers and Cooney, P.C., of Des Moines, Iowa
in an amount not to exceed $25,000.
2. Reject the waiver request and direct staff to solicit competitive proposals for
these services.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City’s collective bargaining agreement with the Blue Collar labor group has become
significantly more complex due to the application of the new state law related to
collective bargaining, and how that law interacts with federal labor protections. Outside
legal assistance is required to navigate these issues, and the City has used Ahlers and
Cooney to assist the City to date in this matter. The service from Ahlers and Cooney
has been acceptable to City staff, and Council approval is required to continue using its
services.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as described above.
1
ITEM #: ___18__
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FACILITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING RENOVATION
BACKGROUND:
The Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Administration Building was constructed in
1988. Most of the interior finishes to the building are original and showing significant wear
and deterioration. The building originally housed the Laboratory Services Division which
is now located in the Technical Services Complex on E. 5th Street. The renovations will
convert the old lab space into a training and meeting room. Other updates to restrooms,
lockers, break room, and other spaces are included as well.
On April 29, 2022, a request for proposals (RFP) for architectural services was issued for
the WPCF Administration Building Renovations. On May 27, 2022, the City received ten
proposals in response to the RFP. Firms were asked to submit their fee proposals in
separate sealed envelopes from their qualification-based proposals to allow staff to make
a selection based strictly on the firms’ qualifications for the project.
A nine-member internal team comprised of operations, maintenance, engineering, and
managerial staff each independently reviewed and scored each proposal. The scoring
was performed using a rubric that was prepared prior to the RFP being issued and that
was shared with the proposing firms in advance so they could be certain of the areas that
were most important to the City. The results of the ranking are shown below. As you can
see, before opening the fee proposals, HDR scored the highest of the ten firms.
Firm Score
HDR 97.9
INVISION Architecture 94.9
FEH Design 86.6
ASK Studio 85.3
ISG 85.1
10Fold Architecture and Engineering 83.4
Farnsworth Group 83.4
Genesis Architectural Design 81.9
Hartman Trap Architecture Studio 81.9
2
Following the ranking of each firm, the fee proposals were opened for each of the ten
firms. The question for the evaluation team to consider was whether the fee of the
preferred firm seemed reasonable based on the proposed scope of work when compared
to other high-scoring proposals. Although HDR was the highest-scoring proposal
initially, the firm’s fee proposal was more than double the next highest fee.
Therefore, staff did not find HDR’s proposal to be reasonable in comparison to
other highly rated firms, and did not select HDR.
Firm Fee Proposal
SVPA Architects $70,700
The second- and third-rated firms were very close in overall ranking, followed by a clear
set of second-tier scores. Because of this, staff chose to interview both SVPA and
INVISION. Following the firm interviews, staff all agreed that SVPA would be the
best fit for the project. Their emphasis on staff involvement, project communication, and
similar past projects all contributed to their selection.
WPCF staff has not worked with SVPA before, so multiple reference calls were made.
These included talking to cities where SVPA performed similar work. The calls were all
positive and reinforced staff’s perceptions.
Staff next met with SVPA to discuss their scope of work and add items not originally
included in the RFP. These items include 3D modeling of the garage/shop area, a “net-
zero ready” evaluation of the building (a goal included in the draft Climate Action Plan),
and updated HVAC controls design. Following these scope additions, the updated fee
for SVPA is not to exceed amount of $85,100, plus reimbursable expenses not to
exceed $1,000.
The initial scope of work being recommended to Council covers only the design and
bidding phases of the project. Construction phase services will be added once the actual
construction plan is finalized. Staff will also evaluate whether design services related to
furniture procurement will be necessary in the future.
The adopted CIP includes $1,010,000 for this project (WPC Plant Facility
Improvements Project), which includes $164,000 for design expenses.
3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract for architectural services to SVPA Architects Inc. of West Des
Moines, Iowa, for the WPCF Administration Building Renovation Project in an
amount not to exceed $86,100.
2. Award a contract to one of the other firms.
3. Do not award a contract to SVPA Architects Inc. and do not proceed with the
project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The WPCF Administration Building contains space formerly used as a laboratory that is
no longer needed for that purpose and is poorly utilized. This space will be converted to
a training and meeting room to meet the needs of the facility for decades to come. In
addition to better use of the space, the existing interior finishes throughout the building
are showing wear and deterioration. This project is included in the adopted CIP in the
WPC Plant Facility Improvements Project.
A competitive process that followed the City’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures was
utilized to select a design firm. The process utilized a “two-envelope” selection method
that makes the primary decision based on qualifications followed by an evaluation of the
reasonableness of the proposed fees. A cross-discipline team reviewed all ten proposals,
selected two firms to invite to interview, and ultimately selected the proposal that was
determined to be in the best interests of the utility.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as stated above.
ITEM #: __19___
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 -- PADMOUNT SWITCHGEAR FOR THE
ELECTRIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2022, Ames City Council awarded contracts to two firms to provide a total of
three specified padmount switchgear. Padmount switchgear of this type are kept on hand
in order to ensure availability for the needs of the department. Typically, these items are
used to provide service for commercial and residential applications and is necessary to
meet the anticipated needs of the Electric Services Department for new construction and
maintenance projects.
Four bidders submitted pricing for the three specified switchgear. The City Council
awarded a contract to WESCO Distribution, Des Moines, IA for the purchase of 15KV
PME-9 padmount switchgear, at the bid amount of $22,799.61. On July 15, 2022, staff
was notified that WESCO made an error in its bid and is not able to honor the indicated
pricing. WESCO submitted a revised price to furnish the switchgear. The original price,
revised price, and other bidders’ prices are reflected in the table below:
BIDDER 15KV, PME-9,2-
200E FUSE/2-600A
WESCO (Original Bid) $22,799.61
Power Line Supply $25,661.81
IRBY UTILITIES $26,054.50
RESCO $26,196.06
WESCO
*Price inclusive of 6% State of Iowa Sales Taxes Plus 1% Local Tax
After re-evaluating the bid summary, WESCO’s adjusted price for switchgear no longer
made WESCO the low bidder. Power Line Supply of Williamsburg, IA is now the low
bidder for 15KV PME-9 Padmount Switchgear.
Power Line Supply was the successful bidder awarded a contract on July 12 for the other
two switchgear specified in the original Invitation to Bid. Therefore, this action is to
approve a change order (Change Order No. 1) to add one 15KV PME-9 padmount
switchgear, in the amount of $25,661.81 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax) to the existing
Purchase Order from Power Line Supply.
The Purchase Order with WESCO, approved by City Council on July 15 will be
cancelled.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Change Order No. 1 with Power Line Supply of Williamsburg, IA, to add
one 15KV PME-9 of padmount switchgear, in accordance with the bid amount of
$25,661.81 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax), bringing their total contract to $70,162.42.
2. Award a contract to one of the other bidders.
3. Direct staff to solicit new bids for this equipment.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is important to purchase padmount switchgears at the lowest possible cost with minimal
risk to the City. It is also imperative to have padmount switchgears available to meet
department’s needs for commercial and residential application.
The original awarded contract will not be honored by the supplier, and therefore this
equipment must be furnished by the next low bidder, which is Power Line Supply. Since
Power Line Supply is furnishing the other two switchgear awarded through this Invitation
to Bid, the purchase of the 15KV, PME-9,2-200E Fuse/2-600A Switch switchgear can be
completed through a change order.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
1
ITEM #20
DATE:07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2019/20 MULTI-MODAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (13TH STREET
& CLARK AVENUE)
BACKGROUND:
This program is aimed at improving the roadway to create a safer interaction between
various transportation modes using alternatives such as improved crossing visibility at
intersections, bike detection, and on-street facilities (e.g., bike lanes, sharrows). This
project installed a new pedestrian hybrid beacon at the intersection of 13th Street
and Clark Avenue.
On August 25, 2020 , City Council a warded the project to Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah, Iowa
in the amount of $109,589.30. One change order was administratively approved by staff
in the deduct amount of ($4,621.33) to reflect final measured quantities, bringing the
final construction cost to $104,967.97. Revenues and expenses for this project are
shown below:
Revenues Expenses
Construction (this contract)
104,967.97
Total $225,000 Total $222,564.17
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (13th Street & Clark
Avenue) project as completed by Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah, Iowa in the amount of
$104,967.97.
2. Direct staff to pursue modification to the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The project has now been completed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the
City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # __ 21 __
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (BAKER SUBDIVISION)
BACKGROUND:
This is the public infrastructure improvement project for Baker Subdivision, which
consists of 26 single-family lots and one multi-family lot along Tripp Street between S.
Wilmoth Avenue and State Avenue. The project improvements included sanitary sewer,
water main, storm sewers, utility services, street/alley/shared use path/sidewalk paving,
and stormwater basin improvements.
On August 25, 2020, City Council awarded the contract to Con-Struct, Inc. of Ames, Iowa
in the amount of $1,317,872.65. Change Order No. 1 for Value Engineering resulted in a
deduction of ($4,750). Change Orders No. 2 & 4 provided for extension of the completion
date. Change Order No. 3, in the amount of $44,413.90, was for additional paving. Change
Order No. 5 (with this action) is the balancing change order reflect the actual measured
quantities completed during construction, resulting in net addition to the contract of
$43,819.23. Construction was completed in the amount of $1,401,355.78.
Revenue and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows:
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
• 2019/20 Roll-Over fund balance
• Anticipated income from the sale of properties
• 2020/21 funding allocation
$ 661,992
190,000
400,881
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a.) Approve Change Order No. 5, an addition to the contract in the amount of $43,819.23.
b.) Accept the 2020/21 CDBG Infrastructure Improvements (Baker Subdivision) project as
completed by Con-Struct, Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount of $1,401,355.78.
2. Direct staff to pursue changes to the project.
2
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as noted above.
1
ITEM #__22___
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FY 2023/24 ASSET PRIORITIES
BACKGROUND:
The ASSET funding process for FY 2023/24 will begin in August 2022. ASSET
volunteers will conduct their agency visits to discuss services, gather information, and
submit written reports that will be used for the agency hearings and work sessions
scheduled in January 2023.
Last year the City’s ASSET priorities were realigned with the results of the 2020 Story
County Community Needs Assessment. These priorities for FY 2022/23 are as follows:
#1 Meet mental health and substance use disorder needs through
A. Community-based and outpatient mental health services
B. Outpatient emergency access and crisis intervention services
C. Awareness and education about suicide prevention and services
D. Substance use prevention and treatment availability
#2 Meet basic needs with an emphasis on low to moderate income through
A. Food cost offset programs to assist in providing nutritious perishables and
staples
B. Housing cost offset programs including utility assistance
C. Sheltering
D. Quality childcare cost offset programs, including daycare and State of
Iowa licensed in-home facilities
E. Financial literacy and education programs
F. Medical and dental services
G. Transportation cost offset programs
H. Legal assistance
I. Disaster response
#3 Provide youth development services and activities through
A. Skill development and enhancement
B. Summer enrichment/prevention of loss of learning
City Council held a workshop on June 21, 2022 to discuss inclusion and diversity in
establishing ASSET funding priorities for FY 2023/24. At that workshop, Council
approved expanding the statement in Priority #2 “with an emphasis on low to moderate
income” to be inclusive of all three categories and service areas. Another change that
Council approved was removing the descriptor “quality” from “quality childcare.” The
2
justification for this change is that that all services are expected to be offered and
provided in a quality manner.
City staff met with the City’s ASSET volunteers on July 11th to review the
priorities and Council’s recent modifications. The volunteers recommend these
additional changes 1) clarifying emergency shelter, 2) re-inserting “quality” in
“quality childcare” as the term refers to national standards and best practices in
the areas of teaching and assessment, developmentally appropriate curriculum,
and staff competencies, and 3) reprioritizing medical and dental services above
financial literacy and education programs.
The volunteers are recommending the following set of priorities for the FY 2023-
24 funding cycle:
Categories 1, 2, and 3 are in priority order
as are the lettered services in each category.
An emphasis is placed on low to moderate income in all categories and services.
#1 Meet mental health and substance use disorder needs through
A. Community-based and outpatient mental health services
B. Outpatient emergency access and crisis intervention services
C. Awareness and education about suicide prevention and services
D. Substance use prevention and treatment availability
#2 Meet basic needs through
A. Food cost offset programs to assist in providing nutritious perishables and
staples
B. Housing cost offset programs including utility assistance
C. Sheltering, including emergency shelter (length of stay in emergency
shelter is dependent upon the population group being served)
D. Quality childcare cost offset programs, including daycare and State of
Iowa licensed in-home facilities
E. Medical and dental services
F. Financial literacy and education programs
G. Transportation cost offset programs
H. Legal assistance
I. Disaster response
#3 Provide youth development services and activities through
A. Skill development and enhancement
B. Summer enrichment/prevention of loss of learning
3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the ASSET priorities for FY 2023/24.
2. Do not approve the ASSET priorities and refer back to staff for further
information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City’s ASSET volunteers have reviewed the priorities in conjunction with community
needs and feedback from the allocation process last January. The volunteers have
provided input that help clarify the service areas.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve
Alternative #1, as described above.
1
ITEM: _23___
Staff Report
ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR INDOOR AQUATIC CENTER
July 26, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2022, City staff presented the City Council with a report regarding the
potential acquisition of property at 122 North Oak Avenue for the construction of the
Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center (IAC).
The report detailed the environmental contamination documented on the site, potential
costs to address the contamination, and the costs to acquire the property from the Iowa
Department of Transportation (IDOT), which owns the site. The report explained that the
purchase price would be $2.9 million for the IDOT property, and the City could
potentially face up to approximately $1 million in additional costs for construction
alterations and mitigation measures related to the contamination.
At that meeting, the City Council directed staff to explore whether any other
alternative sites to construct the IAC exist, either within or in the vicinity of the
City’s current Downtown Reinvestment District Urban Renewal Area (URA). The
boundaries of the URA were established by the City Council on August 24, 2021 (figure
1). The URA is a tool that allows the City to use a variety of powers and authorities to
remove slum and blight and support economic development, as defined by Chapter 403
of the Code of Iowa. The current URA comprises approximately 75 acres of land in and
near downtown Ames.
The Iowa Reinvestment District Program allows a city to capture new State sales and
Hotel/Motel tax revenue generated within an approved district up to an approved
amount. Under this program, the City is pre-approved to receive up to $10 million in
State taxes received from new downtown developments, which would be used to help
abate some of the debt incurred for the construction of the new indoor aquatic facility.
The Reinvestment District Program requires a URA to be established, and the indoor
aquatic center must be located within that URA. If the aquatic center were located
outside the URA, the URA boundaries could be amended to include it, but the overall
area of the URA could not exceed 75 acres.
2
Figure 1: Approved Downtown Reinvestment District URA Boundaries
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SITES:
Following the July 12 meeting, staff reviewed a map that was created in 2020 in
preparation for application to the state Reinvestment District Program. This map
contained 11 potential locations in or near downtown for the siting of the new indoor
aquatic facility. Two additional sites were later added. These sites included:
1. 122 North Oak Avenue (DOT site)
2. Brookside Park (east of Ioway Creek, along Brookridge Avenue)
3. O’Neil Park (300 S. Maple Avenue)
4. City Hall (Parking Lot M, west of the building)
5. 205 S. Walnut Avenue (Heartland Senior Services site)
6. CBD Parking Lot X (behind Wells Fargo)
7. Lincoln Way and Sherman Avenue (north side)
8. East Main Street (west of Power Plant cooling towers)
9. Former Water Treatment Plant site
10. Former Power Plant Coal Yard site
11. 200 block of E. 2nd Street (between Des Moines Avenue and East Avenue)
12. SE 3rd Street (north of Target)
13. SE 5th Street (south of Target)
These locations are indicated on the map on the following page (Figure 2). It should be
noted that this map shows each site with a footprint of a pool basin, building, and
parking; these are conceptual to illustrate dimensions only, and should not be
considered as the actual proposed layout for any of the locations.
3
Figure 2: Potential Aquatic Center Sites in or Near Existing Iowa Reinvestment District Urban Renewal Area
4
Of these 13 locations, City staff believes only three would be potentially feasible
as an alternative to the 2.9-acre site at 122 North Oak Avenue:
2. Brookside Park (east of Ioway Creek, along Brookridge Avenue)
3. O’Neil Park (300 S. Maple Avenue)
4. City Hall (Parking Lot M, west of the building)
These three properties are already under the City’s control and would not require a
lengthy acquisition process. Properties 7, 11, 12, and 13 are privately owned and would
need to be acquired; properties 5 and 6 are City-owned, but are committed to other
development projects; properties 8, 9, and 10 are occupied by existing utility
infrastructure and may involve environmental mitigation similar or more involved than
what would be required at 122 North Oak (property #1 on the list above).
BROOKSIDE PARK OPTION:
Most of the land in Brookside Park is leased to the City from Iowa State University and
is in the floodway. However, the City owns the portion of Brookside Park located
between Ioway Creek and Brookridge Avenue, which is upslope from the creek. This
portion of the property was purchased by the City in 1925. Aerial photography records
show no development on the property since it was acquired. The eastern portion of the
5
property includes a relatively flat open area of approximately 2.3 acres. The pros and
cons of this site include:
Pros
• Undeveloped land/no demolition required
• CyRide access on 6th Street
• Room for storm water management
• Room for parking
• Adjacent off-street bicycle paths
Cons
• Access only from one street (6th Street); poor visibility at intersection
• Smallest of the three potential sites
• Long, narrow area limits building configuration options
• Adjacent slopes may require additional stabilization or special construction
techniques
• Adjacent single-family homes on Brookridge would look directly at building
wall/roof
• Loss of green space
• Furthest site from existing Reinvestment District and URA boundaries
6
O’NEIL PARK OPTION:
The O’Neil Park property is owned by the City. The park consists of approximately 3.1
acres and includes play structures, a basketball pad, and a ballfield. Aerial photography
records show no development on the property since it was acquired. The park was
conveyed from the O’Neil Dairy Company to the Parks Commission (at the time a
separate legal entity from the City) in 1941. The Parks Commission then conveyed the
property to the City of Ames in 1975.
Both conveyances included a deed restriction indicating “Said premises at all times to
be used as a public park and playground, and if abandoned as to such use, said
premises to revert to the grantor herein.” It should be noted that Iowa law limits deed
restrictions to a period of 21 years, unless notice is filed to renew the restriction. Staff
does not have evidence that such a renewal was filed; therefore, the City would be
permitted to use the property for other purposes.
It should also be noted that the Iowa Department of Transportation was granted a
permanent easement in 1978 to install and operate an underground steam line in the
southeastern corner of the property (approximately 55 feet by 27 feet). City staff
understands from recent conversations with DOT staff that the steam line has since
been abandoned.
7
A review of DNR records indicate that the DOT property due east of the site has had
two instances where leaking underground storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel
were discovered. One tank was located just south of the DOT repair building, which is
approximately 700 feet east of O’Neil Park. This tank was discovered to be leaking in
1989. Cleanup of the leak was completed in February 2000. The other tanks were
These tanks were located east of the repair building, which is 812 feet from the eastern
edge of O’Neil Park. The tanks were reported leaking in 1990. Cleanup of this tank
occurred in June 1999. No other records could be found by City staff indicating an
apparent environmental concern relating to O’Neil Park.
The pros and cons of this site include:
Pros
• Undeveloped land/no demolition required
• Largest of the three potential sites; slightly larger than DOT site and
similar configuration
• CyRide access on South 4th Street
• Room for storm water management
• Room for parking
• Access from all four sides
• Adjacent off-street bicycle paths
• In close proximity (three blocks) to existing Reinvestment District and URA
boundaries
Cons
• Loss of green space and park features
• Steam line easement would need to be vacated
• Patrons traveling to the site from north or west may add to neighborhood
traffic
• Based on initial resident feedback, there is substantial neighborhood
opposition to the use of this site
8
CITY HALL PARKING LOT OPTION:
The City owns the property to the west of City Hall, where Parking Lot M is located. This
parking lot serves a combination of public users, City employees, and official City
vehicles. City Hall was constructed as Ames High School in the late 1930s; the area
that is now the parking lot contained houses until the 1960s, when it was converted to
green space. The parking lot is approximately 2.1 acres in size; Lot MM and the
Veterans’ Memorial contain another 0.75 acres, for a total of approximately 2.85 acres.
The property was purchased from the Ames Community School District in 1988. The
groundwater hazard statement produced when the property was acquired indicates no
wells, tanks, hazardous materials, or other groundwater issues on the property.
The parking lot was reconstructed in 2016, and currently contains 191 parking spaces.
Additional spaces are located in Lot MM, to the west, and in the new Lot N, to the north.
Construction of the Aquatic Center would require removal of at least 125-150 parking
spaces. The loss of these spaces may necessitate construction of structured parking
over the remaining spaces to replace the lost parking.
It should also be noted that the 2016 parking lot reconstruction was funding partly with a
$100,000 Water Quality Grant from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and $373,125 in
DNR Revolving Loan funds. Further research would need to be conducted to determine
9
whether these funding sources limit the City’s ability to remove the improvements
without repayment penalties.
The pros and cons of this site include:
Pros
• Closest site to the existing Reinvestment District and URA boundaries
• Access from north and south
• CyRide access on 5th Street
• Connection to existing recreation facilities and resources at City Hall
Cons
• Only alternative site that requires demolition
• Replacement of lost parking and lost stormwater capacity required –
structured parking costs between $30,000 to $40,000 per space; replacing
the spaces lost to the facility plus the additional spaces needed to serve the
aquatic center customers (approximately 300 total) would be approximately
$9 million to $12 million.
• Potential to require repayment of grant and revolving loan funds used to
construct the existing parking lot/storm water ($475,000)
• Disruption to City Hall, Auditorium, and Community Center users and
employees during construction
• Possible need to acquire credit union property and relocate the Veterans’
Memorial
• No adjacent off-street bicycle paths
STAFF COMMENTS:
Of the three potential sites for an indoor aquatic center, O’Neil Park appears to be
the most feasible site to construct the facility in a cost-effective manner. A key
challenge with the O’Neil Park site is the loss of the park for the neighborhood.
To mitigate the loss of the current O’Neil Park green space for the community, staff
believes relocating O’Neil Park to the flood buyout area 2-3 blocks to the west could be
investigated (Figure 3). This area, on the east bank of Ioway Creek and across from
Stuart Smith Park, was populated by several homes until the flood of 1993. In 1994, the
10
City bought out most of the flood-prone properties in this area using federal funds. At
least one other home was purchased by the City as a flood buy-out in 2007.
Figure 3: Current O’Neil Park Site and Potential Relocation Area
This area totals approximately six acres. It contains a mix of open space and trees, and
currently hosts a mini shelter and a seating area overlooking the creek in the northwest
corner. There are several monitoring wells in the area south and west of Riverside
Drive, which are part of the ISU Field Hydrology Station. These wells are used to study
the relationship between Ioway Creek and the groundwater in that area and have
historically been used for teaching purposes.
Typically, a new park would include improvements such as parking, shelter structure(s),
playground amenities, electricity and water, and other features. The Parks and
Recreation Department’s approach to determining the specific amenities in a new park
involves discussions with neighbors to identify the features and locations that will best
serve their desires. A budget-level estimated cost to develop a park is $500,000.
