HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - October 25, 2022AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL
OCTOBER 25, 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 agenda item is that the motion is placed on the floor, input is
received from the audience, the Council is given an opportunity to comment on the issue or respond
to the audience concerns, and the vote is taken. On ordinances, there is time provided for public
input at the time of the first reading.
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving Minutes of Regular Meeting on October 11, 2022
3. Motion approving Change Orders for period October 1-15, 2022
4. Motion approving new Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales – Staybridge Suites Ames,
2111 Isaac Newton Drive Pending Dram Shop Insurance
5. Motion approving Premise Update – Inside Golf, LLC Class C Liquor License with Sunday
Sales – 2801 Grand Avenue, Suites 1040, 1045, 1075 & 1085, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
6. Motion approving Ownership Update – Target Store T-1170 Class E Liquor License, Class C
Beer Permit, Class B Wine Permit with Sunday Sales – 320 S Duff Avenue
7. Motion approving request from ISU Homecoming Central Committee for Fireworks Permit
for display from ISU Central Campus at midnight on Friday November 4, 2022, for Mass
Campaniling
8. Computerized Maintenance Management Software
a. Motion waiving Purchasing Policies and Procedures requirement for competitive bids
b. Resolution awarding 3-Year contract to Limble Solutions, LLC, Lehi, Utah in the amount
of $88,200
9. Resolution approving Encroachment Permit Agreement for Awning at 317 Main Street
10. Resolution approving renewed 28E Agreement for Tobacco, Alternative Nicotine, and Vapor
Product Enforcement between the Police Department and the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages
Division
11. Resolution approving Purchase Order in the amount of $135,000 to SCS Engineers of Clive,
Iowa to provide consulting services for City’s Steam Electric Plant’s Ash Site necessary to
comply with U.S. EPA’s Coal Combustion Residuals Rule (CCR)
12. Resolution approving Plat of Survey for 3600 University Boulevard
2
13. Resolution re-approving the grant agreement with Iowa Finance Authority for Moore
Memorial West Land in the amount of $61,500
14. Resolution approving quarterly investment report for period ending September 30, 2022
15. Resolution approving and adopting Supplement No. 2022-4 to the Ames Municipal Code
16. Resolution setting the date for the sale of General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series
2022A and authorizing the use of a preliminary official statement in connection therewith
17. Resolution approving Final Completion of 2021/22 Traffic Signal Program – S. 4th &
University
18. Resolution approving Final Completion of 2020/21 City Hall Parking Lot Expansion
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.
ADMINSTRATION:
19. Discussion on Naming the Downtown Plaza
PLANNING AND HOUSING:
20. Motion directing staff on how to proceed regarding The Linc Development Project
21. Staff Report on Urban Fringe Plan
22. Staff Report on Front Yard Parking and Driveway Standards
PUBLIC WORKS:
23. Presentation of Findings of Grand Avenue Intersections Improvement Study
24. Staff Report on Stange Road Pedestrian Improvements
ELECTRIC:
25. Resolution approving Reimbursement Agreement Addendum with IDOT for relocation of
161kV electric line for the IDOT 1-35 Improvement Project
HEARINGS:
26. Hearing on Ames-Ankeny 161 kV Transmission Line Relocation IDOT I-35
a. Resolution awarding contract to Primoris Electric, Inc., Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota
for the relocation of 161kV Transmission Line from Ames Plant to NE Ankeny in the
amount of $2,171,669.20
27. Hearing on Nuisance Assessment:
a. Resolution assessing costs of noxious weed removal and certifying assessment to Story
Treasurer
28. Hearing on Rezoning of 3700-5898 E. Lincoln Way, 799 Teller Avenue, and 220 & 420 S.
Avenue Agricultural (A) to Intensive Industrial (II)
3
a. First passage of Ordinance
ORDINANCES:
29. First passage of Ordinance Amending Section 24.18 for the boundary of the Ames 5th Tax
Increment Financing District (ISU Research Park Phase III)
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
CLOSED SESSION:
30. Motion to hold Closed Session as provided by Section 20.17(3), Code of Iowa, to discuss
collective bargaining strategy.
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as
provided by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 11, 2022
The regular meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:01
p.m. on the 11th day of October, 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, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins. Ex officio Member Bryce Garman was also
present. Council Member Gloria Betcher was absent.
PROCLAMATION FOR “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK: Mayor Haila proclaimed the week
of October 9-15, 2022, as Fire Prevention week. Deputy Fire Chief Karen Tapper accepted the
proclamation alongside Shift Commander Nick Lucchesi, Firefighter Chris Osborne, Firefighter
Dan Thie, Firefighter Adam Wuebker, and Firefighter Ashley Culp. Deputy Chief Tapper
announced that the Fire Station #1, 1300 Burnett Avenue, Open House would be held on Saturday,
October 15, 2022 from 9:00 a.m. until noon and encouraged everyone to attend the event.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila pulled Item No. 15 per staff request and Council Member
Gartin pulled Item No. 19 for staff to provide a report.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to approve the consent agenda less Item No. 15
and Item No. 19.
2. Motion approving payment of claims and revenues
3. Motion approving Minutes of Regular Meeting on September 27, 2022
4. Motion approving Report of Change Order for period September 16-30, 2022
5. Motion approving new 5-Day (November 3-7, 2022) Class C Liquor License – Christiani’s
Events, L.L.C., 2601 East 13th Street, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
6. Motion approving new 5-Day (October 20-24, 2022) Special Class C Liquor License – The
Ames Foundation, 123 Airport Road
7. Motion approving new 5-Day (November 5-9, 2022) Class C Liquor License – Gateway Hotel
& Conference Center, 1800 Christensen Drive, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
8. Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor
Licenses
a. Class E Liquor License with Sunday Sales – Target Store T-1170, 320 S. Duff Avenue
9. RESOLUTION NO. 22-531 approving the Sponsored Research Agreement between Iowa
State University and the City of Ames, Amendment #1 Revised, in the amount of $29,232
10. RESOLUTION NO. 22-532 authorizing staff to sign a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and accept a sub-award
in partnership with Iowa State University Environmental Health and Safety for the purchase
of radiological testing equipment and training
11. RESOLUTION NO. 22-533 approving Change Order No. 1 to Metro Waste Authority, Des
Moines, Iowa, in the amount of $145,000 for tipping fees for ash disposal for Power Plant
2
12. RESOLUTION NO. 22-534 approving Change Order No. 2 to Black & Veatch Corporation,
Overland Park, Kansas, in the amount not-to-exceed $46,200 for additional Engineering
Services for Unit 8 Precipitator Insulation & Lagging
13. RESOLUTION NO. 22-535 approving Change Order No. 9 to SCS Engineers of Clive, Iowa,
in the amount of $63,720 to provide engineering and related services necessary to comply
with U.S. EPA’s CCR regulation’s annual and periodic five-year requirements pertaining to
the City of Ames Steam Electric Plant’s ash site
14. RESOLUTION NO. 22-536 awarding contract to Rural Electric Supply (RESCO) of Ankeny,
Iowa, for the one-time purchase of Electric Services Transformers based on unit prices and
quantities ordered in the amount of $133,097.09, inclusive of applicable sales taxes
15. Computerized Maintenance Management Software
a. Motion waiving Purchasing Policies and Procedures requirement for competitive bids
b. Resolution awarding 3-Year contract to Limble Solutions, LLC, Lehi, Utah in the amount
of $88,200
16. RESOLUTION NO. 22-537 awarding contract to Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Bloomfield,
Colorado, for GT1 Blackstart Load Bank Testing Project in the amount of $76,911.87
17. RESOLUTION NO. 22-538 awarding contract to Motion Industries, Ankeny, Iowa, for
Tapered Bushing Reducer for Electric Services in the amount of $59,468.47 (inclusive of Iowa
Sales Tax)
18. RESOLUTION NO. 22-539 approving contract and bond for 2021/22 Water System
Improvements Program (US Highway 69: S Duff-Grand Avenue)
19. 2021/22 Shared Use Path System Expansion (Ioway Creek):
a. RESOLUTION NO. 22-540 approving final plans and specifications
b. Motion rejecting all bids and directing staff to re-bid
20. 2021/22 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (Ames High School and Veenker Golf):
a. Motion accepting report of bids
b. RESOLUTION NO. 22-541 approving final plans and specifications
c. RESOLUTION NO. 22-542 awarding contract to Municipal Pipe Tool Co. LLC of
Hudson, Iowa, in the amount of $3,791,558.69
21. RESOLUTION NO. 22-543 approving Final Plat for 2108 E Lincoln Way (Fedeler
Subdivision)
22. RESOLUTION NO. 22-544 accepting final completion of the Water Treatment Plant Remote
Site Radio and PLC Upgrades
23. RESOLUTION NO. 22-545 accepting final completion of the contract for the Transmission
Modifications at SE 16th Street and S. Duff Avenue Intersection by IES Commercial,
Holdredge, Nebraska
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion/Resolutions declared carried/adopted, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
2021/22 SHARED USE PATH SYSTEM EXPANSION (IOWAY CREEK): Council Member
Gartin stated that this item is a great project that deserves attention and asked Public Works
Director John Joiner to provide a report. Director Joiner noted that the project is funded by a
program through the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) that sets a Disadvantaged
3
Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal. The low bidder had a DBE commitment of 1% while the IDOT’s
goal for the project was 3%. After review, the low bid was determined non-responsive and the
IDOT plans to re-bid the project in the future.
Director Joiner noted that the shared use path system is planned to connect on the north side of
Ioway Creek near the wellfield access road and runs west following Ioway Creek, under Duff to
Walnut Avenue and South Fifth Street. He clarified that the shared use path will be paved.
Council Member Gartin asked if the re-bid would delay the project timeline. Director Joiner replied
in the negative, noting that the project is planned for spring construction.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-540 approving the final
plans and specifications for this project and rejecting the 2021/22 Shared Use Path System
Expansion for Ioway Creek bids, directing staff to re-bid the project through a future Iowa
Department of Transportation bid letting.
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened and closed the Public Forum when no one came forward
to speak.
PRESENTATION OF 2022 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS: Susan
Gwiasda, Public Relations Officer, presented the findings of the 2022 Resident Satisfaction
Survey. She highlighted that this is the 40th year of the survey and that the results help guide the
budgeting process, which kicks off on November 1st, 2022 with the Town Budget Meeting. She
emphasized that the survey is a snapshot in time, though it is statistically significant.
Ms. Gwiasda shared that the results of the survey were consistent with prior years; however, one
concerning element was the survey responses regarding community engagement, which were
significantly lower. She explained that there is a challenge in doing outreach and education, but
staff continually looks at tools for reaching people.
Council Member Gartin asked if the survey information based on longitudinal data had ever been
measured against peer communities. Ms. Gwiasda replied that staff had not but would be happy to
explore it further.
Council Member Junck inquired about the non-student versus student categories and potential
overlap in the data. Ms. Gwiasda noted that there is demographic data collected in the survey that
clarifies if respondents are full-time students, and that data is investigated as part of the analysis,
as there is overlap.
The certainty of response was questioned by Mayor Haila, who asked for further explanation. Ms.
Gwiasda reviewed that there is a 95% confidence level with a +/- 4.52% margin of error. This
means that staff is 95% confident that the questions are within +/- 4.52% of the results if all
residents participated in the study. She emphasized that the survey is statically significant and that
4
the statisticians with Iowa State University Institute for Design Research and Outreach complete
the analysis of the survey, which is then reviewed by City staff for the overall themes and ideas.
Mayor Haila expressed his concern in seeing the precipitous drop in terms of people being
informed or concerns about issues in the community. He noted that education and communication
are recurring issues and wondered if that is simply due to declining interest. Ms. Gwiasda agreed
that community engagement was a surprising statistic and noted that it would be monitored by
staff.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE LINC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Planning and
Housing Director Kelly Diekmann presented the outline of the development agreement for the
mixed-use project now known as the Linc with Planner Julie Gould. The City of Ames has
identified the area along Lincoln Way between Clark and Kellogg (300 and 400 Blocks) as a
priority area for redevelopment as part of the Downtown Gateway Focus Area within the Lincoln
Way Corridor Plan. Director Diekmann emphasized that the Linc is a key component of the City’s
Downtown Reinvestment District application that was submitted to the state in February of 2022.
The proposed project would generate sales and hotel/motel tax receipts rebated by the state to the
City of Ames, in amounts up to $10 million over 20 years as part of the Reinvestment District.
Director Diekmann clarified that the agreement does not use the Reinvestment District funds for
the developer’s benefit, but the funds would rather support the construction of other projects
including the Downtown Plaza and the Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center.
The concept drawing was presented by Director Diekmann. The proposed Linc project includes a
hotel and conference center, plaza, structured parking, commercial uses on the ground level of
mixed-use buildings, office uses, and apartments. He noted that other key elements of the
development included a parking structure to the north as well as a pedestrian bridge, which would
be off-site elements. He reviewed the phases of development, highlighting that Phase 1 includes:
• Boutique Hotel with a 15,000 square
foot conference center
• Hotel Restaurant
• South Parking Structure
• Outdoor Plaza
• Mixed Use Building (Building A)
• Frontage and Utility Improvements
• Abandonment of City Well on
Gilchrist
• Vacation of Public Alley right-of-
way adjacent to Kellogg
Director Diekmann emphasized that in Phase 1, the intent would be to complete improvements on
Lincoln Way and Kellogg Avenue where the travel lanes are widened on Lincoln Way to allow
for parallel parking in addition to wider sidewalks. The goal would be to make a commercially
viable street frontage with access for customers as well as improving the bicycle and pedestrian
environment by limiting curb cuts.
Phase 2 of the project completes the on-site portion of the development. The Phase includes:
• Office Building (Building C)
• Outdoor Plaza Extension
• Mixed Use Residential Building
(Building B)
5
• Additional Parking • Frontage and Utility Improvements as
needed
Director Diekmann explained the off-site elements, which include the north parking structure and
pedestrian bridge, cannot be committed to at this time, which is why they are not included in the
Development Agreement. He emphasized that both City staff and the Developer desire the off-site
elements to realize the overall vision of the proposed project, but those will have to come back to
the City Council after construction has begun.
The agreement as it is presented to the City Council uses the fundamentals of the valuation of the
buildings, which are predicated on the amount of square footage or units, to presume the terms of
the agreement. Director Diekmann explained that the approval of the plan will occur in the future
when staff has more precise information, for which the City Council will be the review authority.
Director Diekmann reviewed the terms of the agreement regarding sales tax generating uses and
Tax Increment Financing (TIF), noting that there are performance deadlines for the Developer
based on the Reinvestment District standards. He explained the construction of the hotel
conference center will establish the commencement date for generating hotel/motel and sales tax
receipts that will be returned to the City from the State, as the 20-year time limit to receive the
Reinvestment District funds begins with the completion of the hotel, regardless of what other
construction is completed for the project. It is proposed in the agreement for construction to begin
no later than January 1, 2024 and is completed by October 1, 2025. Director Diekmann stated the
key phrase in the agreement states that not only is construction complete, but the hotel is operating
by October 1, 2025.
Each of the buildings in the proposed development are required to have a minimum assessment
agreement, which serve as the foundation for the projected additional tax increment that could be
generated by the project over 20 years. Director Diekmann noted that if the valuations are greater,
that would mean that the increment is generated quicker, and the amount is paid off faster. He
reviewed the TIF is capped at the total value amount or 20 years, whichever occurs first.
Another key goal of the development is to create a mixed-use commercial space that is viable and
active, explained Director Diekmann. In the agreement, it is required that at least 70% of the
commercial space is filled with a sales tax generating use. Performance of this requirement is
necessary to continue to receive the requested TIF incentive. The proposed agreement also
includes construction of the North Parking Ramp as a public improvement financed with TIF. The
agreement specifies that the City’s need for TIF will supersede the developer rebate.
Director Diekmann discussed the features of the north parking structure and pedestrian ramp,
discussing the different factors that play into funding and construction. He emphasized the north
parking structure is estimated to have fewer total spaces than anticipated and a higher cost due to
typical outcomes of public bidding projects, though it would be a feature of the project managed
and financed by the City of Ames. He clarified construction of Phase 2 of the project would not be
6
withheld if construction of the north parking structure and pedestrian bridge was unable to move
forward.
The utility issues were addressed by Director Diekmann. He noted that the City of Ames has a
well on Gilchrist Street for which the Developer would reimburse the City for the cost of
abandoning the water well, demolishing the well building, and acquiring of vacated alley right-of-
way. He furthered that the Developer would reimburse Ames Electric Services for all expenses
related to the relocation of underground of transmission lines along Gilchrist Street that would be
needed to support the development of the project. He discussed the alley on the south side of
Gilchrist Street, noting that the alley would need to be vacated and the City will transfer ownership
to the Developer subject to limitations of Iowa Code. Director Diekmann emphasized that the City
is not taking on any additional utility costs as part of this project.
Director Diekmann discussed the miscellaneous terms of the agreement. He presented the terms
relating to sustainability, noting that there were two available options. The first option is to design
all buildings in Phase 1 at 20% more efficient than the current energy code and Phase 2 at 25%
more efficient. The Developer could choose as an alternative to design the Hotel building in Phase
1 to a LEED Gold level and the Office Building in Phase 2 to a LEED Gold Level. LEED is a
nationally recognized sustainable building program administered by the US Green Bui lding
Council that is a whole systems approach to reducing environmental impacts related to energy,
water, materials, etc. The Developer has agreed to design buildings to meet these standards and
perform commissioning of the completed buildings for verification, but they will not be formally
registered with the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). As an addition, City staff proposed to
limit the use of natural gas in an effort to support a Net Zero Ready building design. The Developer
supports use of electric in residential units but has not fully committed to no natural gas in relation
to heating and cooling as they evaluate the feasibility to do so. The Developer notes the feasibility
of geothermal is unknown due to the project’s location above the aquifer and their experience of
an electric only service for buildings of this size.
Relating to affordable housing, Director Diekmann shared that City affordable housing efforts are
focused on 60% Average Median Income (AMI) or lower household incomes to fill needs the
market does not typically address. Although the applicant would consider these lower income
levels, the pro forma estimates for the apartment units do not financially support 60% AMI without
additional TIF. At this time there is no additional TIF available to further subsidize rents to the
60% AMI level based on the other priorities identified for the project. The Developer has agreed
to include a provision for a 10% set aside serving 70% AMI households. At 70% of AMI, the rents
would be somewhat lower than fair market value, but not to the levels of low-income limits.
Director Diekmann discussed the billboards on the property and the need for relocation. The
agreement outlines that the Developer is obligated to relocate those billboards. The operator of the
billboards, Lamar Advertising, has indicated that if a suitable location and allowance for a digital
billboard were available in the City, it would consent to early termination of the lease on this site.
7
City Manager Steven Schainker stressed that staff is not looking for the City Council to provide
direction on this item at the meeting tonight. He stated that this is the most significant project the
City has partnered on with the largest incentive ever offered. He said that he wants to make sure
staff is being transparent to the public and answer any questions before asking the City Council to
provide direction at the October 25th, 2022, meeting. Director Diekmann also noted an amendment
to the Urban Renewal Plan would be needed in the case of this agreement to increase the TIF
allowance to cover all the identified uses of TIF, though the amendment would not change any of
the authorities within the plan.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked for an explanation of the street frontage as there were many
residents that were not supportive of the Union project in Campustown, and she is concerned with
the bicycle and pedestrian offerings. Director Diekmann explained the Lincoln Way Corridor plan
emphasizes bicycle and pedestrian improvements because Lincoln Way does not have a conducive
environment for those activities as it currently stands. He discussed the importance of available
parking in front of the commercial spaces at the Linc while still limiting the amount of driveway
access off Lincoln Way. He reviewed that the design of the development does not change the lanes
but replaces the existing sidewalk with parallel parking and adds a 10-foot sidewalk to the front of
the buildings. Director Diekmann shared that through this design, staff and the Developer believe
the Linc will be an appealing commercial destination.
Council Member Gartin asked if there was a possibility of using rooftop solar on the parking
structures or other buildings. Director Diekmann replied that it is unknown as of now, though it is
conceptually possible and could be evaluated in the future when financing is better understood.
Council Member Gartin asked about what it means for the buildings to be net-zero ready and
wondered if the mechanics to add solar would already be incorporated. Director Diekmann noted
that it would be something for staff and the Developer to investigate and discuss; however, it has
not been evaluated at this point.
Council Member Gartin asked clarifying questions regarding the north parking structure. Director
Diekmann explained staff estimates approximately 200 spaces total for the ground level and one
elevated level of a deck. The structure would be designed to support two additional levels to
expand capacity to 400+ parking spaces. Council Member Gartin shared his concern for the
expense. City Manager Schainker clarified that the off-site project would be better outlined after
construction for Phase 2 of the project began, as there are a lot of discussions that must take place
to understand what type of parking is needed to support the development.
Council Member Gartin discussed the details of the Outdoor Plaza and wondered what events are
proposed for the space. Director Diekmann explained the Outdoor Plaza will be designed with
green spaces to succeed with any type of entertainment-related activity, but noted that it would be
under purview of the Developer as to what types of events they choose to host. Council Member
Gartin asked about how the stormwater would be addressed in this project. Director Diekmann
explained that the level of design pertaining to stormwater had not been discussed yet.
8
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked when the feasibility of geothermal will be known. Director
Diekmann clarified that the feasibility will be known by the time that the major site development
plan would be submitted.
Mayor Haila opened the Public Input.
Chuck Winkleblack, Hunziker and Associates, 105 South 16th Street, Ames, shared the history of
the Linc Development, noting that in 2016, Hunziker and Associates sent out the first letters of
intent and began acquiring the parcels of land that would make up the development. During this
time the company helped relocate over twenty businesses. In 2018, Hunziker and Associates
worked with the City of Ames on the Lincoln Way Corridor Plan and the rezoning that followed.
He mentioned that in 2019, they assisted with another rezoning for the relocation of Starbucks
before progress came to a halt due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Post pandemic, Hunziker and
Associates reengaged with the project through market research and contacting stakeholders that
had expressed interest. Mr. Winkleblack noted the last year and a half of the project had been
dedicated to working with the Ames Main Street District and the Ames Economic Development
Commission. All these events led to this point, where the company is ready to discuss what they
believe to be a catalytic and transformational project for the Ames community. He shared that
Hunziker and Associates have been in contact with hoteliers, office users, retailers, and
restaurateurs who have all expressed an encouraging level of interest in the project. Mr.
Winkleblack stated that with the approval of the conceptual agreement, Hunziker and Associates
will move forward with contracts for the actual spaces within the development. He discussed the
magnitude of the project and the approximate project timeline, while also highlighting ways the
company could investigate sustainability in each phase of the project. He also reviewed the details
of the parking structures as well as the tax revenue that would be generated and the benefit it will
have to the City of Ames. He emphasized that the City Council would not be asked to budget any
part of the Capital Improvements Project budget to the development of the Linc, highlighting the
use of minimum assessment agreements. He furthered that the Linc will provide an opportunity to
retain residents and create a vibrant community for young people, noting that the proximity to
downtown is crucial to the project. Mr. Winkleblack concluded the Linc will be an asset to the
community that will provide additional attraction to the community.
Dylan Klein, Ames Economic Development Commission, 304 Main Street, Ames, stated that the
Linc is a fantastic project and voiced the Commission’s enthusiastic support. He expressed this
opportunity provides local benefits that will increase business attraction. He shared that business
attraction is his primary role with the Commission and the proposed project has already paid
dividends as a marketing tool for attraction of businesses to Ames of all different sizes. He
expressed the added housing downtown is integral in attracting businesses and will be something
that the people of Ames will be very excited about. Mr. Klein noted that the project is a once-in-
a-generation opportunity that will change the landscape of downtown literally and figuratively
while providing amenities that will continue to attract people and businesses to the Ames area. He
also noted how important it is that people will have the opportunity to spend their dollars in Ames,
which will be a tremendous economic impact that he believes should be held in perspective.
9
Mayor Haila closed the Public Input when no one else came forward to speak.
City Manager Schainker noted that the City Council will be asked to make a motion on how to
proceed at the October 25, 2022, meeting. He stated that over the next few weeks, City staff and
the Developer will move expeditiously though the process to finalize the agreement. He furthered
that staff also wants the public to be aware of the project and encouraged anyone with questions
or concerns to contact the City Manager’s Office or the Planning and Housing Department . To
conclude, Mr. Schainker shared this project will accomplish a unified mixed-use development that
will be catalytic for the downtown area and is in line with the direction of the Lincoln Way Corridor
Plan.
NORTH DAYTON INDUSTRIAL PARK: Planner Justin Moore presented the preliminary plat
for the North Dayton Industrial Park, 2105 and 2421 North Dayton Avenue. Mr. Moore provided
an orientation for the site, explaining that the 72.99 acres of land will include ten lots planned for
industrial development with five lots below three acres in size and the other five below eleven
acres in size. The Preliminary Plat includes two outlots which include Outlot A (6.27 acres) and
Outlot B (11.78 acres) for the treatment and detention of stormwater and wetland protection. The
access to these lots will be directly from Bailey Avenue, which will have access off North Dayton
Avenue at two points. Lots 10 and 11 are proposed to be ‘through lots’ located between Dayton
Avenue and Bailey Avenue. Utilities will be extended into the subdivision including water,
sanitary sewer, and electrical lines. Water and Sanitary Sewer will serve all lots from along Bailey
Avenue.
The stormwater plan for the development was reviewed by Planner Moore and he noted that the
majority of the site will have runoff diverted to a large detention pond located at the southwest
corner of the site before it is released to the west. Water quality and quantity controls are included
primarily within the ponds. Mr. Moore discussed that representatives of the Izaac Walton League
expressed concerns regarding the release location of stormwater and how it would affect their
property to the west. Staff has worked with the Developer’s engineer to design a system that allows
a release of water towards the Izaac Walton League site marsh for 1-year storm event rainfalls,
approximately 2.5 inches of rain. Larger storm events are controlled by the stormwater system and
routed to the treatment pond. Council Member Gartin noted people are often surprised that
development improves surface water flow and asked about what improvements this stormwater
plan would create for the surrounding area. Municipal Engineer Tracy Peterson explained the
existing water quality and directions of water flow. She discussed ways in which the Developer
has altered the site plan to minimize negative impacts to the natural resources to Izaak Walton
League’s property.
Planner Moore continued with an explanation of the conditions of the Preliminary Plat,
highlighting the layout of the proposed subdivision does not include a final extension of sanitary
sewer to the north, approximately 300 feet of pipe length. The initial proposal considered a waiver
request of the subdivision standards due to the use of TIF for financi ng the infrastructure and
10
limited utility of the extension based upon the existing use to the north and no further planned
expansion. Mr. Moore discussed that City staff conditioned the Preliminary Plat includes an
extension of the Sanitary Sewer line to the north with public improvement plans. He noted that the
other condition requires to update the final stormwater management plan to reflect the approved
stormwater design and obtain Army Corps of Engineers wetland fill permit prior to approval by
the City for grading.
Mayor Haila noted that Lot 2 and Lot 3 show disturbed wetland along the west property line and
asked staff to identify the adjacent property owner’s concern of the water at those locations.
Engineer Peterson explained the information she has received had been regarding the natural
resources and waterways that are going through the adjacent property owner’s land. The adjacent
property owner has great care for their water quality, and they do not want to be impacted by a
change of water quality, explained Ms. Peterson. She discussed the concern with the original
design of the development, highlighting the efforts of the Developer to keep the drainage patterns
and ensure stormwater is cleaned. She went on to review extreme flood events with relation to
limiting erosion to waterway, detailing the need for a storm water basin where the water can be
controlled and detained to maintain regular water flow to the west. Mayor Haila asked if a
successful resolution has been achieved to accomplish everyone’s objectives. Engineer Peterson
replied in the negative, but highlighted that as presented, the stormwater management plan is
approvable through the City of Ames Stormwater Management Ordinance, though the Army Corps
of Engineers permit may come back with additional conditions that would be address as part of
the Final Plat.
The City Council and Mayor discussed stormwater management and addressed the concerns of the
adjacent property owner with staff before Mayor Haila opened the Public Input.
Paul Reedhead, 1200 Ridgewood Avenue, Ames, Ames Chapter of the Izaak Walton League
Board of Directors, referenced the letter sent to the City Council by Gene Nosco, who is also a
member of the Izaak Walton League, which detailed the concerns the League has. He highlighted
the issues of water quality and water flow were addressed by staff through a report by Bolton and
Menk. He stated the report did not contain information that was particularly valuable to the League,
nor did it directly address their concerns. Mr. Reedhead elaborated that for water quality their
concerns were the north and south drainage areas with the third drainage area though the middle
of the development. He noted that the third drainage point ran diagonally the detention basin that
holds approximately six-acre feet of water. He stated that the League does not want too much or
too little water on their property, as they have their own lake. Mr. Reedhead furthered that the
excessive runoff from the property when it was agricultural land had been mitigated; however, the
League is concerned about oil, salt, and particulate matter in the water. He discussed the vortex
trap that was proposed to clean the water and shared his unconvinced opinion on the idea. He
shared there is nothing else the development can do to mitigate the elements in the central
waterway, noting that the League is going to disagree with how the development is proposed.
11
Engineer Peterson discussed the discharge points that Mr. Reedhead mentioned and walked
through the details of the hydrodynamic separator, highlighting to the City Council the efforts of
the Developer to mitigate any potential issues.
Steve Buck, 217 26th Street, Ames, mentioned that he is a member of the Izaak Walton League
and presented the history of the conservation efforts on their land. He shared that eliminating the
use of the farmland will greatly reduce nitrogen phosphates and silt, which has been a major
problem for the League over the decades. He said that his concern with the adjoining property is
that water was previously able to flow onto their site from multiple access points that is proposed
to be cut down to two. Mr. Buck discussed the effects of the major rain events in 2015 and the
factors that the League considered when cleaning up the damage. He said that with the proposed
development, the League has a lot to be concerned about, considering what water is coming on to
their land and how fast.
Mayor Haila asked if Mr. Buck was pleased that the nitrogen phosphates and silt were being
eliminated. Mr. Buck replied in the affirmative, noting that the water quality and drainage were of
concern to the League. Mayor Haila asked if the water to the lake on the property all came from
surface level. Mr. Buck replied in the affirmative.
Chuck Winkleblack, Hunziker and Associates, 105 South 16th Street, Ames, shared the company
has a good history of working with neighbors to try to resolve problems that come up with a
solution that works for everyone. He discussed their efforts to find a resolution in this situation,
highlighting that the Preliminary Plat is compliant with City code and contingent on the Army
Corps of Engineers permit to delineate the wetlands.
Greg Broussard, Bolton and Menk, 1519 Baltimore Drive, Ames, noted that he is the engineer on
the project for Hunziker and Associates. He discussed the technical background of the engineering
of the site to maintain the water to the adjacent property, highlighted that there are four points
where water flows off the site with Outlot B and three drainage channels, which will keep the Izaak
Walton League facilities the same as they are today. He dove into more detail surrounding the
hydrodynamic separators, noting that though they are cost prohibitive, they work efficiently in
pulling particulate matter from the water.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked how often the hydrodynamic separators need cleaning and
who would be responsible for it. Mr. Broussard replied that the cleaning of the separators really
depends on the amount and type of debris coming from the property. Mr. Winkleblack explained
that the Developer is establishing a Property Owners Association that will pay dues to maintain
the costs of the water quality. Engineer Peterson added the Developer will receive annual
reminders from the City staff to do maintenance.
Mr. Broussard discussed the pond sizing and release rate in a further explanation of the stormwater
management design. He confirmed the pond is large enough to hold off all the necessary water so
12
the release rate to the adjacent property is equal to that of a prairie. Mr. Broussard reviewed the
water discharge points and where controlled releases will be located to manage large storms.
Mayor Haila asked Mr. Broussard to comment on dissolved salts. Mr. Broussard noted that it
would be something the engineers would have to investigate when evaluating hydrodynamic
separators.