However, because this area was purchased using federal flood buy-out funds,
restrictions were agreed to between the City and the federal government regarding what
could be placed on these properties in the future. Staff is aware that within these
restrictions there exist allowable uses (e.g., outdoor recreation, unimproved parking),
11
and uses that are generally not allowed without approval (e.g., walled buildings, paved
roads or parking).
It appears that open structures (such as a park shelter) may be allowed. However, any
potential improvements to this area would need to obtain advance approval from FEMA
to ensure compliance. In addition, there may be portions of the area (such as the
original road right-of-way), that were not purchased using federal funds. More research
needs to be done to determine whether the entire area is subject to the same
restrictions.
NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK:
City staff held a virtual neighborhood meeting on July 18. Following a presentation from
City staff regarding the status of the DOT site and the direction from City Council to
explore alternatives, comments were received from two dozen residents. Additional
feedback has been received via email. A summary of the meeting feedback and copies
of correspondence received have been attached to this report (Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively).
The response from neighbors of O’Neil Park is overwhelming opposition to the siting of
the aquatic facility on the existing park site. The following is a list of the major themes of
the feedback:
1. Building on the current site of O’Neil Park will exchange green space for more
impervious surfaces in the area, which is contrary to the City’s sustainability
goals. In contrast, the DOT site is already developed with impervious surface, so
developing a pool there would not diminish the absorption of storm water and
carbon.
2. O’Neil Park is used extensively, not only by adjacent residents, but by people
throughout the community for a variety of recreation purposes.
3. The current O’Neil Park site provides open sight lines for police and others to
observe activity, whereas the proposed relocated park site is wooded and
presents safety concerns.
4. The proposed relocated park site is located in the floodway and becomes
unusable and contaminated with silt when flooded, which happens quite
frequently.
5. Some residents believe that the Oak-to-Riverside Neighborhood has been
negatively impacted by many recent and proposed changes, including the
construction of the Stadium View Suites apartments and the Lincoln Way
Corridor Plan, and the elimination of this park is another threat to the stability of
the neighborhood.
12
6. The residential streets to the north of the site will be affected by more traffic from
aquatic center patrons.
7. If a replacement park is built to the west, the location is further away for the
majority of the residents in the neighborhood.
8. Because some neighbors live in nearby apartments, the park space is their only
open, green area to recreate. The indoor aquatic center would remove some of
the available green space available for their use.
9. Several “better” sites were identified by neighbors as alternatives to the DOT site
or O’Neil Park.
10. Property values will decrease by replacing a neighborhood park with the aquatic
center.
11. The removal of the park from a low-income neighborhood is contrary to the
Council’s goal of ensuring equitable treatment for all segments of our population.
12. Developing O’Neil Park into an aquatics facility is contrary to the wishes of the
O’Neil family when the property was gifted to the City for a park.
OPTIONS:
The City Council must determine whether any of the three identified alternative sites is
suitable to pursue, or if the Council wishes to commit to the IDOT site at 122 North Oak
Avenue and develop plans to address the contamination.
Time is of the essence—a new location must be explored to ensure it can be included
in the Iowa Reinvestment District boundaries, and to take the steps necessary to
designate the area as an Urban Renewal Area for the purpose of authorizing the bond
financing, which staff hopes to complete in September.
An extensive delay in making a final site decision is likely to result in higher construction
costs, and missing key design and construction windows, which will delay the opening
of the facility.
13
OPTION 1:
If the Council does not wish to pursue a different site and prefers instead to
procced with the acquisition of the 122 N. Oak Avenue (IDOT) site, the
Council could choose from two potential paths to do so.
a. Direct staff to prepare for an Offer to Buy equal to the appraised value of
$2.9 million and proceed with the purchase agreement as soon as
possible (note – actual payment would not take place until the City takes
possession in October).
- OR -
b. Request that IDOT obtain a new appraisal for the 122 N. Oak Avenue site
which would consider the existence of the environmental
contamination.
The Council should be aware that Option 1b could reduce the purchase
price, but it also comes with considerable risk. Although a new appraisal
would potentially reduce the value of the property in light of the
contamination, there is no guarantee that the reduction will completely offset
the City’s costs to mitigate it. In addition, the value of comparable properties
may have increased in the time since the original appraisal was conducted in
October 2021. These increases may offset some or all of any deduction
granted due to the contamination. In the event a new appraisal is obtained
and it is higher than the original $2.9 million appraisal, staff does not believe it
is likely that the property could be obtained for less than the new appraisal
amount.
OPTION 2:
If the City Council wishes to pursue the O’Neil Park site, direction must be
provided to City staff to do the following:
1. Further explore the desired site by authorizing staff to conduct
preliminary geotechnical and environmental studies.
2. Consult with RDG regarding modifications to the conceptual designs
to fit the site.
3. Consult with FEMA regarding park improvements that would be
allowed or not allowed on the flood buy-out area.
4. Return to the City Council to amend the City’s Iowa Reinvestment
District Program application and Urban Renewal Area to incorporate
the new site.
14
OPTION 3:
If the Council wishes to pursue any of the other alternatives to 122 N. Oak
Avenue, the Council would need to identify the desired site for staff, and
then similar steps would be required to those described in Option 2 above
(with the exception of consulting with FEMA).
ATTACHMENT 1
Neighborhood Meeting Regarding O’Neil Park as a
Potential Site for the Proposed Indoor Aquatic Center
Invitees: Staff delivered letters to over 300 addresses in the area.
Meeting Format: Zoom
Approximate Number of Participants: 42
Date and Time: July 18, 2022, at 6:00 PM
Staff Present: Keith Abraham, Park and Recreation Director; Steve Schainker, City Manager; Brian Phillips,
Assistant City Manager; Deb Schildroth, Assistant City Manager; and Katie Kole, Parks and Recreation
Secretary
Abraham started the meeting with an overview of the history of this project and informed the participants
that the Council still sees an indoor aquatic center as a priority.
Abraham stated the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) is willing to sell the property across from their
main building on Lincoln Way to the City of Ames. DOT had an appraisal performed in October 2021 which
resulted in an appraised value of $2.9 million. This appraisal assumes there is no soil or groundwater
contamination.
The property's history includes a nearby coal gasification plant, leaking underground storage tanks, and a gas
station, so City staff recommended environmental testing at the site. Abraham showed the location of borings
done on site and explained what contaminants were present. Due to those contaminates, Staff recommended
that the Council approve additional testing on the site.
The additional testing shows contaminates are higher than the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
acceptable levels, raising concerns that disturbing the soil is a risk of contamination migrating to the south
where the Indoor Aquatic Center facility would be located. Staff has looked at many potential mitigation
strategies, which could add several hundred thousand dollars to the cost of this project. Staff wanted to make
sure that City Council knew of these concerns.
Council directed Staff to research potential sites within close proximity to the Reinvestment District in order to
be eligible to receive $10 million in tax rebates.
Abraham went over all potential sites, both City-owned and privately owned. At this time, the privately
owned sites are not for sale.
Abraham addressed the frequently asked questions and comments received from citizens.
• Is the DOT site still a possibility? City Council has not ruled it out. However, with the cost of the land at
$2.9 million and potential clean-up costs of $500,000 or more, Council directed Staff to explore other
locations.
• Is there anything in the deed that prevents the city from using this for anything other than a
park? The covenant has expired on the deed to this land.
• What does it mean if part of the neighborhood becomes an Urban Renewal Area? The City cannot
come in and wipe out the neighborhood or redevelop your property.
• What will happen to property values? Amenities typically increase property values; it is often
desirable for amenities to be in the neighborhood.
• Will my property taxes go up? If property value goes up, then the taxes on the property will go up.
Property taxes will pay for the debt on the bonds to build the Indoor Aquatic Center at any location.
• Can the playground equipment remain on site? Staff does not know the answer to this question at this
time because there is no site plan. However, if the City does not purchase the DOT property, there will
be a savings of $2.9 million which would allow us to reconsider a two-story smaller footprint building.
• Will trees need to be taken down? Probably, but Staff would work with architects during the design
phase to include retaining trees.
• Traffic concerns. Staff will work with the architects to mitigate those things in the design phase.
• Safety concerns. We are aware of people’s safety concerns.
• Will there be off-street parking? Yes
• Who received notices of the neighborhood meeting? Staff worked with Debbie Lee and gave letters to
all residents from South 4th to the RR tracks north of Lincoln Way and from Oak to University.
• Are there any concerns for Oak to Riverside residents due to the contamination on the DOT
sight? The DNR says the contamination is static and not a problem if not disturbed.
• If you develop a park at the end of S. Riverside, neighbors will lose more than they gain.
• If a new park is developed at the end of S. Riverside, what is the process, and how are the neighbors
involved? The neighborhood would be invited to a series of meetings to share their vision for the park.
The attendees share what activities they would like to see and how the park is currently used and what
amenities are needed to accomplish those activities. Attendees prioritize the responses. Staff would
work with a consultant to put together a site plan. The consultant would offer two or more design
options, and attendees would help narrow that down to one design.
• I'm worried about the foundation of my house during construction with the truck traffic. Truck traffic
can be directed to the site from the DOT side.
PUBLIC INPUT
Tamara Lorenz - 311 S Maple
Lorenz stated she did not resist the original proposal because it would develop an undeveloped block. She is against
using O'Neil Park.
Her issues are as follows: First is economic justice and value for the people of Ames. All people can come and use the
park. There are no user fees, all citizens have access to the space, no special gear or shoes are needed, and no
supervisory staff is required. An aquatic center will charge user fees and eliminate a valuable free resource. Second is
the environmental benefits of the park. Natural, free rainwater absorption will be gone.
Eryn Shriver - 202 S Maple
Shriver commented on the DOT offering the property for sale with no environmental hazards and the appraisal price set
on the site being clean and free of contamination. Abraham stated that Staff had discussed those issues with the DOT;
however, the DOT is sticking to that appraisal.
Shriver asked if the DOT would sell land on S Maple, where the snowplows are stored now that the N Grand extension
has been completed. Abraham stated that Staff could look into that.
Shriver asked about the monitoring sites in the flood fringe zone. Abraham stated that ISU Geology is monitoring these
wells, and Staff has not been able to connect with the person in charge.
Jamie Diamond - 114 S Russell
Diamond asked if City Staff was planning to push back on the DOT. Abraham stated that there had been many
conversations with the DOT and their policy is that once the appraisal is completed, they do not reduce the price.
Diamond asked if the contamination could leach into the pool. Abraham stated that the contamination could migrate
through the groundwater, and low levels of vapor could enter the building or come through the sump. Abraham also
informed Diamond that this is the worst-case scenario, but we must ensure that City Council and the residents are
informed.
Diamond asked if the City monitors the park system for users. Abraham states that we know the parks get a lot of use;
however, we do not monitor use other than observations when in the park or driving past. The Park maintenance staff
reports increases in users by increased needs in maintenance and/or garbage collection.
Diamond asked if there were plans for a traffic signal. Abraham stated the traffic engineer would conduct a study to
control traffic and ensure safety.
Dimond states he does not know the park's history and how it was given to the City. He feels that if the original donor
wanted it to have a playground, we should not ignore that wish. Abraham stated that no one takes these decisions
lightly. Staff and Council do not ignore covenants but must also consider the community's changing needs.
Diamond does want to point out that if we do not have to purchase the DOT property, we are saving $2.9 million, and he
does not think we should let that point get buried.
Johnathan Bunge - 226 S Maple
Bunge thanked Abraham for organizing the meeting and thanked his neighbors for their comments. He asked if O’Neil is
chosen, please keep as many of the trees as possible for sound and light barrier.
Abraham stated the City does have a night sky ordinance and requirements for light fixtures to be directed down.
Abraham said they have not looked into sound.
Bunge feels the best place to build is where the ball diamond is located.
He seconds asking the DOT about the snowplow area. He feels that wherever the facility is located if we save the $2.9
million on the land, we should build the biggest facility we can and disrupt the neighborhood once and be done.
Abraham asked how much of a concern is crossing South 4th to access the facility. Bunge stated that he has no concerns
as South 4th is already busy.
He also wants to make sure the City will develop the new park if O'Neil Park is used. Abraham stated that yes, a new
park would be created, and Council may approve the funds from money saved by not purchasing the DOT site.
Susie Petra - 2011 Duff Ave
Petra is all for saving money and would like to save that $2.9 million. She does not think O'Neil is the right area. She
wants to see a pool built on the old site of Carr Pool, as it is already owned by the City and has a parking lot. Many
people have great memories of that location, and the neighborhood is already accustomed to a pool.
Abraham stated that the Carr site has 25-30 spaces for vehicles. A facility the size of the Indoor Aquatic Center needs
140 spaces.
Petra noted that the parking could be built vertically.
Abraham informed her that his current direction from the Council does not include exploring the Carr site as Council
wants to be near the Reinvestment District.
Judy Lemish - 327 S Maple
Lemish stated flooding often happens in the alternate park site with runoff coming into the area. She also feels that that
area is not safe. She only walks there in the daylight as transients sleep on the benches. Football traffic is inconsiderate
of others, and this area could be a future parking issue for the University.
She does not feel the contamination at the DOT site will be a problem as people go to the soccer fields on the old water
treatment site and seem to have no problem with it.
Tamara Lorenz - 311 S Maple
Lorenz wanted to inform everyone that as someone who represented the State of Iowa for many years, she wants to let
the listeners know that Staff has done a valiant job of trying to deal with the DOT as they are very difficult to deal with.
She would like to thank Abraham for being so persistent.
Jason Dietzenbach - 203 S Maple
Dietzenbach states that many people come from all over to use the park. He was excited about the DOT site as it had a
stop light and is a better location as the gateway to the city.
He asked about the areas west of City Hall, in front of the Power Plant, or Bandshell Park. Abraham stated the area west
of the Power Plant can fit the building but has no parking. Bandshell Park is on the National Historic Register, so there
may not be enough space. The area west of City Hall will be part of the staff report.
Abraham asked the participants that for time purposes to limit their comments to new information to be considered.
The meeting is being recorded and will be available to the Council.
Jackie Delay -129 S Russell
Delay said even though Abraham asked participants not to repeat items, she does not feel that O’Neil is a good
alternative. Moving the park to the flood mitigation area is not a good idea.
Debbie Lee - 214 S Maple
Lee wanted to share that she is opposed and has already shared her opposition to Council. Abraham stated he
appreciates Debbie’s help.
Kathy Corones -1115 Burnett
Her interest is for swimmers who need to have a pool. She is an older person and, like many, needs to exercise. She
needs to swim for more than just recreation; she and many others need swimming for their health. She understands the
concerns about the location. However, whatever is chosen needs to move forward, so the grant is not lost.
Sherri and Steve Paul - 118 S Russel
Paul stated they used to live on South Riverside before the flood buyout. They feel the flood fringe area is not an area to
develop and disagree with using O’Neil Park.
They also wanted to know who appraised the DOT land. Abraham informed them that due to DOT policy, they use their
appraiser. It is the Paul’s opinion that the DOT has been pretty shady. Sheri Paul thinks we should back out for now as
the DOT must now disclose the contamination and may have a problem selling. They may beg the City to purchase the
land.
Alex Fejfer - 215 S Maple
Fejfer states his opinion that Council is stretching the Reinvestment District too far into the residential area. He likes the
idea of looking at the Power Plant area, which will place people in the area you want. He feels there would be added city
costs for cleaning up the aquatic center parking lot after tailgating.
129 S Russell (Did not state name)
He feels that Council should go ahead and stretch the Reinvestment District to Moore Park. He voiced frustration that
Staff is patronizing him. He expressed frustration regarding the S Grand extension. He believes that every time an
alternative location is mentioned, Abraham states that he is following Council direction by looking into O’Neil Park and
disregards everything else. He is angry and disappointed at the lack of openness. He feels that this is coming, and the
neighborhood is being told.
Eryn Shriver - 202 S Maple
Shriver commented regarding crossing South 4th to get to the pool. Going to the pool is more of a production, so it
would not be a concern for her. Going to the park is something you can walk to spur of the moment.
Paul Attema - 229 S Russel
Attema has gone back and forth on the idea. He feels that it would be a great addition to the neighborhood and that
many others would feel the same way.
Steve Schainker – City Manager
Schainker states he does not know what the Council will decide. Currently, the Mayor intends to allow people to speak
before the Council gives Staff direction.
The meeting concluded at 8:05 PM.
O’NEIL PARK EMAILS
From: Patrick Clausen <p.e.clausen053@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 6:50 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: O’Neil Park meeting.
Hello Keith,
I am the mail carrier for the neighborhoods around O’Neil Park. I also cover the North Annex for DOT. I will not
be able attend the meeting Monday.
My main concern is whether the S Maple location for the Aquatic Center will have a parking lot. I just want to
ensure I will be able to maneuver through my route and find parking spots easily. Game Day traffic is a
nightmare I hope to not experience a drought in parking spaces year round.
I am also curious as to whether the playground equipment on the northwest end of the park would be left
intact, moved or demolished?
Thank you for letting the neighborhood give our input.
Patrick,
There would be a parking lot for off-street parking. Since this conversation tonight is just a beginning, I
don't know if the playground equipment would stay or not. Most likely, a new playground would need
to be developed elsewhere in the neighborhood.
Thanks for the comments and please contact me if you have any further thoughts!
From: Kruesel, Claire E [BBMB] <kruesel@iastate.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:22 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Will tomorrow's meeting disclose the cost of remediation at the proposed Aquatic Center site?
Hi Keith,
I saw the letter that was posted on residents' doors near O'Neil Park. It's too bad about the contamination at
the proposed Aquatic Center site on 122 N. Oak Ave.
At tomorrow's meeting, will the City present options to residents for financing remediation of the
contaminated soil through a special tax? I think that option would be preferable to most residents over
relocating O'Neill park and disrupting the neighborhood dynamics. I also think it could help your relocation
argument if everyone knew how much remediation costs would be if assessed through a tax.
All the best,
Claire
Claire,
Although I will briefly share potential mitigation strategies and costs, these will only be estimates and
could be higher or lower once construction were to begin. As of right now, any cost associated with
mitigating contaminated soils and groundwater would be included in the construction costs. These
ATTACHMENT 2
constructions costs would be paid for through the issuance of bonds, donations, and/or Reinvestment
District Funding.
Thanks for the thoughts and let me know if you have any further comments.
That makes sense. I hope the City can come to a solution that the community largely supports.
Thank you for all you do!
Claire
From: Emma Williams <w.emmie.11@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:29 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: O’Neil park/Pool
Hello,
My name is Emma. I live in some apartments kiddie corner to the park. I visit the park frequently and I can tell
you many people ranging from babies to adults use this park and enjoy it! If there were a pool added in, I
would propose to keep some park, grass and maybe courts in that area. If you can not do that, maybe move a
court and the playground equipment to near the river park area at the end of Russel.
Secondly, as a resident of the neighborhood, I would like to state a safety concern of traffic. No other road is
as dangerous as South 4th St. Traffic speeds through and it is very hard to even turn on to when oncoming
traffic comes through going over the speed limit and sometimes recklessly. I’m not sure bringing more traffic,
parking, and pedestrians to the area is a great idea until the traffic problem is resolved as well.
As with everything else, I’ll leave that up to the other residents who have input and committees who have the
final say and will hope for the best in any situation! I look forward to any updates as they come.
Kind regards,
Emma
Emma,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and suggestions! This information will be
shared with City Council members so they understand the neighbors concerns/comment and can
take these into consideration when making a decision.
From: Nicole Leibold <nicole.leibold@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 5:24 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>; Thompson, Joshua
<joshua.thompson@cityofames.org>
Subject: O’Neil park
Hello we are wanting some clarification on if the pool went at the O’Neill park great. Would you need to
relocate or do anything to Stewart Smith because we think it’s fine the way it is? We deal with enough traffic,
sketchy people (cops never have time to come check out) Especially trying to build on South Riverside which is
a floodplain to my understanding so adding a park or a parking lot we don’t think would be good can you guys
please give us some more insight on at the pool did go to O’Neill Park Kennett not come to Stuart Smith
Nicole,
If the decision is made to build the aquatic center at O'Neil Park, a park could be added at the end of S.
Riverside and S. Russell. That is a decision City Council will make after reviewing all of the information
and feedback related to alternative options for an aquatic center.
Thanks for the comments and have a great day!
From: Debra Lee <deblee58@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Plans for indoor pool
Keith,
Greetings from Michael Lee. I am writing to oppose the possibility of converting O'Neil Park into an indoor
pool.
There are several reasons for my opposition but, for this email, I will focus on one, the number of apartment
buildings served by the park.
There are nine apartment buildings in the area: 5 of the Stadium View complex, 1 at 1108 S 4th St., 2 of the
South Oak Apartments and 1 at the Evergreen Apartments. I am not sure how many people reside in those
apartments. Have they been adequately notified of the possible change? If so, how have they been notified?
O'Neil Park is essentially the 'back yard' for all those people who live in those nine apartment buildings. They
use the park for basketball, playing on the playground equipment, picnics, gathering with friends on hot
summer nights, softball practices, soccer practices and more.
If O'Neil Park is converted into an indoor pool then their 'backyard' is gone forever. There is no equivalent
place in the area to build a substitute: nothing.
For me, the conversion of the park into an indoor pool may be beneficial. I like to swim. And, it may increase
the value of my house. But, I do not care about those considerations. What is much more important is easy
access to some green space for lots of people, nameless citizens, who reside in those nine apartment
buildings.
So, the possible conversion of O'Neil Park into an indoor pool is a really, really bad idea.
Please find another place for the pool (and, why a pool? A separate topic for another letter).
Sincerely,
Michael Lee
Michael,
Thank for your thoughts and comments!
To answer your question, over 300 letters were posted on doors and that included apartments between
S. 4th and the railroad tracks north of Lincoln Way. University Ave. and Oak were the boundaries to the
west and east respectively. This did not include the Stadium View Apartments. I have received a couple
of emails from people who live in the apartments.
If you have any further comments, please send them to me so I can share with City Council
members. Have a great day
From: Rick Merritt <rlmerritt249@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 9:26 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: O'Neil Park and why it should remain
Hello. I am a resident at South Oak apartments across the street from O'Neil Park and I am unable to attend
the virtual meeting about potentially converting it to an indoor aquatic center. I am opposed to this idea and I
would like to explain why myself and my family believe that the park should remain untouched. My family and
I have lived at the apartment complex since August of 2016, so we've gotten quite used to our neighborhood.
The park was one of our deciding factors to move here. The park is constantly in use, no matter what the
season. The playgrounds at the park are perfect for families with young children and school aged children
since they are close enough together that the kids can play freely as their caretakers watch. The open field is
always a hot spot for people wanting to read and have a nice little picnic outside. The baseball diamond is in
constant use with both kids games and grown ups games. This is the only park on this side of town that
doesn't flood and therefore doesn't get a bunch of mosquitoes during the rainy times. O'Neil park is also a
perfect place to watch fireworks and host family gatherings since the field is perfect sized for many different
games. If you convert this park into an indoor aquatic center you'd be doing a disservice to the community
that lives around here. The increased traffic will likely increase the price of our complex and likely the property
taxes for those that live in the houses around here. It will also likely affect the Iowa State Students who live in
this complex and enjoy the park as a nice place to study. Please don't take this park from our community.
Please look elsewhere to build the indoor aquatic center. Thank you for your time and I do hope you consider
those of us that are opposed to using this location as a place for the indoor aquatic center.
Sincerely,
Rick Merritt
Rick,
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts and observations regarding O’Neil
Park. I will share this information with City Council members so they can consider your comments prior
to making a decision.