The City Council and Mayor discussed the concerns expressed with staff, evaluating the
responsibility of the City Council when considering approval of the Preliminary Plat. City staff
affirmed that the plat is compliant with the Stormwater Management Ordinance and was
approvable as presented with the conditions outlined.
Mayor Haila closed the Public Input when no one else came forward to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-546 approving
Preliminary Plat for North Dayton Industrial Park, 2105 & 2421 Dayton Avenue, with the
conditions: A) To include an extension of the Sanitary Sewer line to the north with public
improvement plans and the final plat; and B) To update the final stormwater management plan to
reflect the Approved Stormwater design and obtain Army Corps of Engineers wetland fill permit
prior to approval by the City for grading and final plat.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Director Diekmann presented the Tax Increment Financing Agreement for the North Dayton
Industrial Park, 2105 and 2421 North Dayton Avenue. The TIF agreement rebates the Developer
for the costs of installing public infrastructure to provide for a subdivision that will have half of its
lots designed for small industrial businesses on lots less than three acres in size and a commitment
to build speculative industrial buildings.
The Developer has agreed to install all water, sanitary sewer, public storm sewer, street paving
and associated improvements to City standards within the next year along with obtaining approval
of a final plat. The Developer will provide five small lots and five large lots and agrees to the
design standards for all buildings in the subdivision included with the TIF Development
Agreement. The public improvements to be financed with the TIF rebate do not include any costs
related to potential connection fees for the existing 12-inch water main. Director Diekmann noted
that staff is recommending approval of the agreement.
Mayor Haila opened and closed the Public Input when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-547 approving Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) Development Agreement with Dayton Avenue Development LLC for
North Dayton Industrial Park, 2105 & 2421 Dayton Avenue.
13
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE WHOLESALE
TRADE AND DISPLAY STORE PARKING RATE: Planner Justin Moore presented the staff
report, noting that FOX Strand requested a Zoning Text Amendment on behalf of a regional
furniture client to reduce the current parking requirement for a Furniture Store from one space per
500 square feet of floor area to one space per 625 square feet. He highlighted that staff found two
options to address this request.
Option 1 would reduce the required parking rate for Display Stores by 20%. Display stores can
have large areas with lower customer counts compared to typical personal goods retailers such as
Target or J.C. Penney. The current rate of one space per 500 square feet reflects this expectation
compared to general retail at one space per 300 square feet. Reducing the Display Store rate by
20% would likely be at the lower end of typical ranges for such a use, but if a store desires more
parking, it would be allowed to construct additional parking.
Option 2 would create a new generally applicable reduction for uses exceeding 100 or more
parking spaces. Under this option staff, proposed creating a possible reduction for all commercial
or industrial uses that exceed 100 parking stalls. The reduction would allow for the Planning
Director to waive up to 20% of the total required parking stalls, but not less than 100 spaces.
Planner Moore noted that one of the benefits to this option is that it reduces impervious space and
is a more comprehensive approach, which is why staff recommends Option 2.
Council Member Junck asked if there would be any situations in which the Planning Director
would not want to wave the 20% or if this would be applied as a standard. Director Diekmann
shared that it has not been written out or pieced into the code at this point, but the intent would not
be to have criteria; rather, the request would be granted unless there is something that staff needs
to safeguard against. Council Member Rollins asked for clarification on the amendment applying
only to non-residential properties. Director Diekmann replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Haila opened the Public Input.
Chuck Winkleblack, Hunziker and Associates, 105 South 16th Street, Ames, discussed that as a
developer the only request he receives more often than Olive Garden is a furniture store and shared
how the parking change will positively impact the development. He shared that the community
has been without a furniture store for almost 25 years and urged the City Council to approve the
Text Amendment to remove the barrier for development.
Council Member Gartin asked Mr. Winkleblack for his professional opinion as a developer on the
two options presented to the City Council, as he has noticed that there are many parking areas in
Ames that are underutilized. Mr. Winkleblack noted that many developments in town have a sea
of parking that is only filled a few days each calendar year. He shared his support for Option 2, as
14
he believes it is better for our community to utilize what could be green space in parking sites and
trusts the discretion of the Planning Director. He also shared that he would hope the Text
Amendment would allow for more efficient use of parking sites for larger properties. Director
Diekmann agreed with Mr. Winkleblack’s statement, noting that the density of employees for
industrial developments varies greatly and this amendment would benefit industrial users as well.
Mayor Haila closed the Public Input when no one else came forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Option 2: Create a new generally
applicable reduction for uses exceeding 100 or more parking spaces.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT HOME OCCUPATION:
Planner Benjamin Campbell presented the staff report, highlighting that earlier this year, Governor
Reynolds signed into law House File 2431, which pertains “to the regulation of home-based
businesses.” The Ames Zoning Ordinance refers to home-based businesses as home occupations,
which are otherwise the same. The new regulations preempt certain local laws and limit how a city
can regulate home-based businesses, principally regarding “no-impact” businesses. In order to
continue to apply standards to home based occupations, the City must modify its zoning standards
to comply with state law.
The new state law does not allow cities to regulate home-based businesses by use, with some
exceptions, but does allow them to regulate by intensity of use and potential impacts to a
neighborhood, including parking on the street and any noise, odor, or pollution emanating from
the property in question. The state law defines a “no-impact home-based business” as one that,
essentially, is operated within a building or in a yard out of view from surr oundings and does not
create any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood or surrounding properties. If a
business is classified as no-impact home-based business, the City of Ames may not require any
permit or other review. If the City receives complaints about the no-impact home-based business,
staff can investigate to see if the use is complying with the state criteria pertaining to impacts and
intensity of use. Under the new law, cities may still require permits for home occupations that are
not no-impact home-based businesses.
After consultation with the City Attorney and the Inspections Division, staff believes that
adjustments to our approach can be made to continue to apply regulations to home occupations.
New standards would have to address the state law requirements and provide performance
thresholds to assess impacts to a neighborhood, but many of the criteria could carry over.
Mayor Haila opened the Public Input.
Richard Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, discussed his own informal home-based business where
he takes donations for t-shirts and buttons. He expressed his concern for shopping at large retailers
where it does not seem as though the companies care to have him as a customer.
15
Mayor Haila closed the Public Input when no one else came forward to speak.
Council Member Gartin stated that the State of Iowa, which believes the best and most responsive
government is the closest one, does not apply that philosophy to City governments. He noted that
he is astounded by the boldness of the state legislature to continue to interfere with home rule.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked what the motivation was for the state to move forward with
this legislation. Director Diekmann stated that he was unaware of the exact reasoning, but his
research indicated that the intent was to not allow the government to restrict a person’s ability to
use their home to generate a secondary income, as many people have started to work from home.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to approve Option 1: Allow Home Occupations by
Right Subject to Performance Criteria.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON POWER PLANT RENOVATIONS PROJECT: Electric Services Director
Don Kom was present for questions.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to receive the Report of Bids and reject all bids.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila noted that there were
two items for consideration by the City Council. The first was an email from Sondra Wilson
requesting a policy regarding gardening spaces for renters. Council Member Gartin noted that he
replied to Ms. Wilson’s email informing her of the available options and he believes that she
already applied for a garden plot through the Parks and Recreation Department.
The second item was a memo from Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann regarding a
Text Amendment for solar energy systems.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to place on a future agenda.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Ex officio Garman noted that he is excited to meet with the Mayor
and Iowa State Student Government President next week to set the agenda for the joint meeting on
October 26th, 2022.
Council Member Rollins announced that the Iowa League of Cities will meet next year in Cedar
Rapids from September 20-22, 2023. She noted the event this year was wonderful, and she is
excited for next year.
Council Member Gartin introduced Mayor Haila as the President for Iowa League of Cities. He
noted that the Mayor is showing tremendous leadership statewide, and he is proud of the Mayor
16
for taking the role. He continued that EcoFair was a successful event and thanked staff for their
time and effort to make it possible.
Mayor Haila mentioned the first Community Conversation had been hosted on October 4th, 2022
and asked Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth to provide a brief report. Assistant City Manager
Schildroth announced that there were over 50 people attending the event as well as the panelists
presenting and City staff. She noted many powerful personal stories were shared at the event and
local agencies also had the opportunity to discuss the services they provide. She stated the event
was well received, highlighting that the next event would be hosted on Thursday, November 3rd,
2022 at the Ames Water Treatment Plant, 1800 E. 13th Street, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Ms.
Schildroth discussed promoting the event and involving more students from the community.
Mayor Haila walked through some of the stories shared and encouraged everyone to attend the
future conversations.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Rollins, to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Carly M. Watson, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
Department
General Description
of Contract
Contract
Change
No.
Original Contract
Amount Contractor/ Vendor
Total of Prior
Change Orders
Amount this
Change Order
Change
Approved By
Purchasing
Contact
(Buyer)
Water &
Pollution
Control
Water Treatment Plant
Demolition
1 $2,398,000.00 LinnCo, Inc. $0.00 $401.36 J Dunn AM
Public Works 2018/19 Shared Use Path
Expansion Trail Connection
South of Lincoln Way
(Beedle to Intermodal)
1 $264,834.60 Howrey Construction, Inc. $0.00 $-(29,185.50) B. Phillips KS
Public Works 2021/22 Shared Use Path
System Expansion - Ioway
Creek (SE 16th Street to S
5th Street)
2 $72,400.00 WHKS & Co $4,600.00 $1,200.00 M. Gansen KS
Public Works 2022/23 Main Street Paver
Replacement Program
(Kellogg to Douglas and
Douglas to Duff)
1 $333,333.00 Con-Struct, Inc. $0.00 $6,000.00 J. Joiner KS
$ $ $
$ $ $
Period: 1st – 15th
16th – End of Month
Month & Year: October 2022
For City Council Date: October 25, 2022
Item No. 3
!"#$ % #& #' $ #$ (' + '(' $,($#' " "$ ' -(.//*/ ' + '" 012 -(.//*/ ( 9)*9)9.//:;<0==>?@AB0<C0@DE<0F
4#' " ,(' ("=2@@">KL0B><M?@M '*)0?;C $ (M?N>?O B2F@C0D'MP>M1 R(' #$ B><M?@M
Item No. 4
&'( )#*&+,-
7 809: 9597 ;0< <+ 090+4 =+>+?47@ A0<BC C8090;74 DF'HFFDFE I !J#K LMNOPNQOR #S *!S OTUVV !K"S#D&*!* ' G (X# TVQOTYRPV #S *!S OTUVV !KK # [#)# FDFE I !J#K LMNOPPMRQ #S *!S OTUVV !K]*# #%# FDFE I !J#K LMNOPQMNQ #S *!S OTUVV !K `0-_
'ID F(cF !S a# I 'dd'GeF I 'f EFIeF eF IeIIEEG'dd'GeFIeIIEEG'f EFIeF
Item No. 5
Page 1 of 2
Applicant
NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY
Target Corporation
NAME OF BUSINESS(DBA)
Target Store T-1170
BUSINESS
(515) 663-9500
ADDRESS OF PREMISES
320 S Duff Ave
PREMISES SUITE/APT NUMBER CITY
Ames
COUNTY
Story
ZIP
50010
MAILING ADDRESS
PO Box 9471
CITY
Minneapolis
STATE
Minnesota
ZIP
55440-9471
Contact Person
NAME
Carole Helmin
PHONE
(612) 761-1015
EMAIL
liquor.licensing@target.com
License Information
LICENSE NUMBER
LE0001269
LICENSE/PERMIT TYPE
Class E Liquor License
TERM
12 Month
STATUS
Submitted
to Local
Authority
EFFECTIVE DATE
Nov 8, 2021
EXPIRATION DATE
Nov 7, 2022
LAST DAY OF BUSINESS
SUB-PERMITS
Class E Liquor License, Class C Beer Permit, Class B Wine Permit
Item No. 6
Page 2 of 2
PRIVILEGES
Sunday Service
Status of Business
BUSINESS TYPE
Publicly Traded Corporation
Ownership
Individual Owners
NAME CITY STATE ZIP POSITION % OF OWNERSHIP U.S. CITIZEN
Anthony Heredia Wayzata Minnesota 55391 SVP 0.00 Yes
Aileen Guiney St Paul Minnesota 55116 VP 0.00 Yes
Insurance Company Information
INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE
DRAM CANCEL DATE OUTDOOR SERVICE EFFECTIVE
DATE
OUTDOOR SERVICE EXPIRATION
DATE
BOND EFFECTIVE DATE TEMP TRANSFER EFFECTIVE
DATE
TEMP TRANSFER EXPIRATION
DATE
ITEM #
DATE 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUESTS FROM ISU HOMECOMING CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR
ISU HOMECOMING EVENTS
BACKGROUND:
The Homecoming Central Committee at Iowa State University is again planning to host
its annual Homecoming activities. This includes the fireworks display on Central
Campus as part of mass campaniling.
HOMECOMING FIREWORKS:
Organizers plan to hold the fireworks display on Central Campus. Therefore, a fireworks
permit is requested for ground effects firework display on Central Campus at midnight
(12:00 a.m.) on Friday night November 4, 2022.
Organizers have informed City staff that they are working with the on-campus Veterans
Center to communicate in advance with students who may be distressed by the noise
from fireworks. Organizers have also reported they will notify the SCAN neighborhood
association about the fireworks display.
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Approve the requests from the Homecoming Central Committee for a Fireworks
Permit for Central Campus on Friday, November 4, 2022.
2.Deny the requests.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Organizers have taken appropriate steps to plan and implement the event in a safe, well
thought-out manner.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the requests from the Homecoming Central
Committee for fireworks on Friday, November 4th.
7
Item No. 7
1
ITEM # __8____
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: LIMBLE SOLUTIONS LLC COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE FOR POWER PLANT
BACKGROUND:
The Power Plant uses a Computerized Maintenance Management Software (CMMS)
system which tracks asset health, maintenance records, work orders, and inventory. It is
crucial to have an up-to-date system to assure power plant reliability and efficiency.
Limble Solutions LLC is currently the provider for the cloud-based CMMS that the Power
Plant uses.
In 2019, City staff sought proposals from companies for both software-as-a-service
(SAAS) and purchased software solutions to replace the existing system. On August 27,
2019, City Council awarded a three-year agreement to Limble CMMS, Lehi, Utah. This
product has allowed all plant employees to have easy, mobile access to all inventory,
parts, work requests, and preventative maintenance tasks. The cloud -based system also
allows software updates to be administered automatically, meaning the Power Plant
continues to have the most up-to-date version. Besides access to the software, the annual
price covers set up, maintenance fees, data backup, and instant customer support. The
Limble system has proven to have good inventory management, work order capabilities,
plant status quick view, usability, and scheduling abilities.
Plant staff performed a large amount of research before implementing Limble CMMS,
finding it was the best CMMS to use at the power plant considering price and
performance. Staff went through a considerable amount of effort changing from the
previous CMMS to the Limble system and this same amount of effort would be needed if
the decision was made to separate from Limble and go with another provider.
Staff is requesting that the City Council waive the City’s purchasing policies
requiring formal competitive bids and award a second three-year agreement to
Limble CMMS, Lehi, Utah in the amount of $88,200.
The City Council is being asked to approve a three-year agreement at this time,
rather than a one-year contract with renewal options. It should be noted that this
contract includes a preferred Partner Discount of 20% and a discount of 10%
because it is for three years. The City will pay $88,200 from the FY22/23 budget to
receive the discount.
The FY 2022/23 Power Plant maintenance budget included $27,000 one year of software
service. The additional $61,200 to purchase three years of service will come from the
2
Miscellaneous Mechanical account used for training and non -city services.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. A. Waive the Purchasing Policies and Procedures requirement for competitive
bids.
B. Award a three-year contract for Computerized Maintenance Management
Software to Limble CMMS, Lehi, Utah in the amount of $88,200.
2. Award a one-year contract with renewal options for Computerized Maintenance
Management Software to Limble CMMS, Lehi, Utah in the amount of $33,600.
3. Do not approve the contract and adopt a “pay as you go” approach for these
needed services.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Limble CMMS has proven itself as an essential tool in the Power Plant’s maintenance
program. Pricing for the three-year contract is comparable to the previous contract. The
continuation of Limble CMMS assures the use of a versatile product that assists plant
staff in managing the facility and equipment to achieve reliability and efficiency.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 A-B, as stated above.
ITEM # ___9___
DATE: 10/25/22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR AWNING
ON BUILDING AT 317 MAIN STREET
BACKGROUND:
Photosynthesis, LLC, located at 317 Main Street, is seeking approval for an awning
attached to the building that is 25.2 feet wide.
Chapter 22.3(3) of the Ames Municipal Code requires approval of the Encroachment
Permit Agreement by the City Council before the Permit can be issued. By signing the
Agreement, the applicant and owner agree to hold harmless the City against any loss or
liability as a result of the encroachment, to submit a certificate of liability insurance that
protects the City in case of an accident, and to pay the fee for the Encroachment Permit.
The applicant and owner also understand that this approval may be revoked at any time by
the City Council.
The fee for this permit was calculated at $25, and the full amount has been received by the
City Clerk’s Office, along with the certificate of liability insurance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requested Encroachment Permit for an awning at 317 Main Street.
2. Deny the request.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The application for the proposed awning has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet
the necessary requirements for approval.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM # __10___
DATE: 10/25/22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE ENFORCEMENT
OF TOBACCO, ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE AND VAPOR PRODUCT
REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department is requesting permission to renew a 28E intergovernmental
agreement with the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division for enforcement of tobacco,
alternative nicotine and vapor product laws. This agreement provides that the Alcoholic
Beverages Division will pay the City of Ames $75 for each compliance check conducted
by the Police Department.
The Police Department will use this funding to continue compliance checks with local
retailers related to underage tobacco and alternative nicotine and vapor product
enforcement activities. No matching funds are required as part of this agreement.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve renewal of a 28E Agreement for Tobacco, Alternative Nicotine and
Vapor Product Enforcement between the Police Department and the Iowa
Alcoholic Beverages Division.
2. Do not renew the 28E agreement, and do not conduct compliance checks for the
sale of these products.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This state grant provides an outside source of funding to facilitate tobacco, alternative
nicotine and vapor product regulation compliance within the community.
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative
#1 authorizing the 28E intergovernmental agreement between the Police Department
and the Alcoholic Beverages Division.
ITEM # __11___
DATE: 10-25-22
:
On April 17, 2015, a Final Rule entitled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) From Electric Utilities” was
published in the Federal Register, which regulated the disposal of ash in surface
impoundments and landfills resulting from the burning of coal in electric utility boilers.
In response to this emphasis by the U.S. EPA on coal ash sites, the City of Ames Electric
Services began looking for a consulting firm that specialized in coal ash site activities,
with deep understanding of the state and federal regulations governing coal ash sites,
especially U.S. EPA’s CCR rule.
In 2017, the City needed to comply with several near-term requirements of the CCR rule.
For this scope of work, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) that resulted in the
City receiving nine (9) proposals ranging in price from $30,710 to $124,350, with an
average price of $76,555.33.
SCS Engineers of Clive, Iowa, was selected as the preferred engineering consultant from
the nine proposals for this initial project based upon the combination of technical expertise
and price (SCS’s proposal was the lowest priced). On December 19, 2017, SCS
Engineers was issued a Purchase Order to complete nine (9) studies/reports required to
comply (by April 17, 2018) with the CCR rule.
Compliance with the CCR rule will ultimately require a major reconfiguration of the
existing ash site in which approximately one-half of the site with coal ash will become a
closed-in-place landfill, and the remaining half will be reconstructed as a new lagoon to
receive ash from the power plant as it continues to burn refuse derived fuel (RDF). The
design and engineering for reconfiguring the existing ash site into the closed-in-place
landfill and the lagoon is well underway by SCS Engineers.
Recently, due to the planned demolition of a major portion of the City’s old water treatment
plant located just east of the City’s Steam Electric Plant, Power Plant staff inquired about
the possibility of locating an ash collection system close to the Power Plant on land made
available by the demolition. If this concept is viable technically and economically, it could
save money by extending the life of very expensive ash transport (sluice) piping, and
significantly reduce the number of ash line plugs that power plant personnel historically
have had to repair.
THIS ACTION:
This action, for an estimated price of $135,000 (to be invoiced on actual time and
materials expended) to SCS Engineers of Clive, Iowa, is for additional consulting
engineering services necessary to complete the design and engineering to reconfigure
the ash site to comply with U.S. EPA’s CCR rule. As previously stated, this would include
the in-place closure of one-half the site as a landfill plus the reconstruction of the
remaining half of the site as a new lagoon to receive RDF ash from the Power Plant as it
continues to burn refuse derived fuel. The additional consulting engineering services
would now include the design and engineering of an ash collection system located close
(400 to 500 feet) to the City’s Steam Electric Plant. Besides design and engineering
services, the scope of work would also include the work to acquire the necessary permits
from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the installation, the preparation of
plans and specifications necessary for bidding and construction, and an engineer’s
estimate of the cost of the project.
Staff believes that proposed cost by SCS for these services are reasonable based
on the relatively small increase in the time and material rates that were previously
bid back in 2017.
The rationale for locating the ash collection system close to the Power Plant would be to
reduce costs and improve employee safety. The current pipeline required to transport
the ash to the impoundment is lined with basalt to resist the abrasion of ash as it is sluiced
(with water) from the Power Plant to the ash impoundment. The current life of the basalt-
lined pipe is approximately 10 years, this after rotating the pipe 120 degrees two times in
order to utilize the full internal surface of the pipe. The current pricing of the ash transport
piping is approximately $5,000 per 25 feet of pipe, so the full replacement of the ash
transport pipeline of 3,900 feet would cost $780,000 (for the pipe alone). Furthermore,
Power Plant employees have to regularly find and open the sluice pipeline to remove RDF
ash that has plugged the line. Finding and unplugging the sluice line anytime is a
disagreeable task, but in the winter while battling cold and ice (from water draining from
the pipe and then freezing) is especially disagreeable and presents a substantial safety
hazard.
The concept of locating the ash collection system close to the Power Plant would be to
pump and sluice ash and water from the Power Plant to the ash collection system where
the largest, heaviest, and most abrasive ash would quickly settle out of the water. The
water with the remaining ash would then be collected in a sump and pumped to the ash
site impoundment where the ash remaining in the sluice water would settle out in the
impoundment. The 3,400 feet of ash line from the basin sump to the ash site
impoundment should not be at risk for plugging because the ash remaining in the water
would be suspended in the water and the particle size would be very small. The life of
the same 3,400 feet of ash line (from the basin sump to the ash site impoundment) would
be extended significantly since the abrasiveness of the ash remaining in the sluice water
would be very low. Being at risk for plugs in only 500 feet of line versus 3,900 feet of line,
coupled with increased life of the ash line due to the reduction in internal abrasion of the
pipe would constitute a tremendous improvement and cost savings.
Conceptually, building an ash collection system close to the Power Plant is appealing,
and if viable technically and economically, would save money over time and would reduce
the safety risks associated with unplugging 3,400 feet of ash sluice line.
The concept may ultimately not be viable, however, the only way to prove viability is to
spend substantial design, engineering, and cost estimating work on the concept. In
addition, this engineering study will take into account the plans to expand the
existing Technical Services building which is operated by the WPC Department and
will remain after the demolition of the old Water Treatment Plant.
The Ash Pond Modification Project budget in the CIP has an available balance of
$5,710,442.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a Purchase Order in the amount of $135,000 to SCS Engineers of Clive,
Iowa, to provide additional consulting services to complete the design,
engineering, plans and specifications, permitting, cost estimating, and related
services necessary to modify and reconfigure the ash site to comply with the
provisions of U.S.EPA’s coal combustion residuals (CCR) rule.
2. Reject the proposal and solicit equivalent engineering services from another
engineering firm.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This scope of work is necessary for the City of Ames Steam Electric Plant to continue to
function and comply with U.S. EPA’s CCR rule. Therefore, it is the recommendation of
the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 , as noted above.
1
ITEM #: _ 12___
DATE: 10-25-22
The City’s subdivision regulations are found in Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code.
These regulations include the process for creating or modifying property boundaries and
for determining if any improvements are required in conjunction with the platting of
property. The regulations also describe the process for combining existing platted lots or
adjusting the boundary lines of existing tracts.
The landowners, Iowa State University Research Park (Lot 6 and Outlot ‘U’, except Parcel
‘A’) and Ames Fitness Center, Inc. (Parcel ‘A’) are seeking a Boundary Line Adjustment
for three properties currently identified as 1726 Collaboration Place (Lot 6 –
undeveloped), 6898 University Boulevard (Outlot ‘U’), and 3600 University Boulevard
(Ames Fitness). The existing three parcels are located on 78.815 acres at the southeast
corner of University Boulevard and Collaboration Place in the Iowa State University
Research Park. Only Parcel ‘A’ is developed.
In 2018, the Ames Fitness Center expanded its property (Lot 5) to include additional land
for the construction of a dome facility containing four tennis courts (Parcel ‘A’).
Staff will review and approve a Minor Site Development Plan
for the new enclosed bubble facility, outdoor tennis courts, and parking.
Except for the area being added to Parcel ‘A’, the ownership will not
change. Parcel frontages will not change, nor will any new access points be created or
removed. The Master Plan for the Research Park Innovation Zoning District (RI) was
2
amended on September 27 to increase the size of the Hub Activity Area to allow for the
athletic club to expand (Recreation Trade is only allowed in the Hub Activity Area of RI).
The new Parcel ‘B’ will be in conformance with the zone change.
The increased lot area for proposed Parcel B primarily comes from Outlot U. Outlot U is
an outlot reserved for future additional the ISU Research Park Phase III Subdivision. One
building lot is intended to be platted along University Boulevard and the remaining area
to the west will be a common area. The proposed change in Outlot U will allow for
continued frontage along University Boulevard and allow for approximately 8-10 acres of
land to be platted for future industrial development as was intended with the original
subdivision approval.
This proposal does not create any new lots or parcels. As a Boundary Line
Adjustment, there are no required public infrastructure improvements associated
with the proposal per City of Ames Subdivision standards. The future platting of an
Addition with Outlot U will trigger infrastructure improvements consistent with the
original subdivision approval.
Approval of this Plat of Survey will allow the applicant to prepare the official Plat of Survey
and submit it to the Planning and Housing Director for review. The Director will sign the
Plat of Survey confirming that it fully conforms to all conditions of approval. The prepared
Plat of Survey may then be signed by the surveyor, who will submit it for recording, along
with the resolution of approval in the office of the County Recorder.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Plat of Survey if the City Council finds that the requirements for Plats
of Survey as described in Section 23.308 and 23.309 have been satisfied with the
stipulation that the final approved Plat of Survey shall be released and recorded
by the developer prior to November 8th or to withhold final approval of the plat of
survey until after December 1, 2022.
2. Deny the proposed Plat of Survey if the City Council finds that the requirements
for Plats of Survey as described in Section 23.308 and 23.309 have not been
satisfied or that the proposed boundary line does not conform to the limitation of
the TIF District Boundary.
3. Refer this back to staff and/or the owner for additional information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has determined that the proposed Plat of Survey satisfies all Code requirements.
No infrastructure improvements are required, and no additional commercial lots are
created.
3
It is important to coordinate the final plat approval and its recording with the approval of
the proposed ordinance amendment for the Fifth Tax Increment Financing District
boundary that is also on this same agenda.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
accept Alternative No. 1, as described above.
4
ADDENDUM
PLAT OF SURVEY FOR 3600 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
Application for a Plat of Survey has been submitted for:
Conveyance parcel (per Section 23.307)
Boundary line adjustment (per Section 23.309)
Re-plat to correct error (per Section 23.310)
Auditor’s plat (per Code of Iowa Section 354.15)
Other. County division to create a parcel for conservation purposes.
The site is located at: 3600 University Boulevard
3898 University Boulevard
1726 Collaboration Place
Owners: Ames Fitness Center, Inc.
Iowa State University Research Park
Parcel ID: 0922150015
0922150004
0922150020
New Legal Descriptions:
5
Public Improvements:
The preliminary decision of the Planning Director finds that approval requires all public
improvements associated with and required for the proposed Plat of Survey be:
Installed prior to creation and recordation of the official Plat of Survey and
prior to issuance of zoning or building permits.
Delayed, subject to an improvement guarantee as described in Section
23.409.
Not Applicable, as a boundary line adjustment
6
Attachment A – Location with Existing Parcels
7
Attachment B – Existing Conditions
8
Attachment C – Plat of Survey
9
1
ITEM # ___13__
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: MOORE MEMORIAL WEST LAND RETIREMENT GRANT FUNDING
BACKGROUND:
In January 2022, Water & Pollution Control Department staff submitted a Water
Infrastructure Fund grant application to the Iowa Finance Authority to convert the portion
of Moore Memorial Park on the west side of Ioway Creek from row-crop agricultural
production to a restored native area. The grant request for $61,500 was approved, and
on April 12, 2022, Council approved a resolution to enter into the grant agreement
with the Iowa Finance Authority. This grant funding
would cover the mobilization, clearing/grubbing, and
seeding/fertilization costs associated with the conversion
to perennial native vegetation.
Subsequent to the Council approval, staff was contacted
by the Iowa Finance Authority about proposed changes
to the grant agreement due to updated federal reporting
requirements. Changes were made to the format and
structure of the document as well the addition of details
required for federal compliance. The City Attorney has
reviewed and approved the revised documents.
The requested action by Council is to re-approve the
grant agreement with the Iowa Finance Authority.
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Re-approve the grant agreement with the Iowa Finance Authority in the amount of
$61,500.
2.Do not enter into a grant agreement at this time. This would mean the forfeiture of
the previously awarded grant funds
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Grant funding previously awarded by the Iowa Finance Authority would cover most of the
costs associated with converting this land to perennial native vegetation. Due to updated
federal reporting requirements, the Iowa Finance Authority is requiring the City to re-
approve the grant agreement. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager
that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
Project Location
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5119 main
515.239-5320 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
City Treasurer
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Roger Wisecup, CPA
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to present a report summarizing the performance of
the City of Ames investment portfolio for the quarter ending September 30, 2022.
Discussion
This report covers the period ending September 30, 2022 and presents a summary of
the investments on hand at the end of September 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 1.50-1.75 percent to 3.00-3.25
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.
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 1,496,900 1,496,580 (320)
FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 85,600,465 82,530,735 (3,069,730)
INVESTMENT POOLS 0
COMMERCIAL PAPER 8,952,562 8,948,770 (3,792)
MISC COUPON SECURITIES 0
PASS THRU SECURITIES PAC/CMO 0
MONEY FUND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 425,804 425,804 0
CORPORATE BONDS 0
US TREASURY DISCOUNTS 4,490,547 4,471,002 (19,546)
US TREASURY SECURITIES 84,784,220 80,387,824 (4,396,396)
INVESTMENTS 190,750,499 183,260,715 (7,489,784)
CASH ACCOUNTS 22,511,362 22,511,362
ACCRUAL BASIS INVESTMENT EARNINGS YR-TO-DATE
GROSS EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS:587,634
INTEREST EARNED ON CASH:153,997
AND THE ACCUMULATED YEAR-TO-DATE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
CASH AND INVESTMENTS SUMMARY
AND SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT EARNINGS
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
RMCS''M fl l?v '#F
City of Ameslnvestments FY 2022-2A23
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
September 30,2022
lnvestments Par
Value
Market
Value
Book
Value
%ot
Portfolio
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360 Equiv.
YTM
365 Equiv.
Certificates of Deposit
Money Market
PassbooUC heckin g Accou nts
Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing
Treasury Coupon Securities
Treasury D iscounts -Amortizing
Investments
5,000,000.00
292,682.72
133,1 21.73
9,000,000.00
86,139,000.00
1,500,000.00
85,500,000.00
4,500,000.00
5,000,000.00
292,692.72
133,121.73
8,949,77 0.00
82,530,734.56
1,496,590.00
80,387,924.00
4,471,001.50
5,000,000.00
292,692.72
133,1 21.73
8,952,562.22
85,600,464.97
1,496,900.00
84,794,219.69
4,490,547.21
2.62
0.15
0.07
4.69
44.88
0.78
44.45
2.35
1,324
1
1
239
858
88
1,129
274
243
1
1
75
579
30
704
77
1.756
0.296
0.148
1.956
1.593
2.s30
1.183
0.997
1.780
0.300
0.1 50
1.983
1.615
2.565
1.199
1.010
192,064,804.45 183,260,714.51 190,750,499.53 100.00%585 1.422 1.442
Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
212,944.94
1 93,1 05,663.97
1.34o/o
587,633.72
that these reports are in conformance with the lowa Public Investment Act.
/A^ 9^ 2o2)
Reporti n g period 09/01 12022-098A12022
Run Date: 1010512022 - 14:57
Portfolio 2023
AC
PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.'11
Page 4
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2022
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2022-2023
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Treasury Coupon Securities
US TRE1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,539,523.692.87509/30/20239128285D8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,581,544.760.2250.222
US TRE1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,997,130.590.12505/31/202391282CCD1 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 2,992,968.750.2700.266
US TRE1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,995,871.210.12509/15/202391282CAK7 03/15 - 09/15 Received10/15/2021 1,991,718.750.3420.337
US TRE1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,011.540.25011/15/202391282CAW1 11/15 - 05/15 Received10/15/2021 1,994,453.130.3840.378
US TRE1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,146,809.182.00005/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 6,231,562.500.5180.511
US TRE1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,943,849.490.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,923,593.750.7850.775
US TRE1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,468,157.890.75005/31/202691282CCF6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,459,804.691.0050.991
US TRE1020-22 1,000,000.00 998,585.690.12501/31/202391282CBG5 01/31 - 07/31 Received01/21/2022 995,652.730.5500.542
US TRE1021-22 1,000,000.00 998,055.730.12502/28/202391282CBN0 02/28 - 08/31 Received01/21/2022 994,776.390.6000.592
US TRE1022-22 1,000,000.00 997,360.450.12503/31/202391282CBU4 03/31 - 09/30 Received01/21/2022 993,670.920.6600.651
US TRE1023-22 1,000,000.00 996,633.330.12504/30/202391282CBX8 04/30 - 10/31 Received01/21/2022 992,596.520.7100.700
US TRE1032-22 9,000,000.00 8,412,947.510.75005/31/202691282CCF6 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/14/2022 8,338,359.382.6412.605
US TRE1034-22 1,500,000.00 1,507,958.702.75005/31/20239128284S6 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/18/2022 1,513,417.971.9361.910
US TRE1035-22 1,000,000.00 974,332.200.12512/15/202391282CBA8 06/15 - 12/15 Received04/18/2022 964,648.442.3092.277
US TRE1036-22 2,000,000.00 1,960,823.950.75012/31/202391282CDR9 06/30 - 12/31 Received04/18/2022 1,946,562.502.3612.328
US TRE1037-22 4,500,000.00 4,061,137.520.50005/31/2027912828ZS2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/18/2022 4,018,359.382.7562.719
US TRE1041-22A 1,500,000.00 1,495,634.292.12511/30/2023912828U57 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/20/2022 1,494,257.812.3812.348
US TRE1041-22B 1,000,000.00 997,089.532.12511/30/2023912828U57 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/20/2022 996,171.872.3812.348
US TRE1042-22 2,000,000.00 1,983,545.332.00005/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/23/2022 1,980,000.002.5102.476
US TRE1049-22 1,500,000.00 1,482,797.621.37506/30/2023912828S35 06/30 - 12/31 Received06/17/2022 1,476,093.752.9482.908
84,784,219.68Treasury Coupon Securities Totals 85,090,041.490.001.18385,500,000.00 1.199
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
US TRE1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,996,907.630.91312/01/2022912796P94 12/01 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,986,920.800.9430.930
US TRE1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,496,183.751.02912/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,487,736.551.0651.050
US TRE1031-22B 1,000,000.00 997,455.831.02912/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 991,824.361.0651.050
4,490,547.21Treasury Discounts -Amortizing Totals 4,466,481.710.000.9974,500,000.00 1.010
190,750,498.53Investment Totals 190,811,808.7848,125.44192,064,804.45 1.422 1.442
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 2
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2022-2023
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
2.701Federal Farm Credit1053-22A 1,300,000.00 1,288,849.45 03/15/20230.79007/29/2022 1,282,440.90 2.6643133ELUF9 165
2.701Federal Farm Credit1053-22B 1,379,000.00 1,367,171.84 03/15/20230.79007/29/2022 1,360,373.85 2.6643133ELUF9 165
3.554Federal Farm Credit1058-22 1,000,000.00 997,943.93 08/26/20243.37509/09/2022 983,454.75 3.5053133ENJ84 695
3.565Federal Farm Credit1059-22 1,000,000.00 998,787.10 09/13/20243.50009/13/2022 982,335.00 3.5163133ENL40 713
0.581Federal Home Loan Bank0975-21 1,000,000.00 997,628.97 02/17/20260.30002/22/2021 880,057.00 0.5733130AL4V3 1,235
0.841Federal Home Loan Bank0978-21 1,000,000.00 991,435.45 02/11/20260.58003/15/2021 884,531.00 0.8293130AKXB7 1,229
0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,781.26 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 1,418,215.50 0.3803130ALKS2 531
0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,854.17 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 945,477.00 0.3803130ALKS2 531
1.116Federal Home Loan Bank0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,938.45 04/14/20260.50004/14/2021 2,379,339.60 1.1013130ALVT8 1,291
0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 1,400,113.50 0.4443130ALTV6 653
0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 933,409.00 0.4443130ALTV6 653
0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,789.34 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 1,399,021.50 0.4523130ALVQ4 664
0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,859.56 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 932,681.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 664
0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,497,380.22 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 1,399,993.50 0.4253130AMV66 636
0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21B 1,000,000.00 998,253.48 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 933,329.00 0.4253130AMV66 636
0.510Federal Home Loan Bank0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 08/30/20240.51007/01/2021 1,395,315.00 0.5033130AMZQ8 699
0.600Federal Home Loan Bank0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 05/28/20250.60009/03/2021 1,812,494.00 0.5923130ANKM1 970
0.202Federal Home Loan Bank1001-21 1,000,000.00 999,304.26 08/28/20230.12509/13/2021 964,261.00 0.1993130ANYM6 331
0.409Federal Home Loan Bank1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,350.00 09/13/20240.37509/13/2021 926,486.00 0.4033130ANR28 713
0.650Federal Home Loan Bank1013-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 09/29/20230.65012/29/2021 1,449,112.50 0.6413130AQ7J6 363
0.650Federal Home Loan Bank1013-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 09/29/20230.65012/29/2021 966,075.00 0.6413130AQ7J6 363
0.780Federal Home Loan Bank1016-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 12/29/20230.78012/29/2021 958,669.00 0.7693130AQ7K3 454
2.370Federal Home Loan Bank1038-22 1,500,000.00 1,470,047.08 08/28/20230.12505/09/2022 1,446,391.50 2.3383130ANYM6 331
2.250Federal Home Loan Bank1039-22 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 05/26/20232.25005/26/2022 988,399.00 2.2193130AS2B4 237
2.875Federal Home Loan Bank1043-22 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 06/14/20242.87506/14/2022 1,463,337.00 2.8363130AS6D6 622
2.870Federal Home Loan Bank1044-22 1,500,000.00 1,484,728.17 02/28/20242.12506/13/2022 1,454,730.00 2.8313130ARHG9 515
3.057Federal Home Loan Bank1052-22A 1,500,000.00 1,488,917.01 02/13/20242.50007/15/2022 1,463,377.50 3.0153130AFW94 500
3.057Federal Home Loan Bank1052-22B 1,000,000.00 992,611.34 02/13/20242.50007/15/2022 975,585.00 3.0153130AFW94 500
3.180Federal Home Loan Bank1055-22 1,000,000.00 1,002,817.71 06/14/20243.12508/04/2022 983,782.64 3.1363130ASHK8 622
3.210Federal Home Loan Bank1056-22 1,810,000.00 1,715,626.29 11/27/20240.62508/05/2022 1,674,304.65 3.1663130AMNR9 788
3.210Federal Home Loan Bank1057-22A 1,500,000.00 1,432,013.70 01/13/20251.10008/05/2022 1,395,336.33 3.1663130AQGT4 835
3.210Federal Home Loan Bank1057-22B 1,000,000.00 954,675.80 01/13/20251.10008/05/2022 930,224.22 3.1663130AQGT4 835
3.746Federal Home Loan Bank1060-22 1,500,000.00 1,494,301.72 06/06/20253.25009/13/2022 1,462,793.92 3.6943130AS6N4 979
4.148Federal Home Loan Bank1061-22 1,500,000.00 1,501,499.76 08/28/20254.13009/13/2022 1,473,275.08 4.0913130ASZD4 1,062
4.000Federal Home Loan Bank1062-22 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 09/29/20254.00009/29/2022 1,472,391.00 3.9453130AT7A9 1,094
3.660Federal Home Loan Bank1064-22 1,500,000.00 1,481,802.01 12/13/20242.75009/14/2022 1,510,427.08 3.6103130A3GE8 804
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 3
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2022-2023
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 05/15/20240.36011/20/2020 938,610.00 0.3553134GXBD5 592
0.350Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 03/29/20240.35011/20/2020 943,275.00 0.3453134GWXC5 545
0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 05/15/20240.36009/15/2021 1,407,915.00 0.3553134GXBD5 592
0.254Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,775.06 11/13/20230.30009/15/2021 1,436,452.50 0.2503134GXAY0 408
0.301Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1018-21A 1,000,000.00 999,854.46 11/23/20220.20012/10/2021 995,250.00 0.2973134GXEA8 53
0.301Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1018-21B 1,000,000.00 999,854.46 11/23/20220.20012/10/2021 995,250.00 0.2973134GXEA8 53
0.898Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1024-22 1,000,000.00 995,267.86 06/26/20230.25002/02/2022 972,212.00 0.8863137EAES4 268
3.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1050-22 1,500,000.00 1,488,553.32 12/23/20243.00006/23/2022 1,452,673.50 3.3143134GXVF8 814
0.340Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1017-21 1,500,000.00 1,509,131.28 01/19/20232.37512/10/2021 1,493,992.50 0.3353135G0T94 110
1.274Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1027-22 1,000,000.00 992,161.69 07/10/20230.25002/11/2022 970,829.00 1.2563135G05G4 282
1.990Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1033-22 3,000,000.00 2,960,233.03 07/10/20230.25004/18/2022 2,912,487.00 1.9623135G05G4 282
3.005Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1051-22A 1,500,000.00 1,498,164.47 09/12/20232.87507/14/2022 1,481,262.00 2.9643135G0U43 346
3.005Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1051-22B 1,000,000.00 998,776.32 09/12/20232.87507/14/2022 987,508.00 2.9643135G0U43 346
3.693Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.1063-22 1,500,000.00 1,449,536.82 10/15/20241.62509/14/2022 1,431,377.54 3.6423135G0W66 745
85,600,464.97 1.59382,530,734.5686,139,000.0081,964,842.98Subtotal and Average 1.615 579
Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing
2.565Federal Home Loan Bank1054-22 1,500,000.00 1,496,900.00 10/31/20222.48008/04/2022 1,496,580.00 2.530313385M60 30
1,496,900.00 2.5301,496,580.001,500,000.001,495,401.67Subtotal and Average 2.565 30
Treasury Coupon Securities
2.459U.S. Treasury0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,984,333.44 05/31/20231.62503/08/2019 2,951,250.00 2.426912828R69 242
1.540U.S. Treasury0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,046,622.12 05/31/20232.75011/04/2019 5,947,500.00 1.5199128284S6 242
0.384U.S. Treasury0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,160,218.91 05/31/20242.00004/15/2021 5,776,878.00 0.379912828XT2 608
0.663U.S. Treasury0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,934,930.22 05/31/20250.25004/15/2021 5,395,314.00 0.654912828ZT0 973
0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,556,244.47 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 1,448,203.50 0.355912828D56 684
0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,037,496.32 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 965,469.00 0.355912828D56 684
0.515U.S. Treasury0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,972,084.97 05/31/20250.25006/11/2021 3,596,876.00 0.508912828ZT0 973
0.275U.S. Treasury0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,085,702.78 05/31/20242.00006/11/2021 2,888,439.00 0.271912828XT2 608
0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,530,897.25 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 1,421,484.00 0.454912828YH7 730
0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,020,598.17 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 947,656.00 0.454912828YH7 730
0.116U.S. Treasury0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,022.31 12/31/20220.12509/09/2021 991,875.00 0.11491282CBD2 91
0.150U.S. Treasury0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,813.28 03/31/20230.12509/09/2021 1,472,344.50 0.14891282CBU4 181
0.225U.S. Treasury1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,539,523.69 09/30/20232.87509/09/2021 1,480,312.50 0.2229128285D8 364
0.270U.S. Treasury1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,997,130.59 05/31/20230.12510/15/2021 2,921,718.00 0.26691282CCD1 242
0.342U.S. Treasury1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,995,871.21 09/15/20230.12510/15/2021 1,922,812.00 0.33791282CAK7 349
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 4
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2022-2023
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Treasury Coupon Securities
0.384U.S. Treasury1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,011.54 11/15/20230.25010/15/2021 1,911,250.00 0.37891282CAW1 410
0.518U.S. Treasury1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,146,809.18 05/31/20242.00010/15/2021 5,776,878.00 0.511912828XT2 608
0.785U.S. Treasury1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,943,849.49 05/31/20250.25010/15/2021 3,596,876.00 0.775912828ZT0 973
1.005U.S. Treasury1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,468,157.89 05/31/20260.75010/15/2021 3,091,483.50 0.99191282CCF6 1,338
0.550U.S. Treasury1020-22 1,000,000.00 998,585.69 01/31/20230.12501/21/2022 988,125.00 0.54291282CBG5 122
0.600U.S. Treasury1021-22 1,000,000.00 998,055.73 02/28/20230.12501/21/2022 985,000.00 0.59291282CBN0 150
0.660U.S. Treasury1022-22 1,000,000.00 997,360.45 03/31/20230.12501/21/2022 981,563.00 0.65191282CBU4 181
0.710U.S. Treasury1023-22 1,000,000.00 996,633.33 04/30/20230.12501/21/2022 977,188.00 0.70091282CBX8 211
2.641U.S. Treasury1032-22 9,000,000.00 8,412,947.51 05/31/20260.75004/14/2022 7,949,529.00 2.60591282CCF6 1,338
1.936U.S. Treasury1034-22 1,500,000.00 1,507,958.70 05/31/20232.75004/18/2022 1,486,875.00 1.9109128284S6 242
2.309U.S. Treasury1035-22 1,000,000.00 974,332.20 12/15/20230.12504/18/2022 951,094.00 2.27791282CBA8 440
2.361U.S. Treasury1036-22 2,000,000.00 1,960,823.95 12/31/20230.75004/18/2022 1,913,750.00 2.32891282CDR9 456
2.756U.S. Treasury1037-22 4,500,000.00 4,061,137.52 05/31/20270.50004/18/2022 3,815,860.50 2.719912828ZS2 1,703
2.381U.S. Treasury1041-22A 1,500,000.00 1,495,634.29 11/30/20232.12505/20/2022 1,463,437.50 2.348912828U57 425
2.381U.S. Treasury1041-22B 1,000,000.00 997,089.53 11/30/20232.12505/20/2022 975,625.00 2.348912828U57 425
2.510U.S. Treasury1042-22 2,000,000.00 1,983,545.33 05/31/20242.00005/23/2022 1,925,626.00 2.476912828XT2 608
2.948U.S. Treasury1049-22 1,500,000.00 1,482,797.62 06/30/20231.37506/17/2022 1,469,532.00 2.908912828S35 272
84,784,219.68 1.18380,387,824.0085,500,000.0090,318,619.35Subtotal and Average 1.199 704
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
0.943U.S. Treasury1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,996,907.63 12/01/20220.91303/18/2022 1,990,364.00 0.930912796P94 61
1.065U.S. Treasury1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,496,183.75 12/29/20221.02903/18/2022 1,488,382.50 1.050912796R27 89
1.065U.S. Treasury1031-22B 1,000,000.00 997,455.83 12/29/20221.02903/18/2022 992,255.00 1.050912796R27 89
4,490,547.21 0.9974,471,001.504,500,000.004,955,381.29Subtotal and Average 1.010 77
1.422193,105,663.97 192,064,804.45 1.442 585183,260,714.51 190,750,498.53Total and Average
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Page 5
Par Value Book Value
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2022
Portfolio Details - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2022-2023
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
0.00
1.422193,105,663.97 192,064,804.45 1.442 585
0Average Balance
183,260,714.51 190,750,498.53Total Cash and Investments
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Page 1
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2022
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2022-2023
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Certificates of Deposit
USB795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.001.78006/01/2023795014296 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 292,682.72 292,682.720.300SYS4531558874B 08/01 - Monthly 292,682.720.3000.296
292,682.72Money Market Totals 292,682.720.000.296292,682.72 0.300
Passbook/Checking Accounts
WF6952311634B 133,121.73 133,121.730.150SYS6952311634B 08/01 - Monthly 133,121.730.1500.148
133,121.73Passbook/Checking Accounts Totals 133,121.730.000.148133,121.73 0.150
Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing
JPM1028-22A 1,500,000.00 1,498,693.330.98011/02/202246640QL25 11/02 - At Maturity03/03/2022 1,490,036.661.0171.004
JPM1028-22B 1,000,000.00 999,128.890.98011/02/202246640QL25 11/02 - At Maturity03/03/2022 993,357.781.0171.004
JPM1046-22 1,500,000.00 1,491,798.332.66012/14/202246640QME8 12/14 - At Maturity06/15/2022 1,479,828.332.7342.696
JPM1047-22 1,500,000.00 1,485,512.502.85001/31/202346640QNX5 01/31 - At Maturity06/17/2022 1,472,925.002.9932.952
JPM1048-22 1,500,000.00 1,478,945.843.10003/13/202346640QQD6 03/13 - At Maturity06/17/2022 1,465,254.173.2533.209
RGAFDG1025-22 2,000,000.00 1,998,483.330.91010/31/202275888XKX3 10/31 - At Maturity02/11/2022 1,986,754.440.9380.925
8,952,562.22Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing Totals 8,888,156.380.001.9569,000,000.00 1.983
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
FAMCA0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.60011/20/202531422B3F5 05/20 - 11/2011/20/2020 1,000,000.000.6000.592
FFCB0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,033.840.16010/13/20223133EMDA7 04/13 - 10/13 Received02/12/2021 1,501,695.000.0920.091
FFCB0977-21A 1,000,000.00 999,141.730.30011/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 998,500.000.3410.336
FFCB0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,712.590.30011/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 1,497,750.000.3410.336
FFCB0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,286.710.20006/26/20233133EM3S9 12/26 - 06/26 Received09/09/2021 2,000,700.000.1800.178
FFCB1005-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.000.16012/15/20223133EMKH4 12/15 - 06/15 Received10/15/2021 2,000,000.000.1600.158
FFCB1008-21 2,000,000.00 1,998,033.750.27010/12/20233133ENAU4 04/12 - 10/12 Received10/15/2021 1,996,200.000.3660.361
FFCB1019-22A 1,500,000.00 1,495,459.200.12504/13/20233133EMVP4 04/13 - 10/13 Received01/20/2022 1,489,523.040.6960.686
FFCB1019-22B 1,000,000.00 996,972.790.12504/13/20233133EMVP4 04/13 - 10/13 Received01/20/2022 993,015.350.6960.686
FFCB1026-22 1,000,000.00 993,630.820.30006/08/20233133ELG81 06/08 - 12/08 Received02/11/2022 987,700.001.2391.222
FFCB1040-22A 1,500,000.00 1,471,183.931.04001/25/20243133ENLY4 07/25 - 01/25 Received05/20/2022 1,463,220.002.5392.504
FFCB1040-22B 1,000,000.00 980,789.291.04001/25/20243133ENLY4 07/25 - 01/25 Received05/20/2022 975,480.002.5392.504
FFCB1045-22A 1,500,000.00 1,482,926.092.80011/25/20253133ENXQ8 11/25 - 05/25 2,100.0006/13/2022 1,479,000.003.2323.188
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Page 2
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2022
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2022-2023
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
FFCB1045-22B 1,000,000.00 988,617.392.80011/25/20253133ENXQ8 11/25 - 05/25 1,400.0006/13/2022 986,000.003.2323.188
FFCB1053-22A 1,300,000.00 1,288,849.450.79003/15/20233133ELUF9 09/15 - 03/15 Received07/29/2022 1,284,634.002.7012.664
FFCB1053-22B 1,379,000.00 1,367,171.840.79003/15/20233133ELUF9 09/15 - 03/15 Received07/29/2022 1,362,700.222.7012.664
FFCB1058-22 1,000,000.00 997,943.933.37508/26/20243133ENJ84 02/26 - 08/26 1,218.7509/09/2022 996,620.003.5543.505
FFCB1059-22 1,000,000.00 998,787.103.50009/13/20243133ENL40 03/13 - 09/1309/13/2022 998,756.003.5653.516
FHLB0975-21 1,000,000.00 997,628.970.30002/17/20263130AL4V3 08/17 - 02/17 Received02/22/2021 996,500.000.5810.573
FHLB0978-21 1,000,000.00 991,435.450.58002/11/20263130AKXB7 08/11 - 02/11 Received03/15/2021 987,500.000.8410.829
FHLB0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,781.260.37503/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 1,499,550.000.3850.380
FHLB0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,854.170.37503/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 999,700.000.3850.380
FHLB0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,938.450.50004/14/20263130ALVT8 10/14 - 04/1404/14/2021 2,647,085.001.1161.101
FHLB0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.45007/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,500,000.000.4500.444
FHLB0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.45007/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,000,000.000.4500.444
FHLB0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,789.340.45007/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 Received04/30/2021 1,499,625.000.4580.452
FHLB0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,859.560.45007/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 Received04/30/2021 999,750.000.4580.452
FHLB0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,497,380.220.33006/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 Received07/01/2021 1,495,500.000.4310.425
FHLB0991-21B 1,000,000.00 998,253.480.33006/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 Received07/01/2021 997,000.000.4310.425
FHLB0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.51008/30/20243130AMZQ8 12/30 - 06/30 Received07/01/2021 1,500,000.000.5100.503
FHLB0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.000.60005/28/20253130ANKM1 02/28 - 08/28 Received09/03/2021 2,000,000.000.6000.592
FHLB1001-21 1,000,000.00 999,304.260.12508/28/20233130ANYM6 02/28 - 08/28 Received09/13/2021 998,500.000.2020.199
FHLB1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,350.000.37509/13/20243130ANR28 03/13 - 09/13 Received09/13/2021 999,000.000.4090.403
FHLB1013-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.65009/29/20233130AQ7J6 03/29 - 09/2912/29/2021 1,500,000.000.6500.641
FHLB1013-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.65009/29/20233130AQ7J6 03/29 - 09/2912/29/2021 1,000,000.000.6500.641
FHLB1016-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.78012/29/20233130AQ7K3 06/29 - 12/2912/29/2021 1,000,000.000.7800.769
FHLB1038-22 1,500,000.00 1,470,047.080.12508/28/20233130ANYM6 08/28 - 02/28 Received05/09/2022 1,457,040.002.3702.338
FHLB1039-22 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.002.25005/26/20233130AS2B4 11/26 - 05/2605/26/2022 1,000,000.002.2502.219
FHLB1043-22 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.002.87506/14/20243130AS6D6 12/14 - 06/1406/14/2022 1,500,000.002.8752.836
FHLB1044-22 1,500,000.00 1,484,728.172.12502/28/20243130ARHG9 08/28 - 02/28 Received06/13/2022 1,481,475.002.8702.831
FHLB1052-22A 1,500,000.00 1,488,917.012.50002/13/20243130AFW94 08/13 - 02/13 Received07/15/2022 1,487,205.003.0573.015
FHLB1052-22B 1,000,000.00 992,611.342.50002/13/20243130AFW94 08/13 - 02/13 Received07/15/2022 991,470.003.0573.015
FHLB1055-22 1,000,000.00 1,002,817.713.12506/14/20243130ASHK8 12/14 - 06/14 3,732.6408/04/2022 999,000.003.1803.136
FHLB1056-22 1,810,000.00 1,715,626.290.62511/27/20243130AMNR9 11/28 - 05/28 2,105.3808/05/2022 1,706,558.503.2103.166
FHLB1057-22A 1,500,000.00 1,432,013.701.10001/13/20253130AQGT4 01/13 - 07/13 1,008.3308/05/2022 1,426,305.013.2103.166
FHLB1057-22B 1,000,000.00 954,675.801.10001/13/20253130AQGT4 01/13 - 07/13 672.2208/05/2022 950,870.003.2103.166
FHLB1060-22 1,500,000.00 1,494,301.723.25006/06/20253130AS6N4 12/06 - 06/06 13,135.4209/13/2022 1,480,815.003.7463.694
FHLB1061-22 1,500,000.00 1,501,499.764.13008/28/20253130ASZD4 02/28 - 08/28 2,237.0809/13/2022 1,499,250.004.1484.091
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Page 3
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2022
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2022-2023
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
FHLB1062-22 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.004.00009/29/20253130AT7A9 03/29 - 09/2909/29/2022 1,500,000.004.0003.945
FHLB1064-22 1,500,000.00 1,481,802.012.75012/13/20243130A3GE8 12/13 - 06/13 10,427.0809/14/2022 1,470,760.503.6603.610
FHLMC0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.36005/15/20243134GXBD5 05/15 - 11/15 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3600.355
FHLMC0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.35003/29/20243134GWXC5 03/29 - 09/29 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3500.345
FHLMC1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.36005/15/20243134GXBD5 11/15 - 05/15 Received09/15/2021 1,500,000.000.3600.355
FHLMC1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,775.060.30011/13/20233134GXAY0 11/13 - 05/13 Received09/15/2021 1,501,500.000.2540.250
FHLMC1018-21A 1,000,000.00 999,854.460.20011/23/20223134GXEA8 05/23 - 11/23 Received12/10/2021 999,040.000.3010.297
FHLMC1018-21B 1,000,000.00 999,854.460.20011/23/20223134GXEA8 05/23 - 11/23 Received12/10/2021 999,040.000.3010.297
FHLMC1024-22 1,000,000.00 995,267.860.25006/26/20233137EAES4 06/26 - 12/26 Received02/02/2022 991,000.000.8980.886
FHLMC1050-22 1,500,000.00 1,488,553.323.00012/23/20243134GXVF8 12/23 - 06/2306/23/2022 1,487,154.603.3603.314
FNMA1017-21 1,500,000.00 1,509,131.282.37501/19/20233135G0T94 01/19 - 07/19 Received12/10/2021 1,533,735.000.3400.335
FNMA1027-22 1,000,000.00 992,161.690.25007/10/20233135G05G4 07/10 - 01/10 Received02/11/2022 985,700.001.2741.256
FNMA1033-22 3,000,000.00 2,960,233.030.25007/10/20233135G05G4 07/10 - 01/10 Received04/18/2022 2,937,000.001.9901.962
FNMA1051-22A 1,500,000.00 1,498,164.472.87509/12/20233135G0U43 09/12 - 03/12 Received07/14/2022 1,497,750.003.0052.964
FNMA1051-22B 1,000,000.00 998,776.322.87509/12/20233135G0U43 09/12 - 03/12 Received07/14/2022 998,500.003.0052.964
FNMA1063-22 1,500,000.00 1,449,536.821.62510/15/20243135G0W66 10/18 - 04/18 10,088.5409/14/2022 1,438,045.863.6933.642
85,600,464.97Federal Agency Coupon Securities Totals 85,450,418.0848,125.441.59386,139,000.00 1.615
Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing
FHLB1054-22 1,500,000.00 1,496,900.002.48010/31/2022313385M60 10/31 - At Maturity08/04/2022 1,490,906.672.5652.530
1,496,900.00Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing Totals 1,490,906.670.002.5301,500,000.00 2.565
Treasury Coupon Securities
US TRE0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,984,333.441.62505/31/2023912828R69 05/31 - 11/30 Received03/08/2019 2,899,980.002.4592.426
US TRE0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,046,622.122.75005/31/20239128284S6 11/30 - 05/31 Received11/04/2019 6,251,220.001.5401.519
US TRE0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,160,218.912.00005/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 6,300,937.500.3840.379
US TRE0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,934,930.220.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 5,899,218.750.6630.654
US TRE0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,556,244.472.37508/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,597,770.000.3600.355
US TRE0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,037,496.322.37508/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,065,180.000.3600.355
US TRE0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,972,084.970.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received06/11/2021 3,958,400.000.5150.508
US TRE0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,085,702.782.00005/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received06/11/2021 3,152,940.000.2750.271
US TRE0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,530,897.251.50009/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,550,790.000.4600.454
US TRE0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,020,598.171.50009/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,033,860.000.4600.454
US TRE0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,022.310.12512/31/202291282CBD2 12/31 - 06/30 Received09/09/2021 1,000,117.190.1160.114
US TRE0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,813.280.12503/31/202391282CBU4 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,499,414.060.1500.148
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Page 4
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2022
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2022-2023
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Treasury Coupon Securities
US TRE1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,539,523.692.87509/30/20239128285D8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,581,544.760.2250.222
US TRE1006-21 3,000,000.00 2,997,130.590.12505/31/202391282CCD1 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 2,992,968.750.2700.266
US TRE1007-21 2,000,000.00 1,995,871.210.12509/15/202391282CAK7 03/15 - 09/15 Received10/15/2021 1,991,718.750.3420.337
US TRE1009-21 2,000,000.00 1,997,011.540.25011/15/202391282CAW1 11/15 - 05/15 Received10/15/2021 1,994,453.130.3840.378
US TRE1010-21 6,000,000.00 6,146,809.182.00005/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 6,231,562.500.5180.511
US TRE1011-21 4,000,000.00 3,943,849.490.25005/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,923,593.750.7850.775
US TRE1012-21 3,500,000.00 3,468,157.890.75005/31/202691282CCF6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2021 3,459,804.691.0050.991
US TRE1020-22 1,000,000.00 998,585.690.12501/31/202391282CBG5 01/31 - 07/31 Received01/21/2022 995,652.730.5500.542
US TRE1021-22 1,000,000.00 998,055.730.12502/28/202391282CBN0 02/28 - 08/31 Received01/21/2022 994,776.390.6000.592
US TRE1022-22 1,000,000.00 997,360.450.12503/31/202391282CBU4 03/31 - 09/30 Received01/21/2022 993,670.920.6600.651
US TRE1023-22 1,000,000.00 996,633.330.12504/30/202391282CBX8 04/30 - 10/31 Received01/21/2022 992,596.520.7100.700
US TRE1032-22 9,000,000.00 8,412,947.510.75005/31/202691282CCF6 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/14/2022 8,338,359.382.6412.605
US TRE1034-22 1,500,000.00 1,507,958.702.75005/31/20239128284S6 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/18/2022 1,513,417.971.9361.910
US TRE1035-22 1,000,000.00 974,332.200.12512/15/202391282CBA8 06/15 - 12/15 Received04/18/2022 964,648.442.3092.277
US TRE1036-22 2,000,000.00 1,960,823.950.75012/31/202391282CDR9 06/30 - 12/31 Received04/18/2022 1,946,562.502.3612.328
US TRE1037-22 4,500,000.00 4,061,137.520.50005/31/2027912828ZS2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/18/2022 4,018,359.382.7562.719
US TRE1041-22A 1,500,000.00 1,495,634.292.12511/30/2023912828U57 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/20/2022 1,494,257.812.3812.348
US TRE1041-22B 1,000,000.00 997,089.532.12511/30/2023912828U57 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/20/2022 996,171.872.3812.348
US TRE1042-22 2,000,000.00 1,983,545.332.00005/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received05/23/2022 1,980,000.002.5102.476
US TRE1049-22 1,500,000.00 1,482,797.621.37506/30/2023912828S35 06/30 - 12/31 Received06/17/2022 1,476,093.752.9482.908
84,784,219.68Treasury Coupon Securities Totals 85,090,041.490.001.18385,500,000.00 1.199
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
US TRE1030-22 2,000,000.00 1,996,907.630.91312/01/2022912796P94 12/01 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,986,920.800.9430.930
US TRE1031-22A 1,500,000.00 1,496,183.751.02912/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 1,487,736.551.0651.050
US TRE1031-22B 1,000,000.00 997,455.831.02912/29/2022912796R27 12/29 - At Maturity03/18/2022 991,824.361.0651.050
4,490,547.21Treasury Discounts -Amortizing Totals 4,466,481.710.000.9974,500,000.00 1.010
190,750,498.53Investment Totals 190,811,808.7848,125.44192,064,804.45 1.422 1.442
Portfolio 2023
AC
Run Date: 10/05/2022 - 14:57 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2022
0.22%
61.42%
38.36%
Portfolio by Asset Class
Cash and Equivalents
Long Term
Short Term
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2022
0.52%
12.07%
23.15%
4.95%
0.15%
4.95%3.64%
1.04%
46.86%
2.60%
0.07%
Par Value by Issuer Graph
FAMCA
FFCB
FHLB
FHLMC
FIB
FNMA
JPM
REGFUND
UST
USB
WF
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2022
0.15%
0.07%
2.62%4.69%
44.88%
0.78%
44.45%
2.35%
Book Value By Investment Type
Money Market
Passbook/Checking Accounts
Certificate of Deposit
Commercial Paper
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
Federal Agency Discounts
Treasury Coupon Securities
Treasury Discounts
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2022
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Investment Yield by Type
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2022-4 TO THE AMES MUNICIPAL CODE
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that in accordance
with the provisions of Section 380.8 Code of Iowa, a compilation of ordinances and amendments
enacted subsequent to the adoption of the Ames Municipal Code shall be and the same is hereby
approved and adopted, under date of October 1, 2022, as Supplement No. 2022-4 to the Ames
Municipal Code.