Have a great night and please contact me if you have any further thoughts to share!
From: Gary Honeick <ghoneick@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 8:52 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Indoor aquatic center
I am responding to your letter about the relocation of the aquatic center. My first concern is what is the cause
of the contamination at the DOT location? I am guessing it might have come from the gas station that was just
east of the DOT lot. Second is there any concern for residents of the Oak to Riverside neighborhoods because
of the contamination?
I would agree that moving the aquatic center to O’Neil park would be a good alternative. As far as relocating
the O’Neil park is the soil and water contamination levels adequate to but the park at the DOT location. If not
a second thought is there is open areas west of O’Neil park at the end of South Russell and South Riverside.
There is room for play ground equipment and basketball courts. A baseball field might be a issue, but I don’t
think the one at O’Neil is used all that much. You would need some space for parking.
Thanks, Gary & Julie
Gary and Julie,
Thank you for the questions and comments!
The contamination has several possible sources; 1) a filling station on the northeast corner of the site,
2) a coal gasification plant to the north of the site, and 3) leaking underground storage tanks to the
east. In discussions with the DNR, they do not feel there is and concern for the residents in the area if
nothing is done to the site. If construction occurs, there is a concern for the contaminants to move
through the ground water more freely. There may also be noticeable odors if contaminated soils are
dug up.
The site at the end of S. Russell and S. Riverside is a possibility for a park if O'Neil Park is chosen as the
site for an indoor aquatic center.
Thanks again for your comments and please let me know if you have any further thoughts! Have a
great night!
From: Jeff Bryant <jeff.ames@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 7:52 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>; Thompson, Joshua
<joshua.thompson@cityofames.org>
Subject: O Neil pool support
Keith and Joshua,
I realize the journey for a new indoor aquatic center has been a very long and difficult process. Thank you and
the many others for all of your efforts!
My name is Jeff Bryant, we have lived at 220 S Riverside Dr for well over 30 years. As you would guess we
have seen a lot of change in the neighborhood over the years.
We were very exited to have the aquatic center close to us at the N Oak site. We think the O Neil site could be
a great site as well! Hopefully you could blend the project into that part of the neighborhood and work
through the concerns of those immediate homeowners that are effected.
If part of the planning process involves the flood buy out area east of Ioway Creek, we would appreciate being
apart of that discussion. This is our backyard and it is an area that we truly care about.
Thank you again!
Jeff,
Thank you for the thoughtful comments!
If a park is to be developed in the flood buyout area, we have a process that heavily involves the
neighbors as we want to know what they want in a park. The process has been successfully used in
developing Roosevelt, Sunset Ridge, Franklin, and Tahira and Labh Hira Parks.
If you have any additional thoughts, please send them to me. Have a great night!
From: Nicole Leibold <nicole.leibold@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 7:18 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Aquatic center & O’Neil updates
Please provide updates as they come
I will do that Nicole!
From: Rachel Goodrich <rachelsbeckwith@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 7:57 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: O’Neil Park
Keith,
I live at 1216 Burnett Ave, but I recently moved out of an apartment in the O’Neil Park neighborhood after
living there for 5 years. That park space is one of the only good green spaces in what is otherwise a fairly bleak
and depressing neighborhood to live in. We spent a lot of time at O’Neil Park with my partner’s daughter since
we didn’t have a yard of our own. I know there are many other families that live in the apartments in that
neighborhood and NEED that park. Stuart Smith Park does not fulfill the same needs and is significantly farther
away from the apartments south and east of Hy-Vee.
If the DOT space is no longer an option, I believe the city needs to find a different alternative than O’Neil Park.
Please don’t take a valued park space out of a low income neighborhood.
On a side note, I believe the city has been remiss in not adding sidewalks to the north and east edges of O’Neil
Park. I hope you will consider making that improvement so the neighborhood is safe and walkable.
Rachel Goodrich
Rachel,
Thank you for your comments and insight regarding O'Neil Park!
Have a great night!
From: Tam Lorenz <talorenz1556@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:09 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Please email O’Neil Park and Aquatic Center Updates to me.
Thanks.
Tam,
I will put you on the list!
From: Sara Van Marel <sara.vanmarel@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:16 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Oneil Park/Aquatic Center
Hi Keith,
Thank you for taking the time to invite us all to the call this evening regarding the potential for the aquatic
center at the current site of O'Neil park. I live at 301 S. Russell Ave and would be opposed to that
proposal. While I am not opposed to the idea of the aquatic center being in our neighborhood I think there
are different areas that would not come at such a great cost. As mentioned many times on the call, O'neil
park is an important, vital and well used part of our neighborhood that I would hate to lose. The green
space/flood area at the end of S. Russell and S. Riverside is also an excellent area that I use daily and I have
some questions and concerns about making that area the neighborhood park. What would this do to traffic
on S. Russell? Would this be the main park access? Would there be a parking lot added? I think this space and
O'Neil park serve two different but both important purposes in our neighborhood and I would not like to lose
either one.
I really hope that the City Council will consider other options especially in areas that are not currently green
space. As a resident of this community I am adamantly opposed to O'Neil park becoming the new location of
the aquatic center without further and more thorough consideration of additional options first.
Thank you,
Sara Van Marel
301 S. Russell Ave
Sara,
Thanks so much for your thoughts and comments regarding O’Neil Park and the flood buyout area!
Have a great night!
From: John Burke <John.Burke@ames.k12.ia.us>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 12:16:42 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Aquatic Center and O'Neil Park
Hi Mr. Abraham,
My name is John Burke, and I have lived with my family at 214 S. Russell Ave. for 23 years. I attended the
Zoom meeting Monday evening and want to thank you for offering this, and for the preparation you put into
it.
After listening to the many considerations that were brought up, what is sticking with me the most is how
seemingly easily the DOT is being let off the hook for what appears to be a biased appraisal that did not take
into account its own findings of contamination. I can only imagine that such a storied institution continues to
carry a lot of weight in our community, and that its backing by the State is a formidable force to reckon with,
but as Ames continues to grow I think city government will need to continually ask whether institutional
privilege is at play in its decisions.
So I would first like to see the city look into acquiring another appraisal for the original location, perhaps one
that includes mitigation for the contamination.
I also strongly agree with comments made at the meeting that using O'Neil Park as the site for the Aquatic
Center is not a step forward in reducing the city's carbon footprint, and that there are certain economic justice
concerns in taking away a park that is across the street from low-income apartments, and in a mixed income
neighborhood.
I do realize that our neighborhood has been blessed with some unusually good green spaces when we
consider, in addition to O'Neil Park, the flood buy-out property -- but even more so the swath of the Ioway
that has maintained much of its "wildness". To be honest, this is what primarily attracted our family to live in
a house that is now nearly 110 years old. Personally, I can't begin to tell you how restorative it has been to
walk, run and bike the paths, swim and kayak the Ioway in the summer, cross-country ski and skate it in the
winter. The heavily wooded banks have allowed wildlife to flourish, fish to spawn. If the flood mitigation
work downstream is a harbinger, that development has already affected the ecosystem upstream. I have not
seen a fish bigger than a minnow all summer (hopefully this will bounce back) and bird and wildlife sightings
are more infrequent.
I believe the angst I heard from several of my neighbors reflects the sense of encroaching loss of the serenity
this natural world has brought us. I don't know how we put a price tag on that, but I would like the city to
consider that easy access to wild spaces is a real asset for a city. One of my fears if O'Neil is used for the
Aquatic Center is that there will be a ripple effect: moving the playground, court and field to the flood buy-out
area, then clearing out the surrounding area to make it more visible and safe, perhaps adding parking
spaces. Developed and groomed parks, even if technically green, are not wild (and I believe are a lot more
work for city workers to maintain).
I am intrigued by the other DOT property at the corner of 4th and Grand. This would be accessible, could
possibly improve the carbon footprint, and would be more centered among mixed-income housing. If the
original site cannot be worked out, I would ask that the city look into this site.
In closing I will just add that I imagine the city will be under pressure from another vocal entity, the swim
community, to move forward with plans. As an avid swimmer myself, it is daunting to think about the next
winter or two without a municipal pool, a plight I would guess very few cities our size face. I have been able to
take to the creek for my swimming during some of the months when Furman is closed, but most of the
swimmers I know will not be able to do this. As the elderly woman who called in attested, access to a
municipal pool is an essential part of many people's health, not to mention the significant safety to our
children that swim lessons provide.
I hope you are able to find a suitable solution to keep things moving as quickly as possible. The meeting
Monday was a good start. I look forward to providing additional feedback as we all move forward.
Sincerely,
John Burke
John,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful comments!
If there is anything else you want to share, please let md know..
Have a great day!
From: spaul9999@yahoo.com <spaul9999@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:13:48 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Cc: Sherri Paul <vetwinner@msn.com>
Subject: Aquatic Center
Am I crazy or does anyone else think it’s not right that the DOT can do an appraisal and just forget to account
for the environmental issues which they knew about since 1994. Set their price using an incomplete
appraisal. And now they say they can’t negotiate price because of an incomplete appraisal that they’re staff
did.
Thank you for your comments!
From: Mary Wiedenhoeft <marywied@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 9:57:44 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>; deblee58@yahoo.com <deblee58@yahoo.com>
Subject: aquatic center
Thank you, Keith, for your excellent presentation and discussion yesterday evening. I appreciate your efforts.
In regards to the IADOT site, I am surprised that the city did not do an environmental assessment earlier in the
process. I would recommend that the city assess the environmental conditions of a site before drawing up
plans, etc.
In my mind, any land that is within the "urban renewal" boundaries will have a high probability of having a
history of industrial use and consequently a high probability of environmental contamination.
Thank you
Happy day
Mary Wiedenhoeft
211 S Riverside Dr
Mary,
Thank you for your thoughts and comments!
I will share with City Council.
From: Linda Welch <lindawelchart@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 9:44:11 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Cc: Haila, John <john.haila@cityofames.org>; Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org>; Junck, Rachel
<rachel.junck@amescitycouncil.org>; Corrieri, Amber <amber.corrieri@amescitycouncil.org>; Betcher, Gloria
<gloria.betcher@amescitycouncil.org>; Rollins, Anita <anita.rollins@amescitycouncil.org>; Beatty-Hansen,
Bronwyn <bronwyn.beattyhansen@amescitycouncil.org>; Garman, Bryce
<bryce.garman@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: Aquatic center at O'Neil Park
Dear Keith Abraham,
RE: Aquatic Center at O’Neil Park
First, thank you for putting together the zoom presentation and inviting those of us in the neighborhood to
participate. I did listen to the entire presentation with questions and comments after. Not wanting to add to
the overall length of the session, I will state my concerns and comments in the email.
I welcome an aquatic center for Ames. I was happy to hear of the original IDOT site for the center. I felt that it
was a neutral location for Ames residents. It would have easy access from Lincoln Way. Also, that it was a site
already built upon and located around other businesses. That being said, obviously that is now most likely off
the table. I was taken aback when reading the notice on the door, that O’Neil Park was now being considered
as a site.
I voice in opposition of O’Neil Park as a proposed location. Of the many reasons I have, several main issues
stand out. Many of those issues were stated in the Zoom meeting. Those being:
-The sheer amount of additional traffic that would be generated, not only via Fourth Street but throughout the
neighborhood.
-I believe the noise levels would increase with more cars in the neighborhood, as well as in that block with cars
entering, exiting and parking.
-I have difficulty with the elimination of yet more green space. For many of the reasons stated by listeners,
more buildings and concrete hinder water absorption, and green spaces help keep areas cooler.
-There does not seem to be a viable solution to relocation of the park. The openness of the current location
along with the ease of coming and going to the park being top concerns.
I understand that the location for the aquatic center needs to be within the current redevelopment zone and
the park is outside of that, I can’t help but wonder what comes next for the neighborhood if the zone gets
extended down to O’Neil Park. I have in my meeting notes, of a Wells Fargo site. That was within the
redevelopment zone. With all the new ideas for that area of the downtown north of Lincoln Way, I think it
would be fitting to have an aquatic center somewhere within that big project, even enhancing any projects to
come.
Like I said, I do welcome an aquatic center, I believe it would be a welcome addition to the city. I am just
hoping that perhaps a more suitable location can be located.
Thank you for listening,
Linda Welch
305 South Russell Ave.
515.520.9308
Linda,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments!
What you listed were the common themes from the meeting and expressed by many in attendance.
If you have any further thoughts, please let us know.
Take care!
From: Paul Attema <paulattema@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 10:09:07 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Indoor Aquatic Center
Keith Abraham,
Please put me on the list for updates on O’Neil Park and the indoor aquatic center. For the record, I support an
aquatic center in this neighborhood. It would be a great addition. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Attema
229 S Russell Ave
Paul,
Thank you for the comments!
I will also add you to the list for future correspondence.
Have a great day!
From: Glenn Wiedenhoeft <gwiedenhoeft@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:58:03 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Cc: deblee58@yahoo.com <deblee58@yahoo.com>; Mary Wiedenhoeft <marywied@gmail.com>
Subject: New aquatic center site
Hello Keith,
Thanks for your hard work, detailed presentation, and running a good online meeting.
My questions regarding the DOT site on Lincoln Way arise from my experience in site remediation around
leaking underground petroleum storage tanks in Maine.
- From your site photo/diagram, it appears that too few test borings have been taken to understand the
extent of benzene/methylene chloride contamination.
- Similarly, we do not have groundwater test wells on the site that would indicate the existing groundwater
flow direction. That would be useful information for any subsoil remediation program/installation.
- It seems unlikely that subsurface benzene/petroleum contamination from the mid 1990s would represent
the current contamination level.
- Since , as you explained, contaminated ground water will flow towards any hole that you dig, why not first
dig a hole in the center of contamination (NE section of the property), and remove a large volume of the
contaminated soil? Thus by source removal/reduction, one mitigates the risks of contaminant transport.
- Since the DOT is bound by law/protocol to dispose of property at or above the assessed value, and since we
know that the assessors somehow did not conduct due diligence on environmental concerns on the property,
doesn’t it make sense that a re-assessment is in order? Presumably the sale price would go down if a properly-
informed property assessment is made.
Regarding the Brookside park property: judging from the amount of earth that was moved to prepare the
Furman aquatic Center site, it does not seem that existing topography is a hinderance for choosing the
Brookside Park site.
Regarding the nameless “Floodway-Stuart Smith” park: meeting participants pointed out that this property
would be an unacceptable replacement for O’Niel Park. That may be true in its existing state, but of course it
does not have to remain that way. The City could develop the site such that concerns of pedestrian access,
safety, sitelines, law enforcement access, etc are addressed.
Thank you for bring our thoughts to City Council,
Glenn Wiedenhoeft
211 S. Riverside Dr.
Ames, Iowa
Glenn,
Thank you for sharing your comments and expertise!
I am interested in discussing the DOT site issues with you further and will call when I return.
Have a great day!
From: Joseph Leisz <josephmleisz@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 2:49:12 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>; City Council and Mayor
<mayorcouncil@amescitycouncil.org>; deblee58@yahoo.com <deblee58@yahoo.com>
Subject: Comments RE Potential use of O'Neil Park for new Aquatics Center
Dear Keith, Mayor Haila, and members of the City Council
My name is Joe Leisz and I'm at 114 S. Riverside. After thinking about this issue for the past few weeks, I am
writing to express my opposition to the use of O'Neil Park for the new Aquatics Center.
When the new Aquatics Center was initially proposed to be at the IDOT Site, the old St Cecilia's School, I
thought it was wonderful that a recreational facility like that would be so close to the heart of Ames'
downtown business district, visible and accessible on the main east-west road, bus-line, and within walking
and biking distance of so much of the community. Knowing now about potential contamination at that site
gives me pause.
I was initially optimistic about the potential for the new Aquatics Center to be at O'Neil Park, thinking many of
the same benefits from the first site would transfer a few blocks south. But on further reflection, now think
there are more negatives for the community and neighborhood than positives with this potential location. The
cost-savings could be significant, but the loss of open space that does not flood in that part of town is a tough
loss to take. Cut-through traffic to the facility from Lincoln Way would be detrimental to the safety and
livability of the neighborhood, and the addition of parking, lighting, and traffic will decrease the livability of
the houses and apartments right around the facility. Additionally, the facility would be isolated from many of
the amenities that made the original site so attractive. Even though it is less than a quarter mile from the
original site, the Park is not readily viewed as "walkable" from downtown, or from the other planned
improvements and shops slated for the Lincoln Way Corridor. Instead of being a draw that could help create a
destination "district" with additional activity, it would be a one-stop-point with little spill-over impact
benefiting other businesses and locations in the community.
I know this dream of an Aquatics Center has been a long-time coming. I think it may be worthwhile to exercise
more patience and wait a little longer for a better option to become available. Perhaps the IDOT site will be
available for a lower price in the future to allow for site clean up within the budget, or one of the other
options closer to downtown could be utilized to better grow that district (like behind the old high school/City
Hall, with additional parking in the new ramp behind Wells Fargo, or through repurposing the old water-plant
location and adding event space parking at the old coal-pile lots, which could provide added space needed for
those coming to Bandshell Park, etc). At this point, it seems that we may be rushing into a decision that may
not be the "best fit" and we will have to live with the consequences that are a radical change in vision for this
part of town for generations to come.
I know this is not an easy decision, but hope you'll take the time to consider other options and not sacrifice the
vision of the O'Neal family that donated the space to be a safe and accessible space for all residents.
Thank you for your time and service.
- Joe Leisz
515-291-4402
Joseph,
Thank you for taking the time to reflect on this topic and sharing your comments!
Take care and have a great day!
From: jnorth9702 <jan9702@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:56:30 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Please add me to the Indoor Aquatic Center/O’Neil Park email updates
Please add me to the Indoor Aquatic Center/O’Neil Park email updates to
jan9702@gmail.com
Thank you.
Will do!
From: Monica Huyser <dmhizer@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:11:59 AM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Feedback on O'Neil Park and swimming facility
Good Morning Keith,
We thank you for your time, the presentation, and answering all of the questions on Monday night. We just
wanted to state our position on this issue since we didn't raise our hand in the meeting.
We live at 325 South Maple Street, directly across the street from the park. We bought our house partly
because of this green space across the street. This house was under our purchasing budget but we liked the
area and as we were downsizing in our fifites, we thought this would be a good location to retire into a smaller
home than we had before. We loved the park across the street as well as other nearby parks. We enjoy seeing
the park used by so many people of all walks of life. We enjoy this integrated neighborhood of families,
singles, retired people, professors and apartment dwellers. We do not want to see this park changed into a
large building with a parking lot. We really like this green space and we often run our dog across the street in
this space.
We have concerns for parking and traffic. Also, groups of people hanging around the area taking away our
privacy. And even more concerns for game day weekends when the area gets crazy anyway. We also have
concerns for our home value as we think most people would rather see the park than look at a building if we
reach a point where we have to sell our house. We also don't think it is a good idea to move the park to the
flood plain area. We also have concerns about what it means if this grant area is moved into our neighborhood
and what it could mean in other ways for our future.
Thank you for your time. Please put us on the email list to keep us updated on this issue.
Dan and Monica Huyser
Dan and Monica,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments!
Have a great day!
From: Judith Lemish <judamiser@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 4:41:13 PM
To: Abraham, Keith <keith.abraham@cityofames.org>
Subject: Fw: Indoor Aquatic Facility
I realized I hadn't sent you this email. I sent out to mayor and all council members. I want to make sure this
gets into their 'packet' before the meeting on 26th. I assumed they will use my email, but then perhaps you
are making up this info for them. So now you have it.
There is some repetition to my and other comments from Monday, but a few are new.
Thanks
Judith
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Judith Lemish <judamiser@aol.com>
To: gloria.betcher@amescitycouncil.org <gloria.betcher@amescitycouncil.org>
Cc: Tim Gartin <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org>; bronwyn.beattyhansen@amescitycouncil.org
<bronwyn.beattyhansen@amescitycouncil.org>; rachel.junck@amescitycouncil.org
<rachel.junck@amescitycouncil.org>; amber.corrieri@amescitycouncil.org
<amber.corrieri@amescitycouncil.org>; anita.rollins@amescitycouncil.org
<anita.rollins@amescitycouncil.org>; john.haila@cityofames.org <john.haila@cityofames.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022, 10:18:28 AM CDT
Subject: Indoor Aquatic Facility
I apologize first for cramming this all in an email without an attachment. Im using my phone and its difficult for
me to do that on it.
As for me wanting a new indoor pool, I really do want one. Since almost all of my work life has been on my
feet, my knees need water exercise now more than ever. I used to jog and walk but can't anymore at my age,
63 years young. Also, I need this for my stress relief, if I don't go to the pool after work during the week I'm
affraid I may 'bite someone's head off' due to the high stress level of my essential work!
This being said, I'm not in favor of using O'Neil park as the future site for this kind of facility. The trade off
does'nt make sense to me for many reasons. Living right across the street on the corner of S. 4th and S. Maple
has provided me with a unique vantage point allowing me to comment on this poorly thought out proposal.
First, the benefits of the existing park as is outweigh it's being the site of the future indoor aquatics facility.
Neighborhood parks are like public schools, they act as an anchor for the neighborhood. O'Neil park is open
and accessible to all with clear site lines providing a safe communal space to gather and use.
Since the apartments in the area, many low-income, dont have a yard or lawn the park is their yard. The
alternative site for the park east of Ioway creek in Stuart Smith park will not offer a safe and accessible space.
Many who are not as mobile will find it more difficult to get to as well as it's being prone to flooding and flood
borne contamination.
The park also provides a buffer from the hard-scape commercial areas to the east. It almost acts as a green
privacy fence. The new facility with its building and parking lot will not act as a green buffer. In general,
parking lots dont get the same level of respect greenspace does where privacy is concerned.
The park should also be considered FREE public health care, both mental and physical. The pandemic
increased the level of use in all Ames parks, and O'Neil is no exception. The aquatics facility requires money
for people to use it and won't be free.
The park also provides the neighbors a 'green sponge' that absorbs rain, which with climate change is ever
increasing. The building and parking lot add to runoff. Stuart Smith just gets flooded, so no absorption of
rainwater there.
Second, there are numerous problems with using this site for the indoor aquatics facility. Increased traffic,
noise and light pollution, greater potential for neighborhood on-street parking abuse and speeding and
construction issues. I also feel this is an affordable neighborhood. With this facility there will most likely be
increases in the cost of homes/housing and increased property taxes. When families are priced out of their
reasonably priced homes, rentals increase. When I went to council to get an easement to add onto my house
my neighbors went to council to support me. They wanted to make sure my house didnt become a rental
property. This area so close to campus already has many rentals, more would not be a welcome addition.
Finally, I need to comment on the fact that I feel our park is being pushed as a potential site even though other
sites exist. Maybe it's time to address the property on Lincoln Way, The Link, that hasn't been addressed as a
possible site. An indoor aquatics facility could take up part of the site forgoing the apartments (or hotel), of
which, we have an over abundance of in Ames. An aquatics facility with splash pad would be a better addition
to downtown Ames than what is currently proposed.
The only other site I have some interest in is the old Ames power plant and Munn lumber area. According to
Keith the parking may be an issue there, but I think that needs more discussion. I have yet to drive over there
to see for myself.
Finally, I think we need to take the time to seriously consider this. With the over-the-top bond issue for the
Ontario site being a problem does not mean we need to ruin a beautiful neighborhood park for the sake of
expediency. This sets a dangerous precedent in my mind. Just because this is an emergency on councils part
doesnt make this poor choice a priority on our neighborhoods part!
Judith Lemish
327 S. Maple
Ames
From: Matthew DeLay <latejurassic@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:33 PM
To: City Council and Mayor; Abraham, Keith; john.burke@ames.k12.ia.us; jstockdaledelay@yahoo.com
Subject:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
On Thursday 14 July a letter was affixed to my door from Parks & Recreation Director Keith Abraham.
This letter was to apprise my family of an upcoming Zoom meeting concerning the fate of O’Neil Park. [This
park, we must know, is OUT OF THE BOUNDARY of the special economic zone for state funds.]
I attended that Zoom meeting.
Every alternative to O’Neil Park, proposed by residents of this neighborhood at this meeting, was resisted by
Mr. Abraham. This leads me to conclude that his recommendation to you, the City Council, will be to
eliminate our neighborhood park for an aquatic center.
The City lawyer has already been looking into the covenant of the gift of O’Neil Park to Ames with its
stipulation that it remain a park. It seems the O’Neils’ intention and covenant are being disregarded. Surely
not a good message for future benefactors.
The O’Neil Park neighborhood is a mixed income neighborhood, and people of many ages and backgrounds
use this park and green space.
It is not a haven of lap swimmers. And since it is not within the boundaries of this economic zone already, why
is it being pushed so hard? I heard zero other alternative(s) option(s) that the City was actively
pursuing. None.
Why not look at other places: downtown there has been a lot of leveling of buildings, a lot of open (non-green)
spaces. The DOT area where snow plows get parked. Other City property—since being outside the proposed
zone does not matter.
As an administrative body, you need more than one choice.
So, ‘The DOT may not work, OK, O’Neil will do!’ All other options were ‘too expensive, not enough parking,
not enough space, you might have to cross a street,’ who knows. The entire argument was a preview of a
recommendation, to you, the Council, to take over O’Neil. No other viable options. We did the best we could,
sorry.
As a resident of South Russell Avenue, it gets even worse.
The plan is to destroy the green space of O’Neil for a parking lot and aquatic center AND THEN make another
park, O’Neil 2.0, to the West in the green space (a flood zone)! This, where cops cannot patrol. This plan is
patronizing and insulting to the historic gift of the O’Neil’s. It would exacerbate issues already present for this
neighborhood. Many residents are opposed to it. It is a beautiful green space—when it is not flooded.
Yet: it is precisely because this is not a high income area that such liberties are being taken. We are not valued
for our diversity, but will be exploited for it.
Ames is a highly stratified city: Most neighborhoods are broken into very distinct income (or debt) brackets. It
is not subtle. How much debt (or income) = how much house $. Not in the O’Neil neighborhood. We are a
rarity in American economic, social, and political life: mixed income, mixed race, students, professionals,
renters. A professor in one home, a family on public assistance in another. And we have O’Neil Park where
we all might come together, time to time. Is there any other park in this city like it?
It is easy to overlook what you have. It will be all too apparent when it is lost.
Matt DeLay
129 South Russell Avenue
--23 years
1
ITEM #__24__
Staff Report
Non-Compliant Front Yard Parking
and Driveways
July 26, 2022
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains a provision that prohibits the parking of vehicles in
the front yard area of a residential property, with limited exceptions. Chapter 18 of the
Municipal Code regarding parking regulations also prohibits front yard parking. In July
2021, Inspection staff was made aware of a property that had what appeared to be form
boards laid out to pave a new parking area in front of the home. The location and
dimensions of the parking area framed out were not compliant with the front yard parking
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff contacted the property owner to inform them
of the potential issue, hoping they would not pour the new concrete without approval.
However, the owner stated that they had a permit from the City and proceeded to pour
the concrete.
Staff determined that the property owner had a Driveway/Curb Cut Application that
approved a curb cut to widen the driveway approach within the right-of-way. The original
application was approved on December 1, 2018. Work was not completed at that time
and on April 19, 2021, the application was “renewed” by the applicant for another year,
extending it until April 19, 2022.
Unfortunately, there was miscommunication between the owner and staff. In subsequent
discussions, the owner stated that they believed the approved application granted
approval for the curb cut and driveway, while staff understood this approval to only
authorize a change in the width of the curb cut within the City Right-of-Way. The design
information for the driveway located on private property was not listed on the application
and was not reviewed by staff as part of the curb cut application review process.
This enlarged parking area is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has asked the
owner to restore the driveway to its previous condition, which would facilitate parking only
in the area of the front yard where parking is permitted under Zoning standards. The
owner believes they did their best to communicate with City staff and received the proper
approvals to construct the driveway addition and, therefore, wants to keep the driveway
paving as-is. In addition, they have asked staff to enforce on all cases of illegal front yard
parking at this property.
In response to the enforcement request, staff investigated this situation city-wide
and attempted to estimate the number of nonconforming driveways that might be
illegal. Staff’s review revealed approximately 454 properties with parking areas
that are non-conforming with respect to the current parking standards. Some of
2
these installations would be considered legal nonconforming, but many of them are
noncompliant with current standards and are not legal. Staff has grouped them into five
categories, discussed in greater detail beginning on page 7 of this report.
FRONT YARD PARKING HISTORY AND STANDARDS:
The issues of paving parking and front yard parking limitations have been a significant
part of the City’s design requirements since the 1980s. Restricting front yard parking
locations assists in enforcement of illegal parking, maintaining a landscaped front yard,
and support of existing residential character that is not dominated by parking and large
driveways. In the 1980s, the City required parking areas to be defined and improved
to limit the parking of vehicles in grass or other unimproved areas of lots. Paving
of defined areas and limitations in the front yard was required soon thereafter.
It should be noted that a major impetus for these front yard parking changes was
the influence by residents in neighborhoods where there were an increasing
number of conversions from owner-occupied units to rental units. Because these
conversions lacked sufficient off-street parking, cars in the rental units would be
parking in the front yards on grass, making ruts in front yard, and thereby
disturbing the character of the neighborhood.
City Council last addressed the intent of the current language and its enforcement with
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 29) and Parking Enforcement (Chapter
18) to clarify the definition of front yard in 2008. Note that the City relies upon the front
yard parking terminology for parking enforcement of the act of parking a car as
well as design standards in the Zoning Code for where paving can be placed.
The City’s zoning standards require two paved off-street parking spaces for every single-
family and two-family dwelling unit. Parking can be provided either covered or
uncovered, but it must be located on a driveway in front of a garage or on a
driveway that leads to a parking space in the side or rear yard. It is not permitted to
simply pave parking spaces in a front yard. The graphic below depicts limits of front yard
parking and is incorporated into Zoning Ordinance Section 29.406(7).
3
The existing language pertaining to front yard parking in the City’s Zoning Ordinance
states:
Sec.29.406(7)(e) Under no circumstances shall vehicular parking be permitted
in the front yard of any Household Living or Short Term Lodging uses in any
“RL”, “RM”, “RH”, “UCRM”, “FS-RL”, or “FS-RM” zones, except upon a driveway
that leads to the side or rear yard or to an attached garage; and, one parking
space is permitted in the front yard in the case where there is an existing, one
car attached garage and there is insufficient room between the side of the
attached garage and the side property line. Such space shall meet the following
requirements:
i) The parking space shall not exceed nine (9) feet in width;
ii) The parking space shall be contiguous to and parallel to the
existing driveway; and
iii) The parking space shall be located between the existing driveway
and the side property line.
There shall be no installation at grade of any expanse of asphalt, concrete,
gravel, brick, or other form of paving by any material whatsoever without the
written authorization of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Such authorization shall
be granted only if under the facts and circumstances of the particular situation it
is unlikely that the paving will facilitate the use of the front yard, or any part
thereof, for the parking of vehicles, except on a driveway as stated. (Ord. No.
3591, 10-10-00; Ord. No 3675, 8-27-02; Ord. No 4205, 1-13-15).
Sec.29.406(7)(g) As used in this section, front yard means the open space in
that portion of a yard between the street and the face of the structure and a line
originating from the left side of the lot and extending to the right side of the lot.
The line, as viewed from the street, shall extend parallel to the street to the
nearest corner of the principal structure and then along the face of the principal
structure to the right corner, and from that point on a line parallel to the street to
a point on the right lot line. As used in this section, the face of a principal structure
shall be any and all portions of the structure fronting on a street. The front yard
shall not include any portion of the city right-of-way. A corner lot shall be deemed
to have two front yards.
Driveways are considered front yard parking, but they are allowed to be parked upon
when they lead to a garage or to the side/rear of the house. Many driveways have been
altered by adding additional paving to the side of the driveway to accommodate one or
more additional vehicle(s). According to the current language of the Municipal Code,
these paved areas on the side are only allowed to be used as parking spaces if they
lead to a space behind the front of the house, or if there is only a one car garage and
no room to extend the drive into the side or rear yard, then paving may occur in a side
yard.
4
The photo below shows a driveway that complies with the current standards because
the paving extends beyond the front façade of the house and into the side yard.
The extended paving shown in the photo below is not compliant with the current Code
language. The paving does not extend past the front of the house to the side or rear
yard, and the property is not entitled to an allowance for an additional front yard space
because the Code only allows such an extra space when there is:
1) an attached single car garage, and
2) no ability to extend the paving to the side or rear yard to obtain additional
parking.
Structures with larger attached garages (as in the example below), or where there is no
garage, are not able to use this exception.
Not Compliant
5
City Council could choose to create expanded paving opportunities for additional
accessory parking as shown in the second example above. Changes to the zoning
standards could allow for additional opportunities to have paving in the front yard
to increase on-site parking options and to address design expectations more
clearly for where front yard paving is permitted compared to parking. This would
create flexibility for homeowners while generally ensuring aesthetic compatibility with the
neighborhood. It would also create additional off-street parking opportunities, which may
be beneficial in neighborhoods that believe on-street parking is overcrowded. Such
changes may also reduce code compliance problems as well.
STAFF REVIEW:
Staff has conducted an in-depth review of single-family residential parking areas
throughout Ames to identify those that are non-conforming compared to the current
Zoning Code standards. This review was conducted using aerial and street-view
photography from 2008 to present. In some instances, the photography can be used to
pinpoint the timeframe when a driveway was modified. However, the photography is
sometimes obscured by landscaping or picture quality, making a completely accurate
historical review difficult.
Additionally, staff reviewed changes to the Zoning standards for parking areas in previous
years to help determine if some of the driveways that do not conform to the present
Zoning standards would have complied at the time they were constructed or modified.
Staff has determined that the existing standards have philosophically remained the same
since at least 1980, although refinement of the standards has taken place in the time
since.
PROPOSED FRONT YARD PARKING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS:
Through the in-depth review, staff has identified two areas for process improvement that
should be focused on.
The application that was used in 2021 was called a ‘Driveway/Curb Cut Application’ and
was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. The name of this application was confusing
because the application does not actually address the driveway (the paved area between
the structure or the approach in the right-of-way). Instead, this form was used to ensure
that the public street access is compliant with design and traffic standards. There was a
note on the application that states, “All driveways must lead to side yard or attached
garage,” but on-site paving was not reviewed with the application.
Currently, the Code requires written approval (not a permit) from the Zoning Enforcement
Officer prior to the installation of an expanse of concrete. There is a lack of information
available to let customers know that obtaining this approval is a requirement. As a result,
approval is very rarely sought.
6
Staff has revised the application to become both an “Access and Driveway Paving
Permit,” so that it includes the curb cut and/or the on-site expanse of paving. This
new comprehensive permit requires a review by the Traffic Engineer, Zoning
Enforcement Officer, and Planning Division. The application is processed through
EnerGov, which is the same permitting software currently in use for other permits
and plans. This process creates a one-stop-shop for customers, while ensuring all
the appropriate City staff are aware of the permit and its status.
Options To Improve Application Process (Council could choose one or more of these):
1) Direct staff to modify Chapter 29 Zoning Ordinance to require approval of a
permit for all driveways and access points, rather than “written authorization”.
This would make it easier to communicate with future customers and reinforce
the process recently implemented by staff.
2) Staff does not currently inspect driveway installations that receive written
authorization. The ability to inspect new curb cuts by Public Works staff has
been minimal due to the amount of larger infrastructure projects that staff is
needed on. Staff is recommending a text amendment to require
inspections by the City Manager or their designee. This will assure that
improper installations are discovered before the pavement has been poured,
when errors can still be fixed with minimal effort. Therefore, staff is requesting
that the City Council provide direction to either:
a. Direct staff to draft a text amendment that would codify an inspection
process for Access and Driveway Paving Permits prior to pouring
concrete. Staff would designate several different employees to conduct
inspections so that inspections can occur more regularly, OR
b. Leave the current text as-is. This would require approval of a permit to
authorize the work but would not require an inspection to be part of the
permitting process.
3) Appendix F of Municipal Code currently sets the fee for a Curb Opening at $50.
Since the new process will include a review for the expanse of paving that will
not always include a curb cut, staff is recommending the fee schedule be
adjusted to reflect one $100 fee for the new Access and Driveway Paving
Permit. This fee will approximately cover staff’s review and inspection time.
Therefore, staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction to either:
a. Direct staff to draft an amendment to Appendix F that would require the
$100 fee for all Access and Driveway Paving Permits, rather than just
for the curb cut, OR
7
b. Leave the current fee of $50 for curb cut permits. This fee would only
apply to Access and Paving Permits when a change to the curb cut is
made. An Access and Paving Permit for a driveway expansion, with no
change to the curb cut, would have no fee assessed.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Options 1, 2a, and 3a thereby codifying the permit and
inspection processes to help ensure the paving plan is reviewed and that the forms
for the paving match the approved plan prior to installation. Additionally, staff
recommends increasing the permit fee to $100 to cover the cost. If Council
chooses to not require the inspection process, the fee could be adjusted to cover
only the permit review cost.
Staff’s review discovered approximately 454 properties with parking areas that are non-
conforming with respect to the current parking standards. Of those 454, staff can verify
that 131 of them have been installed since 2008. Staff was able to determine that the
remaining 323 parking areas were installed prior to 2008 but are unable to confirm the
exact year.
These 454 non-conforming parking areas have been grouped into five primary categories
below. Pictures of each situation are included. Each type of non-conformity listed has
different options for correction and/or potential text amendments for Council to consider.
In the context of this discussion, these nonconformities are not considered “legal
nonconforming” and may be in violation of Zoning standards. The five categories are:
Type Description # Existing
Non-Conformity Type 1: “Flared Side Parking Areas”
Type 1 non-conformities are described as parking surfaces that have been added to an
existing, otherwise compliant, driveway. The surface does not lead to a parking
surface behind the front yard and is therefore non-compliant. Type 1 non-
conformities have adequate room to expand behind the front yard but have not
done so.
8
Type 1 non-conforming parking areas account for 253 of the approximately 454 (55%)
non-compliant parking areas. Staff can confirm that 58 of the 253 parking areas were
installed after 2008. The remaining 195 Type 1 non-conforming parking areas were
installed some time prior to 2008, but staff is unable to determine which year and,
subsequently, which codes may have been in place at that time. Additionally, four of the
Type 1 non-conforming parking areas were issued curb cut permits.
Options to address Type 1 non-conforming parking areas include:
1) Adopt a text amendment that would allow Type 1 non-conforming parking
areas to legally exist as front yard parking when sited towards the adjacent
side property line. This would make the 253 non-conforming parking areas
compliant and would allow for this type of parking area to be added to other
residential properties.
2) Require the 58 non-conforming parking areas that are confirmed to have been
installed after 2008 (when the current code language was in place) to be made
compliant by either extending the surface past the front of the yard or removing
the excess paving. A compliance date would be set for the 58 non-conforming
parking areas to be brought into compliance. This would allow those
constructed prior to 2008 to remain as-is.
3) Establish a date by which all 253 non-conforming parking areas must be
brought into compliance by adding additional paving beyond the front yard or
removing the excess or provide evidence to city staff the condition was
previously legally established.
4) Set a date by which all Type 1 non-conforming parking areas in existence may
continue and require all new parking installed after that date to comply with the
current Code. This would allow the 253 non-conforming parking areas to
remain as-is but would continue to prohibit new Type 1 parking areas from
being installed.
9
Staff Recommendation:
Staff feels that requiring additional paving beyond the front of the house or garage is
unnecessary when there is a compliant driveway on site. The paved area unnecessarily
increases the amount of impervious area on the property and does not provide a more
aesthetically pleasing street view. For this reason, staff recommends adopting a text
amendment that would allow Type 1 non-conforming parking areas to legally exist.
This would make the 253 non-conforming parking areas compliant and would allow
for this type of parking area to be added to other residential properties (Option 1
above). Paving would no longer be required to go beyond the front of the house when
added to the side lot line. This would make 55% of the current non-conforming driveways
compliant and would allow future driveways to be created in the same manner.
If Council chooses an alternative that does not allow existing non-conforming Type 1
parking areas to continue, Staff recommends allowing the four that have received curb
cut permits to continue due to the confusion between curb cut and driveway permitting.
Non-Conformity Type 2: “Flared Side Yard Parking – No Side Yard”
Type 2 non-conformities are similar to Type 1 non-conformities, where a parking space
has been added to the side of an existing driveway in the front yard. However, the
difference with this non-conformity is that they lack enough space to provide a
compliant parking space beyond the front yard. The Code currently provides an
exception that allows structures with an attached, single-car garage that lacks space
beyond the front yard to add paving between the existing driveway and side property line.
The exception does not address properties with attached two-car garages (or larger),
detached garages, or those that lack garages.
Staff’s review showed that there are approximately 56 properties that have additional
paving adjacent to the driveway that does not lead beyond the front yard due to
insufficient room. None of the 56 properties meet the exception in the Code for properties
10
with attached two-car garages. Of the 56 properties, staff can confirm that 16 have been
installed since 2008 and 40 were installed prior to 2008.
Options to address Type 2 non-conforming parking areas include:
1) Adopt a text amendment that would allow all properties with insufficient room for
an additional parking area beyond the front of the house to pave additional parking
area when sited towards the adjacent side property line.
2) Require the properties that are confirmed to have been installed after 2008 to
remove the excess paving so that they comply with the current ordinance. A
compliance date would be set for the 16 properties that have installed non-
compliant parking areas since 2008. This would allow those constructed prior to
2008 to remain as-is.
3) Establish a date by which all 56 properties must be brought into compliance by
removing the excess paving or provide evidence to city staff the condition was
previously legally established.
4) Set a date by which all Type 2 non-conformities in existence may continue and
require all new parking installed after that date to comply with the current Code.
This would allow 56 non-conforming parking areas to remain as-is but would
prohibit new Type 2 non-conformities from being created. In this option, the non-
conforming parking areas would be required to come into compliance with the
Code at the time they are modified or reconstructed.
Staff Recommendation:
These Type 2 non-conformities are similar in nature to Type 1 non-conformities. The
recommendation for Type 1 non-conformities was to draft a text amendment that would
allow paving to be added to the property-line side of a driveway without having to extend
past the front yard. If approved, this text amendment would also make Type 2 non-
conformities legal and resolve 68% of the non-compliant driveways. Because of the
similarities between Type 1 and Type 2 non-conformities, staff recommends
adopting a text amendment that would allow properties with insufficient room for
an additional parking area beyond the front of the house to pave additional parking
between the existing driveway and adjacent property line (Option 1). This would
allow for additional paving to alleviate congested streets while not drastically changing
the aesthetic of the neighborhood.
Non-Conformity Type 3: “Parking in Front of House”
Non-conformities categorized as Type 3 are parking areas that extend towards the center
of the house (some extend fully to the structure and some end in the front yard) rather
than towards a garage, side yard, or areas that provide an additional parking space
11
situated perpendicular to the existing driveway. Some of the spaces are adjacent to
existing driveways and some serve as the only driveway or off-street parking.
Staff found approximately 51 properties that fit into the Type 3 category. It is possible
that there are more because it is difficult to determine from the aerial view if a garage still
exists or if it has been converted to a room in the house. Of the 51 identified, 11 of the
parking areas have been installed since 2008. Additionally, two of the Type 3 non-
conforming parking areas were issued curb cut permits.
Options to address Type 3 non-conforming parking areas include:
1) Allow for all existing front yard parking to allowed and adopt a text amendment
that would allow front yard parking for all properties when added adjacent to an
existing driveway and the total width does not exceed 20 feet. Clarify that a
property with an existing home can create up to a 20-foot driveway if there is no
garage or other parking on the site. New construction must still provide required
parking outside of the front yard. This text amendment would allow properties to
have at least two off-street parking spaces regardless of the number of garages
or distance between the driveway and adjacent property line.
12
2) Require the 11 driveways that were constructed after 2008 to remove the paving
in the front yard that does not lead to a garage or side yard. This would allow those
constructed prior to 2008 to remain as-is.
3) Establish a date by which all 51 properties must be brought into compliance by
removing the excess paving or provide evidence to city staff the condition was
previously legally established.
4) Set a date by which all Type 3 non-conformities in existence may continue and
require all new parking installed after that date to comply with the current Code.
This would allow 51 non-conforming parking areas to remain as-is but would
prohibit new Type 3 non-conformities from being added. In this option, the non-
conforming parking areas would be required to come into compliance with the
Code at the time they are modified or reconstructed.
Staff Recommendation:
Type 3 has a diverse set of circumstances based upon the example pictures provided.
Staff recommends adopting a text amendment that would allow existing areas to
remain and to allow for parking areas to be added adjacent to the driveway so long
as the maximum driveway width does not exceed 20 feet. This text amendment
would allow properties to have at least two off-street parking spaces regardless of
the number of garages or distance between the driveway and adjacent property
line (Option 1). New construction would still need to comply with requirements for
required parking to be located outside of the front yard.
If Council chooses an alternative that does not allow existing non-conforming Type 3
parking areas to continue, staff recommends allowing the two that have received curb
cut permits to continue due to the confusion between curb cut and driveway permitting.
Non-Conformity Type 4: “Flared Side Parking - Corner Lot”
Non-conformities that fall into the Type 4 category are all properties that are corner lots.
The Municipal Code treats corner lots as having two front yards and one side yard,
as opposed to a typical lot that has a single front yard and two side yards.
Therefore, the area where parking is permitted on a corner lot is generally much more
limited than on a typical lot of the same size. The code language that established two
front yards on corner lots was adopted in 2000. Corner lots with parking areas added
prior to 2000 may have been in compliance with the Code at that time, but staff is unable
to determine when the parking areas were added.
13
There are approximately 56 corner lots that have non-compliant parking categorized as
Type 4. Of those 56, staff has verified that 20 of them have been installed after 2008.
Additionally, two of the Type 4 non-conforming parking areas were issued curb cut
permits.
Options to address Type 4 non-conforming parking areas include:
1) Set a date by which all Type 4 non-conformities in existence may continue and
require all new parking installed after that date to comply with the current Code
with no changes to standards. This would allow the 56 non-conforming parking
areas to remain as-is but would prohibit new Type 4 parking areas from being
installed in the future.
2) Require the parking areas that are confirmed to have been installed after 2008
when the current code language was in place to be made compliant by
removing paving in the front yard that does not lead to an approved parking
area in the side or rear yard. A compliance date would be set for the 20 non-
conforming parking areas to be brought into compliance. This would allow
those constructed prior to 2008 to remain as-is.