Adopted this day of , 2022.
___________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
Item No. 15
ITEM #16
DATE: 10/25/2022
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR GENERAL
OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 2022A,
SETTING DATE OF SALE FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2022, AND
AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC BIDDING FOR THE SALE
BACKGROUND:
The FY 2022/23 Budget includes General Obligation (G.O.) Bond-funded capital
improvement projects in the amount of $12,400,000. The City Council held a public
hearing on the issuance of these bonds on March 8, 2022. Separately, on September 14,
2021, the City Council held a public hearing for the issuance of G.O. Bonds to fund a
capital improvement project for the Indoor Aquatic Center.
This action is to proceed with a total G.O. Bond issuance of $13,400,000, which includes
the $12,400,000 for capital improvement projects and $1,000,000 for a portion of the
Indoor Aquatic Center. Council action is required to approve the official statement, set the
date of sale for November 8, 2022, and authorize electronic bidding.
The Official Statement, or “Preliminary Official Statement,” is the offering document for
municipal securities, in preliminary form, which does not contain pricing information. The
Statement provides several financial disclosures and information about the City. This
“Preliminary Official Statement” is on file in the City Clerk’s Office and is attached to this
report.
Additionally, Council is asked to approve electronic bidding as the method to provide a
secure and highly competitive process for the sale of the bonds. The proposed issuance
is in compliance with the City Council approved debt policy. Projects to be funded by this
bond issue include the following:
Essential Purpose URA
General Corporate Purpose
General Corporate Purpose
Subtotal Tax Supported Bonds $13,174,560
Estimated Issuance Costs 225,440
Grand Total – 2022/23 GO Issue $13,400,000
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Official Statement for General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds,
Series 2022A, setting the date of sale for November 8, 2028, and authorize
electronic bidding for the sale.
2. Refer the Official Statement back to City staff for modifications.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Issuance of these bonds is necessary in order to accomplish the City’s approved Capital
Improvements Plan for the current fiscal year.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
The City Council should note that the $13,174,560 of G.O. Bonds to be issued is
approximately $5,200,000 less than the $18,359,410 reflected in the currently
approved CIP for FY 2022/23. This difference is related to the Indoor Aquatics
Center project where delays in initiating the project due to the performance
environmental studies and deciding which site to pursue has reduced the amount
of revenue needed to fund the project in FY 2022/23. The $5,200,000 will be added
to FY 20023/24 CIP.
Th
i
s
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
r
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
,
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
w
it
h
o
u
t
n
o
t
i
c
e
.
T
h
e
B
o
n
d
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
s
o
l
d
n
o
r
ma
y
o
f
f
e
r
s
t
o
b
u
y
b
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
th
e
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
f
i
n
a
l
f
o
r
m
.
U
n
d
e
r
n
o
c
i
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
t
h
i
s
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
a
n
o
f
f
e
r
t
o
s
e
l
l
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
l
i
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
o
f
f
e
r
t
o
b
u
y
,
n
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
t
h
e
r
e
b
e
a
n
y
s
a
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
Bo
n
d
s
i
n
a
n
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
c
h
o
f
f
e
r
,
s
o
l
i
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
sa
l
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
n
l
a
w
f
u
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
u
n
de
r
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
la
w
s
o
f
a
n
y
s
u
c
h
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
.
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED OCTOBER 25, 2022
New Issue Rating: Moody’s Investors Service ‘___’
In the opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Bond Counsel, according to present laws, rulings and decisions and assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance
with certain covenants, the interest on the Bonds (i) is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
“Code”) and (ii) is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on noncorporate taxpayers by Section 55 of the Code. Interest on the
Bonds may, however, be taken into account in determining adjusted financial statement income for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on applicable
corporations (as defined in Section 59(k) of the Code) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, the Bonds will NOT be “qualified tax-
exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. Interest on the Bonds is not exempt from the taxes imposed by Division II (Personal Net Income Tax) and
Division III (Business Tax on Corporations) of Iowa Code chapter 422, as amended, and will be included in “adjusted current earnings” to be used in computing the “state
alternative minimum taxable income” of corporations for purposes of Iowa Code section 422.33, as amended. Interest on the Bonds is subject to the taxes imposed by Division V
(Taxation of Financial Institutions) of Iowa Code chapter 422, as amended. See “TAX EXEMPTION AND RELATED TAX MATTERS” herein.
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
$13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A
BIDS RECEIVED: Tuesday, November 8, 2022, 10:00 A.M., Central Time
AWARD: Tuesday, November 8, 2022, 6:00 P.M., Central Time
Dated: Date of Delivery (November 22, 2022) Principal Due: June 1, as shown inside front cover
The 13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A (the “Bonds”) are being issued pursuant to
Division III of Chapters 384 of the Code of Iowa and a resolution to be adopted by the City Council of the City of Ames,
Iowa (the “City”). The Bonds are being issued for the purpose of paying the cost, to that extent, of constructing street,
alley, bridge, sidewalk, storm water drainage and incidental infrastructure improvements; acquiring and installing street
lighting, signage and signalization improvements; acquiring vehicles and equipment for the municipal fire department,
undertaking Downtown Plaza improvements and concrete surfacing improvements for a municipal fire station; and
undertaking a project in the Downtown Reinvestment District Urban Renewal Area consisting of constructing, furnishing
and equipping an indoor aquatic center and associated grounds and facilities.
The purchaser of the Bonds agrees to enter into a loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with the City pursuant to the authority
contained in Section 384.24A of the Code of Iowa. The Bonds are issued in evidence of the City’s obligations under the Loan
Agreement. The Bonds are general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its power of levy direct ad valorem
taxes against all taxable property within the City without limitation as to rate or amount to the repayment of the Bonds.
The Bonds will be issued as fully registered Bonds without coupons and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede &
Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual
purchases may be made in book-entry-only form, in the principal amount of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof. The purchaser
will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Bonds purchased. The City’s Treasurer as Registrar/Paying Agent
(the “Registrar”) will pay principal on the Bonds, payable annually on June 1, beginning June 1, 2023, and interest on the Bonds
payable initially on June 1, 2023 and thereafter on each December 1 and June 1 to DTC, which will in turn remit such principal
and interest to its participants for subsequent disbursements to the beneficial owners of the Bonds as described herein. Interest
and principal shall be paid to the registered holder of a bond as shown on the records of ownership maintained by the Registrar
as of the 15th day of the month next preceding the interest payment date (the “Record Date”).
THE BONDS WILL MATURE AS LISTED ON THE INSIDE FRONT COVER
MINIMUM BID: $13,252,600
GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT: $134,000 Required of Purchaser Only
TAX MATTERS: Federal: Tax-Exempt
State: Taxable
See “TAX EXEMPTION AND RELATED TAX
ATTERS” for more information.
The Bonds are offered, subject to prior sale, withdrawal or modification, when, as, and if issued subject to the legal opinion as
to legality, validity and tax exemption of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Bond Counsel, Des Moines, Iowa, to be furnished upon
delivery of the Bonds. It is expected the Bonds will be available for delivery on or about November 22, 2022 via Fast Automated
Securities Transfer delivery with the Registrar holding the Bonds on behalf of DTC. This Preliminary Official Statement in the
form presented is deemed final for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to revisions,
corrections of modifications as determined to be appropriate, and is authorized to be distributed in connection with the offering
of the Bonds for sale.
*Preliminary; subject to change.
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
$13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A
MATURITY: The Bonds will mature June 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Yea Amoun *
2023 $1,010,000
2024 870,000
2025 915,000
2026 960,000
2027 1,010,000
2028 1,060,000
2029 1,115,000
2030 1,170,000
2031 1,225,000
2032 1,290,000
2033 1,355,000
2034 1,420,000
*PRINCIPAL
ADJUSTMENT: Preliminary; subject to change. The aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, and each scheduled
maturity thereof, are subject to increase or reduction by the City or its designee after the
determination of the successful bidder. The City may increase or decrease each maturity in
increments of $5,000 but the total amount to be issued will not exceed $14,070,000. Interest rates
specified by the successful bidder for each maturity will not change. Final adjustments shall be in
the sole discretion of the City.
The dollar amount of the purchase price proposed by the successful bidder will be changed if the
aggregate principal amount of the Bonds is adjusted as described above. Any change in the
principal amount of any maturity of the Bonds will be made while maintaining, as closely as
possible, the successful bidder's net compensation, calculated as a percentage of bond principal.
The successful bidder may not withdraw or modify its bid as a result of any post-bid adjustment.
Any adjustment shall be conclusive and shall be binding upon the successful bidder.
INTEREST: Interest on the Bonds will be payable on June 1, 2023 and semiannually thereafter.
REDEMPTION: Bonds due after June 1, 2030 will be subject to call for prior redemption on said date or on any day
thereafter upon terms of par plus accrued interest to date of call. Written notice of such call shall
be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owners of
the Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books.
COMPLIANCE WITH S.E.C. RULE 15c2-12
Municipal obligations (issued in an aggregate amount over $1,000,000) are subject to General Rules and Regulations,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 15c2-12 Municipal Securities Disclosure.
Preliminary Official Statement: This Preliminary Official Statement was prepared for the City for dissemination to
prospective bidders. Its primary purpose is to disclose information regarding the Bonds to prospective bidders in the
interest of receiving competitive bids in accordance with the “TERMS OF OFFERING” contained herein. Unless an
addendum is received prior to the sale, this document shall be deemed the final “Preliminary Official Statement”.
Review Period: This Preliminary Official Statement has been distributed to City staff as well as to prospective bidders
for an objective review of its disclosure. Comments, omissions or inaccuracies must be submitted to PFM Financial
Advisors LLC (the “Municipal Advisor”) at least two business days prior to the sale. Requests for additional information
or corrections in the Preliminary Official Statement received on or before this date will not be considered a qualification
of a bid received. If there are any changes, corrections or additions to the Preliminary Official Statement, prospective
bidders will be informed by an addendum at least one business day prior to the sale.
Final Official Statement: Upon award of sale of the Bonds, the legislative body will authorize the preparation of a final
Official Statement that includes the offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount,
principal amount per maturity, anticipated delivery date and other information required by law and the identity of the
underwriter (the “Syndicate Manager”) and syndicate members. Copies of the final Official Statement will be delivered
to the Syndicate Manager within seven business days following the bid acceptance.
REPRESENTATIONS
No dealer, broker, salesman or other person has been authorized by the City, the Municipal Advisor or the underwriter to
give any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this Preliminary Official Statement or
the final Official Statement and, if given or made, such information and representations must not be relied upon as having
been authorized by the City, the Municipal Advisor or the underwriter. This Preliminary Official Statement or the final
Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of the
Bonds by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such offer, solicitation or sale. The
information set forth herein has been obtained from the City and other sources which are believed to be reliable, but it is
not to be construed as a representation by the Municipal Advisor or underwriter. The information and expressions of
opinion herein are subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Preliminary Official Statement or the
final Official Statement, nor any sale made thereafter shall, under any circumstances, create any implication there has
been no change in the affairs of the City or in any other information contained herein, since the date hereof. This
Preliminary Official Statement is submitted in connection with the sale of the securities referred to herein and may not be
reproduced or used, in whole or in part, for any other purpose.
This Preliminary Official Statement and any addenda thereto were prepared relying on information from the City and
other sources, which are believed to be reliable.
The Bonds are being offered when, and if issued by the City and accepted by the underwriter, subject to receipt of an
opinion as the legality, validity and tax exemption by Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Des Moines, Iowa, Bond Counsel. It is
expected that the Bonds in the definitive form will be available on or about November 22, 2022 via Fast Automated
Securities Transfer delivery with the Registrar holding the Bonds on behalf of DTC.
Compensation of the Municipal Advisor, payable entirely by the City, is contingent upon the sale of the Bonds.
References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a
hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links
contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Preliminary Official Statement for purposes of, and
as that term is defined in, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12.
City of Ames, Iowa
Mayor/City Council
Membe Office Initial Term Commenced Term Expires
John Haila Mayo January 02, 2018 December 31, 2025
Gloria Betche Council Member – 1st Ward January 02, 2014 December 31, 2025
Tim Gartin Council Member – 2nd Ward January 02, 2014 December 31, 2023
Anita Rollins Council Member – 3rd Ward January 03, 2022 December 31, 2025
Rachel Junck Council Member – 4th Ward January 02, 2020 December 31, 2023
Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen Council Member – At Large January 01, 2016 December 31, 2023
Amber Corrieri Council Member – At Large January 02, 2014 December 31, 2025
Bryce Garman Ex-Officio
Administration
Steven Schainker, City Manager
Vacant, Director of Finance
Renee Hall, City Clerk
Roger Wisecup II, City Treasurer
John Dunn, Director of Water and Pollution Control
John Joiner, Director of Public Works
Donald Kom, Director of Electric Utility
City Attorney
Mark Lambert
Ames, Iowa
Bond Counsel
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Des Moines, Iowa
Municipal Advisor
PFM Financial Advisors LLC
Des Moines, Iowa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TERMS OF OFFERING ................................................................................................................. ..i
SCHEDULE OF BOND YEARS .................................................................................................... vii
EXHIBIT 1 - FORMS OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATES
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... ..1
Authority And Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... ..1
Interest On The Bonds ....................................................................................................................................... ..1
Optional Redemption ......................................................................................................................................... ..1
Payment Of And Security For The Bonds ......................................................................................................... ..2
Book-Entry-Only Issuance ................................................................................................................................ ..2
Future Financing ................................................................................................................................................ ..4
Litigation ........................................................................................................................................................... ..4
Debt Payment History ....................................................................................................................................... ..4
Legal Matters ..................................................................................................................................................... ..4
Tax Exemption And Related Tax Matters ......................................................................................................... ..5
Bondholder's Risks ............................................................................................................................................ ..6
Rating ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Municipal Advisor ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Continuing Disclosure ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Financial Statements .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Certification ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX A - GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA
APPENDIX B - FORM OF LEGAL OPINION
APPENDIX C - JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT
APPENDIX D - FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE
OFFICIAL BID FORM
i
TERMS OF OFFERING
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
Bids for the purchase of the City of Ames, Iowa’s (the “City”) $13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose
Bonds, Series 2022A (the “Bonds”) will be received on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, before 10:00 A.M., Central Time,
after which time they will be tabulated. The City Council will consider award of the Bonds at 6:00 P.M., Central Time,
on the same day. Questions regarding the sale of the Bonds should be directed to the City’s Municipal Advisor, PFM
Financial Advisors LLC (the “Municipal Advisor”), 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 3300, Des Moines, Iowa, 50309, telephone
515-724-5734. Information may also be obtained from Mr. Roger Wisecup, City Treasurer, City of Ames, 515 Clark
Avenue, Ames, Iowa, 50010, telephone 515-239-5119.
The following section sets forth the description of certain terms of the Bonds, as well as the “TERMS OF OFFERING”
with which all bidders and bid proposals are required to comply.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 2022A, in the principal amount of $13,400,000*
to be dated the date of delivery (anticipated to be November 22, 2022), in the denomination of $5,000 or multiples thereof,
will mature on June 1 as follows:
Yea Amoun *
2023 $1,010,000
2024 870,000
2025 915,000
2026 960,000
2027 1,010,000
2028 1,060,000
2029 1,115,000
2030 1,170,000
2031 1,225,000
2032 1,290,000
2033 1,355,000
2034 1,420,000
* Preliminary; subject to change.
ADJUSTMENT TO BOND MATURITY AMOUNTS
The aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, and each scheduled maturity thereof, are subject to increase or reduction
by the City or its designee after the determination of the successful bidder. The City may increase or decrease each
maturity in increments of $5,000 but the total amount to be issued will not exceed $14,070,000. Interest rates specified
by the successful bidder for each maturity will not change. Final adjustments shall be in the sole discretion of the City.
The dollar amount of the purchase price proposed by the successful bidder will be changed if the aggregate principal
amount of the Bonds is adjusted as described above. Any change in the principal amount of any maturity of the Bonds
will be made while maintaining, as closely as possible, the successful bidder's net compensation, calculated as a percentage
of bond principal. The successful bidder may not withdraw or modify its bid as a result of any post-bid adjustment. Any
adjustment shall be conclusive and shall be binding upon the successful bidder.
ii
INTEREST ON THE BONDS
Interest on the Bonds will be payable on June 1, 2023 and semiannually on the 1st day of December and June thereafter.
Principal and interest shall be paid to the registered holder of a bond as shown on the records of ownership maintained by
the Registrar as of the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date (the “Record Date”). Interest will be
computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
Bonds due after June 1, 2030 will be subject to call prior to maturity in whole, or from time to time in part, in any order
of maturity and within a maturity by lot on said date or on any date thereafter at the option of the City, upon terms of par
plus accrued interest to date of call. Written notice of such call shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owners of the Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books.
TERM BOND OPTION
Bidders shall have the option of designating the Bonds as serial bonds or term bonds, or both. The bid must designate
whether each of the principal amounts shown above represent a serial maturity or a mandatory redemption requirement
for a term bond maturity. (See the “OFFICIAL BID FORM” for more information.) In any event, the above principal
amount scheduled shall be represented by either serial bond maturities or mandatory redemption requirements, or a
combination of both.
GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT
A good faith deposit in the amount of $134,000 (the “Deposit”) is required from the lowest bidder only. The lowest
bidder is required to submit such Deposit payable to the order of the City, not later than 12:00 P.M., Central Time, on the
day of the sale of the Bonds and in the form of either (i) a cashier’s check provided to the City or its Municipal Advisor,
or (ii) a wire transfer as instructed by the City’s Municipal Advisor. If not so received, the bid of the lowest bidder may
be rejected and the City may direct the second lowest bidder to submit a deposit and thereafter may award the sale of the
Bonds to the same. No interest on a deposit will accrue to the successful bidder (the “Purchaser”). The Deposit will be
applied to the purchase price of the Bonds. In the event a Purchaser fails to honor its accepted bid proposal, any deposit
will be retained by the City.
FORM OF BIDS AND AWARD
All bids shall be unconditional for the entire issue of Bonds for a price not less than $13,252,600, plus accrued interest,
and shall specify the rate or rates of interest in conformity to the limitations as set forth in the “BIDDING
PARAMETERS” section herein. Bids must be submitted on or in substantial compliance with the “OFFICIAL BID
FORM” provided by the City. The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest interest rate to be determined
on a true interest cost (the “TIC”) basis assuming compliance with the “ESTABLISHMENT OF ISSUE PRICE” herein,
and “GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT” herein. The TIC shall be determined by the present value method, i.e., by ascertaining
the semiannual rate, compounded semiannually, necessary to discount to present value as of the dated date of the Bonds,
the amount payable on each interest payment date and on each stated maturity date or earlier mandatory redemption, so
that the aggregate of such amounts will equal the aggregate purchase price offered therefore. The TIC shall be stated in
terms of an annual percentage rate and shall be that rate of interest which is twice the semiannual rate so ascertained (also
known as the Canadian Method). The TIC shall be as determined by the Municipal Advisor based on the “TERMS OF
OFFERING” and all amendments, and on the bids as submitted. The Municipal Advisor’s computation of the TIC of
each bid shall be controlling. In the event of tie bids for the lowest TIC, the Bonds will be awarded by lot.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt
of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have
failed to comply with the terms herein.
iii
BIDDING PARAMETERS
Each bidder’s proposal must conform to the following limitations:
1. Each annual maturity must bear a single rate of interest from the dated date of the Bonds to the date of maturity.
2. Rates of interest bid must be in multiples of one-eighth or one-twentieth of one percent.
3. The initial price to the public for each maturity must be 98% or greater.
RECEIPT OF BIDS
Forms of Bids: Bids must be submitted on or in substantial compliance with the “TERMS OF OFFERING” and
“OFFICIAL BID FORM” provided by the City or through PARITY® competitive bidding system (the “Internet Bid
System”). The City shall not be responsible for malfunction or mistake made by any person, or as a result of the use of
an electronic bid or the means used to deliver or complete a bid. The use of such facilities or means is at the sole risk of
the prospective bidder who shall be bound by the terms of the bid as received.
No bid will be accepted after the time specified in the “OFFICIAL BID FORM”. The time as maintained by the Internet
Bid System shall constitute the official time with respect to all bids submitted. A bid may be withdrawn before the bid
deadline using the same method used to submit the bid. If more than one bid is received from a bidder, the last bid
received shall be considered.
Sealed Bidding: Sealed bids may be submitted and will be received at the office of the City’s Treasurer, City Hall, 515
Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010.
Electronic Internet Bidding: Electronic internet bids will be received at the office of the City’s Municipal Advisor, PFM
Financial Advisors LLC, Des Moines, Iowa, and at the office of the City’s Treasurer. Electronic internet bids must be
submitted through the Internet Bid System. Information about the Internet Bid System may be obtained by calling
212-849-5021.
Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access the Internet Bid System for purposes
of submitting its electronic internet bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the “TERMS OF
OFFERING” and “OFFICIAL BID FORM”. The City is permitting bidders to use the services of the Internet Bid System
solely as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic internet bidding and the Internet Bid System is not an
agent of the City. Provisions of the “TERMS OF OFFERING” and “OFFICIAL BID FORM” shall control in the event
of conflict with information provided by the Internet Bid System.
BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY ISSUANCE
The Bonds will be issued by means of a book-entry-only system with no physical distribution of bond certificates made
to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one bond certificate, representing the aggregate
principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The
Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds.
Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single
maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are
payable by the Registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest
payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial
owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The
Purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the bond certificates with DTC.
iv
MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER’S OPTION
If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefore at the option of the
bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and
expense of the Purchaser. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall
be paid by the Purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency,
the City will pay that initial rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the Purchaser. Failure
of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after the Bonds have been awarded to the Purchaser shall not constitute
cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. The City reserves the right in its sole
discretion to accept or deny changes to the financing documents requested by the insurer selected by the Purchaser.
DELIVERY
The Bonds will be delivered to the Purchaser through DTC in New York, New York, against full payment in immediately
available cash or federal funds. The Bonds are expected to be delivered within forty-five days after the sale. Should
delivery be delayed beyond sixty days from the date of sale for any reason except failure of performance by the Purchaser,
the Purchaser may withdraw their bid and thereafter their interest in and liability for the Bonds will cease. When the
Bonds are ready for delivery, the City will give the Purchaser five working days’ notice of the delivery date and the City
will expect payment in full on that date; otherwise reserving the right at its option to determine that the Purchaser failed
to comply with the offer of purchase.
ESTABLISHMENT OF ISSUE PRICE
In order to establish the issue price of the Bonds for federal income tax purposes, the City requires bidders to agree to the
following, and by submitting a bid, each bidder agrees to the following.
If a bid is submitted by a potential underwriter, the bidder confirms that (i) the underwriters have offered or reasonably
expect to offer the Bonds to the public on or before the date of the award at the offering price (the “initial offering price”)
for each maturity as set forth in the bid and (ii) the bidder, if it is the winning bidder, shall require any agreement among
underwriters, selling group agreement, retail distribution agreement or other agreement relating to the initial sale of the
Bonds to the public to which it is a party to include provisions requiring compliance by all parties to such agreements
with the provisions contained herein. For purposes hereof, Bonds with a separate CUSIP number constitute a separate
“maturity,” and the public does not include underwriters of the Bonds (including members of a selling group or retail
distribution group) or persons related to underwriters of the Bonds.
If, however, a bid is submitted for the bidder’s own account in a capacity other than as an underwriter of the Bonds, and
the bidder has no current intention to sell, reoffer, or otherwise dispose of the Bonds, the bidder shall notify the City to
that effect at the time it submits its bid and shall provide a certificate to that effect in place of the certificate otherwise
required below.
If the winning bidder intends to act as an underwriter, the City shall advise the winning bidder at or prior to the time of
award whether (i) the competitive sale rule or (ii) the “hold-the-offering price” rule applies.
If the City advises the Purchaser that the requirements for a competitive sale have been satisfied and that the competitive
sale rule applies, the Purchaser will be required to deliver to the City at or prior to closing a certification, substantially in
the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1-A, as to the reasonably expected initial offering price as of the award date.
If the City advises the Purchaser that the requirements for a competitive sale have not been satisfied and that the hold-the-
offering price rule applies, the Purchaser shall (1) upon the request of the City confirm that the underwriters did not offer
or sell any maturity of the Bonds to any person at a price higher than the initial offering price of that maturity during the
period starting on the award date and ending on the earlier of (a) the close of the fifth business day after the sale date or
(b) the date on which the underwriters have sold at least 10% of that maturity to the public at or below the initial offering
price; and (2) at or prior to closing, deliver to the City a certification substantially in the form attached hereto as
EXHIBIT 1-B, together with a copy of the pricing wire.
v
Any action to be taken or documentation to be received by the City pursuant hereto may be taken or received on behalf
of the City by Municipal Advisor.
Bidders should prepare their bids on the assumption that the Bonds will be subject to the “hold-the-offering-price”
rule. Any bid submitted pursuant to the “TERMS OF OFFERING” and “OFFICIAL BID FORM” shall be
considered a firm offer for the purchase of the Bonds, and bids submitted will not be subject to cancellation or
withdrawal.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City has authorized the preparation of a Preliminary Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to
the Bonds. The Preliminary Official Statement will be further supplemented by offering prices, interest rates, selling
compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, anticipated delivery date and underwriter,
together with any other information required by law or deemed appropriate by the City, shall constitute a final Official
Statement of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Rule”). By awarding the Bonds
to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an “OFFICIAL BID FORM” therefore, the City agrees that no
more than seven (7) business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing
underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded up to 25 copies of the final Official Statement to permit each
“Participating Underwriter” (as that term is defined in the Rule) to comply with the provisions of the Rule. The City shall
treat the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its designated agent for purposes
of distributing copies of the final Official Statement to the Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and
delivering an “OFFICIAL BID FORM” with respect to the Bonds, agrees thereby, if its bid is accepted by the City, (i) it
shall accept such designation, and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of
the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the final Official Statement.
ELECTRONIC EXECUTED DOCUMENTS
Purchaser consents to the receipt of electronic transcripts and acknowledges the City’s intended use of electronically
executed documents. Chapter 554D of the Iowa Code establishes electronic signatures have the full weight and legal
authority as manual signatures.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
The City will covenant in a Continuing Disclosure Certificate for the benefit of the Owners and Beneficial Owners of the
Certificates to provide annually certain financial information and operating data relating to the City (the “Annual Report”),
and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain enumerated events. The Annual Report is to be filed by the City not
later than June 30th after the close of each fiscal year, commencing with the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022,
with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, at its internet repository named “Electronic Municipal Market Access”
(“EMMA”). The notices of events, if any, are also to be filed with EMMA. See “APPENDIX D – FORM OF
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE”. The specific nature of the information to be contained in the Annual
Report or the notices of events, and the manner in which such materials are to be filed, are summarized in “APPENDIX
D – FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE”. These covenants have been made in order to assist the
Purchaser in complying with section (b)(5) of the Rule.
In accordance with the reporting requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of the Rule, within the past five years, the City has not
failed to comply, in all material respects, with any previous undertakings it has entered into with respect to the Rule.
Regarding the Mary Greeley Medical Center’s (the “Medical Center”) the quarterly financials for the quarter ended
September 30, 2019 were filed one day late. In addition, the Medical Center’s Annual Financial Information and
Operating Data Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 was not timely filed.
Breach of the undertakings will not constitute a default or an “Event of Default” under the Bonds or the resolution for the
Bonds. A broker or dealer is to consider a known breach of the undertakings, however, before recommending the purchase
vi
or sale of the Bonds in the secondary market. Thus, a failure on the part of the City to observe the undertakings may
adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Bonds and their market price.
CUSIP NUMBERS
It is anticipated that Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures (“CUSIP”) numbers will be printed on the
Bonds and the Purchaser must agree in the bid proposal to pay the cost thereof. In no event will the City, Bond Counsel
or Municipal Advisor be responsible for the review or express any opinion that the CUSIP numbers are correct. Incorrect
CUSIP numbers on said Bonds shall not be cause for the Purchaser to refuse to accept delivery of said Bonds.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Ames, Iowa
/s/ Roger Wisecup, City Treasurer
vii
SCHEDULE OF BOND YEARS
$13,400,000*
City of Ames, Iowa
General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A
Bonds Dated:
Interest Due: June 1, 2023 and each December 1 and June 1 to maturity
Principal Due: June 1, 2023-2034
Cumulative
Year Principal *ond Years Bond Years
2023 $1,010,000 530.25 530.25
2024 870,000 1,326.75 1,857.00
2025 915,000 2,310.38 4,167.38
2026 960,000 3,384.00 7,551.38
2027 1,010,000 4,570.25 12,121.63
2028 1,060,000 5,856.50 17,978.13
2029 1,115,00 7,275.38 25,253.50
2030 1,170,00 8,804.25 34,057.75
2031 1,225,00 10,443.13 44,500.88
2032 1,290,00 12,287.25 56,788.13
2033 1,355,00 14,261.38 71,049.50
2034 1,420,00 16,365.50 87,415.00
Average Maturity (dated date): 6.524 Years
* Preliminary; subject to change.
November 22, 2022
EXHIBIT 1
FORMS OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATES
Exhibit 1-A to Terms of Offering
EXHIBIT 1-A
COMPETITIVE SALES WITH AT LEAST THREE BIDS FROM ESTABLISHED
UNDERWRITERS
$13,400,000
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 2022A
ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE
(Competitive sale 3 bids)
The undersigned, on behalf of [NAME OF UNDERWRITER] (“[SHORT NAME OF
UNDERWRITER]”), hereby certifies as set forth below with respect to the sale of the obligations named
above (the “Bonds”).
1. Reasonably Expected Initial Offering Price.
(a) As of the Sale Date, the reasonably expected initial offering prices of the Bonds to the
Public by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] are the prices listed in Schedule A (the “Expected
Offering Prices”). The Expected Offering Prices are the prices for the Maturities of the Bonds used by
[SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] in formulating its bid to purchase the Bonds. Attached as Schedule
B is a true and correct copy of the bid provided by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] to purchase the
Bonds.
(b) [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] was not given the opportunity to review other bids
prior to submitting its bid.
(c) The bid submitted by [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER] constituted a firm offer to
purchase the Bonds.
2. Defined Terms. For purposes of this Issue Price Certificate:
(a) Issuer means City of Ames, Iowa.
(b) Maturity means Bonds with the same credit and payment terms. Any Bonds with different
maturity dates, or with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as separate
Maturities.
(c) Member of the Distribution Group means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written
contract with the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in
the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract
directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale
of the Bonds to the Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement
participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public).
(d) Public means any person (i.e., an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association,
company, or corporation) other than a Member of the Distribution Group or a related party to a Member of
the Distribution Group. A person is a “related party” to a Member of the Distribution Group if the Member
of the Distribution Group and that person are subject, directly or indirectly, to (i) at least 50% common
ownership of the voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including
direct ownership by one corporation of another), (ii) more than 50% common ownership of their capital
interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct ownership by one partnership
of another), or (iii) more than 50% common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock of the
Exhibit 1-A to Terms of Offering
corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a
corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of the applicable stock or
interests by one entity of the other).
(e) Sale Date means the first day on which there is a binding contract in writing for the sale of
the respective Maturity. The Sale Date of each Maturity was November 8, 2022.
The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only. Nothing in this
certificate represents [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER]’s interpretation of any laws, including
specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations thereunder. The undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon
by the Issuer with respect to certain of the representations set forth in the Tax Certificate and with respect
to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Bonds, and by Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Des
Moines, Iowa in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross
income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of the Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G, and
other federal income tax advice that it may give to the Issuer from time to time relating to the Bonds.
[UNDERWRITER]
By:__________________________________
Name:________________________________
Dated: November 22, 2022
Exhibit 1-A to Terms of Offering
SCHEDULE A
EXPECTED OFFERING PRICES
(Attached)
Exhibit 1-A to Terms of Offering
SCHEDULE B
COPY OF UNDERWRITER’S BID
(Attached)
Exhibit 1-B to Terms of Offering
EXHIBIT 1-B
COMPETITIVE SALES WITH FEWER THAN THREE BIDS FROM ESTABLISHED UNDERWRITERS
$13,400,000
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 2022A
ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE
(Form - Fewer than 3 bids)
The undersigned, on behalf of [NAME OF UNDERWRITER/REPRESENTATIVE] ([“[SHORT NAME OF
UNDERWRITER]”)][the “Representative”)][, on behalf of itself and [NAMES OF OTHER UNDERWRITERS]
(together, the “Underwriting Group”),] hereby certifies as set forth below with respect to the sale of the obligations named
above (the “Bonds”).
1. Initial Offering Price of the Bonds. [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER][The Underwriting Group]
offered the Bonds to the Public for purchase at the specified initial offering prices listed in Schedule A (the “Initial
Offering Prices”) on or before the Sale Date. A copy of the pricing wire for the Bonds is attached to this certificate as
Schedule B.
2. First Price at which Sold to the Public. On the Sale Date, at least 10% of each Maturity [listed in
Schedule C] was first sold to the Public at the respective Initial Offering Price [or price specified [therein][in Schedule
C], if different].
3. Hold the Offering Price Rule. [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER][The Underwriting Group] has
agreed in writing that, (i) for each Maturity less than 10% of which was first sold to the Public at a single price as of the
Sale Date, it would neither offer nor sell any of the Bonds of such Maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the
Initial Offering Price for such Maturity during the Holding Period for such Maturity (the “Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule”),
and (ii) any agreement among underwriters, selling group agreement, or third-party distribution agreement contains the
agreement of each underwriter, dealer, or broker-dealer who is a party to such agreement to comply with the Hold-the-
Offering-Price Rule. Based on the [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER][Representative]’s own knowledge and, in the
case of sales by other Members of the Distribution Group, representations obtained from the other Members of the
Distribution Group, no Member of the Distribution Group has offered or sold any such Maturity at a price that is higher
than the respective Initial Offering Price during the respective Holding Period.
4. Defined Terms. For purposes of this Issue Price Certificate:
(a) Holding Period means the period starting on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the
fifth business day after the Sale Date (November 16, 2022), or (ii) the date on which Members of the Distribution Group
have sold at least 10% of such Maturity to the Public at one or more prices, none of which is higher than the Initial
Offering Price for such Maturity.
(b) Issuer means City of Ames, Iowa.
(c) Maturity means Bonds with the same credit and payment terms. Any Bonds with different maturity dates,
or with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as separate Maturities.
(d) Member of the Distribution Group means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with
the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to
the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in
Exhibit 1-B to Terms of Offering
clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public (including a member of a selling
group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public).
(e) Public means any person (i.e., an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or
corporation) other than a Member of the Distribution Group or a related party to a Member of the Distribution Group. A
person is a “related party” to a Member of the Distribution Group if the Member of the Distribution Group and that person
are subject, directly or indirectly, to (i) at least 50% common ownership of the voting power or the total value of their
stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct ownership by one corporation of another), (ii) more than 50%
common ownership of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct
ownership by one partnership of another), or (iii) more than 50% common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock
of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a corporation
and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the
other).
(f) Sale Date means the first day on which there is a binding contract in writing for the sale of the respective
Maturity. The Sale Date of each Maturity was November 8, 2022.
The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only. Nothing in this certificate
represents [SHORT NAME OF UNDERWRITER][The Underwriting Group]’s interpretation of any laws, including
specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations
thereunder. The undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by the Issuer with respect to
certain of the representations set forth in the Tax Certificate and with respect to compliance with the federal income tax
rules affecting the Bonds, and by Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Des Moines, Iowa in connection with rendering its opinion
that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of the
Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the Issuer from time to
time relating to the Bonds.
By:____________________________________
Name:__________________________________
Dated: November 22, 2022
Exhibit 1-B to Terms of Offering
SCHEDULE A
INITIAL OFFERING PRICES OF THE BONDS
(Attached)
Exhibit 1-B to Terms of Offering
SCHEDULE B
PRICING WIRE
(Attached)
Exhibit 1-B to Terms of Offering
SCHEDULE C
SALES OF AT LEAST 10% OF MATURITY TO THE PUBLIC ON THE SALE DATE
AT THE INITIAL OFFERING PRICE
(Attached)
1
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
$13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A
INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Official Statement contains information relating to the City of Ames, Iowa (the “City”) and its issuance
of $13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A (the “Bonds”). This Preliminary Official
Statement has been authorized by the City and may be distributed in connection with the sale of the Bonds authorized
therein. Inquiries may be made to the City’s Municipal Advisor, PFM Financial Advisors LLC (the “Municipal Advisor”),
801 Grand Avenue, Suite 3300, Des Moines, Iowa, 50309, telephone 515-724-5734. Information may also be obtained
from Mr. Roger Wisecup, City Treasurer, City of Ames, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa, 50010, telephone 515-239-5119.
AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Division III of Chapters 384 of the Code of Iowa and a resolution to be adopted
by the City Council of the City. The Bonds are being issued for the purpose of paying the cost, to that extent, of
constructing street, alley, bridge, sidewalk, storm water drainage and incidental infrastructure improvements; acquiring
and installing street lighting, signage and signalization improvements; acquiring vehicles and equipment for the municipal
fire department, undertaking Downtown Plaza improvements and concrete surfacing improvements for a municipal fire
station; and undertaking a project in the Downtown Reinvestment District Urban Renewal Area consisting of constructing,
furnishing and equipping an indoor aquatic center and associated grounds and facilities.
The estimated sources and uses of the Bonds are as follows:
Sources of Funds*
Par Amount of Bonds $13,400,000.00
Uses of Funds*
Deposit to Project Fund $13,174,560.00
Underwriter’s Discoun 147,400.00
Cost of Issuance and Contingency 78,040.00
Total Uses $13,400,000.00
* Preliminary; subject to change.
INTEREST ON THE BONDS
Interest on the Bonds will be payable on June 1, 2023 and semiannually on the 1st day of December and June thereafter.
Principal and interest shall be paid to the registered holder of a bond as shown on the records of ownership maintained by
the Registrar as of the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date (the “Record Date”). Interest will be
computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
Bonds due after June 1, 2030 will be subject to call prior to maturity in whole, or from time to time in part, in any order
of maturity and within a maturity by lot on said date or on any date thereafter at the option of the City, upon terms of par
plus accrued interest to date of call. Written notice of such call shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owners of the Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books.
2
PAYMENT OF AND SECURITY FOR THE BONDS
The Bonds are general obligations of the City and the unlimited taxing powers of the City are irrevocably pledged for
their payment. Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City will levy taxes for the years and in amounts sufficient to provide
100% of annual principal and interest due on the Bonds. If, however, the amount credited to the debt service fund for
payment of the Bonds is insufficient to pay principal and interest, whether from transfers or from original levies, the City
must use funds in its treasury and is required to levy ad valorem taxes upon all taxable property in the City without limit
as to rate or amount sufficient to pay the debt service deficiency.
Nothing in the resolution authorizing the Bonds prohibits or limits the ability of the City to use legally available moneys
other than the proceeds of the general ad valorem property taxes levied, as described in the preceding paragraph, to pay
all or any portion of the principal of or interest on the Bonds. If and to the extent such other legally available moneys are
used to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds, the City may, but shall not be required to, (a) reduce the amount of
taxes levied for such purpose, as described in the preceding paragraph; or (b) use proceeds of taxes levied, as described
in the preceding paragraph, to reimburse the fund or account from which such other legally available moneys are
withdrawn for the amount withdrawn from such fund or account to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds.
The resolution authorizing the Bonds does not restrict the City’s ability to issue or incur additional general obligation
debt, although issuance of additional general obligation debt is subject to the same constitutional and statutory limitations
that apply to the issuance of the Bonds. For a further description of the City’s outstanding general obligation debt upon
issuance of the Bonds and the annual debt service on the Bonds, see “DIRECT DEBT” under “CITY INDEBTEDNESS”
included in APPENDIX A to this Preliminary Official Statement. For a description of certain constitutional and statutory
limits on the issuance of general obligation debt, see “DEBT LIMIT” under “CITY INDEBTEDNESS” included in
APPENDIX A to this Preliminary Official Statement.
BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY ISSUANCE
The information contained in the following paragraphs of this subsection “BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY ISSUANCE” has been
extracted from a schedule prepared by Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) entitled “SAMPLE OFFERING
DOCUMENT LANGUAGE DESCRIBING BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY ISSUANCE”. The information in this section
concerning DTC and DTC’s book-entry-only system has been obtained from sources that the City believes to be reliable,
but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof.
The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the securities (the
“Securities”). The Securities will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s
partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-
registered Security certificate will be issued for each issue of the Securities, each in the aggregate principal amount of
such issue, and will be deposited with DTC. If, however, the aggregate principal amount of any issue exceeds $500
million, one certificate will be issued with respect to each $500 million of principal amount, and an additional certificate
will be issued with respect to any remaining principal amount of such issue.
DTC, the world’s largest securities depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking
Law, a “banking organization” within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve
System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a “clearing
agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and
provides asset servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt
issues, and money market instruments from over 100 countries that DTC’s participants (the “Direct Participants”) deposit
with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and other securities
transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry-only transfers and pledges between
Direct Participants’ accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct
Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations,
and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
(“DTCC”). DTCC is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation, all of which are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries.
Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks,
3
trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant,
either directly or indirectly (the “Indirect Participants”). DTC has S&P Global Ratings: AA+. The DTC Rules applicable
to its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found
at www.dtcc.com.
Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit
for the Securities on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Security (the “Beneficial
Owner”) is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will not receive
written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written
confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or
Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in
the Securities are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of
Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in Securities,
except in the event that use of the book-entry-only system for the Securities is discontinued.
To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Securities deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of
DTC’s partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of
DTC. The deposit of Securities with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee
do not affect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the
Securities; DTC’s records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Securities are credited,
which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping
account of their holdings on behalf of their customers.
Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to Indirect
Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements
among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Beneficial Owners
of Securities may wish to take certain steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with
respect to the Securities, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the Security documents.
For example, Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the Securities for their
benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish
to provide their names and addresses to the registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them.
Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Securities within an issue are being redeemed, DTC’s
practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed.
Neither DTC nor Cede & Co., nor any other DTC nominee, will consent or vote with respect to Securities unless
authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC’s MMI Procedures. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails
an Omnibus Proxy to the City as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.’s
consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts Securities are credited on the record date
identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy.
Redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments on the Securities will be made to Cede & Co., or such other
nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC’s practice is to credit Direct Participants’
accounts upon DTC’s receipt of funds and corresponding detail information from the City or Agent, on payable date in
accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC’s records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will
be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of
customers in bearer form or registered in “street name,” and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC,
Agent, or the City, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of
redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by
an authorized representative of DTC, is the responsibility of the City or Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct
Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the
responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants.
A Beneficial Owner shall give notice to elect to have its Securities purchased or tendered, through its Participant, to
Remarketing Agent, and shall effect delivery of such Securities by causing the Direct Participant to transfer the
4
Participant’s interest in the Securities, on DTC’s records, to Remarketing Agent. The requirement for physical delivery
of Securities in connection with an optional tender or a mandatory purchase will be deemed satisfied when the ownership
rights in the Securities are transferred by Direct Participants on DTC’s records and followed by a book-entry-only credit
of tendered Securities to Remarketing Agent’s DTC account.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Securities at any time by giving reasonable
notice to the City or Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event that a successor depository is not obtained, Security
certificates are required to be printed and delivered.
The City may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry-only transfers through DTC (or a successor securities
depository). In that event, Security certificates will be printed and delivered to DTC.
The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC’s book-entry-only system has been obtained from sources that
the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof.
FUTURE FINANCING
The City does not anticipate issuing any additional general obligation debt within 90 days of this Official Statement.
However, the City does anticipate issuing a sewer revenue loan agreement with the Iowa Finance Authority via the State
Revolving Fund clean water loan program, in the approximate amount of $8,000,000. The loan agreement will be repaid
solely with net revenues of the City’s sanitary sewer utility system.
LITIGATION
The City is not aware of any threatened or pending litigation affecting the validity of the Bonds or the City’s ability to
meet its financial obligations.
At closing, the City will certify that no controversy or litigation is pending, prayed or threatened involving the
incorporation, organization, existence or boundaries of the Bonds, or the titles of the City officers to their respective
positions, or the validity of the Bonds, or the power and duty of the Bonds to provide and apply adequate taxes for the
full and prompt payment of the principal and interest of the Bonds, and that no measure or provision for the authorization
or issuance of the Bonds has been repealed or rescinded.”
DEBT PAYMENT HISTORY
The City knows of no instance in which they have defaulted in the payment of principal and interest on its debt.
LEGAL MATTERS
Legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds and with regard to the tax-exempt status of the
interest thereon (see “TAX EXEMPTION AND RELATED TAX MATTERS” herein) are subject to the approving legal
opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Des Moines, Iowa, Bond Counsel, a form of which is attached hereto as APPENDIX B
to this Preliminary Official Statement. Signed copies of the opinion, dated and premised on law in effect as of the date
of original delivery of the Bonds, will be delivered to the purchaser at the time of such original delivery. The Bonds are
offered subject to prior sale and to the approval of legality of the Bonds by Bond Counsel. Dorsey & Whitney LLP is also
serving as Disclosure Counsel to the Issuer in connection with the issuance of the Bonds.
The legal opinion to be delivered will express the professional judgment of Bond Counsel, and by rendering a legal
opinion, Bond Counsel does not become an insurer or guarantor of the result indicated by that expression of professional
judgment of the transaction or the future performance of the parties to the transaction.”
5
TAX EXEMPTION AND RELATED TAX MATTERS
Federal Income Tax Exemption: The opinion of Bond Counsel will state that under present laws and rulings, interest on
the Bonds (including any original issue discount properly allocable to an owner thereof) is excluded from gross income
for federal income tax purposes, and is not treated as a preference item in calculating the federal alternative minimum tax
imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”).
The opinion set forth in the preceding sentence will be subject to the condition that the City comply with all requirements
of the Code that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds in order that interest thereon be, or continue to
be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Failure to comply with certain of such requirements
may cause the inclusion of interest on the Bonds in gross income for federal income tax purposes to be retroactive to the
date of issuance of the Bonds. In the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds, the City will covenant to comply
with all such requirements.
There may be certain other federal tax consequences to the ownership of the Bonds by certain taxpayers, including without
limitation, corporations subject to the branch profits tax, financial institutions, certain insurance companies, certain S
corporations, individual recipients of Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits and taxpayers who may be deemed
to have incurred (or continued) indebtedness to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations. Bond Counsel will express no
opinion with respect to other federal tax consequences to owners of the Bonds. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds
should consult with their tax advisors as to such matters.
State of Iowa Income Taxes: The interest on the Bonds is NOT exempt from present Iowa income taxes.
Proposed Changes in Federal and State Tax Law: From time to time, there are Presidential proposals, proposals of various
federal committees, and legislative proposals in the Congress and in the states that, if enacted, could alter or amend the
federal and state tax matters referred to herein or adversely affect the marketability or market value of the Bonds or
otherwise prevent holders of the Bonds from realizing the full benefit of the tax exemption of interest on the
Bonds. Further, such proposals may impact the marketability or market value of the Bonds simply by being proposed. No
prediction is made whether such provisions will be enacted as proposed or concerning other future legislation affecting
the tax treatment of interest on the Bonds. In addition, regulatory actions are from time to time announced or proposed
and litigation is threatened or commenced which, if implemented or concluded in a particular manner, could adversely
affect the market value, marketability or tax exempt status of the Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether any such
regulatory action will be implemented, how any particular litigation or judicial action will be resolved, or whether the
Bonds would be impacted thereby.
Purchasers of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed legislation, regulatory
initiatives or litigation. The opinions expressed by Bond Counsel are based upon existing legislation and regulations as
interpreted by relevant judicial and regulatory authorities as of the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, and Bond
Counsel has expressed no opinion as of any date subsequent thereto or with respect to any proposed or pending legislation,
regulatory initiatives or litigation.
NOT Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations: In the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds, the City will NOT
designate the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code relating
to the ability of financial institutions to deduct from income for federal income tax purposes a portion of the interest
expense that is allocable to tax-exempt obligations. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, the Bonds are NOT “qualified tax-
exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
Original Issue Discount: The Bonds maturing in the years ________________ (collectively, the “Discount Bonds”) are
being sold at a discount from the principal amount payable on such Discount Bonds at maturity. The difference between
the price at which a substantial amount of the Discount Bonds of a given maturity is first sold to the public (the “Issue
Price”) and the principal amount payable at maturity constitutes “original issue discount” under the Code. The amount
of original issue discount that accrues to a holder of a Discount Bond under section 1288 of the Code is excluded from
federal gross income to the same extent that stated interest on such Discount Bond would be so excluded. The amount of
the original issue discount that accrues with respect to a Discount Bond under section 1288 is added to the owner’s federal
6
tax basis in determining gain or loss upon disposition of such Discount Bond (whether by sale, exchange, redemption or
payment at maturity).
Interest in the form of original issue discount accrues under section 1288 pursuant to a constant yield method that reflects
semiannual compounding on dates that are determined by reference to the maturity date of the Discount Bond. The
amount of original issue discount that accrues for any particular semiannual accrual period generally is equal to the excess
of (1) the product of (a) one-half of the yield on such Discount Bonds (adjusted as necessary for an initial short period)
and (b) the adjusted issue price of such Discount Bonds, over (2) the amount of stated interest actually payable. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the adjusted issue price is determined by adding to the Issue Price for such Discount
Bonds the original issue discount that is treated as having accrued during all prior semiannual accrual periods. If a
Discount Bond is sold or otherwise disposed of between semiannual compounding dates, then the original issue discount
that would have accrued for that semiannual accrual period for federal income tax purposes is allocated ratably to the days
in such accrual period.
An owner of a Discount Bond who disposes of such Discount Bond prior to maturity should consult owner’s tax advisor
as to the amount of original issue discount accrued over the period held and the amount of taxable gain or loss upon the
sale or other disposition of such Discount Bond prior to maturity.
Owners who purchase Discount Bonds in the initial public offering but at a price different than the Issue Price should
consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences of the ownership of the Discount Bonds.
The Code contains provisions relating to the accrual of original issue discount in the case of subsequent purchasers of
bonds such as the Discount Bonds. Owners who do not purchase Discount Bonds in the initial offering should consult
their own tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences of the ownership of the Discount Bonds.
Original issue discount that accrues in each year to an owner of a Discount Bond may result in collateral federal income
tax consequences to certain taxpayers. No opinion is expressed as to state and local income tax treatment of original issue
discount. All owners of Discount Bonds should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the federal, state, local and
foreign tax consequences associated with the purchase, ownership, redemption, sale or other disposition of Discount
Bonds.
Original Issue Premium: The Bonds maturing in the years _____________ are being issued at a premium to the principal
amount payable at maturity. Except in the case of dealers, which are subject to special rules, Bondholders who acquire
the Bonds at a premium must, from time to time, reduce their federal tax bases for the Bonds for purposes of determining
gain or loss on the sale or payment of such Bonds. Premium generally is amortized for federal income tax purposes on
the basis of a bondholder’s constant yield to maturity or to certain call dates with semiannual compounding. Bondholders
who acquire any Bonds at a premium might recognize taxable gain upon sale of the Bonds, even if such Bonds are sold
for an amount equal to or less than their original cost. Amortized premium is not deductible for federal income tax
purposes. Bondholders who acquire any Bonds at a premium should consult their tax advisors concerning the calculation
of bond premium and the timing and rate of premium amortization, as well as the state and local tax consequences of
owning and selling the Bonds acquired at a premium.
BONDHOLDER’S RISKS
An investment in the Bonds involves an element of risk. In order to identify risk factors and make an informed investment
decision, potential investors should be thoroughly familiar with this entire Preliminary Official Statement (including the
appendices hereto) in order to make a judgment as to whether the Bonds are an appropriate investment.
Global Health Emergency Risk: The City is monitoring daily developments and directives of federal, state and local
officials to determine what precautions and procedures may need to be implemented by the City in the event of the
continued spread of COVID-19. Some procedures and precautions resulting from the spread of COVID-19 with respect
to operations, personnel and services may be mandated by federal and/or state entities. The continued spread of COVID-
19 in the future and the continued financial impact specifically on the City, and financial markets generally, may have the
following adverse financial impacts: (i) limit the ability of the City to conduct its operations and provide services on a
timely basis, if at all, (ii) significantly increase the cost of operations of the City, (iii) significantly impact the ability of
the City to provide personnel to carry out the services routinely provided by the City; (iv) affect financial markets and
7
consequently materially adversely affect the returns on and value of the City’s investment portfolio, and (v) affect the
secondary market with respect to the Bonds. Finally, the current spread of COVID-19 is altering the behavior of
businesses and people in a manner that may have negative effects on economic activity, and therefore adversely affect the
financial condition of the City, either directly or indirectly.
Tax Levy Procedures: The Bonds are general obligations of the City, payable from and secured by a continuing ad-
valorem tax levied against all of the taxable property within the boundaries of the City. As part of the budgetary process
of the City, each fiscal year the City will have an obligation to request a debt service levy to be applied against all of the
taxable property within the boundaries of the City. A failure on the part of the City to make a timely levy request, or a
levy request by the City that is inaccurate or is insufficient to make full payments of the debt service on the Bond for a
particular fiscal year, may cause Bondholders to experience delay in the receipt of distributions of principal of and/or
interest on the Bonds.
Changes in Property Taxation: The Bonds are general obligations of the City secured by an unlimited ad valorem property
tax as described more fully in the “PAYMENT OF AND SECURITY FOR THE BONDS” herein.
From time to time the Iowa General Assembly has altered the method of property taxation and could do so again. Any
alteration in property taxation structure could affect property tax revenues available to pay the Bonds. Historically, the
Iowa General Assembly has applied changes in property taxation structure on a prospective basis; however, there is no
assurance that future changes in property taxation structure by the Iowa General Assembly will not be retroactive. It is
impossible to predict the outcome of future property tax changes by the Iowa General Assembly or their potential impact
on the Bonds and the security for the Bonds.
Matters Relating to Enforceability of Agreements: Bondholders shall have and possess all the rights of action and
remedies afforded by the common law, the Constitution and statutes of the State of Iowa and of the United States of
America for the enforcement of payment of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, the right to a proceeding in law or in
equity by suit, action or mandamus to enforce and compel performance of the duties required by Iowa law and the
resolution for the Bonds.
The practical realization of any rights upon any default will depend upon the exercise of various remedies specified in the
Resolution or the Loan Agreement. The remedies available to the Bondholders upon an event of default under the
Resolution or the Loan Agreement, in certain respects, may require judicial action, which is often subject to discretion
and delay. Under existing law, including specifically the federal bankruptcy code, certain of the remedies specified in the
Loan Agreement or the Resolution may not be readily available or may be limited. A court may decide not to order the
specific performance of the covenants contained in these documents. The legal opinion to be delivered concurrently with
the delivery of the Bonds will be qualified as to the enforceability of the various legal instruments by limitations imposed
by general principles of equity and public policy and by bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or other similar laws
affecting the rights of creditors generally.
No representation is made, and no assurance is given, that the enforcement of any remedies will result in sufficient funds
to pay all amounts due under the resolution for the Bonds or the Loan Agreement, including principal of and interest on
the Bonds.
Secondary Market: There can be no guarantee there will be a secondary market for the Bonds or, if a secondary market
exists, that such Bonds can be sold for any particular price. Occasionally, because of general market conditions or because
of adverse history of economic prospects connected with a particular issue, secondary marketing practices in connection
with a particular note or bond issue are suspended or terminated. Additionally, prices of bond or note issues for which a
market is being made will depend upon then prevailing circumstances. Such prices could be substantially different from
the original purchase price of the Bonds.
EACH PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE MERITS AND RISKS OF AN
INVESTMENT IN THE BONDS AND MUST BE ABLE TO BEAR THE ECONOMIC RISK OF SUCH
INVESTMENT. THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR THE BONDS, IF ANY, COULD BE LIMITED.
8
Rating Loss: Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has assigned a rating of ‘__’ to the Bonds. Generally, a rating
agency bases its rating on the information and materials furnished to it and on investigations, studies and assumptions of
its own. There is no assurance the rating with continue for any given period of time, or that such rating will not be revised,
suspended or withdrawn, if, in the judgment of Moody’s, circumstances so warrant. A revision, suspension or withdrawal
of a rating may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency: The rights and remedies provided in the Resolution for the Bonds may be limited by and are
subject to the provisions of federal bankruptcy laws, to other laws or equitable principles that may affect the enforcement
of creditor’s rights, to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and to limitations in legal remedies against
exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and to limitations on legal remedies against municipal corporations in
the State of Iowa. The various opinions of counsel to be delivered with respect to the Bonds, the Loan Agreement and
the Resolution for the Bonds, including the opinion of Bond Counsel, will be similarly qualified. If the City were to file
a petition under chapter nine of the federal bankruptcy code, the owners of the Bonds could be prohibited from taking any
steps to enforce their rights under the Resolution for the Bonds. In the event the City fails to comply with its covenants
under the Resolution for the Bonds or fails to make payments on the Bonds, there can be no assurance of the availability
of remedies adequate to protect the interests of the holders of the Bonds.
Under Iowa Code Chapter 76 sections 76.16 and 76.16A of the Act, as amended, a city, county, or other political
subdivision may become a debtor under Chapter 9 of the Federal bankruptcy code, if it is rendered insolvent, as defined
in 11 U.S.C. §101(32)(c), as a result of a debt involuntarily incurred. As used therein, “debt” means an obligation to pay
money, other than pursuant to a valid and binding collective bargaining agreement or previously authorized bond issue,
as to which the governing body of the city, county, or other political subdivision has made a specific finding set forth in
a duly adopted resolution of each of the following: (1) all or a portion of such obligation will not be paid from available
insurance proceeds and must be paid from an increase in general tax levy; (2) such increase in the general tax levy will
result in a severe, adverse impact on the ability of the city, county, or political subdivision to exercise the powers granted
to it under applicable law, including without limitation providing necessary services and promoting economic
development; (3) as a result of such obligation, the city, county, or other political subdivision is unable to pay its debts as
they become due; and (4) the debt is not an obligation to pay money to a city, county, entity organized pursuant to chapter
28E of the Code of Iowa, or other political subdivision.
Forward-Looking Statements: This Preliminary Official Statement contains statements relating to future results that are
“forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this
Preliminary Official Statement, the words “anticipated,” “plan,” “expect,” “projected,” “estimate,” “budget,” “pro forma,”
“forecast,” “intend,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement is
subject to uncertainty. Accordingly, such statements are subject to risks that could cause actual results to differ, possibly
materially, from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Inevitably, some assumptions used to develop
forward-looking statements will not be realized or unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore,
investors should be aware that there are likely to be differences between forward-looking statements and the actual results.
These differences could be material and could impact the availability of funds of the City to pay debt service when due
on the Bonds.
Cybersecurity: The City, like many other public and private entities, relies on a large and complex technology
environment to conduct its operations. As such, it may face multiple cybersecurity threats including but not limited to,
hacking, viruses, malware and other attacks on computer or other sensitive digital systems and networks. There can be
no assurances that any security and operational control measures implemented by the City will be completely successful
to guard against and prevent cyber threats and attacks. Failure to properly maintain functionality, control, security, and
integrity of the City’s information systems could impact business operations and/or digital networks and systems and the
costs of remedying any such damage could be significant. Along with significant liability claims or regulatory penalties,
any security breach could have a material adverse impact on the City’s operations and financial condition.
The City maintains insurance policies in the amount of $15,000,000 for the aggregate limit of liability to cover aspects of
a cyber-attack. The City cannot predict whether these policies would be sufficient in the event of a cyber
breach. However, the Bonds are secured by an unlimited ad valorem property tax as described more fully in the
“PAYMENT OF AND SECURITY FOR THE BONDS” herein.
9
Tax Matters and Loss of Tax Exemption: As discussed under “TAX EXEMPTION AND RELATED TAX MATTERS”
herein, the interest on the Bonds could become includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation
retroactive to the date of delivery of the Bonds, as a result of acts or omissions of the City in violation of its covenants in
the resolution for the Bonds. Should such an event of taxability occur, the Bonds would not be subject to a special
redemption and would remain outstanding until maturity or until redeemed under the redemption provisions contained in
the Bonds, and there is no provision for an adjustment of the interest rate on the Bonds.
It is possible that actions of the City after the closing of the Bonds will alter the tax-exempt status of the Bonds, and, in
the extreme, remove the tax-exempt status from the Bonds. In that instance, the Bonds are not subject to mandatory
prepayment, and the interest rate on the Bonds does not increase or otherwise reset. A determination of taxability on the
Bonds, after closing of the Bonds, could materially adversely affect the value and marketability of the Bonds.
DTC-Beneficial Owners: Beneficial Owners of the Bonds may experience some delay in the receipt of distributions of
principal of and interest on the Bonds since such distributions will be forwarded by the Paying Agent to DTC and DTC
will credit such distributions to the accounts of the Participants which will thereafter credit them to the accounts of the
Beneficial Owner either directly or indirectly through indirect Participants. Neither the City nor the Paying Agent will
have any responsibility or obligation to assure that any such notice or payment is forwarded by DTC to any Participants
or by any Participant to any Beneficial Owner.
In addition, since transactions in the Bonds can be effected only through DTC Participants, indirect participants and certain
banks, the ability of a Beneficial Owner to pledge the Bonds to persons or entities that do not participate in the DTC
system, or otherwise to take actions in respect of such Bonds, may be limited due to lack of a physical certificate.
Beneficial Owners will be permitted to exercise the rights of registered Owners only indirectly through DTC and the
Participants. See “BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY ISSUANCE” herein.