3) Establish a date by which all 56 non-conforming parking areas must be brought
into compliance by removing paving in the front yard that does not lead to an
approved parking area in the side or rear yard or provide evidence to city staff
the condition was previously legally established.
4) Adopt a text amendment that would allow Type 4 non-conforming parking
areas to be installed legally for existing and new paving areas. This would
make the 56 non-conforming parking areas compliant and would allow for this
type of parking area to be added to other residential properties.
14
Staff Recommendation:
There are many different considerations (lot size, configuration of lot, location of lot,
amount of paving, proximity to right-of-way) involved in drafting a text amendment to
allow parking on corner lots. Staff believes that allowing for paving in a street side
adjacent to a sidewalk is an undesirable environment for pedestrians and the aesthetic
of the streetscape. Therefore, staff recommends setting a date by which all Type 4
non-conformities in existence may continue and require all new parking installed
after that date to comply with the current Code, with no changes. This would allow
the 56 non-conforming parking areas to remain as-is but would prohibit new Type
4 parking areas from being installed in the future (Option 1).
If Council chooses an alternative that does not allow existing non-conforming Type 4
parking areas to continue, staff recommends allowing the two that have received curb
cut permits to continue due to the confusion between curb cut and driveway permitting.
Non-Conformity Type 5: “Looped or Double Driveways”
Type 5 non-conformities are parking areas that loop in front of the house and/or have
two curb cuts. Some of the driveway areas lead to approved parking and some do not.
Driveway loops that do not lead to any approved parking beyond the front yard (example
on right below) cannot be used for parking under the current Code. An argument could
be made in situations like that shown on the left below that both curb cuts lead to parking
beyond the front yard so parking can occur anywhere since the current language does
not address “directly” leading to parking. This illustrates one of the weaknesses of the
current language in that it addresses an act of parking rather than addressing paving
standards.
15
Staff found 38 properties that can be categorized under non-conformity Type 5. Four of
the 38 are confirmed to have been constructed at the time the home was constructed
(between 2009 and 2018). The remaining 34 parking areas were constructed prior to
2008.
Options to address Type 5 non-conforming parking areas include:
1) Allow the 38 non-compliant parking areas to remain and adopt a text amendment
that creates new limitations on multiple driveways by limiting two curb cuts to lots
that have at least 150 feet of frontage so long as the curb cuts can also be located
at least 75 feet apart. Additionally, Council will need to decide if they want to allow
loops in the front yard that do not lead to any parking (above photo on the right).
2) Require the four driveways that were constructed when the house was built after
2008 to remove the paving in the front yard so that there is only one driveway
leading to the garage. This would allow those constructed prior to 2008 to remain
as-is.
3) Establish a date by which all 38 properties must remove the additional paving so
that there is only one driveway leading to the garage or provide evidence to city
staff the condition was previously legally established.
4) Set a date by which all Type 5 non-conformities in existence may continue and
require all new parking installed after that date to comply with the current Code.
This would allow 38 non-conforming parking areas to remain as-is but would
prohibit new Type 4 non-conformities from being added. In this option, the non-
conforming parking areas would be required to come into compliance with the
Code at the time they are modified or reconstructed.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff understands the desire for two curb cuts but finds it necessary to establish
parameters to avoid the entire front yard from being paved. Staff recommends adopting
a text amendment that would allow two curb cuts on lots that have at least 150 feet
of frontage so long as the curb cuts can be located at least 75 feet apart.
Additionally, Council will need to decide if they want to allow loops in the front
yard that do not lead to any parking (above photo on the right). This text
amendment would allow the 38 non-compliant parking areas to remain and would
allow the same type of parking areas to be installed moving forward (Option 1).
With this frontage standard it is likely only a corner lot could qualify for a looped driveway.
Additionally, staff feels that adding language to require the drive to lead ‘directly’ to an
approved parking surface may help keep the amount of paving to a minimum in front
yards.
16
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the zoning standards should change to include a standard
driveway permitting process and some additional flexibility for adding paving in
the front yard to the side of a driveway. While the staff has not received many
complaints about front yard parking related to the 454 non-conforming front yard
parking situations, complaints have been received regarding on-street parking
issues. This increase in flexibility could address this on-street parking concern for
our Near Campus Neighborhoods.
Staff supports the continued expectations of limited paving in front yards to reinforce
residential character, especially in older established neighborhoods of the RN-1 and RN-
2 land use designations of Plan 2040. Newer neighborhoods of RN-3 typically have
larger lots, garages, and driveways, which are some of the distinguishing factors from
the other designations.
There are a number of different approaches that could be adopted by the City to continue
to manage front yard paving issues and provide for additional parking flexibility, such as
changes to the front yard parking diagram, limits on impervious coverage of a front yard,
or front yard parking setbacks. In an effort to grant some flexibility for adding on-site
parking within the structure of the current zoning standards, staff is supportive of the
following changes and concepts as described in the previous section:
1. Adopt a text amendment to codify the permit and inspection process and establish
a $100 fee to cover the costs of the process.
2. Adopt a text amendment that would allow Type 1 non-conforming parking areas
to legally exist and allow for paving sited towards the adjacent side lot line. This
would make the 253 non-conforming parking areas compliant and would allow for
this type of parking area to be added to other properties.
3. Adopt a text amendment for Type 2 non-conforming parking areas that would
allow all properties with insufficient room for an additional parking area beyond
the front of the house to pave additional parking area when sited towards the
adjacent side lot line. This would make the 56 properties compliant and allow for
this type of parking area to be added to other properties.
4. For Type 3 situations, allow for all existing properties with front yard parking to be
allowed and adopt a text amendment that would allow front yard parking for all
properties when added adjacent to an existing driveway and the total width does
not exceed 20 feet. This text amendment would make 51 properties compliant and
allow properties to have at least two off-street parking spaces regardless of the
number of garages or distance between the driveway and adjacent property line.
New construction would follow current requirements.
17
5. Set a date by which all Type 4 non-conformities in existence may continue and
require all new parking installed after that date to comply with the current Code.
This would allow the 56 non-conforming parking areas to remain as-is but would
prohibit new Type 4 parking areas from being installed in the future.
6. Set a date by which all Type 5 non-compliant double or looped driveway parking
areas to remain and adopt a text amendment that creates new limitations on
multiple driveways by limiting two curb cuts to lots that have at least 150 feet of
frontage so long as the curb cuts can also be located at least 75 feet apart.
Additionally, Council will need to decide if they want to allow loops in the front yard
that do not lead to any parking. This text amendment would allow the 38 non-
compliant Type 5 parking areas, to remain and would allow some future similar
parking areas to be installed moving forward.
NEXT STEPS
Provided City Council elects to make changes to the front yard parking standards and
Council is comfortable with the description of the changes, staff would begin the public
hearing process to approve changes to Chapter 29 Zoning and Chapter 18 Parking.
The first step will be for staff to draft the changes to the Zoning Ordinance to present to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation to the City Council. With
the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, staff next will finalize a draft
ordinance for City Council approval at a public hearing. The draft ordinance will address
front yard parking limitations and new specifications for paving and driveways.
Alternatively, City Council could direct staff to provide more specific language options to
Council prior to proceeding with public hearings if the Council desires further information
or explanation of the options before moving ahead with the public hearing.
Staff also notes that clarification of related driveway and parking issues in the Rental
Code and Zoning Ordinance may also need to be addressed depending on the outcome
of City Council’s direction regarding issues in this report. Staff will provide a follow-up
memo to City Council regarding these companion issues once direction is provided to
staff on the base front yard parking standards described in this report.
ITEM #:__25__
DATE:
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO SOLICIT A
PARTNER IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-
INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) UNITS IN THE BAKER
SUBDIVISION.
BACKGROUND:
On December 22, 2020, as part of the City Council goal to create more affordable housing
for both owner-occupied and rental households, the City Council entered into a
partnership agreement with Prairie Fire corporation and Builder’s Development
Corporation (BDC) to submit an 9% LIHTC application to the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA)
for thirty-six (36) multi-family housing units in the Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue).
IFA’s application deadline was March 10, 2010.
In late September 2021, staff learned that our 9% LIHTC application was not funded due
to the large group of disaster set-aside projects that absorbed most of the funding
allocation. However, staff was informed by the developer that 4% LIHTC funds were
available, and that the Governor’s priority was to allocate an additional $100 million
dollars to affordable housing that the state was eligible to receive through the US
Treasury. This additional state funding would have approximately equaled the original 9%
LIHTC request if the final guidelines supported this approach. Unfortunately, the final US
Treasury guidelines did not permit for the State to use the funds as they hoped. As a
result, the State is only using the funds from previously awarded 9% LIHTC projects and
our submittal would not qualify for additional assistance. Therefore, in December 2020
it became apparent that the agreement between the City and Prairie Fire and BDC
that was predicated on a 9% LIHTC award was no longer valid.
At the April 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with utilizing
$1.8 million of the City’s HOME allocations and update the Developer’s Agreement
with Prairie Fire Development Group (PFDG) and Builder’s Developers Group (BDG)
to submit an application to the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) for a 4% Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) to develop thirty (30) units in the Baker Subdivision,
with hopes that construction could begin this coming Fall of 2022.
In June 2022, staff was notified by Prairie Fire that they intended to introduce a new
partner from Minnesota into the project. It was explained that this new company
would bring property management and construction management experience to the
project. Staff also was informed that this new partner, “Titan,” would take over as
the major developer and guarantor role, and that PFDG and BDG would take on a
reduced co-developer role. It was further stated that the developers might want to
use a special purpose entity (e.g., “Ames Housing Partners, LP”) as the contracting
entity that would be made up PFDG/BDG and this new partner.
In accordance with our Purchasing Policy, staff believes that this change in
partnership/owner would require us to resolicit proposals for our project. After
sharing this opinion with Prairie Fire, they stated that they would understand if the
City would choose to pursue different option and not revise the existing agreement
with them.
Because the original agreement has expired, no further action as it relates to Prairie
Fire and Builders Developers is needed.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:
In order to move forward, staff has prepared an updated Request for Proposal (RFP)
to solicit for a new partner developer to pursue a 4% LIHTC application utilizing the
$1.8 million incentive from the available City’s HOME allocations. Staff believe
pursuing the 4% credits, rather than the 9% credits, is the better option to assure
that the units are developed faster because it is a non-competitive process.
The RFP is attached for City Council review and approval (See Attachment A). The
following notable revisions were made from the original RFP:
Under Section III. Minimum Development Requirements (page 6):
A. A target development intensity with a minimum of 30 dwelling units and a maximum of 50 dwelling units for a minimum affordability period of thirty (30) years. (The original RFP allowed up to 15 to 50 dwelling units for 30 years).
B. Require a minimum of 10% of the units to be set aside for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants (not in the original RFP).
Under Section IV. Developer Minimum Responsibilities/ Requirements (pages 6-7):
D. Enter into a developer’s agreement with the City of Ames, to prepare a 4% LIHTC
application, that includes the terms for the developer’s construction and operation
of the project, the City’s participation in the project, transfer of land for the
development of the project, and anticipated start date of the construction. (start
date of the construction language was not in the original RFP).
E. The agreement shall be completed with the City of Ames within 45 days from the
date of acceptance of the proposal by the City Council. The application shall be
submitted to the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) on or about 60 days after a
developer’s agreement has been signed with the City of Ames. (not in the original
RFP).
Under Section V. Financial Incentives (page 7):
B. The City is willing to offer up to $1.8 million of the HOME allocated funds as an
incentive to this project. (substantial increase from original RFP, which did not
identify an amount).
Under Section VI. Competitive Requirements and Scoring (page 8):
6. Additional points will be given based on the percentage of affordable housing units
for either Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants or households with
income at 50% or less of the Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area Income Limits
beyond the required 10% for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants.
(3 bonus points only - was not in original RFP).
The above revisions have been reviewed by Legal, Purchasing, Public Works, Electric and
Planning Departments. Staff will also be meeting with the Old College Creek
Neighborhood Association regarding this new development prior to Tuesday’s City Council
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve proceeding with a Request For Proposals (RFP) to
solicit for a partner developer in connection with the development of 4% Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units in the Baker Subdivision which includes
a City incentive amount up to $1.8 million.
2. The City Council can approve proceeding with a Request For Proposals (RFP) to
solicit for a partner developer in connection with the development of 4% Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units in the Baker Subdivision which includes
a City incentive amount up to $1.8 million, with modifications.
3. The City Council can refer this request back to staff for additional information.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff believes that pursuing a 4% LIHTC application for medium density rental housing
on this site will best meet the immediate affordable housing needs of the City. It will also
increase the likelihood of be funded due the non-competitiveness of these credits and
allow for a sooner construction start date.
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1.
A meeting with the adjacent neighborhood residents has scheduled for Monday, July 25th
via Zoom to update them on the entire status of the Baker Subdivision.
The RFP includes a minimum number of design expectations that address pedestrian
scale features of site and architectural design. These guidelines are consistent with the
Single-Family Conservation Overlay District compatibility standards, even though they
would not be formal requirements of the zoning. Scoring of the proposals will rely upon
the experience and financial stability of the applicant, design quality of the project, use of
green building techniques, type of affordable housing, number of low-income units and
level of financial incentives requested. These broad parameters should encourage a
variety of proposals for redevelopment of the site.
1
Request for Proposals
for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Developers
in Partnership with the City of Ames
Baker Subdivision
321 State Avenue
Ames, Iowa
August 2, 2022
For questions concerning the request for proposal, project requirements and procedures,
please contact:
Purchasing Division: Karen Server, Purchasing Manager
Phone: 515-239-5127
E-mail: karen.server@city.ames.ia.us
2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
II. General Information ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
III.Minimum Development Requirements ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
IV. Developer Minimum Responsibilities/Requirements ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
V. Financial Incentives ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
VI.Competitive Requirements and Scoring .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
VII.Security Requirements ............................................................................................................... 8
VIII.Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................................ 9
IX. Review Process and Selection Criteria ..................................................................................... 10
X. Contract Negotiations: ................................................................................................................ 11
XI.Questions/Contact Persons: ..................................................................................................... 11
XII.Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 11
Attachment A .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Income Limits
Attachment B ................................................................................................................................... 14
321 State Avenue Site & Development Information
Attachment C ................................................................................................................................... 15
District Geothermal Heating & Cooling System
Attachment D .......................................................................................... ......................................... 16
CDBG Special Terms and Conditions
3
I. Introduction
The City of Ames, Iowa is accepting proposals from qualified and experienced affordable housing
developers utilizing the Iowa Finance Authority’s 4% Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.
The successful developer would enter into a partnership with the City of Ames for the construction of
low- income rental housing on a 2.78-acre site within the City’s affordable housing development known
as the Baker Subdivision.
Ames, like many communities across America, has a continuing need for more affordable housing for
low-income households. One of the major goals and priorities of the City’s Adopted 2019-23
CDBG/HOME Five-year Consolidated Strategic Plan is “To create, expand, and maintain Affordable Housing for Homeless and Low-income persons”.
Through the use of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, the City of Ames has
secured ownership of a 10+ acre tract of infill land called the Baker Subdivision located at 321 State
Avenue in West Ames. The tract of land is also located in the City’s first Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area (NRSA), which will allow for a greater flexibility in the development of mixed-income
housing units that meet CDBG program requirements.
The City’s overall vision for this 10+ acre parcel of land is to create a mixed-income housing subdivision
that will not only address the affordable housing needs of low- and- moderate income households, but
also market rate housing through the development of a variety of housing types. To this end the City
has created the Baker Subdivision for development of single-family ownership housing lots and for
rental housing (2.78 acres). The City has completed all of the public infrastructure improvements for
the single-family housing units, and some of the public improvements to the multi-family site. It is
anticipated that construction of the single-family home will start in the spring of 2023.
Rental Development Area
4
The City is currently interested in receiving proposals to develop the 2.78-acre Lot 27 located on the
south side of the site, with multi-family housing types. The City’s main objectives for proposals to
develop the site include the following:
A. Creating affordable rental housing units that meet the 4% low-income housing tax credit
program (Typically incomes equal to or less than 60% of the Ames Metropolitan Statistical
Area (AMSA) See Attachment A for income limits)
B. Maximizing the number of affordable housing units in relation to the City 2019-2023 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan affordable housing goals.
C. Addressing affordable housing needs for families and workforce housing needs.
D. Includes high quality design features for the buildings and site layout as part of an integrated
subdivision with adjacent single-family homes.
To meet these objectives the City will accept proposals of a development intensity between low and
medium density for approximately 30-50 dwelling units. The developer may propose housing types that
include townhomes, duplexes, or multi-family apartment units that best meet the listed objectives and
formulate a highly fundable LIHTC application.
Proposals will be evaluated and scored on a competitive basis. Once all proposals are scored, a report
will be prepared for City Council that will contain background information and factual data for each
proposal, a scoring of the attributes of the proposals, and the evaluation committee recommendation
regarding which developer’s proposal should be selected as the preferred developer for the most
desirable project.
The City reserves the right to waive any minor informalities or irregularities, which do not address the
heart of the proposal, or to reject, any and all proposals. Proposals, which take exception to the
Request for Proposal (RFP), may be considered non-responsive and may be rejected.
II. General Information
The following information is provided to assist the developer by summarizing the important facts
regarding the criteria and format by which the RFP process will proceed.
A. Tentative Timetable of Events:
-RFP Issued: Monday, August 2, 2022
-Pre-Proposal Meeting: Thursday, August 11, 2022**
(VIA ZOOM) 1:30-3:00 p.m.
-Questions Due: Thursday, August 18, 2022
-Responses By: Thursday, August 25, 2022
-Proposal Deadline: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 by 2:00 p.m. local time
- Proposal Selection Interviews (if needed): Thursday, September 22, 2022
-Committee Evaluation (Tentative): Friday, September 30, 2022
- City Council Approval Tuesday, October 25, 2022
**THIS WILL BE AN VIRTUAL MEETING.
5
Join us for a Pre-Proposal LIHTC Meeting via Zoom at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/4559172641
Meeting ID: 455 917 2641
OR
call: 1-646-931-3860,4559172641# US
C. All proposals with supporting documentation must be a delivered to the City of Ames no
later than 2:00 p.m. (local time) on Tuesday, September 13, 2022 in one of the following
formats:
1. E-mail submission in pdf format to Karen Server at karen.server@cityofames.org
2. Mail to and postmarked to the City of Ames, Purchasing Division (1st Floor), City Hall,
PO 811, Ames, IA 50010.
3. Delivered to the City of Ames Purchasing Division (1st Floor), City Hall, 515 Clark Ave, Ames,
IA.
No verbal or faxed submittals will be accepted. Submittals shall have a subject line of
“Baker Subdivision-Ames, IA” LIHTC Housing Development Proposal.
D. Proposals may be withdrawn only by written request of the developer prior to the opening of the
proposals. After the opening of the proposals, all offers shall remain valid and irrevocable for a
period of 60 days from the date of the submittal and through negotiations on a final agreement
with the selected developer.
E. Proposals not meeting the minimum requirements or submittal requirements will not be
considered.
F. Copies of the City's Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations, Storm Water Management,
and Building Codes are available at the Department of Planning & Housing, City Hall, 515 Clark
Avenue, Room 214, Ames, Iowa or on the City’s website at www.cityofames.org search for
Municipal Code. Attachment B includes additional information on development requirements.
G. The Site is currently zoned R-L (Residential Low Density). Any rezoning request for the selected
development concept will need to be approved by the Ames City Council.
H. The City will make available information pertaining to existing and completed infrastructure
improvements for connection of the site to the systems. NOTE: that the City intends to install a
Geothermal System on the site that the developer will be required to connect to, additional
information included in Attachment C.
I. The site (Lot 27) is intended to use the abutting regional storm water treatment facility as its
primary means of meeting storm water treatment and control requirements, the developer will
verify as part of the development review adequate capacity exists within the regional facility or
accommodate storm water requirements on site. The developer will be required to provide for
regular maintenance and upkeep of storm water facilities. Long term maintenance of the
regional facility is the responsibility of the City.
J. The City of Ames reserves the right to require additional information at any time during this
process to help clarify the intent of the developer or project details.
K. The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information regarding site (maps & data) is located
on the city’s website at: www.cityofames.org/living/maps-gis.
6
III. Minimum Development Requirements
Proposals submitted shall meet the following minimum unit and site requirements:
The City will remain flexible to allow a developer to create an innovative design, however, the following
minimum design guidelines will be required;
A. A target development intensity with a minimum of 30 dwelling units and a maximum of 50
dwelling units. For a minimum affordability period of thirty (30) years.
Ineligible Home Types: Senior Housing, Nursing homes, board and care facilities, and
supervised living facilities licensed by the State of Iowa, or a delegated local
Department of Health are not eligible for funding, nor are properties where residents
require a 24-hour plan for supervision and/or medical/health care. Rooming or
Boarding Houses, Transitional Housing Units, Homeless Shelters, or Permanent
supportive housing units are also not eligible.
B. As part of maximizing the number of affordable housing units developed, the developer will be
required to include a minimum of 10% of the total number of units be set aside for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants.
C. Proposals with floor plans designed as student housing or units with multiple suites per unit will
not be considered.
D. Preference for smaller scale buildings transitioning to the surroundings, in no event shall a
building exceed three (3) stories.
E. The design of buildings shall take great care to include high interest design features and building
materials that integrate with the residential surroundings. The development features need to be
supportive of an integrated environment, such as an orientation to public streets and open
spaces, minimize the appearance of large parking areas, include architectural relief and façade
treatments that create visual interest, or provide for multiple building of varying types as
appropriate to integrate with the surroundings.
F. All applicable provisions of the City of Ames Municipal Code, including Zoning Ordinances,
Subdivision Regulations, Stormwater, and Building Codes shall apply.
G. Installation of a Radon System that meets State and EPA requirements if units require
basements.
H. Provide High Speed Broadband internet to each dwelling unit.
I. Due to CDBG funds used to acquire the site, improvements are subject to Davis Bacon Wage
rate and Related Acts as well as other applicable Federal Requirements.
IV. Developer Minimum Responsibilities/Requirements
As part of this request for proposal, the developer agrees to the following minimum responsibilities/
requirements as part of the RFP and to develop the project:
A. The selected developer will be responsible for the preparation of conceptual and final
development plans at their cost, including but not limited to subdivision, grading, storm water
management, building, public improvements, and site development plans. There will be no
reimbursement for any expense as part of responding to this RFP.
B. The selected developer will be responsible for preparation and submission of the 4% LIHTC
application materials at their cost. There will be no reimbursement for any expense as part of
7
the LIHTC application process or for final development plans and permits to be issued by the
City.
C. The selected developer will be responsible to pay for the construction of any additional
infrastructure required to serve the development that is not part of the Baker Subdivision Final
Plat.
D. Enter into a developer’s agreement with the City of Ames, to prepare a 4% LIHTC application,
that includes the terms for the developer’s construction and operation of the project, the City’s
participation in the project, transfer of land for the development of the project, and anticipated
start date of the construction.
E. The agreement shall be completed with the City of Ames within 45 days from the date of
acceptance of the proposal by the City Council. The application shall be submitted to the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) on or about 60 days after a developer’s agreement has been signed with the City of Ames.
F. Ensuring consistency with federal requirements and special terms and conditions that will be
applicable to all projects due to the use of CDBG funds to acquire the parcel. (See Attachment D).
G. The developer will be responsible to ensure that the housing units are constructed on the site
as outlined in their proposal through a developer’s agreement with the City of Ames.