Proposed Federal Tax Legislation: From time to time, Presidential proposals, federal legislative committee proposals or
legislative proposals are made that would, if enacted, alter or amend one or more of the federal tax matters described
herein in certain respects or would adversely affect the market value of the Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether or in
what forms any of such proposals that may be introduced, may be enacted and there can be no assurance that such
proposals will not apply to the Bonds. See “TAX EXEMPTION AND RELATED TAX MATTERS” herein.
Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (“OPEB”) Information: The City contributes to the Iowa Public
Employees’ Retirement System (“IPERS”), which is a state-wide, multiple-employer, cost-sharing defined benefit
pension plan administered by the State of Iowa. IPERS provides retirement and death benefits which are established by
State statute to plan members and beneficiaries. All full-time employees of the City are required to participate in IPERS.
IPERS plan members are required to contribute a percentage of their annual salary, in addition to the City being required
to make annual contributions to IPERS. Contribution amounts are set by State statute. The IPERS Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report for its Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021 (the “IPERS ACFR”) indicates that as of June 30, 2021, the date
of the most recent actuarial valuation for IPERS, the funded ratio of IPERS was 88.34%, and the unfunded actuarial
liability was $4.960 billion. The IPERS ACFR identifies the IPERS Net Pension Liability/(Asset) at June 30, 2021, at
approximately ($345) million, while its net pension liability at June 30, 2020 was approximately $7.024 billion. The
IPERS ACFR is available on the IPERS website, or by contacting IPERS at 7401 Register Drive, Des Moines, IA 50321.
See the City’s JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT for the Fiscal Year ended June 30,
2021 included in APPENDIX C to this Preliminary Official Statement for additional information on IPERS.
In the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021, the City’s IPERS contribution totaled approximately $9,131,127. The City is
current in its obligations to IPERS.
Pursuant to Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 68, IPERS has allocated the net pension liability
among its members, with the City’s identified portion at June 30, 2021 at approximately $84,204,424. While the City’s
contributions to IPERS are controlled by state law, there can be no assurance the City will not be required by changes in
State law to increase its contribution requirement in the future, which may have the effect of negatively impacting the
finances of the City. See “EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONS” included in APPENDIX A to this Preliminary Official
Statement, and “JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT” included in APPENDIX C to
this Preliminary Official Statement for additional information on pension and liabilities of the City.
10
Bond Counsel, the Municipal Advisor and the City undertake no responsibility for and make no representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of the information available from the IPERS discussed above or included on the IPERS website,
including, but not limited to, updates of such information on the State Auditor’s website or links to other Internet sites
accessed through the IPERS website.
The City contributes to Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (“MFPRSI”), which is a multiple-employer
cost-sharing defined benefit pension plan for fire fighters and police officers, administered under Chapter 411 of the Code
of Iowa. MFPRSI plan members are required to contribute a percentage of their annual salary, in addition to the City
being required to make annual contributions to MFPRSI. Contribution amounts are set by State statute. The MFPRSI
Actuarial Valuation Report indicates that as of July 1, 2021, the date of the most recent actuarial valuation for MFPRSI,
the funded ratio of MFPRSI was 81%, and the unfunded actuarial liability was $600 million. The MFPRSI Financial
Statements for its Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021 (the “MFPRSI Report”) identifies the MFPRSI Net Pension Liability
at June 30, 2021, at approximately $224.4 million, while its net pension liability at June 30, 2020 was approximately
$797.6 million. The MFPRSI Report is available on the MFPRSI website. See “EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONS”
included in APPENDIX A to this Preliminary Official Statement, and “JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE
FINANCIAL REPORT” included in APPENDIX C to this Preliminary Official Statement for additional information on
MFPRSI.
In the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021, the City’s MFPRSI contribution totaled approximately $2,200,185. The City is
current in its obligations to MFPRSI.
Pursuant to Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 68, MFPRSI has allocated the net pension liability
among its members, with the City’s identified portion at June 30, 2021 at approximately $21,356,506. While the City’s
contributions to MFPRSI are controlled by state law, there can be no assurance the City will not be required by changes
in State law to increase its contribution requirement in the future, which may have the effect of negatively impacting the
finances of the City. See “EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONS” included in APPENDIX A to this Preliminary Official
Statement, and “JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT” included in APPENDIX C to
this Preliminary Official Statement for additional information on pension and liabilities of the City.
Bond Counsel, the Municipal Advisor and the City undertake no responsibility for and make no representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of the information available from the MFPRSI discussed above or included on the MFPRSI
website, including, but not limited to, updates of such information on the State Auditor’s website or links to other Internet
sites accessed through the MFPRSI website.
The City and hospital provide health and dental care benefits for retirees and their beneficiaries through a single-employer,
defined benefit plan. The hospital also provides a life insurance benefit. The City has the authority to establish and amend
benefit provisions of the plan. Participants must be age 55 or older. The contribution requirements of the City are
established and may be amended by the City. Plan members are currently not required to contribute. The City funds on
a pay-as-you-go basis. For additional information, see “OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS” included in
APPENDIX A to this Preliminary Official Statement, and “JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL
REPORT” included in APPENDIX C to this Preliminary Official Statement.
Summary: The foregoing is intended only as a summary of certain risk factors attendant to an investment in the Bonds.
In order for potential investors to identify risk factors and make an informed investment decision, potential investors
should become thoroughly familiar with this entire Preliminary Official Statement and the appendices hereto.
RATING
The Bonds have been rated ‘___’ by Moody’s. Currently, Moody’s rates the City’s outstanding General Obligation long-
term debt ‘___’. The existing rating on long-term debt reflects only the view of the rating agency and any explanation of
the significance of such rating may only be obtained from Moody’s. The ratings described above are not recommendations
to buy, sell or hold the Bonds. There is no assurance that any such rating will continue for any period of time or that it
will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely if, in the judgment of Moody’s, circumstances so warrant. Therefore,
after the date hereof, investors should not assume that the ratings are still in effect. A downward revision or withdrawal
11
of either rating is likely to have an adverse effect on the market price and marketability of the Bonds. The Issuer has not
assumed any responsibility either to notify the owners of the Bonds of any proposed change in or withdrawal of any rating
subsequent to the date of this Preliminary Official Statement, except in connection with the reporting of events as provided
in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, or to contest any revision or withdrawal.
MUNICIPAL ADVISOR
The City has retained PFM Financial Advisors LLC, Des Moines, Iowa as Municipal Advisor in connection with the
preparation of the issuance of the Bonds. In preparing the Preliminary Official Statement, the Municipal Advisor has
relied on government officials and other sources to provide accurate information for disclosure purposes. The Municipal
Advisor is not obligated to undertake, and has not undertaken, an independent verification of the accuracy, completeness
or fairness of the information contained in this Preliminary Official Statement. PFM Financial Advisors LLC is an
independent advisory firm and is not engaged in the business of underwriting, trading or distributing municipal securities
or other public securities.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
The City will covenant in a Continuing Disclosure Certificate for the benefit of the owners and beneficial owners of the
Bonds to provide annually certain financial information and operating data relating to the City (the “Annual Report”), and
to provide notices of the occurrence of certain enumerated events. The Annual Report is to be filed by the City no later
than June 30th after the close of each fiscal year, commencing with the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, with the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board, at its internet repository named “Electronic Municipal Market Access” (“EMMA”). The
notices of events, if any, are also to be filed with EMMA. See “FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
CERTIFICATE” included in APPENDIX D to this Preliminary Official Statement The specific nature of the information
to be contained in the Annual Report or the notices of events, and the manner in which such materials are to be filed, are
summarized in the “FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE.” These covenants have been made in
order to assist the Underwriter in complying with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the “Rule”).
In accordance with the reporting requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of the Rule, within the past five years, the City has not
failed to comply, in all material respects, with any previous undertakings it has entered into with respect to the Rule.
Regarding the Mary Greeley Medical Center’s (the “Medical Center”) the quarterly financials for the quarter ended
September 30, 2019 were filed one day late. In addition, the Medical Center’s Annual Financial Information and
Operating Data Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 was not timely filed.
Breach of the undertakings will not constitute a default or an “Event of Default” under the Bonds or the resolution for the
Bonds. A broker or dealer is to consider a known breach of the undertakings, however, before recommending the purchase
or sale of the Bonds in the secondary market. Thus, a failure on the part of the City to observe the undertakings may
adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Bonds and their market price.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The City’s “JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT”, as prepared by City management
and audited by a certified public accountant, is reproduced as APPENDIX C. The City’s certified public accountant has
not consented to distribution of the audited financial statements and has not undertaken added review of their presentation.
Further information regarding financial performance and copies of the City’s prior Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report may be obtained from PFM Financial Advisors LLC.
12
CERTIFICATION
The City has authorized the distribution of this Preliminary Official Statement for use in connection with the initial sale
of the Bonds. I have reviewed the information contained within the Preliminary Official Statement prepared on behalf of
the City by PFM Financial Advisors LLC, Des Moines, Iowa, and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief,
said Preliminary Official Statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading regarding the issuance of $13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose
Bonds, Series 2022A.
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
/s/ Roger Wisecup, City Treasurer
* Preliminary; subject to change.
APPENDIX A
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA
The $13,400,000* GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 2022A (the “Bonds”) are
general obligations of the City of Ames, Iowa (the “City”) for which the City will pledge its power to levy direct ad
valorem taxes against all taxable property within the City without limitation as to rate or amount to the repayment of the
Bonds.
* Preliminary, subject to change.
A-1
CITY PROPERTY VALUATIONS
IOWA PROPERTY VALUATIONS
In compliance with Section 441.21 of the Code of Iowa, the State Director of Revenue annually directs the county auditors
to apply prescribed statutory percentages to the assessments of certain categories of real property. The Story County
Auditor adjusted the final Actual Values for 2021. The reduced values, determined after the application of rollback
percentages, are the Taxable Values subject to tax levy. For assessment year 2021, the taxable value rollback rate was
54.1302% of actual value for residential property; 89.0412% of actual value for agricultural property; 63.7500% of the
actual value for multiresidential property; 90% of actual value for commercial, industrial and railroad property; and 100%
of the actual value of utility property.
The Legislature’s intent has been to limit the growth of statewide taxable valuations for the specific classes of property to
3% annually. Political subdivisions whose taxable values are thus reduced or are unusually low in growth are allowed to
appeal the valuations to the State Appeal Board, in order to continue to fund present services.
PROPERTY VALUATIONS (1/1/2021 Valuations for Taxes Payable July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023)
100% Actual Value
Taxable Value
(With Rollback)
Residential $3,892,489,600 $2,107,012,157
Commercial 1,032,739,726 925,371,686
Industrial 171,694,100 152,892,690
Multiresidential 307,293,600 195,899,734
Railroads 11,956,080 10,760,472
Utilities w/o Gas & Electric 2,942,917 2,942,917
Gross valuation $5,419,116,023 $3,394,879,656
Less military exemption (1,972,380) (1,972,380)
Net valuation $5,417,143,643 $3,392,907,276
TIF Increment $57,260,674 1) $57,260,674 1)
Taxed separately
Ag. Land & Building
$4,132,012
$3,678,561
Gas & Electric Utilities $37,635,515 $6,794,115
1) Excludes $5,788 of Ag Increment.
2021 GROSS TAXABLE VALUATION BY CLASS OF PROPERTY 1)
Taxable Valuation Percent of Total
Residential $2,107,012,157 61.94%
Multiresidential 195,899,734 5.76%
Gas & Electric Utilities 6,794,115 0.20%
Commercial, Industrial, Railroads, Utility 1,091,967,765 32.10%
Total Gross Taxable Valuation $3,401,673,771 100.00%
1) Excludes Taxable TIF Increment and Ag. Land & Buildings.
A-2
TREND OF VALUATIONS
Assessment
Yea
Payable
Fiscal Yea
100%
Actual Valuation
Taxable Valuation
(With Rollback)
Taxable
TIF Incremen
2017 2018-19 $4,637,521,835 $2,914,741,622 $34,554,637
2018 2019-20 4,842,735,118 3,079,908,598 45,584,078
2019 2020-21 5,026,796,234 3,112,286,020 75,857,137
2020 2021-22 5,191,529,367 3,257,725,869 81,120,190
2021 2022-23 5,516,177,632 3,399,701,391 57,260,674
The 100% Actual Valuation, before rollback and after the reduction of military exemption, includes Ag. Land &
Buildings, TIF Increment and Gas & Electric Utilities. The Taxable Valuation, with the rollback and after the reduction
of military exemption, includes Gas & Electric Utilities and excludes Ag. Land & Buildings and Taxable TIF Increment.
Iowa cities certify operating levies against Taxable Valuation excluding Taxable TIF Increment and debt service levies
are certified against Taxable Valuation including the Taxable TIF Increment.
LARGER TAXPAYERS
Set forth in the following table are the persons or entities which represent larger taxpayers within the boundaries of the
City, as provided by the Story County Auditor’s office. No independent investigation has been made of and no
representation is made herein as to the financial condition of any of the taxpayers listed below or that such taxpayers will
continue to maintain their status as major taxpayers in the City. With the exception of the electric and natural gas provider
noted below (which is subject to an excise tax in accordance with Iowa Code chapter 437A), the City’s mill levy is
uniformly applicable to all of the properties included in the table, and thus taxes expected to be received by the City from
such taxpayers will be in proportion to the assessed valuations of the properties. The total tax bill for each of the properties
is dependent upon the mill levies of the other taxing entities which overlap the properties.
Taxpaye 1)
Type of Property/Business
1/1/2021 2)
Taxable Valuation
Iowa State University Research Park Commercial $67,098,301
Barilla America Inc. Industrial 49,627,090
Clinic Building Company Inc. Commercial 37,204,290
Campus Investors IS LLC Commercial 36,348,640
FPA6 University West LLC Commercial 26,153,040
Spirit Realty LP Commercial 23,447,160
SZ Ames Apartments LLC Multiresidential 21,516,346
GW Land Holdings LLC Commercial 20,239,127
Dayton Park LLC Commercial 20,060,756
West Towne Apartments LC Multiresidential 19,884,828
1) This list represents some of the larger taxpayers in the City, not necessarily the 10 largest taxpayers.
2) The January 1, 2021 Taxable valuations listed represents only those valuations associated with the title holder and may not
necessarily represent the entire taxable valuation.
Source: Story County Auditor
A-3
CITY INDEBTEDNESS
DEBT LIMIT
Article XI, Section 3 of the State of Iowa Constitution limits the amount of debt outstanding at any time of any county,
municipality or other political subdivision to no more than 5% of the Actual Value of all taxable property within the
corporate limits, as taken from the last state and county tax list. The debt limit for the City, based on its 2021 Actual
Valuation currently applicable to the Fiscal Year 2022-23, is as follows:
2021 Gross Actual Valuation of Property $5,516,177,632 1)
Legal Debt Limit of 5% 0.05
Legal Debt Limi $275,808,881
Less: G.O. Debt Subject to Debt Limi (75,970,000) *
Less: Other Debt Subject to Debt Limi (1,512,423) 2)
Net Debt Limi $198,326,458 *
1) Actual Valuation of property as reported by the Iowa Department of Management for the Fiscal Year 2022-23.
2) Other Debt Subject to Debt Limit includes TIF rebate agreement payments appropriated for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
DIRECT DEBT
General Obligation Debt Paid by Taxes and Other Sources 1) (Includes the Bonds)
Date
of Issue
Original
Amoun
Purpose
Final
Maturity
Principal
Outstanding
As of 11/22/2022
9/14 $9,695,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements 6/26 $3,120,000
9/15A 18,445,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements & Refunding 6/35 6,580,000
9/16A 11,650,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements & Refunding 6/28 4,735,000
9/17A 10,975,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements & Refunding 6/29 4,395,000
9/18A 7,490,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements 6/30 5,360,000
9/19A 10,775,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements 6/31 8,330,000
9/20A 17,865,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements & Refunding 6/32 12,415,000
9/21A 19,640,000 Corporate Purpose Improvements & Refunding 6/33 17,635,000
11/22A 13,400,000* Corporate Purpose Improvements 6/34 13,400,000 *
Total $75,970,000 *
1) The City’s general obligation debt is abated by tax increment reimbursements, water revenues, sewer revenues, airport revenues,
resource recovery revenues and special assessments.
* Preliminary; subject to change.
A-4
Annual Fiscal Year Debt Service Payments (Includes the Bonds)
Existing Deb The Bonds Total Outstanding
Fiscal
Yea
Principal
Principal
and Interes
Principal*
Principal
and Interes *
Principal*
Principal
and Interes *
2022-23 $8,635,000 $10,823,131 $1,010,000 1,361,750 $9,645,000 $12,184,881
2023-24 8,330,000 10,170,606 870,000 1,489,500 9,200,000 11,660,106
2024-25 7,730,000 9,224,131 915,000 1,491,000 8,645,000 10,715,131
2025-26 7,360,000 8,523,881 960,000 1,490,250 8,320,000 10,014,131
2026-27 6,865,000 7,738,006 1,010,000 1,492,250 7,875,000 9,230,256
2027-28 5,830,000 6,435,906 1,060,000 1,491,750 6,890,000 7,927,656
2028-29 5,120,000 5,565,081 1,115,000 1,493,750 6,235,000 7,058,831
2029-30 4,600,000 4,869,081 1,170,000 1,493,000 5,770,000 6,362,081
2030-31 3,945,000 4,085,881 1,225,000 1,489,500 5,170,000 5,575,381
2031-32 3,005,000 3,077,244 1,290,000 1,493,250 4,295,000 4,570,494
2032-33 1,030,000 1,050,325 1,355,000 1,493,750 2,385,000 2,544,075
2033-34 60,000 63,900 1,420,000 1,491,000 1,480,000 1,554,900
2034-35 60,000 61,950 60,000 61,950
Total $62,570,000 $13,400,000* $75,970,000*
* Preliminary; subject to change.
OTHER DEBT
Water Revenue Debt
The City has water revenue debt paid solely from the net revenues of the Water Utility as follows:
Date
of Issue
Original
Amoun Purpose
Final
Maturity
Principal
Outstanding
As of 11/22/2022
1/15 $61,482,718 Water Revenue Bonds (SRF) 6/37 $47,277,000
8/22 3,500,000 Water Revenue Bonds (SRF) 6 42 3,500,000
Total $50,777,000
Sewer Revenue Debt
The City has sewer revenue debt paid solely from the net revenues of the Sewer Utility as follows:
Date
of Issue
Original
Amoun
Purpose
Final
Maturity
Principal
Outstanding
As of 11/22/2022
11/12 $2,474,250 Sewer Revenue Bonds (SRF) 6/33 $1,375,000
9/16 641,332 Sewer Revenue Bonds (SRF) 6/36 458,000
2/18-1 767,771 Sewer Revenue Bonds (SRF) 6/38 619,000
10/18-2 5,206,055 Sewer Revenue Bonds (SRF) 6/38 4,275,000
Total $6,727,000
A-5
Electric Revenue Debt
The City has electric revenue debt paid solely from the net revenues of the Electric Utility as follows:
Date
of Issue
Original
Amoun
Purpose
Final
Maturity
Principal
Outstanding
As of 11/22/2022
12/15B $9,500,000 Electric Revenue Bonds 6/27 $4,460,000
Hospital Revenue Debt
The City has hospital revenue debt paid solely from the net revenues of Mary Greeley Medical Center as follows:
Date
of Issue
Original
Amoun
Purpose
Final
Maturity
Principal
Outstanding
As of 11/22/2022
11/12 $26,000,000 Mary Greeley Medical Center & Refunding 6/27 $2,360,000
06/16 64,790,000 Mary Greeley Medical Center & Refunding 6/36 60,285,000
11/19 35,000,000 Mary Greeley Medical Cente 6/34 29,370,000
Total $92,015,000
OVERLAPPING DEBT
Taxing Distric
1/1/2021
Taxable Valuation 1)
Portion of
Taxable Valuation
Within the City
Percent
Applicable G.O. Deb 2)
City’s
Proportionate
Share
Story County $5,817,554,657 $3,460,646,414 3) 59.49% $4,707,059 $2,800,229
Ames CSD 3,160,036,833 3,110,241,109 3) 98.42% 89,015,000 87,608,563
Gilbert CSD 655,132,884 335,150,647 51.16% 24,085,000 12,321,886
Nevada CSD 555,409,304 1,308,4128 0.24% 10,483,000 25,159
United CSD 383,213,791 13,946,240 3.64% 1,535,000 55,874
DMACC 60,138,654,472 3,460,646,414 3) 5.75% 96,175,000 5,530,063
City’s share of total overlapping debt: $108,341,774
1) Taxable Valuation excludes military exemption and includes Ag Land, Ag Buildings, all Utilities and TIF Increment.
2) Includes general obligation bonds, PPEL notes, certificates of participation and new jobs training certificates.
3) Portion of taxable valuation within the City includes Ag TIF Increment in the amount of $5,788.
DEBT RATIOS
G.O. Debt
Debt/Actual
Market Value
($5,516,177,632) 1)
Debt/66,427
Population 2)
Total General Obligation Deb $75,970,000* 1.38%* $1,143.66*
City’s Share of Overlapping Deb $108,341,774 1.96% $1,630.99
1) Based on the City’s 1/1/2021 100% Actual Valuation; includes Ag Land, Ag Buildings, all Utilities and TIF Increment.
2) Population based on the City’s 2020 U.S. Census.
* Preliminary; subject to change.
A-6
LEVIES AND TAX COLLECTIONS
Fiscal Yea
Levy
Collected During
Collection Yea
Percent
Collected
2018-19 $29,467,293 $28,805,839 97.76%
2019-20 31,041,345 30,109,340 97.00%
2020-21 31,838,345 30,756,123 96.60%
2021-22 32,418,857 --------In Process of Collection--------
2022-23 33,603,968 --------In Process of Collection--------
Collections include delinquent taxes from all prior years. Taxes in Iowa are delinquent each October 1 and April 1 and a
late payment penalty of 1% per month of delinquency is enforced as of those dates. If delinquent taxes are not paid, the
property may be offered at the regular tax sale on the third Monday of June following the delinquency date. Purchasers
at the tax sale must pay an amount equal to the taxes, special assessments, interest and penalties due on the property and
funds so received are applied to taxes. A property owner may redeem from the regular tax sale but, failing redemption
within three years, the tax sale purchaser is entitled to a deed, which in general conveys the title free and clear of all liens
except future tax installments.
Source: The City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021 and the City’s Adoption of
Budget and Certification of City Taxes Form 85-811 for FY 2022-23.
TAX RATES
FY 2018-19
$/$1,000
FY 2019-20
$/$1,000
FY 2020-21
$/$1,000
FY 2021-22
$/$1,000
FY 2022-23
$/$1,000
Story County 5.06487 5.12714 5.02778 4.95627 4.50207
Story County Hospital 0.85000 0.94500 0.90891 0.87250 0.93350
County Ag. Extension 0.08154 0.07784 0.07960 0.07582 0.11527
City of Ames 10.06857 10.02557 10.14681 9.87363 9.82936
City Assesso 0.29989 0.35032 0.34504 0.38331 0.33790
Ames Comm. School District 14.34179 14.34142 14.34107 14.34470 14.28616
Gilbert Comm. School District 18.90141 18.87279 18.08785 17.20522 17.05730
Nevada Comm. School District 16.81478 16.81278 14.71656 14.91083 14.71344
United Comm. School District 10.10152 12.49845 12.00008 10.44720 9.76510
Des Moines Area Comm. College 0.69468 0.65249 0.63533 0.67789 0.69448
State of Iowa 0.00290 0.00280 0.00270 0.00260 0.00240
Total Tax Rate:
Ames CSD Resident
31.40424
31.52258
31.48724
31.18672
30.70114
Gilbert CSD Residen 35.96386 36.05395 35.23402 34.04724 33.47228
Nevada CSD Resident 33.87723 33.99394 31.86273 31.75285 31.12841
United CSD Residen 27.16397 29.67961 29.14625 27.28922 26.18008
LEVY LIMITS
A city’s general fund tax levy is limited to $8.10 per $1,000 of taxable value, with provision for an additional $0.27 per
$1,000 levy for an emergency fund which can be used for general fund purposes (Code of Iowa, Chapter 384, Division I).
Cities may exceed the $8.10 limitation upon authorization by a special levy election. Further, there are limited special
purpose levies, which may be certified outside of the above-described levy limits (Code of Iowa, Section 384.12). The
amount of the City’s general fund levy subject to the $8.10 limitation is $5.51359 for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and the City
has levied no emergency levy. The City has certified special purpose levies outside of the above described levy limits as
follows: $0.64337 for police and fire retirement and $0.59831 for the operation and maintenance of a public transit system.
Debt service levies are not limited.
A-7
FUNDS ON HAND (CASH AND INVESTMENTS AS OF AUGUST 31, 2022)
Governmental
General Fund $10,278,236.43
Debt Service Fund 2,219,597.13
Capital Projects Fund 21,836,859.74
Other Governmental Funds 38,195,150.45
Business-type
Mary Greeley Medical Cente $384,246,924.00
Electric Utility 52,013,287.51
Sewer Utility 9,312,451.63
Water Utility 18,793,911.32
Other Enterprise Funds 30,196,300.12
Internal Service Funds 25,853,714.46
Total all funds $592,946,432.79
GENERAL FUND BUDGETS (ACCRUAL BASIS)
The table below represents a comparison between the final Fiscal Year 2020-21 actual financial performance, the amended
Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget, and the adopted Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget on an accrual basis.
Actual
FY 2020-21
Amended
FY 2021-22
Adopted
FY 2022-23
Revenues:
Property taxes $20,097,508 $20,024,911 $20,748,159
Other City taxes 1,780,750 2,067,142 2,063,533
Licenses and permits 1,128,682 1,555,902 1,658,440
Use of money and property 494,771 835,989 787,105
Intergovernmental 4,047,600 3,284,640 3,072,696
Charges for fees and services 1,751,680 2,028,912 2,076,885
Miscellaneous 205,179 123,463 120,034
Transfers in 10,862,976 11,701,287 10,715,961
Proceeds of Capital Asset Sales 0 0 0
Total revenues $40,369,146 $41,622,246 $41,242,813
Expenditures:
Public safety $19,169,236 $20,266,259 21,675,603
Public works 1,129,956 1,416,932 1,272,275
Health and social services 1,500 0 0
Culture and recreation 7,708,639 9,043,721 9,144,506
Community & economic developmen 1,135,374 1,301,174 1,257,179
General governmen 2,501,895 3,322,913 3,074,251
Capital projects 818,946 4,210,857 0
Transfers ou 6,613,693 7,388,211 4,818,999
Total expenditures $39,079,239 $46,950,067 $41,242,813
Excess (deficiency) of revenues ove
(under) expenditures 1,289,907 (5,327,821) 0
Fund balance at beginning of yea $14,289,732 $15,579,639 $10,251,818
Fund balance at end of yea $15,579,639 $10,251,818 $10,251,818
A-8
THE CITY
CITY GOVERNMENT
The City of Ames, Iowa (the “City”) is governed under and operates under a Mayor-Council form of government with a
City Manager. The principle of this type of government is that the Council sets policy and the City Manager carries it
out. The six members of the Council are elected for staggered four-year terms. One member is elected from each of the
four wards and two are elected at large. The Council appoints the City Manager as well as the City Attorney. The City
Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City. The Mayor is elected for a four-year term, presides at Council
meetings and appoints members of various City boards, commissions and committees with the approval of the Council.
EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONS
The City currently has 1,468 full-time employees of which 505 are governmental employees and 963 are employees of
the Mary Greeley Medical Center, and 1,364 part-time employees (including seasonal employees) of which 747 are
governmental employees and 617 are employees of the Mary Greeley Medical Center. Included in the City’s full-time
employees are 52 sworn police officers and 57 firefighters.
The City participates in two statewide employee retirement systems, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System
(“IPERS”) and the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (“MFPRSI”). The State of Iowa administers
IPERS and a nine-member board of trustees governs the MFPRSI. Though separate and apart from state government, the
MFPRSI board is authorized by state legislature, which also establishes by statute the pension and disability benefits and
the system’s funding mechanism. All full-time employees must participate in either IPERS or MFPRSI.
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System: The City contributes to IPERS, which is a cost-sharing, multiple-employer,
contributory defined benefit public employee retirement system administered by the State of Iowa. IPERS provides
retirement and death benefits, which are established by state statute, to plan members and beneficiaries. IPERS is
authorized to adjust the total contribution rate up or down each year, by no more than 1 percentage point, based upon the
actuarially required contribution rate. The City’s contributions to IPERS for the past three fiscal years, as shown below,
equal the required contributions for each year.
FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21
IPERS City Contribution $8,567,465 $9,139,672 $9,131,127
Pursuant to Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) Statement No. 68, the City reported a liability of
$84,204,424 within its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) as of June 30, 2021 for its proportionate share
of the net pension liability. The net pension liability is the amount by which the total actuarial liability exceeds the pension
plan’s net assets or fiduciary net position (essentially the market value) available for paying benefits. The net pension
liability was measured as of June 30, 2020, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was
determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the
City’s share of contributions to the pension plan relative to the contributions of all IPERS participating employers. At
June 30, 2020, the City’s collective proportion was 1.1987%, which was an increase of 0.0296% from its proportion
measured as of June 30, 2019.
For additional information on IPERS, refer to Section IV, Note F, beginning on page 55 of the City’s June 30, 2021 ACFR
contained in APPENDIX C to this Preliminary Official Statement.
Bond Counsel, the City and the Municipal Advisor undertake no responsibility for and make no representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of the information available from the IPERS discussed above or included on the IPERS website,
including, but not limited to, updates of such information on the State Auditor’s website or links to other Internet sites
accessed through the IPERS website.
Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa: The City contributes to MFPRSI, which is a cost-sharing, multiple-
employer defined benefit pension plan. MFPRSI provides retirement, disability, and death benefits to firefighters and
police offers. Benefit provisions are established by state statute, and vest after four years of credited service.
A-9
MFPRSI plan members are required to contribute a percentage of their annual covered salary, and the City is required to
contribute at an actuarially determined rate of annual covered payroll. The contribution requirements of plan members
and the City are established, and may be amended by state statute. The City’s contributions to MFPRSI for the past three
fiscal years, as shown below, equal the required contributions for each year.
FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21
MFPRSI City Contribution $2,097,820 $2,076,217 $2,200,185
Pursuant to GASB Statement No. 68, the City reported a liability of $21,356,506 with its ACFR as of June 30, 2021 for
its proportionate share of the net pension liability. The net pension liability is the amount by which the total actuarial
liability exceeds the pension plan’s net assets or fiduciary net position (essentially the market value) available for paying
benefits. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2020, and the total pension liability used to calculate the
net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension
liability was based on the City’s share of contributions to the pension plan relative to the contributions of all MFPRSI
participating employers. At June 30, 2020, the City’s collective proportion was 2.68%, which was an increase of 0.0141%
from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2019.
Bond Counsel, the City and the Municipal Advisor undertake no responsibility for and make no representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of the information available from MFPRSI discussed above or included on the MFPRSI
websites, including, but not limited to, updates of such information on the State Auditor’s website or links to other Internet
sites accessed through the MFPRSI websites.
For additional information on MFPRSI, refer to Section IV, Note F, beginning on page 60 of the City’s June 30, 2021
ACFR contained in APPENDIX C to this Preliminary Official Statement.
OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (“OPEB”)
The City provides health and dental care benefits for retired employees and their beneficiaries through a single-employer,
defined benefit plan. The hospital also provides a life insurance benefit. The City has the authority to establish and amend
benefit provisions of the plan. The post-employment benefit is limited to the implied subsidy since retirees pay 100% of
the premium for the insurance benefits, since the premium rates are based on the entire pool of covered members, the
retirees receive an implied subsidy since their rate are not risk adjusted. As of June 30, 2021 there were 580 active
employees and 28 inactive employees or beneficiaries receiving benefits.
The following table shows the components of the City’s annual OPEB cost for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021,
the amount actually contributed to the plan, and changes in the City’s annual OPEB obligation.
City
Balance, beginning of Yea $2,501,421
Changes for the year:
Service Cos 177,816
Interes 57,031
Difference between expected and actual experience
Change in Assumptions or other inputs 11,592
Benefit Payments (197,291)
Net Changes 49,148
Net OPEB obligation, end of yea $2,550,569
For additional information regarding the City’s Other Post-Employment Benefits, refer to Section IV, Note G, beginning
on page 63 of the City’s June 30, 2021 ACFR contained in APPENDIX C to this Preliminary Official Statement.
A-10
UNION CONTRACTS
City employees are represented by the following five bargaining units:
Bargaining Uni Contract Expiration Date
International Association of Firefighters June 30, 2025
Public, Professional and Maintenance Employees June 30, 2023
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers June 30, 2023
International Union of Operating Engineers (Local 234C) June 30, 2025
International Union of Operating Engineers (Local 234D) June 30, 2025
INSURANCE
The City’s insurance coverage is as follows:
Type of Insurance All Limits
General Liability $2,000,000
Auto Liability $2,000,000
Wrongful Acts $2,000,000
Excess (over all other coverage except Iowa liquor liability) $13,000,000
Law Enforcement $2,000,000
Public Official $2,000,000
Employee Benefi $1,000,000
Medical Malpractice $15,000,000
Underinsured Motoris $1,000,000
Uninsured Motoris $1,000,000
Commercial Property
Commercial Property and Boiler/Machinery Boiler/Machinery
Power Generation Related
$200,000,000
Municipal Properties and Boiler/Machinery
Non-Power Generation
$224,368,999
Terrorism – TRIA (Federally defined terrorist acts) Included in both of the above
Commercial Property Flood Insurance
Non-Flood Plain Facilities (power generation) $100,000,000
Non-Flood Plain Facilities (non-power) $5,000,000
Flood Plain Facilities
Transi $6,000,000
Water Pollution Control $6,000,000
Airpor $7,500,000
All Othe $1,000,000
Airport Liability $3,000,000
Cyber Liability $15,000,000
A-11
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION AND TRANSPORTATION
The City is located in Story County in central Iowa. It is approximately thirty miles north of Des Moines, Iowa, the State
capital and largest city in the state. The City is located on Interstate Highways 35 and 30. The City was incorporated in
1864 under the laws of the State of Iowa, later amended in July, 1975 under the Home Rule City Act.
The City, with a United States Census Bureau 2020 population of 66,427, is known for its excellent quality of life which
includes a relatively crime-free environment, an extensive park system, superior cultural/recreations facilities and a
nationally recognized school system. The City is the home of Iowa State University (“ISU”). ISU was established in
1859 and is an integral part of the community.
The City operates a mass transit system to provide efficient and economical transportation to all members of the
community. A fixed routing service is available on a daily basis to most residents and a Dial-A-Ride service is available
for elderly or handicapped residents. The City operates a municipal airport, which handles primarily charter services.
National air service is available at the Des Moines International Airport, approximately thirty miles south of the City.
The City is also provided freight services through the Union Pacific Railroad line.
LARGER EMPLOYERS
A representative list of larger employers in the City is as follows:
Employer Type of Business Number of Employees 1)
Iowa State University Higher Education 16,647
Mary Greeley Medical Cente Health Care 1,580
City of Ames Municipal Governmen 1,252
Danfoss Corp. Hydro-Transmissions 1,015
Iowa Department of Transportation Public Transportation 975
HyVee Food Stores Grocery Store 725
McFarland Clinic, P.C. Health Care 675
Ames Community School District Education 650
Workiva Software 550
Hach Chemical Water Testing 500
1) Includes full-time, part-time and seasonal employees.
Source: The City and the City’s 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
BUILDING PERMITS
Permits for the City are reported on a calendar year basis. City officials reported most recently available construction
activity for a portion of the current calendar year, as of August 31, 2022. The figures below include both new construction
and remodeling.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Residential Construction:
Number of units: 441 379 461 397 102
Valuation: $42,309,518 $27,504,682 $34,947,523 $34,201,457 $8,954,853
Commercial Construction:
Number of units: 196 203 155 162 27
Valuation: $98,771,167 $210,645,223 $150,034,358 $62,880,240 $14,421,533
Total Permits 637 582 616 559 129
Total Valuations $141,080,685 $238,149,905 $184,981,881 $97,081,697 $23,376,386
A-12
U.S. CENSUS DATA
Population Trend
Population Trend: 1980 U.S. Census 43,775
1990 U.S. Census 47,198
2000 U.S. Census 50,731
2010 U.S. Census 58,965
2020 U.S. Census 66,427
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
City of Ames Story County State of Iowa
Annual Averages: 2018 1.5% 1.6% 2.5%
2019 1.6% 1.7% 2.6%
2020 3.5% 3.5% 5.1%
2021 2.8% 3.0% 4.3%
2022 (as of August) 2.0% 2.1% 3.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
EDUCATION
Public education is provided by the Ames Community School District, with a fall 2020 certified enrollment of 4,484.4.
The district, with approximately 650 employees, owns and operates one early childhood center, five elementary schools,
one middle school, one high school and a facilities and maintenance building. Nevada Community School District, Gilbert
Community School District and United Community School District all lie partially within the City and provide public
education to portions of the City.
The Iowa State University (“ISU”) 2022 Fall enrollment is currently 29,969. ISU is the City’s largest employer with
faculty and staff totaling approximately 18,212, including teaching assistants and hourly part-time employees. ISU, in
addition to its educational function, is a leading agricultural research and experimental institution.
The Iowa State Center is the cultural center of ISU and the City. It attracts major dramatic and musical events, as well as
seminars and conferences to the City. It is a complex of three structures: two theaters with capacities of 2,700 and 428,
and a continuing education building with a 450 seat auditorium and 24 meeting rooms. Connected to this complex are
two of Iowa State University’s major Big 12 athletic venues: a football stadium with a seating capacity of 61,500 and a
coliseum with capacity for 15,000.
In addition to ISU located in the City, the following institutions provide higher education within 30 miles of the City:
Drake University, Grand View University, Des Moines University (formerly University of Osteopathic Medicine and
Health Services). Two-year degree programs are offered at Des Moines Area Community College, Upper Iowa
University, Vatterott College and Kaplan University (formerly Hamilton College).
A-13
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Financial services for the residents of the City are provided by First National Bank Ames, Iowa and VisionBank of Iowa.
In addition, the City is served by branch offices of Availa Bank, Bank of the West, Bankers Trust Company, Central State
Bank, CoBank ACB, Exchange State Bank, Great Southern Bank, Great Western Bank, Midwest Heritage Bank F.S.B.,
South Story Bank & Trust; US Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, as well as by several credit unions.
First National Bank Ames and VisionBank of Iowa report the following deposits as of June 30 for each year:
Yea First National Bank Ames VisionBank of Iowa
2018 $648,715,000 $357,109,000
2019 745,795,000 365,706,000
2020 855,840,000 448,663,000
2021 952,731,000 490,477,000
2022 978,988,000 486,110,000
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
APPENDIX B
FORM OF LEGAL OPINION
APPENDIX C
JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT
APPENDIX D
FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE
OFFICIAL BID FORM
To: City Council of Sale Date: November 8, 2022
City of Ames, Iowa 10:00 A.M., CT
RE: $13,400,000* General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2022A (the “Bonds”)
This bid is a firm offer for the purchase of the Bonds identified in the “TERMS OF OFFERING” and on the terms set forth in this bid
form and “TERMS OF OFFERING”, and is not subject to any conditions, except as permitted by the “TERMS OF OFFERING”. By
submitting this bid, we confirm we have an established industry reputation for underwriting new issuance of municipal bonds.
For all or none of the above Bonds, in accordance with the “TERMS OF OFFERING”, we will pay you $________________ (not less
than $13,252,600) plus accrued interest to date of delivery for fully registered Bonds bearing interest rates and maturing in the stated
years as follows:
Coupon Maturity Yield Coupon Maturity Yield
2023 2029
2024 2030
2025 2031
2026 2032
2027 2033
2028 2034
* Preliminary; subject to change. The aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, and each scheduled maturity thereof, are subject to increase or
reduction by the City or its designee after the determination of the successful bidder. The City may increase or decrease each maturity in
increments of $5,000 but the total amount to be issued will not exceed $14,070,000. Interest rates specified by the successful bidder for each
maturity will not change. Final adjustments shall be in the sole discretion of the City.
The dollar amount of the purchase price proposed by the successful bidder will be changed if the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds is
adjusted as described above. Any change in the principal amount of any maturity of the Bonds will be made while maintaining, as closely as
possible, the successful bidder's net compensation, calculated as a percentage of bond principal. The successful bidder may not withdraw or
modify its bid as a result of any post-bid adjustment. Any adjustment shall be conclusive, and shall be binding upon the successful bidder.
We hereby designate that the following Bonds to be aggregated into term bonds maturing on June 1 of the following years and in the
following amounts (leave blank if no term bonds are specified):
Years Aggregated Maturity Year Aggregate Amount
throu h
throu h
throu h
In making this offer we accept all of the terms and conditions of the “TERMS OF OFFERING” published in the Preliminary Official
Statement dated October 25, 2022, and represent we are a bidder with an established industry reputation for underwriting new issuances
of municipal bonds. In the event of failure to deliver the Bonds in accordance with the “TERMS OF OFFERING” as printed in the
Preliminary Official Statement and made a part hereof, we reserve the right to withdraw our offer, whereupon the deposit accompanying
it will be immediately returned. All blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission.
Not as a part of our offer, the above quoted prices being controlling, but only as an aid for the verification of the offer, we have made
the following computations:
NET INTEREST COST: $___________________________
TRUE INTEREST COST: ___________________________% (Based on dated date of November 22, 2022)
Account Manager: _________________________________ By: _________________________________________
Account Members: ______________________________________________________________________________
The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by and on behalf of the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa this 8th day of November 2022.
Attest: By:
Title: Title:
ITEM # 17
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (UNIVERSITY BLVD & SOUTH
FOURTH STREET)
BACKGROUND:
The annual Traffic Signal Program provides for replacing older traffic signals and for
constructing new traffic signals. This will result in improved visibility, reliability, and
appearance of signals. This program also provides for maintenance needs as well as
traffic signal system upgrades as technology advances. This project included
traffic signal and pedestrian ramp improvements at the intersection of
University Boulevard and South Fourth Street.
On January 25, 2022, City Council awarded the project to Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah,
Iowa in the amount of $293,231.41. One change order deduction was administratively
approved by staff in the amount of ($9,018.81) to reflect final measured quantities,
bringing the final construction cost to $284,212.60. Revenues and expenses for this
project are shown below:
Revenues Expenses
Total $459,000 Total $ 458,684.60
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Accept the 2021/22 Traffic Signal Program (University Blvd & South Fourth
Street) project as completed by Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah, Iowa in the amount of
$284,212.60.
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.
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
October 20, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify the 2021/2022 Traffic Signal Program (University Blvd & S. 4th Street) was
completed in an acceptable manner by Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah, Iowa, in the amount of
$284,212.60 and was inspected by the Public Works Department of the City of Ames, Iowa.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Public Works Director
JCJ/lbc
cc: City Clerk, Finance, Contractor, Administrative Services, Project File
ITEM # 18
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 CITY HALL PARKING LOT EXPANSION
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Downtown Plaza project, the parking in the former Municipal Lot N
needed to be replaced. Therefore, City Council authorized funding in the amount of
$700,000 to construct a new parking lot along 6th Street ($550,000) and to add parking
spaces in front of City Hall along Clark Avenue ($150,000).
On January 25, 2022, City Council awarded the project to All Star Concrete LLC of
Johnston, Iowa in the amount of $306,300.56. One change order was administratively
approved by staff in the amount of $1,506.97 to reflect final measured quantities,
bringing the final construction cost to $307,807.53.
Revenues and expenses for this project are shown below:
Revenues Expenses
Total $550,000 Total $ 548,351.64
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Accept the 2020/21 City Hall Parking Lot Expansion project as completed by All
Star Concrete LLC of Johnston, Iowa in the amount of $307,807.53.
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.
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
October 20, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify the 2020/2021 City Hall Parking Lot Expansion (6th Street) was completed in
an acceptable manner by All Star Concrete, LLC of Johnston, Iowa, in the amount of
$307,807.53 and was inspected by the Public Works Department of the City of Ames, Iowa.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Public Works Director
JCJ/lbc
cc: City Clerk, Finance, Contractor, Administrative Services, Project File
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
Item No. 19
MEMO
To: City Council
From: John A. Haila, Mayor
Date: October 25, 2022
Subject: Downtown Plaza Naming
From time to time Council has considered and taken action on naming City-owned
properties, recently naming the new park located at the former Edwards School site as
Tahira and Labh Hira Park in west Ames, and is considering renaming the Ames
Municipal Airport. With the new Downtown Plaza now under construction and
planned for completion in mid-2023, I intend to bring up for Council
consideration a proposed naming opportunity for the Downtown Plaza. The
specific rationale and name will be presented during the City Council meeting.
The Downtown Plaza will be managed as a Parks and Recreation facility once
complete. The Parks and Recreation Commission has adopted an official Naming
Policy with specific criteria contained therein relative to both naming criteria and
procedure/process (attached). This policy states:
“3. POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the City of Ames Parks and Recreation Department to
reserve the name or renaming of parks, recreational facilities, and/or major
features for circumstances that will best serve the interests of the city and
ensure a worthy and enduring legacy for the City’s park and recreation system.
To this end, the City of Ames Parks and Recreation Department supports
consideration of naming requests within the following broad categories.
a.Historic Events, People, and Places The history of a major event,
place or person may play an important role in the naming or renaming
of a park as communities often wish to preserve and honor the history
of a city, its founders, other historical figures, its Native American
heritage, local landmarks and prominent geographical locations, and
natural and geological features through the naming of parks.
b. Outstanding Individuals The City has benefited, through its
evolution, from the contributions made by many outstanding
individuals. This category is designed to acknowledge the sustained
contribution that has been made by such individuals to the City and/or
the development and management of the City’s park and recreation
system.
c. Major Donations Over the years, the City of Ames Parks and
Recreation Department has benefited from the generosity of some of its
residents, businesses, and foundations. On occasion, the significance of
such donations may warrant consideration being given to requests from
either the donor or another party to acknowledge such donations by
naming.”
As I will detail during the City Council meeting on October 25th, the person being
considered to name the Downtown Plaza after qualifies under both 3.a. and 3.b.
The Parks and Recreation Naming Policy indicates that the typical procedure is for an
application to be: 1) submitted to the Parks and Recreation Director who then
evaluates the request and makes a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation
Commission, 2) the Commission evaluates and develops a recommendation for City
Council to consider, and 3) City Council takes final action on the request.
In this instance, there are unique circumstances surrounding the particular naming
opportunity that will be proposed which I believe warrants waiving the typical
procedure. Additionally, since this naming initiative originates within the City
Council, it would seem reasonable for the Council itself to decide this matter rather
than referring it to the Parks and Recreation Commission and then returning it to the
City Council for the final decision. Given these factors, I will be asking the City
Council to waive section 5 (Procedures), subparagraphs a and b of the Parks and
Recreation Naming Policy. Other aspects of the Policy, in general, are being
followed.
I have discussed the actions proposed in this memo with both the Director of Parks
and Recreation and the City Attorney. Both are in agreement with the general
direction I have outlined, including the proposed waiver of the procedures in the
Naming Policy.
Therefore, I will be asking the City Council to make and approve the following
motion on October 25, 2022:
Move to:
A) Waive the Parks & Recreation Naming Policy Procedures Section
5, subsections “a” and “b,” and,
B) Direct staff to present a resolution for Council consideration at the
November 8, 2022 meeting to name the City of Ames Downtown
Plaza after ___________.
PARKS AND RECREATION NAMING POLICY
1. INTRODUCTION
The naming or renaming of parks and recreational facilities is a complex and
sometimes emotionally evocative since assigning a name is a powerful and
permanent identity for a public place and/or facility. The naming and renaming of
parks and/or recreational facilities often requires significant resources in terms of
changing names on signs, maps, and literature. In addition, excessive and
constant name changing can be the source of confusion to the public. The
purpose of this policy is to provide guidance to those that have an interest in the
naming and or renaming of the City’s parks and/or recreational facilities.
2. DEFINITIONS
a. Naming:
The permanent name assigned by City Council to a given park or
recreational facility.
b. Parks:
All traditionally designed parks, gardens, natural open spaces, woodlands,
and specialized parks under the stewardship of the City of Ames Parks
and Recreation Department.
c. Recreational Facilities:
Major structures such as community centers, swimming pools, and
enclosed pavilions located within lands under the stewardship of City of
Ames Parks and Recreation Department.
d. Major Features:
Major permanent components of park and recreational facilities, e.g.
sports fields, tennis courts, playgrounds, shelters, fountains, artwork, or
physical features (lakes). Rooms within buildings are considered to be
Major Features.
e. Amenities:
Smaller furnishings and facilities in the parks and recreation system (e.g.
benches, drinking fountains, tables, etc.). Amenities are not formally
named. Recognition for donated amenities is possible.
f. Donations:
A donation of property, goods or cash generally with no expectation of
return. If the gift is contingent upon a special request, it is made subject to
“condition.”
3. POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the City of Ames Parks and Recreation Department to reserve
the name or renaming of parks, recreational facilities, and/or major features for
circumstances that will best serve the interests of the city and ensure a worthy
and enduring legacy for the City’s park and recreation system.
To this end, the City of Ames Parks and Recreation Department supports
consideration of naming requests within the following broad categories.
a. Historic Events, People, and Places
The history of a major event, place or person may play an important role in
the naming or renaming of a park as communities often wish to preserve
and honor the history of a city, its founders, other historical figures, its
Native American heritage, local landmarks and prominent geographical
locations, and natural and geological features through the naming of
parks.
b. Outstanding Individuals
The City has benefited, through its evolution, from the contributions made
by many outstanding individuals. This category is designed to
acknowledge the sustained contribution that has been made by such
individuals to the City and/or the development and management of the
City’s park and recreation system.
c. Major Donations
Over the years, the City of Ames Parks and Recreation Department has
benefited from the generosity of some of its residents, businesses, and
foundations. On occasion, the significance of such donations may warrant
consideration being given to requests from either the donor or another
party to acknowledge such donations by naming.
4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
a. Naming/renaming for Historic Events, People, and Places
When considering naming a park, recreational facility, or major feature
after events, people and places of historic, cultural or social significance,
requests must demonstrate this significance through research and
documentation and show there is continued importance to the city, region,
state, and/or nation.
b. Naming/renaming for Outstanding Individuals
A park, recreational facility, or major feature may be named for an
outstanding individual who has made a significant contribution to the
Ames parks and recreation system, the City of Ames, the State of Iowa, or
the nation. In addition to societal contributions, the moral character of the
individual must be considered. When considering requests, it is preferred
that the individual has a connection to the park, recreational facility, or
major feature being requested to be named.
c. Naming/Renaming for Major Donations
From time to time, a significant donation may be made to the City that will
add considerable value to the City’s park and recreation system. On such
occasions, recognition of this donation by naming/renaming a park,
recreation facility, and/or major feature in honor of or at the request of the
donor will be considered.
The City Council may use its discretion as to what dollar amount is worthy
of naming rights for individual projects, on a case by case basis. Likewise,
City Council can use its discretion as to whether or not to allow for
corporate naming/renaming rights. Corporate logos, insignias, brands or
direct advertising text shall not be permitted.
Donors seeking naming rights for major donations with respect to an
individual should follow the principles outlined in 4.b. Exceptions to this will
be considered on their own merits.
d. Renaming a park, recreational facility, and/or major feature
Proposals to rename parks, recreational facilities, and/or major features
whether for a major gift or community request are not encouraged.
Likewise, names that have become widely accepted by the community will
not be abandoned unless there are compelling reasons and strong public
sentiment from the broader community for doing so. Historical or
commonly used place names will be preserved wherever possible.
e. Other Considerations
When naming/renaming a park, recreational facility, and/or major feature,
does the proposed name engender a strong positive image, have
historical, cultural or social significance for future generations, and have
broad public support?
To minimize confusion, parks will not be subdivided for the purpose of
naming unless there are readily identifiable physical divisions such as
roads or waterways. However, naming of specific major recreational
facilities within parks will be permitted; under these circumstances such
names should be different to the park name to avoid user confusion.
All signs that indicate the name of a park and/or recreational facility shall
comply with City of Ames graphic and design standards. Specialized
naming signage will not be permitted.
City of Ames Parks and Recreation Department reserves the right to
rename any park, recreational facility, and/or major feature if the person
for whom it is named turns out to be disreputable or subsequently acts in a
disreputable way.
5. PROCEDURES
These procedures have been established to ensure that the naming or renaming
of parks, recreational facilities, and/or major features is approached in a
consistent manner.
a. Requests for naming/renaming of parks, recreational facilities and/or
major features
All requests for the naming or renaming of a park, recreational facility,
and/or major feature shall be made by submitting a Naming Application to
the Director of Ames Parks and Recreation.
The Naming Application will contain the following minimum information:
1. The proposed name
2. Reasons for the proposed name
3. Written documentation indicating a certification of character and
community support for the proposed name (e.g. letters of support,
petitions, etc.)
4. If proposing to name a park, include a description/map showing
location and boundaries of the park
5. If proposing to name a recreational facility or major feature within a
park, include a description/map showing the location of the facility.
6. If proposing to rename a park, recreational facility, or major feature,
include justification for changing an established name.
7. If proposing to name a park, recreational facility, or major feature
for an outstanding individual, include documentation of that
individual’s significant contribution in regards to the Ames park
system, the City, State and/or Nation
b. Assessing and approving naming/renaming requests
Upon receipt of a naming request by Ames Parks and Recreation, the
Parks and Recreation Director shall:
1. Review the proposed request for its adherence to the Parks and
Recreation Naming Policy.
2. Ensure that supporting information has been authenticated,
particularly when an individual’s name is proposed
3. Seek input from relevant neighborhood association(s), historical
groups, and other organizations, if deemed appropriate
The Parks and Recreation Director will then present a recommendation
regarding the naming request at a public meeting to the Parks and
Recreation Commission. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation
Commission will develop their own recommendation regarding the request
to be presented to City Council.
c. Final decision by City Council
The Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation regarding the
naming/renaming request, along with the Parks and Recreation Director’s
recommendation if different, will be presented to the City Council at a
public meeting for a final decision.
1
ITEM #__20__
Staff Report
The Linc Mixed-Use Project Development Agreement Terms
October 11, 2022
The City of Ames has identified the area along Lincoln Way between Clark and Kellogg
(300 and 400 Blocks) as a priority area for redevelopment as part of the Downtown
Gateway Focus Area within the Lincoln Way Corridor Plan. Over the past three years
many of the properties on the north side of Lincoln Way have been acquired and
assembled for the purpose of redevelopment in accordance with the Downtown Gateway
Zoning district. (Site Location Map Attachment A).
The Linc project was included as part of the City’s final Downtown Reinvestment District
application that was submitted to the state in February 2022. The Linc project includes a
hotel and conference center, plaza, structured parking, commercial uses on the ground
level of mixed-use buildings, office uses, and apartments. The plan is designed to be
developed in two phases. If the project is built, it would generate sales and hotel motel
tax receipts rebated by the state to the City of Ames, up to $10 million over 20 years as
part of the Reinvestment District.
City Council reviewed an initial concept of the project at their November 23, 2021,
meeting. City Council gave general direction in November to continue to work with the
developer to refine the project within the scale and intensity presented to the City Council,
to include the project concept within the 2022 Reinvestment District Application, and to
negotiate a development agreement with a tax increment financing (TIF) developer rebate
for the project. Council also asked staff to investigate with the developer sustainability
measures and affordable housing.
In addition to a development agreement, the project site will require
subsequent formal approval of Major Site Development Plans, among other permits and
approvals, by the City.
The preliminary terms are divided into developer obligations by phases and City
obligations. The agreement describes generally the type and intensity of development by
phase and will rely on exhibits to the agreement for conceptual design and site plan
layout. The terms include performance deadlines for initiating and completing
construction of buildings within the development. The timing for Phase 1 is tied to the
2
City’s Reinvestment District application and identifies initiating construction by January 1,
2024 and completing construction by October 1, 2025. Phase 2 is to be initiated by
June 1, 2026 and completed by July 1 2028.
The general layout (Attachment C) is the same concept used with the Reinvestment
District Application. The minimum development levels in the agreement are as follows,
additional details are included in Attachment B:
PHASE 1 (On Site):
• Boutique Hotel - 100+ rooms, a boutique or uniquely brand limited to full-service
hotel with a 15,000 square foot conference center – Minimum
Assessment=$23,700,000
• Hotel Restaurant - unique 4,000 square foot restaurant located on the upper floor
of the hotel
• Parking Structure South - developer constructed,owned, and maintained (400+
parking spaces, actual total parking to be determined) – Minimum
Assessment=$4,500,000
• Plaza (commercial area open space) at the center of the project - developer
owned and maintained
• Kellogg Mixed Use Building (Building A) - commercial square footage of 14,400
sq. ft. and 100-130 apartment units – Minimum Assessment=$31,100,000
• Frontage and Utility Improvements as needed (includes Lincoln Way parking)
• Abandonment of City Well on Gilchrist
• Vacation of Public Alley right-of-way adjacent to Kellogg
PHASE 2 (On-Site):
• Office Building (Building C) - at least 85,100 square feet of office and 31,600
square feet of retail uses, may include apartments on upper floors – Minimum
Assessment=$24,649,000.
• Plaza (commercial area for outdoor use) - an extension of plaza constructed in
Phase 1.
• Clark Mixed Use Residential Buildng (Building B) – 100 to130 apartment units,
may include additional commercial area on ground floor – Minimum
Assessment=$30,628,749.
• Additional Parking – Parking in addition to the South Parking Ramp may be
needed when Phase 2 is constructed. The amount of additional needed parking
will be determined with the Major Site Plan Development review.
• Frontage and Utility Improvements as needed
3
PHASE 2 (Off-Site)
• North Parking Ramp - approximately 200 parking space parking deck in City CBD
Parking Lot. The ramp is to be constructed by the City of Ames with TIF revenues
generated from both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
• Pedestrian Bridge from development site south of the railroad tracks to North
Parking Ramp to be constructed by the developer. The Bridge will be owned and
maintained by the developer. Overhead electric line relocation for bridge, paid for
by developer.
SALES TAX GENERATING USES:
The draft terms address the City’s interest of securing $10 million of Reinvestment District
funds from the State that are generated by the hotel and sales taxes. The $10 million is
earmarked to reduce the debt service levy payments for City’s Indoor Aquatic Center
facility. To ensure we reach projected sales tax levels, the agreement includes a
requirement that 70% of the commercial square footage be sales tax generating
uses. Performance of this requirement is necessary to continue to receive the
requested TIF incentive.
The timelines described in the terms are important to match the Reinvestment District
standards. The construction of the hotel conference center will establish the
commencement date (October 1, 2025) for generating hotel/motel and sales tax
receipts that will be returned to the City from the State. The 20-year time limit to
receive the Reinvestment District funds begins with the completion of the hotel,
regardless of whatever other construction is completed for the project.
The following table is comparison of projected Reinvestment District Receipts based upon
the February 2022 final application. Our final application is pending with the State while
the City finalizes details with the development agreement.
4
Reinvestment
District Final
Application
Phase 1
Units Projected
Receipts*
(millions)
Proposed
Development
Terms
Phase 1
Units Projected
Receipts**
(millions)
Hotel Rooms 142 rooms $7.32 Hotel 100 rooms $5.15
Hotel Restaurant 6,800 sq. ft. $2.12 Hotel Restaurant 4,000 sq. ft. $1.25
Retail 14,200 sq. ft. $5.98 Retail
(70% sales tax
generating uses)
14,400 sq. ft. $4.19
Total $15.42 $10.59
Reinvestment
District Final
Application
Phase 2
Proposed
Development
Terms
Phase 2
Hotel Rooms None Hotel Rooms None
Restaurant 13,400 sq. ft. $4.52
Retail 18,200 sq. ft. $6.68 Rest. & Retail
Combined
(70% sales tax
generating uses)
31,600 $5.88
Total $11.2 Total $5.88
Other
Indoor Aquatic $.739 Indoor Aquatic $.739
Grand Total $27.35 $17.2
* Projected receipts were for full operations of 20 years for uses listed. The 20-year clock
will start at the time of competition of the hotel, whether the other uses are operational or
not.
** Based upon proportional totals of the Reinvestment District application with
adjustments for timing and uses in the Development Agreement terms, Phase 2 75% of
projections due to delay in starting Phase 2. Capped at 10 million or 20 years, whichever
occurs first.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF):
The subject site is part of the Downtown Reinvestment District Urban Renewal Area
adopted in August 2021 that includes a plan that allows for the use of TIF. The uses of
TIF and the amount of TIF that can be collected are part of the Urban Renewal Plan.
TIF is based upon the incremental property value increase between existing conditions
and improved conditions resulting from the development of the site. Property taxes are
collected from property owners in a TIF area. A portion of the taxes from all taxing entities
are collected and used by the City for purposes outlined within the Urban Renewal Plan.
The debt service portion of property taxes continue to go to all taxing entities.
The developer’s proposal and the terms of the draft agreement identify two uses for TIF
for the project. The first TIF request is for a developer rebate as an incentive to move
forward with the project. The developer requests approximately $42 million over 20
5
years. The final agreement will stipulate that the rebate would be solely based upon TIF
generated by the project, and TIF payments would end at either 20 years from the first
rebate payment or at $42 million, whichever occurs first.
The current proposal also includes construction of the North Parking Ramp as a
public improvement financed with TIF at an estimated cost of $10.2 million. The
agreement will specify that the City’s need for TIF will supersede the developer
rebate. The annual amount of TIF needed to pay for debt service on the Ramp will come
off the top first, before the remaining TIF is allocated to the developer as a rebate
annually. Furthermore, before proceeding with the issuance of City debt for the
North Parking Ramp in Phase 2, Staff recommends that the necessary value must
be in place to assure that the City’s annual debt service obligation can be paid
from the TIF proceeds from both Phases 1 and 2.
At the time the Urban Renewal Plan was adopted in 2021, although TIF is identified in the
Plan, it caps the total amount that could be collected to $32,000,000. This estimate was
prior to the developer’s current proposal utilized with the final Reinvestment District
application in February 2022.
The developer estimated in May 2022 that the value of the project (all phases together)
would generate incremental taxes of up to $52.4 million over 20 years. If City Council
proceeds with the development agreement, an amendment to the Urban Renewal
Plan would be needed to increase the TIF allowance to cover all of the identified
uses of TIF. If City Council is not willing to consider amending the maximum
amount of TIF for the Urban Renewal Area the agreement as proposed will not work.
NORTH PARKING RAMP:
The North Parking Ramp is the most substantial change from earlier discussions
about the project. The original concept for the ramp was for the developer to construct
the ramp and a pedestrian bridge connecting the ramp to the development. The ramp and
bridge would be part of Phase 2. The cost of construction would be borne by the developer
and the facility would be turned over to the City to operate and maintain.
However, after further scrutiny of the concept under public bidding laws it became
apparent that the construction of the ramp as originally conceived as part of a
development agreement with specifications and use of TIF to fund it, makes it a
public improvement subject to statutory bidding requirements.
This change in approach has two major effects on the project.
1. The North Garage is now estimated to have fewer total spaces and to have
a higher cost due to typical outcomes of public bidding projects compared
to efficiencies of developer constructed projects.
Based upon available TIF generated from the project and higher costs for City
construction, staff proposes that the City size a parking deck to match available
6
TIF increment. Staff estimates approximately 200 spaces total for the ground
level and one elevated level of a deck. The structure would be designed to
support two additional levels in order to expand capacity to 400+ parking
spaces. Staff estimates a need of about $10.2 million of TIF increment to finance
the 200 space parking deck. Staff projects a construction cost of approximately
$7 million with an additional cost of $3 million in interest.
This size deck would provide approximately a 66% increase (80 spaces) in
comparison to the number of surface parking spaces within the footprint of the
proposed parking deck. Although the initial gains are not substantial due to the
design inefficiencies at the ground level of a parking structure, the investment
makes future additional levels feasible. Under this scenario, all of the 200
spaces will be available to the general public and not reserved for the Linc
tenants’ use.
The developer has indicated that if additional levels were built for the garage,
they would have an interest in leasing spaces for the Phase 2 office building.
The agreement does not address if the City would lease future spaces to the
developer.
2.The construction of the ramp cannot be guaranteed by a development
agreement due to approvals needed from future City Councils and the
issuance of debt for the City to construct the ramp will count against the
City’s debt limit.
Construction of the North Ramp can be approved by the City Council and funded
through General Obligation (GO) Bonds, subject to a referendum, as an Urban
Renewal Project. The current Urban Renewal Plan allows for the City to follow
this procedure under state law, which would be the same procedure used to
approve GO Bonds for the Indoor Aquatic Center. To do so would count the
project towards the City’s debt limit, but the actual repayment of the debt would
come from TIF, unlike the Indoor Aquatics Center.
Notably, the overall process to approve and construct the ramp would occur
over multiple years. Phase 2 is not planned to begin for two years. During that
time the City could move forward with initiating steps of authorizing GO bonds
and design the ramp, but not build the project until Phase 2 has begun and the
TIF for repayment is certain.
As mentioned above, the current City Council cannot commit to the developer that
it will bind a future City Council to constructing the ramp due to the number of
related, but independent steps, needed to construct it. While the developer desires
for the ramp to be built, there can only be a statement of intent to do so in the final
agreement. The final agreement may include parameters outlining when a decision
must be made for constructing a garage and how it could affect the progress
towards developing Phase 2.
7
PERFORMANCE GUARAUNTEE:
The draft terms for each phase include a performance requirement related to the timing
of development and conformance to the terms of the agreement. The language states if
there is a breach of the agreement, the City may seek all available remedies, including
withholding permits, certificates of occupancy, and proportional TIF rebate payments.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Housing Affordability:
City Council identified housing affordability and sustainability as two issues to further
explore with the developer. Staff has investigated both issues with the developer and
included draft terms for the agreement
The developer initially proposed to set aside 10% of the units for households earning 80%
or less of the average median income (AMI). Staff believes that the 80% AMI threshold
is very nearly equal to fair market rent values and provide limited value as affordable
housing supply. City affordable housing efforts are focused on 60% AMI or lower
household incomes to fill needs that the market does not typically address. Although the
applicant would consider these lower income levels, the current pro forma estimates for
the apartment units do not financially support 60% AMI without additional TIF. At this
time there is no additional TIF available to further subsidize rents to the 60% AMI
level based upon the other priorities identified for the project.
The developer has agreed to include a provision for a 10% set aside serving 70%
AMI households. This is not a commonly used income limit and would be classified as
a moderate income household, not a low income household. At 70% of AMI, the rents
would be somewhat lower than fair market value, but not to the levels of low income limits.
Sustainability:
Staff has proposed a number of sustainability initiatives for the project to implement City
Council direction to include sustainability measures with the project. The most significant
standards relate to energy efficiency and green building measures. Staff has created two
options for the developer to choose. The first is to design all buildings in Phase 1 at 20%
more efficient than the current energy code and Phase 2 at 25% more efficient.
The Developer could choose as an alternative to design the Hotel building in Phase 1 to
a LEED Gold level and the Office Building in Phase 2 to a LEED Gold Level. LEED is a
nationally recognized sustainable building program administered by the US Green
Building Council that is a whole systems approach to reducing environmental impacts
related to energy, water, materials, etc. The developer has agreed to design buildings to
meet these standards and perform commissioning of the completed buildings for
verification, but they will not be formally registered with the USGBC.
Additionally, City staff proposes to limit the use of natural gas in an effort to support a Net
Zero Ready building design. The developer supports use of electric in residential units,
but has not fully committed to no natural gas in relation to heating and cooling as they
8
evaluate the feasibility to do so. The developer notes the feasibility of geothermal is
unknown due to the project’s location above the aquifer and their experience of an electric
only service for buildings of this size.
Billboard Relocation:
A third concern for development of the project is the removal of the billboards on the site.
The current billboards are nonconforming, but there is also a lease in place that extends
for a number of years. To develop the project the billboards must be removed. The
operater of the billboards, Lamar Advertising, has indicated that if a suitable location and
allowance for a digital billboard were avaliable in the City, it would consent to early
termination of the lease on this site. Provided the City Council wants to move forward
with the Linc Project, there will be a separate proposal in relation to Lamar to site a new
digital billboard in the Highway 30 corridor, potenially with a lease of City property.
Pedestrian Bridge:
The proposed pedestrian bridge is included as a developer obligation to connect the south
development to a City built north parking garage. The bridge is contingent upon their
being an avaliable path to extend the bridge via publicly owned land or through an
easement. At this time neither the developer nor City have acquired access rights over
property north of Gilchrist that is needed to extend a bridge across the railroad. Note that
if access rights are not acquired in the future, the bridge may not be built, but the
develoepr could proceed with Phase 2.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Linc developers are proposing a project totaling approximately $150,000,000 with a
TIF incentive request of $42,000,000 for the two phases of their project. An additional,
$10,000,000 would be available to provide structure parking in the CDB lot for all
customers in the Downtown with the capability to expand the ramp in the future.
The draft terms for a final agreement address many of the City priorities for the
development of the site in terms of uses and timing. The question of financing parking as
a public improvement is the most significant outstanding question. Although, there is great
uncertainty about moving forward with a North Parking Ramp due to the delay in timing
for Phase 2 and the projected costs compared to TIF revenues, staff believes the concept
as outlined in the agreement is workable.
Therefore, staff believes it is worthwhile to continue to work with the developer to
fashion a final agreement that is consistent with the priorities described in this
report and Corridor Plan. If the Council ultimately agrees that the final concept results
in a catalyst project, it would seem appropriate to move forward to develop a final
agreement and concurrent amendments to the Urban Renewal Plan for the use of TIF as
described in this report. Addtionally, staff would work with Lamar Advertising on
addressing billboard relocation options as they relate to current zoning standards. Staff
would present options for billboard text amenemnts separate from a development
agreement.
9
Because of the complexity of this project and the fact that neither the City Council
nor the public has had sufficient time to review the proposed terms for a final
agreement, the City Council is not being asked to give direction to the staff at this
meeting. This direction will be sought by the staff at the October 25, 2022 meeting.
If the direction at that time is given to move ahead, the staff will work with outside legal
counsel to prepare a final developer agreement that will be brought before you for formal
approval.
10
Attachment A
Site Location Map
LINCOLN WAY
GILCHRIST ST
Alley
CL
A
R
K
A
V
E
KE
L
L
O
G
G
A
V
E
S
W
A
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
S
K
E
L
L
O
G
G
A
V
E
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
MA
R
K
E
T
A
V
E
The Linc- Mixed Use
Redevelopment Site
Attachment B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LINC AGREEMENT TERMS
Article I-The Project (Note description based on prior understanding of the project from
December 2021, and updated pro forma from Oct. 6th 2022)
A. Exhibit to Agreement -Concept Drawing of Site and Architectural Rendering
a. Development to substantially comply, regular permitting subsequent to
agreement approval
b. Development to occur in two phase
B. Phase 1- Begin construction no later than January 1, 2024 and completed by
October 1, 2025
1. A boutique or other uniquely branded limited to full-service hotel and conference
center (BUILDING F)
a. Hotel minimum development must consist of 100+ visitor rooms, a
4,000+ square foot roof-top restaurant, and a convention/meeting
space of 15,000 square feet.
b. Minimum assessed Value of $23,700,000.
c. Operational for guests, visitors, and patrons by October 1, 2025
2. Parking Structure-South
a. Privately owned and operated with a minimum number of parking stalls
to meet current city code.
b. Minimum assessed value $4,500,000
3. Plaza-
a. Designed as a plaza that is the heart of the commercial area of the
project as a destination and attraction to the project.
a. The plaza shall be designed to support outdoor commercial and
entertainment uses with a mix of hardscape and landscaped
areas.
b. Overall plaza design shall be a primary gateway or connection
point for pedestrian access from the north.
b. Plaza design includes connections to uses in Phase 1 and Phase 2 with a
design that can be logically implemented in two parts, one with each
phase.
c. Phase 1 plaza components will be as indicated in the concept plan,
including at a minimum elements needed to support the hotel and
parking garage.
4. Mixed Use building along Kellogg (BUILDING A)
a. Ground floor minimum of 14,400 sq. ft. retail/office/food and beverage
b. Tenant leases to sales tax generating uses for categories above:
i. By July 1, 2027: 70% of the square footage shall be leased to
sales tax generating uses and maintain 70% of the sales tax
generating uses for the life of the TIF reimbursement.
c. Minimum assessed value of $31,100,000
d. Residential units must be located above the ground floor. The building
will include a mix of studio, one, two, three or four bedroom units and
provide a total of 100 to 130 units.
i. No more than 10 percent of the dwelling units shall be
three and four bedroom units.
5. Phasing Performance- If the required improvements are not constructed within
the agreed upon timeline (October 1, 2025), or if the performance requirements
of this agreement are not met it will be a breach of the contract. However, a six
month extension for the completion of required improvements will be granted if
each building within Phase I is at least 90 percent complete by October 1, 2025 as
determined by the Planning Director.
If there is a breach of contract, the City may seek all available remedies, including
withhold issuance of permits, certificates of occupancy, and reimbursement of
TIF payments proportional to any building that is not in compliance.
Additionally, if Phase 1 is in breach of the agreement, the Phase 2 Incentive
identified in this agreement is void and of no value without express City Council
approval by resolution to then award the incentive to projects in Phase 2 that
have not yet begun.( Note: Nothing in this section is intended to require
sequential phasing.)
C. Phase 2- Begin construction no later than June 1, 2026 and completed by July 1,
2028
1. Construction of Office BUILIDNG C with no less than 85,100 square feet of office
uses, no less than 31,600 square feet of retail uses, including food and drink uses.
a. Minimum assessed value of $24,649,000 for all commercial classifications.
b. The ground floor and second floor space abutting the plaza shall be retail or
food and drink uses.
c. Tenant leases to sales tax generating uses:
By July 1, 2029, 70% of the square footage shall be leased to sales tax
generating uses and maintain 70% of the sales tax generating uses for the
life of the TIF reimbursement.
d. The building may have residential units only located above the second floor.
The building will include a mix of studio, one, two, three, or four bedroom
units. Follow zoning standards for mix of units limitations.
2. Plaza-
a. The plaza will be the second half of the overall design described
with Phase 1 with hardscaped and landscaped areas.
b. The Phase 2 plaza includes connections to and construction of the
multi-level open air connection to the pedestrian bridge intended to
connect to the north. This includes the terraced outdoor space
represented in the concept drawing.
c. The ground level design shall allow for abutting commercial uses
to spill out into outdoor space for food and drink uses as well as a
general gathering area. The plaza can be designed for programming
of the space as an attraction for activities by the general public and
daily use of commercial patrons.
d. Phase 2 plaza components will be as indicated in the concept plan,
including at a minimum elements needed to support the hotel and
parking garage.
3. Building B Residential Use
a. All living units in Building B will include in a mix of studio, one,
two, three or four bedrooms units and provide 100 to 130 total
units.
i. No more than 10 percent of the dwelling units shall be three and
four bedroom units.
b. Approximately 80 surface parking spaces
c. Minimum assessed value of $30,628,749
4. North Parking Ramp
The North Parking Ramp is a public improvement to be constructed,
owned, and operated by the City of Ames. The City intends to construct the
Ramp concurrent with development of Phase 2, subject to future City
Council approvals. The cost of construction will be paid from TIF revenues
generated by the proposed project. Principal and interest payments for the
North Parking Ramp will precede annual developer rebate payments. (see
further discussion under City Obligations related to TIF).
a. Designed as a two-level garage with approximately 200 parking spaces,
final design to be determined by the City
b. Designed to have future pedestrian bridge connection extending to the
south.
c. Designed and constructed to allow for an additional two levels of parking
in the future.
5. Pedestrian Bridge
a. The Developer must construct a covered pedestrian bridge
connecting the North Parking Ramp to Phase I South Parking Ramp
or Phase II Building C for public access to the project. The bridge is
only required if the City constructs the North Parking Garage and it
can be completed within or over city owned land or easements
(excluding the Union Pacific Railroad land).
b. Bridge designed by developer, subject to City review and
approval.
c. Developer shall secure permits and construct the bridge at their
cost.
d. The Developer shall be responsible for owning and maintaining
the bridge and will be responsible for day-to-day operations and
maintenance, i.e. ice and snow removal, trash pick-up, etc.
6. If the required improvements are not completed within the stated timeline,
unless extended by the City Council, or other performance requirements of this
agreement are not met it will be a breach of the contract. However, a six month
extension for the completion of required improvements will be granted if each
building within Phase2 is at least 90 percent complete by July 1, 2028 as
determined by the Planning Director.(Same language as Phase 1)
If there is a breach of contract, the City may seek all available remedies, including
withhold issuance of permits, certificates of occupancy, and reimbursement of
TIF payments proportional to any building that is not in compliance.
Note- if Phase 1 is in breach of the agreement, the Phase 2 Incentive identified in
this agreement is void and of no value without express City Council approval by
resolution to then award the incentive to projects in Phase 2 that have not yet
begun. Note: nothing in this section is intended to require sequential phasing.
Article II-Developer Obligations
A. Developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits needed to construct
the improvements identified within this agreement.
B. Construction of all site improvements and features identified as part of the
Project (Article I) within this agreement.
C. Developer/Owners operate and maintain the project consistent with the
performance requirements of the Project (Article I).
D. Developer shall enter into minimum assessment agreements for
improvements described in the agreement, the Assessor may assign higher
valuations and the owner may challenge so long as the final value is not below
that of the minimum assessment.
E. Developer agrees to not seek or receive other property tax abatements during
the time period the owner receives a TIF rebate incentive.
F. The Developer shall remove all outdoor advertising signs (billboards) by July 1,
2025.
G. Public Improvements and Frontage Improvements:
I. Dedication of right-of-way of ten (10) feet along Clark Avenue.
II. Developer shall construct on-street parking and sidewalk along Lincoln
Way.
III. Construction of all public improvements, relocation of infrastructure
(excepting as noted below), frontage improvements, and other related
project infrastructure, as required by City.
IV. Other adjustments to Gilchrist for management of traffic circulation
may be required based upon the traffic study.
V. Note DOT approval still required for work along Lincoln Way.
H. Well Abandonment-
I. The Developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of abandoning the
water well, demolishing the well building, and acquisition of vacated
alley right-of-way as specified in Article IIIe. The total amount is
$840,000 payable to the City within one year of the date the City has
abandoned the well(amount inclusive of other benefits in Article III).
II. The Developer shall provide the City 180 days of notice prior to
initiating construction in Phase I, in order to complete the
abandonment of the well.
III. The Developer, as part of the notice under Article IIh, shall provide
details related to excavation and construction within 200 feet of the
well site in order to allow for the City to design and place the well cap
appropriately.
I. The Developer shall reimburse Ames Electric for all expenses related to
relocation or underground of transmission lines along Gilchrist. High voltage
lines are not being relocated or undergrounded for the project.
Reimbursement subject to standards Ames Electric policies and are not part
of the $840,000 identified within Article IIH. Reimbursement will be per
standard Ames Electric policies for work completed in support of a
development project.
Article III-City Obligations
A. Based upon the Developer’s projections and minimum valuations of this
agreement that over 20 years up to $52.4 million of TIF will be generated
between Phase 1 and Phase 2, depending on the timing of the construction of
Phase 2. The $52.4 million TIF is contemplated to be used by the City for
construction of a North Parking garage and remainder of funds rebated to the
developer as an economic development grant for the construction of the
Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects.
B. Subject to satisfactory performance according to the agreement, the City shall
provide a developer “TIF rebate” based upon the difference of current values
and future improved value of up to $42,000,000 in total for both Phase 1 and
Phase 2, or for up to 20 years whichever occurs first. (Actual agreement will
be more specific with date based upon state law).
a. The City is authorized to utilize annual TIF revenue from either or both
Phase 1 and Phase 2 for any and all costs related to the construction of
the North Parking Garage and land or easement acquisition. Any TIF
that is not used by the City annually, shall be paid to the developer per
the terms of this agreement.
b. The Final Agreement will include estimated City TIF allocations needed
to support the construction of a 200 space North Parking Garage and
developer allocations.
C. The TIF Rebate shall be subject to an annual appropriation clause by the City
Council in order that the value of the incentive is not a general obligation debt
for the City.
D. Undertake and pay for the abandonment of well and removal of well building.
E. Transfer ownership of the well property to the Developer.
F. Upon the City Council’s approval of the alley vacation located between
Gilchrist and Lincoln Way, the City will transfer ownership to the Developer
subject to limitations of Iowa Code.
Article IV-Miscellaneous
A. Developer shall incorporate sustainability features into the project:
I. All buildings in Phase 1 shall be designed to be 20% more energy
efficient than the 2012 Energy Code.
II. Building B and Building C of Phase 2 shall be designed to be 25% more
efficient that the 2012 Energy Code
III. Alternative to Section a.I. and a.II. , use LEED 4.1 “gold” design levels
for Hotel Building Phase 1 and Office Building C in Phase II, with
commissioning of each building. Actual USGBC certification not
required, but a report by an independent evaluator shall verify
consistency. (Staff Note: Selected these as the premier buildings and
most public buildings for showcasing high sustainability commitment)
IV. All residential units shall have electric appliances. No natural gas shall
be used within the residential units.
V. All buildings shall consider use of alternative heating and cooling
methods to natural gas and implement feasible measures of electric
service or geothermal methods of heating and cooling.
VI. All buildings will be net zero ready.
VII. Further discussion to be held - Geothermal will be considered for the
project but given site constraints, it may not be feasible to fully heat
and cool the buildings with only geo thermal and solar or electric.
B. Housing Affordability
a. Provide 10% of units at rents affordable to low/moderate income
households not to exceed at 70% of AMI.
1
ITEM #__21___
DATE: 10-25-22
Staff Report
October 25, 2022
Story County, Gilbert, and the City of Ames have been in process of updating the Ames Urban
Fringe Plan since February 2022. City Council established its priorities for an update at the
February 15th meeting. Since that time, staff of Story County and Ames worked to prepare a
draft plan that was presented to the City Council on April 24, 2022 and finalized for public
comment on May 16, 2022. The original draft can be found at this link on the Story County
website.
County staff collected the public comments on the draft from the three in-person meetings as
well as other comments. Staff provided a short summary of the primary issues on June 23,
2022 when the City Council voted to extend the current Fringe Plan 28E agreement until
November 7, 2022. This extension was intended to allow time for all parties to review the
public comments and to then finalize an updated Fringe Plan.
The full catalog of public comments from May and June of 2022 are included as an
Attachment to this report. The comments are categorized by how they were received. The
Story County Board of Supervisors reviewed public comments on September 13, 2022 and
provided proposed changes to the draft as part of a letter dated September 20, 2022. See
Attachment A. City Council must now determine how to proceed and address the
suggested changes.
The Ames Urban Fringe Plan with its implementing 28E agreement is a balance of
policy and procedures related to land use planning, annexation, and subdivision
review. The fundamental basis of the Plan and agreement is the City’s extended
subdivision authority for two miles outside of the City and the desire of the City and
County to coordinate expectations and not have duplicative or contrary processes.
The current Fringe Plan and Draft Fringe Plan also includes issues regarding rezoning
limitations and annexation policies.
The City’s primary benefits of Fringe Plan come from voluntary limitations the County
places on rezoning and zoning standards. No extra subdivision or annexation benefits
for the City are derived from the Fringe Plan and 28E agreement. City staff believes the
County benefits with streamlined subdivision review in support of rural development
options.
At this time City Council is being asked to consider the changes to the draft now being
proposed by the Story County Board of Supervisors and City of Gilbert, and whether
2
to proceed with finalizing a new Fringe Plan and accompanying 28E agreement.
Approving a new Fringe Plan would ultimately go through public hearings as a
comprehensive plan amendment.
DRAFT PLAN CHANGES PROPOSED BY STORY COUNTY SUPERVISORS/GILERT:
The draft Fringe Plan previously written and presented by the Story County and City of Ames
planning staffs was based upon a combination of issues related to subdivision, zoning, and
annexation policies for the Fringe Area. The draft Plan was written to be consistent with the
City’s Ames Plan 2040 Fringe Area policies related to planning for growth and annexation.
The City Council’s direction from February 15th was based upon Plan 2040.
City staff would characterize the Story County Board of Supervisors letter as focusing
on three main topics that they want to address with specific changes. Staff has
annotated the letter from the Supervisors’ letter to help reference the issues topically.
Limit the Urban Reserve Overlay and Annexation
The City of Ames identifies its primary areas for growth as part of Ames Plan 2040.
Additionally, Plan 2040 and the draft Fringe Plan included area shown as Urban
Reserve, which was intended to delineate areas that may be beneficial to annex in our
city limits as the City continues to grow over the years, but were not envisioned as
part of the initial primary growth areas. Annexation of Urban Reserve Overlay areas
may or may not be needed during the life of the Plan depending on the growth trends
of the City.
The Draft Fringe Plan Update included a mapped Urban Reserve Overlay and policies that:
1. Included the underlying designation of Ag and Farm Services
2. Limited divisions of land, except for Ag purposes and one existing dwelling
3. Story County would consider future zoning amendments to limit conditional uses that
would be generally incompatible with urban development
4. City of Ames may annex land within the Urban Reserve if City services were available or
would be made available to develop the land.
5. City waives subdivision authority, due to limited division options, no rural development
allowed.
Geographically the Urban Reserve applies in all directions around the City. The two most
common areas of interest during public comment were to the Southwest, south of Highway
30, and the area north of 190th Street.
3
The County now proposes several related changes to the Urban Reserve Overlay:
Bullet 1. No future changes to zoning to limit conditional uses.
Bullet 2. Prohibit annexation of any land designated Urban Reserve.
Bullet 3. Map less areas as Urban Reserve, specially north of 190th Street and land south
and southwest of Hwy 30.
Bullet 5. Contingency policy for Urban Reserve annexation, that if permitted to be annexed,
other areas before approved annexation. Comments based upon Plan 2040
general guidance.
Bullet 8. Allow for divisions of existing homes from land in the same manner as Ag and
Farms Services designation, which make it less restrictive.
Bullets 1, 2 and 3 are the most significant issues included within the letter affecting
the City Council’s growth priorities.
Bullet 1 responds to limiting conditional uses. The current Fringe Plan does not
address conditional uses. In February, the City Council supported working to limit
potentially impactful conditional uses as priority of the City. Staff believed if such
limitation were approved by the County, it would be the most beneficial aspect of
Fringe Plan for the City. If City Council desires to respond to the County’s
recommendation, the City could prioritize restricting specific uses, rather than all
conditional uses.
The requested changes to annexation policies and UR Overlay areas are potentially
the most problematic recommendations regarding Ames’s priorities for timing and
consideration of future annexations. If the County’s proposals are incorporated into the
Fringe Plan and a 28E, the process to annex would be similar to the current Fringe Plan
where a concurring amendment would need to be approved before considering annexation
of area that is Urban Reserve. If the amendment is not approved, it could not be annexed.
This change could potentially negatively impact the growth goals envisioned in City’s
2040 Plan for land north of 190th Street, east of I-35, southwest, and northwest.
The suggestion related to Bullet 8 to allow division of existing homes from ag land is likely not
a significant issue to the City.
Separate from the Supervisors’ letter regarding Urban Reserve issues, Gilbert initially
commented in June that they desired to have the Draft Plan amended to show land
north of 190th as reserve area for the growth of Gilbert only. At this time Gilbert has not
offered any other feedback about the Draft Plan or the Supervisor’s proposed changes. Staff
does not believe a Plan that exclusively gives Gilbert annexation authority north of
190th Street is in the best interest of the City of Ames.
4
Map Designations
The mapping in the Draft Plan was designed to be consistent with Plan 2040 Growth and
Land Use Chapter. The map includes three basic designations, Ag and Farm Services, Rural
Residential-Existing, Urban Growth. A fourth designation of Rural Residential-Expansion is
identified in the Plan, but not mapped for any new areas. The Plan also includes overlays,
such as Natural Areas, Urban Reserve, & Mining.
Bullet 6. Change City’s Growth Area designation of the Champlin property to Ag and Farm
Services and Meadow Glen to Rural Residential-existing
Bullet 7. Extend Gilbert Growth Area north to 170th
Bullet 10. Remove Policy for Rural Residential Land Use limitation of 40 acres.
Bullet 11. Remove limitation on number of Framework Map Amendments in a year.
Bullet 12. Clarify process to designate new Rural Residential-Expansion areas.
Bullet 13. Remove parcels outside of 2-miles from the Framework Map (primarily southeast
of I-35/Hwy 30).
Bullet 6 suggests the City should change the former Champlin property between Zumwalt
Station Road and Dartmoor to Ag and Farm Services due to public comment about concern
of impacts from urban development, primarily to the Worle Creek Area. These comments
mirror the input Council received as part of Plan 2040. This area is part of the Growth Area
of the City as part of Plan 2040 because there is existing water and sewer line abutting the
site. Staff believes that although it is a small amount of developable land after setting
aside natural areas, it is readily serviceable by the City and should be allowed to be
annexed.
The Meadow Glen neighborhood has been a vocal participant in the Ames Plan 2040 process
and the Fringe Plan reinforcing their desire to remain rural. The reason this area is shown
as Growth Area is a result of the annexation policies o f the Plan that limit annexation based
upon particular designations. Staff does not agree with the request to designate this
neighborhood as Rural Residential-Existing if it would prevent future annexation to the
south.
Staff has no issues in regards to the north Gilbert changes or removing parcels outside
of two miles from the Plan as suggested in Bullet 7 and 13. Bullet 11 addresses the
policy to limit the amendments to the Framework Map in order to consider cumulative impacts
is a good planning practice, but it likely is not critical to the implementation of the Plan. The
5
current Plan and 28E do not have such a limitation, but it does require concurrent by 2 of the
3 cooperators to initiate a change.
Bullets 10 and 12 are County driven policies in the draft Plan about future Rural Residential
Expansion. The County desires to allow for future proposals to add Rural Residential
Expansion as map amendments, rather than significant changes to the Plan overall.
The proposed changes would not directly impact the City as we would still have map
amendment review authority.
Other
Bullet 4. County desires a policy in the Plan stating it will review each annexation in the
future to determine if they support the proposed annexation.
Bullet 9. County would like to include in the Plan acknowledgement of the County allowing
for Accessory Dwelling Units or a Second Home in certain circumstances.
Bullet 14. Create policy to allow for non-residential uses to reconfigure property boundaries
that do not create new developable lots, similar to allowance for houses.
The Fringe Plan and 28E cannot bind the County to support future annexations. Includin g
Bullet 4 would not impact the Plan, but staff believes such a statement is superfluous and
confusing when the Plan has stated growth policies. If it was included anywhere, it would
be best in the 28E agreement as an acknowledgement of independent authority.
Bullet 9 is not a significant issue, but it does not facilitate annexation of land for development
purposes. Staff would likely only support the allowance for Ag and Farm Service areas
that would not likely become part of the City. Allowing additional accessary dwelling
units would be a zoning change by the County that the City could not directly control
unless mutually agreed upon in the 28E. The current 28E outlines some Story County
agreed upon limits to zoning powers, i.e. A-2 uses, but reserves its authority in all other
respects.
Bullet 14 is a potential issue of concern to City staff. It is unclear how this would be
beneficial to urbanization goals of the City and exactly what type of “nonresidential
uses” this would apply to as a policy. More review would be needed for staff to have a
final position on this issue, but when taken with the Supervisor’s Bullet 1 to not limit
conditional uses, this is a concern about facilitating these uses even more.
OPTIONS TO RESPOND TO BOARD OF SUPERVISOR’S LETTER:
Response Option 1: Update Plan with only subdivision policies for all areas within
the Fringe
6
Staff believes that if City Council desires to continue to develop a mutually acceptable plan
that it would be best to eliminate all annexation policies and focus solely on subdivision
authority. Such an approach would streamline the plan and remove extra -territorial control
from the agreement for any party to the agreement.
Implementing this option would be fairly straight forward using information in the draft Plan
and delegate subdivision review to the County for Ag and Farm Services, joint review for
Urban Reserve Overlay, and City control for Urban Growth areas. The issue of the County
limiting specific conditional uses would not be addressed nor would annexation authority.
Response Option 2: Update Plan with City specific edits to the draft for City Council
approval
Staff does not support limitation on Urban Reserve annexation as it hinders the City’s
ability to implement the flexibility built into Plan 2040. Additionally, it appears the County
no longer has an interest in broad controls of conditional uses to support compatibility within
either the Growth Areas or the Urban Reserve. Staff believes significant changes to meet
many City interests and to address County comments would take time to develop.
With this option City Council would direct City staff to attempt to prepare a comprehensive
set of amendments that include those recommended changes by the County that are
compatible with the City’s priorities. City Council would review staff drafted changes at a
future meeting, and if approved, forward it for acceptance by the other parties included in the
update process.
Staff notes that even with language supporting limitations of specific conditional uses that the
Fringe Plan and 28E, these two documents cannot create such a limitation. The County
would have to use their legislative authority after approving the Plan to modify their Zoning
Ordinance. Such an action would be independent of approving a Fringe Plan.
Response Option 3. Discontinue the update process and let the Fringe Plan dissolve
If City Council does not believe that common interests and benefits are likely to be part of an
updated Fringe Plan, the City Council could indicate it no longer desires to pursue an update.
The current Fringe Plan and 28E would then continue until November 7th and expire. The
City would retain its subdivision review authority upon expiration of the current 28E and apply
our policies as they related to Plan 2040 to rural development issues.
Response Option 4. Hold a Joint Meeting
Should the City Council need further clarification from the Story County or Gilbert officials
regarding their proposed changes, a joint meeting could be requested to discuss the specific
7
policies and authorities of the Plan that are at issue. With this option, City staff would
coordinate a date for joint meeting before formulating any changes to the Draft Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Fundamentally, the proposed changes by the Story County Board of Supervisors and
the City of Gilbert to the Urban Reserve caused staff to revisit the priorities of the City
and the benefits of a joint a Fringe Plan and 28E that consists of the recent proposed
changes. Staff finds that the proposed changes do not have distinct benefits to the
City compared to our default authorities for subdivision and annexation that are
available without a Fringe Plan and, therefore, do not support many of the proposed
changes described above.
Participants in Plan
Additionally, staff believes that if either Option 1 or 2 are supported, the City could pursue an
agreement with Story County separately, or in combination with Gilbert. Staff does not believe
it needs to be a new three-party agreement to be effective for management of the Fringe,
even though the current agreement was a three-party agreement.
Extension
If City Council determines it wants to proceed with continuing to work on an updated Fringe
Plan, Council may also desire to approve extending the current 28E which expires on
November 7, 2022. As discussed in June, the current Fringe Plan does not match our current
Growth Area plans of Ames Plan 2040. A long delay in updating the Fringe Plan could
procedurally limit the City’s ability to annex lands primarily to the south and east.
The City could continue to work on an update with or without an extension, but if City Council
desires to extend the agreement for continuity in the planning process it appears that it would
need to be extended until March to allow time to finalize a Plan and then go through public
hearings for its adoption.
NEXT STEPS:
At this time City Staff needs direction regarding a response to the Board of Supervisors letter.
The Staff has provided four possible options. The options described below offer a more
focused plan on Subdivision (Option 1) or a comprehensive response back (Option 2).
Alternatively, City Council could decide not to proceed (Option 3) with the update and let the
Fringe Plan dissolve or hold a joint work session (Option 4) before determining how to
proceed.
A separate action on whether to offer to extend the 28E is also needed depending on the
option selected as a response to the Board of Supervisors. Work on an update could continue
whether there is an extension or not.
The current Fringe Plan expires on November