V. Financial Incentives
In support of development of affordable housing on the site, the City will offer the following incentives
to the selected developer.
A. Lot 27 of the Baker Subdivision (approximately 2.78 acres) for a reduced or no cost. The
proposal shall indicate the assumed purchase price of Lot 27.
B. The City of Ames through its HOME program in support of the affordable housing will provide a
financial incentive in an amount up to $1.8 million towards the cost of the project.
VI. Competitive Requirements and Scoring
A. Competitive Requirements
The City of Ames is seeking to maximize its development efforts. Developers are urged to
create an exciting and imaginative project. The Evaluation Committee will evaluate the elements
of the proposal related to design, style, features, costs, timing, in relation to the described
criteria.
1. Applicant/Developer Capability and Track Record (including partners). The applicant’s
track record, including whether the applicant and/or development team has successfully
completed and/or operated a similar type LIHTC project. Capacity to undertake new or
additional projects; ability to secure construction financing; the developer’s approach,
plan of work, recommended schedules, and suggested responsibility assignments (30
points);
2. Quality of References. Qualification and experience in providing the requested
development as exemplified by past projects and client contracts. (including other
8
communities, Iowa Finance Authority, Federal Home Loan Bank and or Iowa Department
of Economic Development) (20 points);
3. Housing variety and architectural styles (5 points)
4. Property management experience – number of units managed; years of experience;
the number of affordable units managed and the performance record. Familiarity of the
various funding sources for housing development and rental subsidies. (20 points)
5. Feasibility (pro-forma including project funding sources) (25 points);
6. Additional Percentage of Affordable Housing Units for either Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher participants or households with income at 50% or less of the Ames Metropolitan
Statistical Area Income Limits (3 bonus points)
VII. Security Requirements
The City of Ames has a performance responsibility to ensure that that the affordable rental housing
units are constructed consistent with the LIHTC program and CDBG/HOME program rules and
regulations. As a means to ensure that the City's investment in land and infrastructure creates the
desired types of housing, the City will require security in the following form:
A. As security for the performance for the construction of all rental housing units, the City will
retain ownership of the parcel, and convey by quit claim deed to the Developer as those rental
units are substantially completed in accordance with this Request for Proposal and the
Development Agreement. The Developer may propose an alternative performance security for
consideration with the RFP.
9
VIII. Submittal Requirements
All proposals with supporting documentation must be a delivered to the City of Ames no later
than 2:00 p.m. (local time) on Tuesday, September 13, 2022 in one of the following formats:
1. Email submission in pdf format to Karen Server at karen.server@cityofames.org
2. Mail to and postmarked to the City of Ames, Purchasing Division (1st Floor), City Hall, PO
811, Ames, IA 50010.
3. Delivered to the City of Ames Purchasing Division (1st Floor), City Hall, 515 Clark Ave, Ames,
IA.
No verbal or faxed submittals will be accepted. Submittals shall have a subject line of “Baker Subdivision-Ames, IA” LIHTC Housing Development Proposal”.
All late or incomplete submittals will be rejected.
The following information is provided for guidance to prospective Builders/Developers.
A. Proposals must contain, at a minimum, the following information:
____ 1. Developer’s statement providing an overview of their proposed project including
goals and timelines.
2. A development plans, including the following items:
____ a. Conceptual site layout that identifies building size and locations, access
point, parking, landscaping, and storm water.
____ b. Representative architectural elevations and floor plans.
____ c. Summary of plan types for total finished square footage, number of
bedrooms, number and type of bathrooms, and square footage of any
unfinished areas; and
____ 3. A statement reflecting the proposed timing of improvements and the proposed
date of completion of these improvements for the site
____ 4. Summary of energy conservation and green building features.
____ 5. Explanation of expected success for 4% LIHTC application.
_____ B. The proposal must be signed by an official of the corporation authorized to bind the offer.
_____ C. The proposal must contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is firm for a period of
not less than 60 days after the closing date of this request and through negotiations.
_____ D. The proposal must be submitted in pdf or in hard copy.
_____ E. The proposal shall contain the full name of the person, firm, or corporation submitting the
proposal and the address of the person, firm, or president of the corporation.
_____ F. No officer, member, or any other person holding any position with the City of Ames, Iowa,
either appointed or elected, shall be or shall become interested directly or indirectly with the
person, firm, or corporation submitting a proposal or in any portion of the profits derived by
the selected developer from this project. This exclusion does not pertain to persons who are
appointed to State-created authorities.
10
_____ G. Project Pro Forma and Estimated Construction Costs. Include which incentives are
requested to support the proposed project. Remember to account for construction
estimates with federal Prevailing Wage requirements for any, and all site related
improvements and building construction as required per HUD CDBG requirements.
_____ H. Identify partners and members of the development team.
_____ I. Submit a portfolio of successful projects for the development team from the last 10 years,
identify any representative examples similar to the scope of the submitted proposal.
_____ J. Identify in a separate document the areas where the proposal meets each of the selection
criteria.
IX. Review Process and Selection Criteria
A. All proposals will be reviewed by City staff for eligibility, completeness, and feasibility.
B. Proposals that are deemed ineligible or infeasible will not be considered and will not be
forwarded to the Evaluation Committee. The developer will be notified by e-mail.
C. Proposals which pass the minimum requirements will be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee.
The members of the committee will score each proposal. A proposal must be deemed responsive
to the Request for Proposal to be referred to the City Council.
D. Evaluation of Proposals:
Applications will be evaluated on the scoring criteria outlined under Section VII “Competitive
Requirements and Scoring”. The Evaluation Committee will have the option to conduct on site
interviews with developers.
E. Evaluation Selection Process
The selection of the preferred developer will utilize the following steps:
After the staff review, the Evaluation Committee evaluates each proposal, a report will be prepared
for City Council that will contain background information and factual data for each proposal, a
scoring of the attributes of the proposals, and the Evaluation Committee recommendation regard-
ing which developer’s proposal should be selected as the preferred developer.
The final selection will be based on:
1. The City Council’s determination of the best proposal that meets the goals and objectives of
the City;
2. A satisfactory agreement between the preferred developer and the City is finalized;
3. A completed verification of the qualifications of the proposed developer.
11
X. Contract Negotiations:
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to negotiate the terms of the contract,
including the award amount, with the selected developer(s) prior to entering into a written agreement.
XI. Questions/Contact Persons:
Questions concerning the content of this proposal, or the review process may be directed to Karen
Server, by mail at City of Ames, Planning & Housing Department; P.O. Box 811, Ames, IA 50010; by
email at karen.server@cityofames.org; or by phone at 515-239-5127.
XII. Definitions
Certain words or phrases in this document are critical to a thorough understanding of the objectives and
goals of the City for this project. The following definitions are offered to aid prospective developers in
the preparation of this Request for Proposals.
A. Builder/Developer: Any individual, corporation, partnership, non-profit organization, or similar
entity that has expressed an interest, or has been identified as having an interest, in providing
those private services that are necessary in creating housing.
B. City: This means the City of Ames, Iowa, its elected and appointed officials, and all staff persons
employed by the City of Ames.
C. Community Development Block Grants (Entitlement). Under this program HUD directly provides
annual CDBGs on a formula basis to “entitled” communities (populations over 50,000) to carry
out a wide range of community development activities directed toward neighborhood
revitalization, economic development, and improved community facilities and services.
D. Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts apply to contractors and
subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the
construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public
works. Davis-Bacon Act and Related Act contractors and subcontractors must pay their laborers
and mechanics employed under the contract no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe
benefits for corresponding work on similar projects in the area. The Davis-Bacon Act directs the
Department of Labor to determine such locally prevailing wage rates. The Davis-Bacon Act
applies to contractors and subcontractors performing work on federal or District of Columbia
contracts. The Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage provisions apply to the “Related Acts,” under
which federal agencies assist construction projects through grants, loans, loan guarantees, and
insurance. For prime contracts in excess of $100,000, contractors and subcontractors must also,
under the provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as amended, pay
laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen, at least one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act may also apply to DBA-covered contracts.
12
E. HUD: The Department of Housing and Urban Development or its designee.
F. HOME: The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is a type of United States federal
assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to States in order to provide decent and affordable housing, particularly housing for low- and
very low-income Americans.[1] It is the largest Federal block grant to States and local
governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income families.
G. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): The federal low-income housing tax credit program
acts as an incentive for property owners to invest in the development of rental housing for
individuals and families with fixed or limited incomes. The housing tax credit provides a dollar-
for-dollar reduction (or credit) to offset an owner’s federal tax liability on ordinary income for a
10-year period. This tax credit often provides the last critical element to ensure the financial
feasibility of the project.
H. Lower-Income Family: A family whose annual income does not exceed 80% of the median
income for the Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area (MAS), as determined by HUD.
I. Project: Those activities, whether public or private, that have been determined to be necessary
to complete the Housing Development.
J. Restrictive Covenant. A provision in a deed limiting the use of the property and prohibiting certain
uses.
K. Subdivision Ordinance: Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code.
L. Submittals: Those written and graphic documents prepared by developers that explain the
strategy, approach, and specific elements that a developer proposes to use in meeting the City's
goals for the affordable housing subdivision.
M. Zoning Ordinance: Is defined as Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code, which is to include all
amendments thereto.
13
Attachment A
2022
Program Income Limits
(subject to change)
60% of Ames, Iowa MSA
Family Size Gross Income Cannot Exceed
4 $60,300
8 $79,620
50% of Ames, Iowa MSA
(Very Low Income)
Family Size Gross Income Cannot Exceed
4 $50,250
8 $66,350
30% of Ames, Iowa MSA
(Extremely Low Income)
Family Size Gross Income Cannot Exceed
1 $21,150
2 $24,150
3 $27,150
4 $30,150
5 $32,600
6 $35,000
7 $37,400
8 $39,800
Effective June 15, 2022
14
Attachment B
Rental Housing Development for
Baker Subdivision located on Lot 27
Site & Development Information
The following items are intended to help provide initial background on development constraints or
requirements that may affect proposals for development of the property. The list below is preliminary
guidance for prospective developers. The guidance should not be viewed as final or a complete
assessment of requirements to meet all development standards. All improvements must meet the City’s
standard specifications.
Streets
• Tripp Street will be the only access to this site. The developer is responsible for the driveway
approach connection to Tripp Street and necessary sidewalk replacement.
Storm water
• All impervious surfaces (public improvements and private improvements) must meet the storm
water control and treatment requirement of Chapter 5b of Ames Municipal Code. This includes
sizing and development controls for storm water facilities.
• Regional stormwater detention facilities about the site in Outlot Z and are intended to meet the
primary storm water treatment needs for this site. The developer will need to confirm the sizing
of the facility in Outlot Z meets their needs or provide for storm water treatment on site. The
owner of Lot 27 will be required to do regular maintenance of the storm water facility, e.g.,
mowing, while the City is responsible for long term maintenance.
Utilities
• The area is within the Ames Electric Service Territory and will be served by Ames Electric.
Developer is responsible for provide service to the project. See note below on Geothermal.
• Natural Gas does not about the site. Any desired extension of natural gas service to the site
would be a cost of the development.
• Water lines exist along Tripp Street. Water to the site must be provided by the developer by
connecting to the existing public water main underneath Tripp Street. Note that any fire hydrant
located on site requires a public water main connection.
• Sanitary sewer lines exist along the east property line of the site. The developer will be
responsible for connecting the site to the sanitary sewer along the east property line.
Flood Plain- College Creek abuts the site to the south. Lot 27 was designed to be located outside of
the 100-year flood plain based upon current flood plain insurance rate maps (FIRM).
Zoning- The Site is zoned R-L. The City understands rezoning of the site is necessary to provide for
multi-family or attached single-family housing. The City will be responsible for rezoning of the site to an
appropriate zoning district to match the proposed development concept. Compliance with City parking,
landscaping, setbacks, and other development standards will be required regardless of the underlying
zoning district.
15
Attachment C
District Geothermal Heating & Cooling System
Ames Electric will be installing a geothermal heating & cooling system in Baker Subdivision which will
serve this property. This system will deliver an environmentally friendly reliable heating and cooling
source year-round. Ames Electric will determine the location of the system once the final building
designs and locations have been approved by the City of Ames.
• The developer is responsible for providing adequate space for geothermal metering equipment
and heat exchanger(s) within the building’s mechanical room.
• The developer is responsible for providing the appropriate mechanical systems in each unit or
building (heat pump(s) to properly deliver the heating and cooling process from the district
geothermal heating & cooling system to each unit.
• The water heating systems for the building(s) will be required to be connected to the district
geothermal heating & cooling system.
16
Attachment D
City of Ames and CDBG Special Terms and Conditions
CITY OF AMES
SPECIAL CDBG CONTRACT PROVISIONS
All contracts as a result from the submittal of this proposal will be subjected to the following
contract conditions for Rehabilitation/New Construction/Demolition Projects: $100,000+
**Provisions apply to projects less than 8 units.
I. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND RECORDS RETAINAGE.
A. Records to be kept. Records shall be maintained in accordance with requirements prescribed by HUD or
the City with respect to all matters covered by this contract. Except as otherwise authorized by HUD, such
records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after receipt of the final payment under this contract.
B. Documentation of Costs. All costs shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records,
invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders, or other accounting documents. All documents pertaining in whole or in
part to this contract shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
C. Inspection of Records. At any time during normal business hours and as often as the City, HUD and/or
the Comptroller General of the United States may deem necessary, the Contractor shall make available to the
City, HUD and/or representatives of the Comptroller General for examination all of its records, with respect to
all matters covered by this contract, and will permit the City, HUD and/or representatives of the Comptroller
General to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records including contracts, invoices,
materials, payrolls, records
II.LOBBYING.
A. The Contractor certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
1. No federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Contractor, to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress,
an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal,
amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer
or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL,
"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
3. The Contractor shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for
all sub-awards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and
cooperative agreements.
4. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this contract was
made or entered into. Agreement to this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this contract
imposed by Section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person or agency that makes an expenditure prohibited by
this section is subject to a civil penalty from $10,000 up to $100,000 for each failure. This penalty also applies
to any person or agency that fails to submit or amend the disclosure form (LLL), when required. Failure to
submit the required certification may result in payment under this contract being delayed or denied.
City of Ames and CDBG Special Terms and Conditions
15
III. DISCRIMINATION
Contractors shall comply with all relevant requirements of the following federal laws and regulations dealing
with discrimination in federally assisted programs:
1.Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 20000d) which provides that no person shall, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from employment or participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance.
2.Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42
U.S.C. 5309) and regulations at CFR 570.602 which provide that no person shall on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be denied
employment in, or be subjected to discrimination under any CDBG program or activity.
3.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (29 U.S.C. 794) which provides that no
otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall, solely by reason of his/her handicap, be excluded from
the participation in, be denied the benefits of, be denied employment in, or be discriminated against under
any program or activity receiving federal assistance.
4.Age discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101) which provides that no person shall, on
the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal assistance.
5.Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 93-112, 29 U.S.C. 794). Provides comprehensive civil rights to
individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local
government services, and telecommunications.
6.Federal Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11357. Provides that no one be
discriminated in employment.
7.Executive Orders 11625, 12432, 12138 provide that, the City of Ames, shall take affirmative steps to
ensure that small, minority, and women owned businesses and enterprises are utilized when possible as
sources of supplies, equipment, construction, and services. You are encouraged to solicit minority and
women businesses for any subcontract work that maybe needed on this project. A List of Minority
Business Enterprises/Women-Owned Business Enterprises and clearinghouses are included in this bid
pack, and are also available at: www.dia.iowa.gov/tsbl/.
8.Iowa Code Section 19B.7. This prohibits discriminatory and unfair practices within any program receiving
or benefiting from state financial assistance in whole or in part.
9.Iowa Code chapter 216 Effective July 1, 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to add sexual
orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.
10.Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and regulations in 41 CFR 60,
which provides that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin in all phases of employment during the performance of federally-assisted construction
contracts and subcontracts. Contractors and subcontractors shall take affirmative action to ensure fair
treatment in employment, including recruitment, training, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff,
termination, and pay.
a. The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants
are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color,
16
religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: Employment,
upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay
of other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor
agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to
be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions in this nondiscrimination clause.
b. The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisement for employees placed by or on behalf of the
Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to
race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
c. The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective
bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency
contracting officer, advertising the labor union or worker’s representative of the Contractor’s commitments
under section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice
in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
d. The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and
of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
e. The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of
September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant
thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the contracting agency and the
Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and
orders.
f.In the event of the Contractor’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with
any of such rules, regulations, and orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in
whole or in part and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in
accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule,
regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
g. The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase
order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to
Section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding
upon each subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontractor
or purchase order as the contracting agency, and may direct the subcontractor or vendor as a means of
enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, however, that in the event
the contract becomes involved in, or threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result
of such direction by the contracting agency, the Contractor may request the United States to enter into
such litigation to protect the interest of the United States.
IV.SECTION 3 of the HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT of 1968, as amended (12 U.S.C.
1701u), and regulations at 24 CFR Part 135.
The Contractor shall comply with the following provisions:
a.Section 3 requires that, to the greatest extent possible:
i.Training and employment opportunities shall be made available to low- income residents
of the metropolitan area in which the project is located; and
ii.Subcontracts shall be awarded to businesses owned by low income residents or to businesses
in which at least 30% of their permanent employees are low-income residents.
17
b.Contractors and subcontractors shall be required to provide to the City plans for complying with
these provisions and reports on the extent to which they have met them.
c.The Contractor will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract for work in connection with
the project. The Contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where it has notice that
the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR Part 135 and will not let any
subcontract unless the subcontractor has first provided a preliminary statement of ability to
comply with the requirements of these regulations.
V. LABOR STANDARDS. Contractors shall comply with all relevant requirements of the following federal laws
and regulations dealing with labor standards in federally assisted programs:
A. Copeland "Anti-Kick Back Act" (18 U.S. C. 876) as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations
(29 CFR Part 3). This Act provides that the Contractor shall be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any
person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the
compensation to which he is otherwise entitled.
B. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.).
Contracts awarded by grantees and subgrantees in excess of $2,000 which involve the employment of
mechanics or laborers shall comply with Section 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 USC 327-330) as supplemented by Department of Labor Regulations contained in 29 CFR
Parts 3, 5 and 5a.
1. Under Section 103 Of the Act, the Contractor and any of his subcontractors, shall be required to compute
the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of forty hours. Work in excess
of the standard work week is permissible, provided the worker is compensated at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in any work week.
2. Section 107 of the Act provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or
under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous to his health and safety, as
determined under construction, safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. These
requirements do not apply to the purchase of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open
market.
VI.CLEAN, WATER, CLEAN AIR, E.O. 11738 and EPA Regulations Provision Compliance with Air and
Water Acts apply to assisted construction contracts and related subcontracts exceeding $100,000. In
compliance with Section 306 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), Section 508 of the Clean
Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and the EPA Regulations (40 CFR, part
15) of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect thereto the Contractor agrees that during the
performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees as follows:
1.The Contractor will certify that any facility to be utilized in the performance of this contract or any
subcontract shall not be a facility listed on the EPA List of Violating Facilities pursuant to 40 CFR
15.20.5
2.The Contractor agrees to comply with all requirements of Section 306 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and all regulations and guidelines
issued there under.
3. The Contractor agrees that as a condition for the award of the contract, prompt notice will be given to
the City of any notification received from the EPA Office of Federal Activities, indicating that a facility
utilized or to be utilized for the contract is under consideration to be listed on the EPA List of Violating
Facilities.
18
4. The Contractor agrees that it will include or cause to be included the criteria and requirements in the
provisions of paragraph 1 through 4 of this subpart in every nonexempt subcontract, and take such action
as the Government may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions.
VII.LEAD BASED PAINT. The use of lead-based paint in the federally assisted construction or rehabilitation of
residential structures (including day cares, senior centers, and community facilities) is prohibited by Section
401(b) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act [42 U.S.C. 4831(b)] and regulations in 24 CFR 35B.
To the extent that contracted work involves residential structures, the Contractor and subcontractors must
follow the new regulations issued under sections 1012 and 1013 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, which is Title X ("ten") of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
Sections 1012 and 1013 of Title X amended the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act of 1971, which
is the basic law covering lead-based paint in federally associated housing. The new regulation appears within
title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations as part 35 (24 CFR 35).
1. The Contractor and subcontractors shall not use lead-based paint in residential structures and shall
eliminate any lead-based paint hazards in residential structures rehabilitated.
2.At a minimum the Contractor and subcontractors must comply with the Lead Hazard
Reduction Methods in 24 CFR 35.1330 and 1325.
3. All workers involved in the disturbance of lead-based paint bearing surfaces should be trained in lead
safe work practices.
4. At the conclusion of residential rehabilitation, the property must pass a lead hazard clearance test by a
certified technician and lab. The lead level must meet the federal and North Carolina standard lead level
threshold for Childhood Lead Exposure Act of North Carolina and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Clearance is not required if rehabilitation did not disturb painted surfaces of a total area more than that
set forth in 24 CFR 35.1350(d).
VIII.USE OF DEBARRED, SUSPENDED OR INELIGIBLE CONTRACTORS. CDBG funds shall not be used
directly or indirectly to employ, award contracts to, or otherwise engage the services of, or fund any
Contractor or sub-recipient during any period of debarment, suspension or placement in ineligibility status
under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 24. (Government Debarment and Suspension Regulations).
IX.CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
A. Interest of Members, Officers, or Employees of the Recipient, Members of Local Governing Body,
or Other Public Officials. No member, officer, or employee of the recipient, sub-recipient, or its agents, no
member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of
such locality or localities who exercise any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during
his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract
or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted
under this agreement. Immediate family members of said members, officers, employees, and officials are
similarly barred from having any financial interest in the program. This provision shall be incorporated in all
such contracts or subcontracts.
B. Contractor's Responsibilities. The Contractor shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance with
paragraph (A) of this section, and will incorporate the following provision into every sub-contract:
Interest of Sub-Contractor and Employees. The Sub-Contractor covenants that no person who presently
exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Community Development Block Grant
Program has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. Any interest on the part of the
Sub-Contractor or his employees must be disclosed to the Recipient and the City, provided, however, that
this paragraph shall be interpreted in such a manner so as not to unreasonably impede the statutory
19
requirement that maximum opportunity be provided for employment of and participation by residents of the
area."
X. DISPUTES, DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
A. Disputes. In the event of dispute arising under this Contract, the Contractor shall notify the City promptly
in writing of their contentions and submit the claim. If the dispute arises before performance of the related
work, the written notice shall be submitted prior to commencing such work. In any event, the Contractor
shall proceed with such work in compliance with the instructions of the City; such compliance shall not
be a waiver of the Contractor's rights to make a claim, provided they have notified the City in writing as
above stipulated.
B. Default and Remedies.
1. Default shall consist of any failure by the Contractor to perform under this contract or written
amendments thereto or any breach of any covenant, agreement, provision or warranty provided by the
Contractor as a part of this contract. Actions which constitute a default include, but are not limited to:
a. Failure to submit to the City reports which are required pursuant to this contract or the submission
of required reports that are incorrect or incomplete.
b. Submission of requests for payment or reimbursement of amounts that are incorrect or incomplete.
c. The failure of the Contractor to accept any additional conditions which may be provided by law, by
executive order, by regulation or by other policy announced by the City, the state or any federal
agency.
d. Failure to perform any activity required by this contract.
1. Upon occurrence of any default, the City shall advise the Contractor in writing of the action
constituting the default, and specify the actions that must be taken to cure the default. The City
may suspend payment under the contract. If a default is not cured within 30 days from receipt of
written notice of such default by the Contractor, the City may continue the suspension or, by written
notice of termination, may terminate the contract.
2. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damage
sustained by the City by virtue of any default or breach of the contract; and the City may deduct the
amount of damages from any outstanding payments to the Contractor or may withhold payments
until such time as the exact amount of the damages is determined.
C. Termination.
1. If federal funding for this project is terminated and no other funding is available for continuation of
this project, the City will not be obligated to continue funding for the services contained in this
contract and may terminate the contract.
2. In the event of termination, all property and finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by or purchased with CDBG
funds by the Contractor under this contract shall, at the option of the City, become its property and
the Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work
satisfactorily completed hereunder.
3.Owner May Terminate for Cause
20
a. The occurrence of any one of more of the following events will justify termination for cause:
i.Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the contract
documents (including, but not limited to, failure to supply sufficient skilled workers or
suitable materials);
ii. Contractor’s disregard of laws or regulations of any public body having jurisdiction;
iii.Contractor’s disregard of the authority of owner’s representative; or
iv.Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any provisions of the contract documents.
b.If one or more of the events identified in this section occur the Owner, after giving Contractor
seven days written notice of its intent to terminate the services of Contractor, may:
i.Exclude Contractor from the site, and take possession of the work and of
all Contractor’s tools, appliances, construction equipment, and machinery at the site, and
use the same to the full extent they could be used by Contractor (without liability to
Contractor for trespass or conversion);
ii. Incorporate in the work all materials and equipment stored at the site or for which Owner
has paid Contractor but which are stored elsewhere; and
iii.Complete the work the Owner may deem expedient.
4.If Owner proceeds as provided in this section, Contractor shall not be entitled to receive any
further payment until the work is completed. If the unpaid balance of the contract price exceeds
all claims, costs, losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of
engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals and all court or arbitration or other
dispute resolution costs) sustained by Owner arising out of or relating to completing the work,
such excess will be paid to Contractor. If such claims costs, losses, and damages exceed such
unpaid balance, Contractor shall pay the difference to Owner. Such claims, costs, losses, and
damages incurred by Owner will be reviewed as to their reasonableness and, when so
approved, incorporated in a Change Order. When exercising any rights or remedies under this
section, Owner shall not be required to obtain the lowest price for the work performed.
5.Notwithstanding section Standard Terms and Conditions, Contractor’s services will not be
terminated if Contractor begins within seven days of receipt of notice of intent to terminate to
correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure with no more than 30
days of receipt of said notice.
6.Where Contractor’s services have been so terminated by Owner, the termination will not affect
any rights or remedies of Owner against Contractor then existing or which may thereafter
accrue. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor by Owner will not release
Contractor from liability.
21
7.Owner May Terminate For Convenience
a.Upon seven days written notice to Contractor, Owner may, without cause and without
prejudice to any right or remedy of Owner, terminate the Contract. In such case, Contractor
shall be paid for (without duplication of any items):
i.Complete and acceptable work executed in accordance with the Contract Documents
prior to the effective date of termination, including fair and reasonable sums for
overhead and profit on such work;
ii.Expenses sustained prior to the effective date of termination in performing services
and furnishing labor, material or equipment as required by the Contract Documents
in connection with uncompleted work, plus fair and reasonable sums for overhead
and profit on such expenses;
iii. All claims, losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges of
engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals and all court or arbitration or
other dispute resolution costs) incurred in settlement of terminated contracts with
subcontractors, suppliers, and others; and
iv.Reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination.
8.Contractor shall not be paid on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic
loss arising out of or resulting from such termination.
22
Contract Provisions Required by
Federal Law or Owner Contract
U. S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2577-0157
(exp.3/31/2020)and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number.
These contracts between a HUD grantee (housing agency (HA)) and an architect/engineer (A/E) for design and construction services do not require either party
to submit any materials to HUD. The forms provide a contractual agreement for the services to be provided by the A/E and establishes responsibilities of both
parties pursuant to the contract. The regulatory authority is 24 CFR 85.36. These contractual agreements are required by Federal law or regulation pursuant to
24 CFR Part 85.36. Signing of the contracts is required to obtain or retain benefits. The contracts do not lend themselves to confidentiality.
1.0 Contract Provisions Required by Federal Law or Owner Contract
with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
1.7 Conflicts of Interest. Based in part on federal regulations
(24 CFR 85.36(b)) and Contract agreement between the Owner
and HUD, no employee, officer, or agent of the Owner (HUD
grantee) shall participate in selection, or in the award or admin-
istration of a contract supported by Federal funds if a conflict of
interest, real or apparent, would be involved.
1.1 Contract Adjustments. Notwithstanding any other term or
condition of this Agreement, any settlement or equitable adjust-ment
due to termination, suspension or delays by the Owner shall be
negotiated based on the cost principles stated at 48 CFR Subpart 31.2
and conform to the Contract pricing provisions of 24 CFR 85.36 (f).Such a conflict would arise when:
(i) The employee, officer or agent,
1.2 Additional Services. The Owner shall perform a cost or price
analysis as required by 24 CFR 85.36 (F) prior to the issuance of
a contract modification/amendment for Additional Services. Such
Additional Services shall be within the general scope of services
covered by this Agreement. The Design Profes-sional shall
provide supporting cost information in sufficient detail to permit
the Owner to perform the required cost or price analysis.
(ii)Any member of his or her immediate family,
(iii)His or her partner, or
1.3 Restrictive Drawings and Specifications. In accordance with
24 CFR 85.36(c)(3)(i) and contract agreements between the Owner
and HUD, the Design Professional shall not require the use of
materials, products, or services that unduly restrict competition.
(iv) An organization that employs, or is about to employ, any
of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for
award. The grantee’s or subgrantee’s officers, employees or agents
will neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of
monetary value from Contractors, or parties to sub-agreements.
Grantees and subgrantees may set minimum rules where the financial
interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal
intrinsic value. To the extent permit-ted by State or local law or
regulations, such standards or conduct will provide for penalties,
sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations of such
standards by the grantee’s and subgrantee’s officers, employees, or
agents or by Contractors or their agents. The awarding agency may
in regulation provide additional prohi-bitions relative to real,
apparent, or potential conflicts of interest.
1.4 Design Certification. Where the Owner is required by federal
regulations to provide HUD a Design Professional certi-fication
regarding the design of the Projects (24 CFR 968.235), the Design
Professional shall provide such a certification to the Owner.
1.5 Retention and Inspection of Records. Pursuant to 24 CFR
85.26(i)(10) and (11), access shall be given by the Design Profes-
sional to the Owner, HUD, the Comptroller General of the United
States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, to any books,
documents, papers, and records of the Design Professional which
are directly pertinent to that specific Contract for the purpose of
making an audit, examination, excerpts, and transcrip-tions. All
required records shall be retained for three years after the Owner or
Design Professional and other subgrantees make final payments and
all other pending matters are closed.
Neither the Owner nor any of its contractors or their subcontractors
shall enter into any Contract, subcontract, or agreement, in connec-tion
with any Project or any property included or planned to be included in
any Project, in which any member, officer, or employee of the Owner,
or any member of the governing body of the locality in which the
Project is situated, or any member of the governing body of the locality
in which the Owner was activated, or in any other public official of such
locality or localities who exercises any responsibilities or functions
with respect to the Project during his/her tenure or for one year
thereafter has any interest, direct or indirect. If any such present or
former member, officer, or employee of the Owner, or any such
governing body member or such other public official of such locality
or localities involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the
beginning of his/her tenure any such interest, and if such interest is
immediately disclosed to the Owner and such disclosure is entered
upon the minutes of the Owner, the Owner, with the prior approval of
the Government, may waive the prohibition contained in this
subsection: Provided, That any such present member, officer, or
employee of the Owner shall not participate in any action by the Owner
relating to such contract, subcontract, or
1.6 Copyrights and Rights in Data. HUD has no regulations
pertaining to copyrights or rights in data as provided in 24 CFR
85.36. HUD requirements, Article 45 of the General Conditions
to the Contract for Construction (form HUD-5370) requires that
contractors pay all royalties and license fees. All drawings and
specifications prepared by the Design Professional pursuant to
this contract will identify any applicable patents to enable the
general contractor to fulfil the requirements of the construction
contract.
arrangement.
Previous editions are obsolete Page 1 of 3 form HUD-51915-A (1/2014)
No member, officer, or employee of the Owner, no member of the
governing body of the locality in which the project is situated, no
member of the governing body of the locality in which the Owner
was activated, and no other public official of such locality or
localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect
to the project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall
have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds
thereof.
B. The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD’s
regulations in 24 CFR part 135, which implement section 3. As
evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this
contract certify that they are under no contractual or other im-
pediment that would prevent them from complying with the part 135
regulations.
1.8 Disputes. In part because of HUD regulations (24 CFR
85.36(i)(1)), this Design Professional Agreement, unless it is a small
purchase contract, has administrative, contractual, or legal remedies
for instances where the Design Professional violates or breaches
Agreement terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as
may be appropriate.
C. The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or
representative of workers with which the contractor has a collec-tive
bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice
advising the labor organization or workers’ representative of the
contractor’s commitments under this section 3 clause, and will
1.9 Termination. In part because of HUD regulations (24 CFR
85.36(i)(2)), this Design Professional Agreement, unless it is for an
amount of $10,000 or less, has requirements regarding termi-nation
by the Owner when for cause or convenience. These include the
manner by which the termination will be effected and basis for
settlement.
post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site
where both employees and applicants for training and employ-
ment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the
section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles
subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training
positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location
of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and
the anticipated date the work shall begin.
1.10 Interest of Members of Congress. Because of Contract
agreement between the Owner and HUD, no member of or delegate
to the Congress of the United States of America or Resident
Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this Contract
or to any benefit to arise from it.
D. The contractor agrees to include this section 3 clause in every
subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR part
135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an
applicable provision of the subcontract or in this section 3 clause,
upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations
in 24 CFR part 135. The contractor will not subcon-tract with any
subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the
subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24
CFR part 135.
1.11 Limitation of Payments to Influence Certain Federal Trans-
action. The Limitation on Use of Appropriated Funds to Influ-ence
Certain Federal Contracting and Financial Transactions Act,
Section 1352 of Title 31 U.S.C., provides in part that no appropri-
ated funds may be expended by recipient of a federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person, includ-
ing the Design Professional, for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of Congress in connection with
any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any
federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of
any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement,
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modifi-
cation of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agree-
ment.
E. The contractor will certify that any vacant employment
positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the
contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2)
with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR
part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were
not filled to circumvent the contractor’s obligations under 24 CFR
part 135.
F. Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR part 135 may
result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and
debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts.
G. Reserved.
1.12 Employment, Training, and Contracting Opportunities for Low-
Income Persons, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Devel- H. Reserved.
opment Act of 1968. 1.13 Reserved.
A. The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the
requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u (section 3). The purpose
of section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic
opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted
projects covered by section 3, shall, to the greatest extent feasible,
be directed to low- and very low-income persons, par-ticularly
persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for hous-ing.
1.14 Clean Air and Water. (Applicable to contracts in excess of
$100,000). Because of 24 CFR 85.36(i)(12) and federal law, the
Design Professional shall comply with applicable standards,
orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. § 1857h-4 transferred to 42 USC § 7607, section
508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1368), Executive Order
11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR
part 15), on all contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts
in excess of $100,000.
Previous editions are obsolete Page 2 of 3
form HUD-51915-A (1/2014)
1.15 Energy Efficiency. Pursuant to Federal regulations (24 C.F.R
85.36(i)(13)) and Federal law, except when working on an Indian
housing authority Project on an Indian reservation, the Design
Professional shall comply with the mandatory standards and policies
relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy
conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163 codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 6321 et.
seq.).
1.17 Non-applicability of Fair Housing Requirements in Indian
Housing Authority Contracts. Pursuant to 24 CFR section 905.115(b)
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4),
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national
origin in federally assisted programs, and the Fair Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 3601-3620), which prohibits discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex , national origin, handicap, or familial status in
the sale or rental of housing do not apply to Indian Housing
Authorities established by exercise of a Tribe’s powers of self-
government. 1.16 Prevailing Wages. In accordance with Section 12 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437j) the Design Professional shall
pay not less than the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined
by or adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State
or local law) by the Secretary of HUD, to all architects, technical
engineers, draftsmen, and technicians.
1.18 Prohibition Against Liens. The Design professional is Prohib-
ited from placing a lien on the Owner’s property. This prohibition
shall be placed in all design professional subcontracts.
Previous editions are obsolete Page 3 of 3
form HUD-51915-A (1/2014)
1
ITEM # __26___
DATE 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE IMMEDIATE TOWING OF ILLEGALLY
PARKED VEHICLES ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2022, the City Council approved an ordinance to allow for the immediate
towing of vehicles parked illegally when authorized by City Council resolution (Section
18.34 of Municipal Code). The resolution that authorizes such towing must designate
certain types of illegal parking subject to tow, along with the specific dates, times, and
geographic area subject to immediate towing.
This request is to approve a resolution authorizing the use of the immediate
towing ordinance for certain areas and times on Saturday, August 20, 2022. This
date is the Saturday before Iowa State University classes begin. In the past several
years, it has been associated with an increase in alcohol consumption, illegal parking,
nuisance parties, and other high-risk activities. This phenomenon began many years
ago when alcohol was prohibited in fraternities and sororities during the week leading
up to the start of classes. The prohibition ended at 8:00 A.M. on the Saturday before
classes began. At 8:01 A.M. (801 day) some students chose to begin drinking.
In the late 2010s, these behaviors on the Saturday before classes began to grow
beyond a small segment of the ISU population. The date has increasingly become a
destination for people from outside Ames and is no longer limited to ISU students.
Complaints from residents in the area have also grown.
In 2021, City leadership, ISU leadership, and both the Ames and ISU Police
Departments began to discuss ways to refocus the event in a way to reduce harm,
reduce noise complaints, reduce parking complaints, etc. The unofficial event of 801-
day is being transitioned to an official ISU event, Cyclone Welcome Weekend. The
University has created several activities to take the focus off alcohol use and overuse
and steer activities towards community events and safer alternatives.
An additional strategy resulting from these discussions is a focus on immediately
removing vehicles that have been illegally parked on residential streets and have
become a safety hazard. Illegal parking on residential streets has increased to the
point that in some cases emergency vehicles are unable to travel down the street safely
due to cars parked on both sides. The current penalty for this kind of illegal parking is
$10-$15. This amount has not been a sufficient deterrent to the illegal parking that
creates a safety hazard. In addition, a parking ticket does not relieve the safety issue
until the violator decides to move the vehicle; except in rare instances, the Police
2
Department is not authorized to order an illegally parked vehicle to be towed
immediately.
Based on these issues, staff requests Council approval to invoke the immediate
towing ordinance on Saturday, August 20 from midnight to 11:59 p.m. in the
following geographic area:
Lincoln Way between Beach Avenue and State Street
State Street between Lincoln Way and Mortensen Avenue
Mortensen Avenue between State Street and Beach Avenue
Beach Avenue between Mortensen Avenue and Lincoln Way
(See Attached Map)
Staff requests authorization to tow illegally parked vehicles for the following
violations:
1. Alternate side parking violations
2. No parking on one side of the street violations
3. Yellow line violations
4. Fire Hydrant violations
Staff does not intend to tow for overtime parking violations, absent a public
safety risk.
The ordinance also makes clear that the passage of such a resolution does not prevent
the immediate towing of vehicles when they would otherwise normally be subject to
immediate towing, such as blocking traffic or access, or presenting a public-safety risk.
There are approximately three-and-a-half weeks until Cyclone Welcome Weekend,
which should provide ample time to notify the community of the special towing
authorization. This will aid residents and visitors in planning to find safe, legal
parking if they intend to visit the designated area on that date.
Staff will take the following steps to notify the public about the new ordinance:
• The Police Department and ISU staff will inform residents while going door-to-
door during the Good Neighbor Campaign in early August
• An email outlining the changes to the ordinance will be sent to property
managers and owners, with a request to forward the message to tenants. A
similar email will be sent to neighborhood associations.
• Both the City and University will publicize the changes in press releases and
social media accounts.
3
• Staff will place signs in the affected area emphasizing the portions of the street
where parking is illegal. The cost to order these is approximately $1,000, which
will be funded from the Parking Operations Fund. Electronic message signs will
also be placed in the area in advance of August 20, subject to availability.
In addition, the University has agreed to send out notifications to students and staff to
make them aware of the new towing policy as a part of a larger campaign regarding
Cyclone Welcome Weekend.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize the immediate towing of vehicles on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from
midnight to 11:59 p.m. in the designated area of:
Lincoln Way between Beach Avenue and State Street
State Street between Lincoln Way and Mortensen Avenue
Mortensen Avenue between State Street and Beach Avenue
Beach Avenue between Mortensen Avenue and Lincoln Way
For the following illegal parking violations:
a. Alternate side parking violations
b. No parking on one side of the street violations
c. Yellow line violations
d. Fire Hydrant violations
2. Authorize immediate towing as described in Alternative 1, but modify the time,
area, or types of violations subject to immediate towing.
3. Do not authorize the towing of illegally parked vehicles on the requested date,
time, and geographic area.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The increase of illegal parking puts the public at risk by making it difficult for emergency
vehicles to respond to medical calls, fire calls, and law enforcement calls for service.
The City and University have worked very hard over the past year to create an event to
welcome students to Ames (Cyclone Welcome Weekend) and to deter others from
attending who create this hazard. The proposed times and geographic area subject to
immediate towing will be publicized to the community through a variety of methods in
advance of August 20.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as described above.
4
1
ITEM #:
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1699 APPLE PLACE TO
RECONSTRUCT A POOL HOUSE IN OLD ORCHARD MOBILE HOME
PARK
BACKGROUND:
Grand Center LTD is the owner of the property at 1699 Apple Place, located in the Old
Orchard Mobile Home Park. The Old Orchard Mobile Home Park is located along and
south of South 16th Street just east of the ISU Veterinary Medicine facilities. The owner
of the property has applied for a Major Site Development plan to reconstruct and expand
a Pool House. The property is located in the Residential Low-Density Park Zone (RLP)
(Attachment A).
The RLP zoning standards require that all accessory buildings in RLP zones be reviewed
and approved with a Major Site Development Plan. The proposed Pool House with its
associated overhang is considered and expansion of the prior use.
Old Orchard was initially built in the early 1970s and included the existing pool house and
nearby amenities. The proposed Pool House is a 520 square foot structure that is
proposed in the amenity area of the Old Orchard Mobile Home Park (Attachment B). The
enclosed area of the structure (399 sq ft.) will match the current footprint of the existing
structure. The new structure will have an overhang that will extend outward 20 feet over
what is currently open surface level paved patio area (Attachment C). The Pool House
will provide storage for pool maintenance equipment, have two restrooms and patio
furniture storage.
The nearby area has a mix of playground equipment, picnic tables and a pool. A
clubhouse building is located nearby to the immediate northwest. The location of the Pool
House meets all required setbacks from external property lines and other buildings.
Additional details regarding the design features and conformance to zoning standards is
included within the addendum.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At the July 6 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 7-0 to
recommend the City Council approve the Major Site Development Plan to reconstruct a
Pool House at 1699 Apple Place in the Old Orchard Mobile Home Park.
27
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Major Site Development Plan for 1699 Apple Place to construct a
replacement Pool House.
2. Deny the Major Site Development Plan for 1699 Apple Place if it is not found that
the proposed project to conform to the standards of the RLP zone and Major Site
Development Plan criteria.
3. Defer action on this item and request more information from staff.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed Major Site Development Plan is required within the RLP zoning district in
order to construct new accessory buildings in the neighborhood. The site plan includes
the required information including location, dimensions, floor plan, elevations and
description of materials as well as surrounding buildings and nearby amenity features.
(See Attachments).
The RLP zone allows for accessory buildings that otherwise comply with all applicable
zoning standards. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council approve Alternative #1, which is described above.
3
ADDENDUM
Project Description: Grand Center LTD is proposing to reconstruct an existing Pool
House on their property at 1699 Apple Place and add an overhang onto the new structure.
The total size of the reconstructed Pool House will be 399 Square feet of enclosed space.
The Pool House serves a swimming pool, patio and recreational area in the amenity area
located in the center part of the Old Orchard Mobile Home Park. The structure is located
in an open space area with nearby playground equipment, picnic tables and a clubhouse
building in addition to the swimming pool.
Site Layout and Building Design: The building is used to provide two restrooms, store
equipment for swimming pool maintenance and patio furniture. The proposed façade will
have horizontal vinyl lap siding. The roof will be comprised of asphalt shingles.
Landscaping: Currently, deciduous overstory trees exist nearby to the immediate west
and slightly further east within the common amenity area the pool house is located within.
The existing trees will remain in place. No additions or changes to existing landscaping
are proposed. No new landscaping is required.
Parking/Access: Parking is located directly to the west of the Pool House and in front of
the clubhouse building. These parking stalls provide parking and access to the amenity
area for residents who wish to visit this location by vehicle to swim or spend time in the
amenity space, including the Pool House. The reconstruction of the Pool House does not
require additional parking.
Water & Sewer Utility Service: The pool house will utilize existing water and sewer
service connections which have been reviewed by City staff and are adequate to provide
service to the pool house.
Major Site Development Plan Criteria: Additional criteria and standards for review of all
Major Site Development Plans are in Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1502(4)(d) and
includes the following requirements:
When acting upon an application for a Major Site Development Plan approval, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall rely upon generally
accepted site planning criteria and design standards. These criteria and standards
are necessary to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Use Policy Plan
(Ames Plan 2040), and are the minimum necessary to safeguard the public health,
safety, aesthetics, and general welfare.
1. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provisions for
surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface
water to adjacent and downstream property.
The Public Works Department, Engineering Division, has determined that the proposed
development is not subject to the Ames Municipal Code Chapter 5B stormwater
4
requirements as the area being disturbed is less than 1 acre. The site is compliant with
all coverage and landscaping requirements.
2. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for
connection to water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and other utility lines within the
capacity limits of those utility lines.
The applicant has provided for adequate service of water, sewer, and electricity. Water
and sanitary sewer connections are available on site via current connections. Electrical
load calculations have been reviewed and are compliant for the infrastructure existing on
site.
3. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire
protection through building placement, acceptable location of flammable
materials, and other measures to ensure fire safety.
The Fire Inspector has reviewed access and other applicable Fire Code standards for the
site and finds that the minimum requirements are met.
4. The design of the proposed development shall not increase the danger of
erosion, flooding, landslide, or other endangerment to adjoining and
surrounding property.
The proposed development will not be a danger to any nearby property. The site is largely
flat and is not within or near a floodplain.
5. Natural topographic and landscape features of the site shall be incorporated
into the development design.
The site is nearly flat. Three existing deciduous trees located nearby to the west of the
Pool Building are to be preserved. A group of existing deciduous trees to the east of the
swimming pool are also being preserved.
6. The design of the interior vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall provide for
convenient flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall prevent
hazards to adjacent streets or property.
The building is accessed from Mulberry Boulevard to the immediate west. The current
street system and pedestrian walkways have served the Old Orchard Mobile Home park
for many years as originally approved. No changes to pedestrian or vehicular access are
proposed.
7. The design of outdoor parking areas, storage yards, trash and dumpster areas,
and other exterior features shall be adequately landscaped or screened to
minimize potential nuisance and impairment to the use of adjoining property.
5
As an accessory building in the RLP zone the Pool House does not require landscaping
or screening from nearby properties.
8. The proposed development shall limit entrances and exits upon adjacent
streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent and surrounding streets and
in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement.
No changes in entrances or exists onto adjacent streets are proposed or required.
9. Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in
order to maintain adequate security, while preventing a nuisance or hardship
to adjacent property or streets.
No lighting is proposed on the new Pool Building.
10. The proposed development shall ensure that dust and other forms of air
pollution, noise disturbances, odor, glare, and other nuisances will be limited
to acceptable levels as prescribed in other applicable State and City
regulations.
No adverse effects from air pollution, noise, odors, glare, or other nuisances are
anticipated from this Pool House reconstruction.
11. Site coverage, building scale, setbacks, and open spaces shall be in proportion
with the development property and with existing and planned development and
structures, in adjacent and surrounding property.
The Pool House complies with all applicable setbacks in the RLP zone and maintains
existing open spaces in the Old Orchard Mobile Home Park. The Pool House will
continue to serve the same functions as it has otherwise previously.
6
Attachment A- Location & Zoning
7
Attachment B- Existing Conditions
8
Attachment B- Cont.- Site Plan
9
Attachment C- Elevations & Floor Plan
10
Attachment C- Cont.
1
ITEM #: _______
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE MEDICAL OFFICE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS LESS THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET
AND UPDATE DEFINITIONS
BACKGROUND:
On April 26, 2022, the City Council referred a letter to staff from Mary Greeley Medical
Center (MGMC) regarding a requested change in the required parking for Medical Office
uses. The request focused on having the parking rate for smaller medical office facilities
match the parking rate for larger medical office facilities with a requested parking rate of
5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. City Council reviewed the request
and at its June 14 meeting approved initiating a zoning text amendment to reduce
the medical parking rate for all types to 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of
floor area.
Medical Office uses currently have a base requirement to provide parking at a rate of 1
space per 143 square feet (equivalent to 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Facilities
greater than 50,000 square feet in area or that have a shared parking agreement benefit
from a reduced rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Medical Offices include the Zoning
Ordinance definition of a “Clinic” and the description of medical office in Article V, this
includes uses such as dental clinics, chiropractors, medical laboratories, general practice
doctors and surgery centers that do not permit overnight stays.
The medical parking rate for larger facilities at 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is already
greater than the standard office parking rates (3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet) to
account for high levels of employment and turnover of patients. The higher parking rate
for smaller facilities (<50,000 sq. ft.) at 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet assumes there is
high level of base demand that begins to dissipate with larger facilities.
Two outside technical resources, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the International
Traffic Engineers (ITE), recommend minimum parking for medical uses at a rate of 4 to
4.6 per 1,000 square feet to meet typical demand, commonly targeted to the 85th
percentile. City Council identified when initiating the text amendment that lowering the
rate to a level of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet is consistent with these resources.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The applicant applied for a parking standard of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, consistent
with what is being recommended in the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
Upon further review of the request as part of the public hearing process, staff proposed
to the Planning & Zoning Commission multiple options for a text amendment to address
29
2
potentially unique conditions of the Hospital Medical area and the Downtown Gateway
Commercial zone.
The proposed draft ordinance is consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation discussed in more detail below. The city-wide parking rate in Section
29.406(2) is being updated to reflect a 4 space per 1,000 square feet rate in areas outside
of Hospital/Medical (S-HM) and Downtown Gateway Commercial (DGC) zones. The
proposed change is for all building sizes.
For both the S-HM and DGC zones the draft ordinance reflects a 5 space per 1,000
square foot standard. The proposed change is for all building sizes. Staff believes that
maintaining a 5 space per 1,000 square foot standard in the S-HM accounts for providing
adequate parking in an area with a large concentration of medical uses to avoid spillover
parking into abutting residential areas. The 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is consistent
with the historically applied parking standard for the area.
Additionally, the DGC general zone standards in Section 29.1004(4)-1&2 has its own
parking standards developed that due to its intention of supporting a unique urban
character. The current DGC standard is 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical offices.
However, DGC includes a number of strategies to reduce overall parking for major
redevelopment project that can lower the actual requirement. The DGC standard was
still lower than the current 7 spaces per 1,000 square foot standard in other areas of the
city. The proposed reduction follows Council’s intent while staying consistent with the
overall parking standards of DGC.
As part of the proposed text amendment the definitions of ‘Clinic’ in Section 29.201 and
terminology of ‘Medical and Dental Clinics’ in Section of Chapter 29.501(4)-2 were
reviewed and are being updated to better reflect the uses that are subject to what has
been historically applied to Medical office type uses.
The new definition eliminates ‘Clinic’ as a defined use and replaces it with ‘Medical
Service Facility’ which then lists uses in the new definition that are considered part of a
Medical Service Facility which include those that staff would view as being a clinic
currently. Similarly, in 29.501(4)-2 the term ‘Medical and Dental Clinics’ is being changed
to ‘Medical and Dental Services’ under the Office Use category to appropriately reflect
this type of office use. This definition included a wide range of medical services ranging
from doctors to physical therapy. Although Emergency Medical Services (e.g. Urgent
Care) is listed as personal service use and not an office use, it would also be subject to
the Medical Services parking standard.
A draft of the text amendment is attached to this report below.
PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATION
At the July 6 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the
proposed text amendment. Staff presented the Planning & Zoning Commission with three
3
options for a proposed amendment to lower the overall medical parking standard. A
representative of Mary Greeley was also present at the meeting and supported the
options described in the report. After some discussion regarding the current conditions
at many of the facilities across the community the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
6-1 to recommend the following:
(A) That the City Council approve reducing the medical office parking rate in areas
outside the Hospital Medical Area and Downtown Gateway Commercial zones to
4 per 1,000 square feet.
(B) That the parking rate within Hospital Medical and Downtown Gateway Commercial
zones would have a 5 per 1,000 square feet parking rate.
(C) That related definitions be updated.
NOTIFICATION PROCESS:
In addition to standard publication requirements, staff reached out to the City Manager’s
Hospital Medical Advisory group to inform the members that this issue would be up for
discussion. Staff also advised the standard developer interest group email list of the
proposed change. Staff only received one comment from a member of the Hospital
Medical Group, which stated the changes sounded reasonable and supported having new
facilities built outside of the neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve first reading of an ordinance to implement the Planning and Zoning
Commission Recommendation to:
a. Reduce medical parking to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for areas outside
of the Hospital Medical Area and Downtown Gateway Commercial district.
Currently, the requirement is 7 spaces per 1,000 for buildings under 50,000
square feet in size and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for buildings over
50,000 square, which will not change with this alternative.
b. Establish a parking rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for areas inside
the Hospital Medical Area and Downtown Gateway Commercial district.
Currently, the requirement is 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet for buildings
in the Hospital Medical Area under 50,000 square feet & 6 spaces per 1,000
square feet for buildings under 50,000 square feet in the Downtown
Gateway Commercial district as well as 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for
buildings over 50,000 square feet in both Hospital Medical Area and
Downtown Gateway Commercial district.
4
c. Revise the definitions to replace the term “clinic” with “Medical Service
Facility.”
2. Approve first reading of an ordinance to reduce all medical service parking to 4
spaces per 1,000 square feet as organically requested by MGMC, and revise the
definitions to replace the term ‘clinic’ with ‘Medical Service Facility’.
3. Do not modify the Medical Parking rate
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff finds that the 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet requirement exceeds typical parking
demands. Construction of excess parking is an inefficient development standard for
utilization of a site and adds potentially unnecessary impervious coverage to a site. Staff’s
research and observations support lowering the standard.
Staff believes that across the City a lower standard of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet is
reasonable standard for areas with a low concentration of medical uses outside of the
Hospital Medical Area. However, staff believes having a consistent standard of 5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet is appropriate for the S-HM and DGC zones. This aligns with the
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission in its discussion of the topic
on July 6.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1 a-c, as stated above.
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING SECTION
29.201, 29.406(2), 29.501(4)-2, 29.1000(4)-1 and 29.1000(4)-2
THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A
DEFINITION OF MEDICAL SERVICE FACILITY, AND
REDUCING MEDICAL PARKING RATIOS, REPEALING ANY
AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby
amended by amending Sections 29.201, 29.406(2), 29.501(4)-2, 29.1000(4)-1 and 29.1000(4)-2, as follows:
***“Sec. 29.201. DEFINITIONS.
***
(35)Medical Service Facility—Offices, clinics, and laboratories. Facilities primarily
engaged in furnishing outpatient medical, mental health, surgical and other personal health services.
Such facilities include: medical, dental, and psychiatric offices (counseling services by other than
medical doctors or psychiatrists are included under "offices"); medical and dental laboratories; outpatient
care facilities; and allied health services.
***Sec. 29.406. OFF-STREET PARKING.
***Table 29.406(2)
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
PRINCIPAL LAND USE ALL ZONES EXCEPT
DOWNTOWN AND CAMPUS
TOWN SERVICE CENTER
ZONES
DOWNTOWN AND CAMPUS
TOWN SERVICE CENTER
ZONES
***
OFFICE
Medical/Dental Services 4 spaces/1000 sq. ft.
Special-Hospital Medical (S-HM)
Downtown Gateway Commercial
(DGC) 5 spaces/1000 sq. ft.
NONE
***
Sec. 29.501. CLASSIFICATION OF USES.
Table 29.501(4)-2
OFFICE USE CATEGORIES
***
Medical and dental services, laboratories and offices.
***
Sec. 29.1004. "DGC" DOWNTOWN GATEWAY COMMERCIAL
***
Table 29.1004(4)-1
Downtown Gateway Commercial Parking Standards General
Table 29.1004(4)-2
Downtown Gateway Commercial Parking Standards Kellogg Avenue
***”
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
***
Medical and Dental Services 5 spaces/1000 sq.ft.
***
***
Medical and Dental Services None required for less than 3,000 square feet, 5 spaces
/1000 sq. ft. for total square feet of use if exceeds 3,000
square feet within a building
***
1
ITEM #: ___30__
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR FIVE-YEAR WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WELL REHABILITATION PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
On June 14, 2022, City Council approved plans and specifications for the Water
Treatment Plant Five-Year Well Rehabilitation Project. This project continues the practice
of rehabilitating the drinking water wells in a preventative-maintenance cycle instead of
waiting until the wells are unable to produce adequate water volumes.
The project plans and specifications detail the rehabilitation process and timeline to be
used for the five-year rehabilitation cycle. The specifications call for a one-year contract
with the possibility of four, one-year renewal options. The initial contract will be effective
through June 30, 2023. A Consumer Price Index inflation factor will be used to adjust the
contract price for each subsequent contract renewal and the cost increase in future years
would be an identical percentage for both bidders. Future year renewals will be based
on satisfactory performance during the prior year and on the City Council appropriating
funds.
A total of two bids were received for this contract on July 13, 2022, as shown below:
Bidder Total Price
Over Five Years
The Northway Corporation $ 594,825
Cahoy Pump Service, Inc. 702,500
The apparent low bidder is The Northway Corporation of Marion, Iowa. The first year of
the contract is for five wells and the work is to be completed by June 30, 2023. The cost
breakdown includes $1,000 per well for mobilization and $27,325 per well for the
rehabilitation work, for a total Year One contract cost of $141,625.
Staff also anticipates that well repairs will be required in conjunction with the rehabilitation
work. The extent of the repair work will not be known until the wells are taken out of
service for the rehabilitation. Well repair costs will be addressed through change orders
at the completion of work on each well. The Water Treatment Plant operating budget for
well rehabilitation includes a total of $119,500 to cover the first year of the contract (FY
2022-23), with an additional $30,000 for repair work for a total authorized budget of
$149,500.
The bids received were higher than the anticipated first year costs used during the budget
preparation. Staff is recommending that the City proceed with awarding the contract at
2
this time. If repair costs are lower than the $30,000 budgeted, it is still possible that the
work can be completed with no overall impact to the operating budget. If repairs are
costlier and the budget shortfall cannot be made up from savings elsewhere in the
operating budget, staff can delay the work on one of the five wells.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award the first-year contract to The Northway Corporation of Marion, Iowa, in the
amount of $141,625.00.
2. Do not award a contract at this time.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Regular maintenance of the City’s potable water wells is required to ensure adequate
water volume to meet the city’s current and future drinking water needs. It is in the City’s
best interest to maintain the wells by continuing to rehabilitate the wells on a five-year
cycle. The low bidder has successfully performed this work for the past 15 years, and
staff is comfortable with their performance and expertise.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # ___31__
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STORY COUNTY EDGE OF FIELD
PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
The Water Pollution Control (WPC) Facility is being converted to implement nutrient
removal treatment technology over a period of 20 years. Separate from the work that will
occur at the treatment plant, watershed-based improvements performed by the City can
be “banked” as credit toward any future, more stringent nutrient reduction regulations
imposed on the WPC Facility. On February 24, 2021, staff executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to allow these off-
site nutrient reductions to be banked with the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Exchange.
Over the past year, staff has developed a partnership with multiple entities to bundle
multiple Edge-of-Field (EOF) practices into a single bid package. This project will
construct EOF practices in Story County, consisting of four saturated buffers and five
bioreactors that will treat 22 agricultural tile outlets. These practices allow for the natural
removal of nitrogen from subsurface drainage before it enters a stream or other surface
waters. Additional information about these practices is shown below.
outlets drain. Tile lines connect to a control structure,
water drains into the buffer, the living roots of perennial
vegetation absorb water and nu
According to the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, a
a farm field that is tr
woodchips where bacteria convert nitrogen in
tile water into nitrogen gas. According to the
nitrogen from water diverted through it.
2
In addition to the nutrient reduction benefits provided by these practices, they also provide
a small measure of mitigation against both droughts and floods by holding water on the
landscape longer.
On June 14, 2022, Council issued a Notice to Bidders for the construction of the four
saturated buffers and five bioreactors in Story County. On July 13, 2022, staff opened
bids for the project. One bid was received and is shown below along with the Engineer’s
Estimate:
Bidder Total Project Bid Price
Engineer’s Estimate $217,105.00
In addition to the construction costs, payments of $1,000 per treated agricultural tile outlet
are being made to the landowners. In exchange, each landowner is granting the City a
temporary construction easement and providing land use information that will allow the
City to accurately determine nutrient reductions. The total cost of these easement
payments is $22,000.
City staff has negotiated a construction phase engineering services contract with JEO
Consulting Group, Inc. The scope of the contract covers construction staking/observation
and providing documentation necessary for entering the projects into the Nutrient
Reduction Exchange. JEO Consulting Group, Inc. performed all design services for this
project and staff is confident in their ability to also perform the requested construction
phase services. The cost associated with this contract is $19,450.
The revised total project cost is as follows:
The City of Ames is acting as the fiscal agent for the project and external funding is being
provided by the Iowa Department of Agricultural and Land Stewardship (IDALS), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Story County Conservation, and the Story
County Soil and Water Conservation District. In total, $249,634.37 of external funding
has been secured for the project.
A summary of the external funding is as follows:
3
This project is included in the FY 2022/23 WPC Capital Improvements Plan as part of the
Watershed-Based Nutrient Reduction. Currently, $480,000 is available in the project fund.
The City’s share of the construction, easement, and construction phase
engineering costs is $32,205.05. This is slightly higher than the $27,150 estimate
shown in the June 14, 2022, Council Action Form at the time the Notice to Bidders was
issued. Increased contributions from IDALS and NRCS offset the majority of the cost
increase.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract for the installation of four saturated buffers and five bioreactors
to Hands On Excavating, LLC of Radcliffe, Iowa, for $240,389.42.
2. Do not award a contract at this time and provide direction to staff on the future of
the Watershed-based Nutrient Reduction Project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Water Pollution Control Facility will be converted to a nutrient removal treatment
technology over a period of 20 years. To mitigate future investment beyond what is
already planned for, watershed-based projects can be performed, and the resulting
nutrient reduction credits can be banked. This project will treat 1,200 acres and reduce
nitrate runoff by 45% on average. Following project completion, the City will register each
of these practices and receive annual nutrient reduction credit for the lifespan of each
practice. The work was bid in accordance with the City’s adopted Purchasing Policies.
The low bidder successfully performed nearly identical work for Polk County last year,
and staff is comfortable with their expertise in this type of work.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # ___32__
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: BOILER TUBE SPRAY COATING AND RELATED SERVICES AND
SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR POWER PLANT
BACKGROUND:
On June 14, 2022, City Council approved preliminary plans and specifications for the
Boiler Tube Spray Coating and Related Services and Supplies Contract. This contract is
for a contractor to install new boiler tube coating and surface preparation at the City’s
Power Plant on an as needed basis.
This contract is to provide boiler tube spray coating services for the period from the
award date through June 30, 2023. This will enable this and future renewals to coincide
with the City’s fiscal year. The contract includes a provision that would allow the City to
renew the contract for up to three additional one-year terms.
Bid documents were issued to nine companies and sent to four plan rooms. The bid
was advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing webpage
and a Legal Notice published on the websites of a contractor plan room service with
statewide circulation and the Iowa League of Cities.
On July 13, 2022, one bid was received. Staff reviewed the bids and determined that
the contract would be awarded to Integrated Global Services, Inc., Richmond, VA (IGS).
To put this bid price in perspective, the last time staff when out for bid for these services
was in 2020. The winning bidder, Whertec, has recently gone out of business; which
generated the need to go out for this bid. When comparing the 2020 prices for service
to the IGS bid, the hourly labor rate have increased an average of 25% over two years.
Having this contract reduces the City’s exposure to market forces regarding prices and
availability for labor, travel, and supplies in preparation for a scheduled outage. Having
this work under contract will save City staff considerable time obtaining quotes,
evaluating proposals, and preparing specifications and other procurement
documentation for outages.
Funding in the amount of $435,000 is available from the approved FY 2022/23 Power
Plant operating budget. Invoices will be based on contract rates for time and materials
for services that are actually received.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award the contract for the Boiler Tube Spray Coating and Related Services and
Supplies Contract to Integrated Global Services, Inc., Richmond, VA, for hourly
rates and unit prices bid, in an amount not-to-exceed $435,000 for FY22/23.
This contract includes a provision that will allow the City to renew the contract for
up to three additional one-year terms at stated rates.
2. Reject all bids and purchase boiler tube spray coating services on an as-needed
basis.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This contract is needed to carry out emergency and routine boiler tube spray coating
services at the Power Plant to maintain protection to the tube replaced in 2013. Failure
to maintain the costing will result in increased wear and early tube deterioration. The
contract will establish rates for service and provide for guaranteed availability, thereby
setting in place known rates for service. The rates included in this contract are
comparable to the rates from our past provider.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No.1 as stated above.
1
ITEM # _ _33__
DATE: 07-26-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: POWER PLANT BOILER MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT
AWARD OF CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
On June 14, 2022, City Council approved preliminary plans and specifications for the
Power Plant Boiler Maintenance Services Contract. This contract consists of a variety of
boiler and pressure vessel maintenance, including structural steel and pressure vessel
repair. The contractor provides emergency service as well as regularly planned repairs
and services during scheduled outages.
The repair of the equipment on these generation units requires professional trade crafts
such as boilermakers, laborers, and millwrights.
This bid is for these repair and maintenance services from the date of contract approval
through June 30, 2023. The bid documents include the option of up to four one-year
renewals. Any renewal would require approval by City Council.
Bidding documents were provided to thirty-two potential bidders and three plan rooms.
The bid was advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing
webpage and a Legal Notice was published on the websites of a contractor plan room
service with statewide circulation and the Iowa League of Cities.
On July 13, 2022, four bids were received as shown on the attached bid report. Electric
Services staff has completed evaluation of the four bids. The bids include costs for a
variety of trade workers to conduct work. Therefore, the bids are evaluated using a
scenario for a six-day period of work, including all the incidental charges
associated with each vendor (e.g., mileage, subsistence, etc.). This model scenario
has been used for boiler maintenance services contracts for many years (example work
scenario included in the attachment). For this bid, the scenario results in the following
ranking of the four bidders:
TEI Construction Services, Inc. 1
Capital City Boiler and Machine Works, Inc. 2
Helfrich Brothers Boiler Works, Inc. 3
Ragan Mechanical, Inc. 4
In the evaluation, staff determined that TEI Construction Services, Inc. provided a
responsive bid and is the lowest cost for the City.
Invoices will be based on contract rates for time and materials for services actually
2
received and accepted by the City. The FY 2022/23 budget includes $325,000 for these
services. The bidding documents call for a contract to be awarded in an amount not to
exceed that amount.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract to TEI Construction Services, Inc., Duncan, SC, for the Power
Plant Boiler Maintenance Services Contract for unit prices bid in a total amount not
to exceed $325,000.
2. Award the contract to another bidder.
3. Reject all bids and send out another request for bid
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is important to have a highly skilled company to perform maintenance services on the
City’s power plant boilers. These boilers operate at high temperatures and under high
pressures. Work may be scheduled or required under short notice conditions. Having a
contract in place allows for quick response time at a predetermined cost.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1 as stated above.
Description Ragan Mechanical Capital City Boiler &
Machine Works, Inc.
TEiC Construction
Services
Helfrich Brothers Boiler
& Machine
Labor:$34,197.20 $32,640.00 $23,322.80 $20,413.04
Subsistence:$2,400.00 $2,040.00 $2,970.00 $3,000.00
Travel:$1,191.60 $400.00 $2,188.72 $1,962.80
Mileage:$215.63 $70.00 $5,085.00 $10,000.00
Total:$38,004.43 $35,150.00 $33,566.52 $35,375.84
Example Work Scenario for Boiler Maintenance Services
The scenario was based on 12 hour days starting on a Monday and going through Saturday. One foreman and three certified
welders.
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING
SECTION 17.30(4) AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION
17.30(5) THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING ENHANCED NUISANCE PARTY
REGULATIONS, REPEALING ANY AND ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT;
PROVIDING PENALTY AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is
hereby amended by amending Section 17.30(4) and enacting a new Section 17.30(5) Nuisance
Party Regulations as follows:
Sec. 17.30. NUISANCE PARTY REGULATIONS.
***
“(4) Except on dates specified by an Enhanced Penalties For Nuisance Parties
Resolution of City Council, violation of this section shall be a municipal infraction punishable by
a penalty of $100 for a person’s first violation thereof and $200 for each repeat violation.
Alternatively, violation of this section can be charged by a peace officer of the City as a simple
misdemeanor.
(5) The City Council may establish by Resolution enhanced penalties for nuisance
parties occurring on certain specified dates. A violation of this section during the effective dates
of an Enhanced Penalties For Nuisance Parties Resolution shall be a municipal infraction with a
fine of $650 for the first violation, and $855 for each repeat violation. Alternatively, violation of
this section can be charged by a peace officer of the City as a simple misdemeanor with a fine of
$650 for the first violation and $855 for each repeat violation.”
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a municipal
infraction punishable as set out by law.
Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
______________________________________ _______________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor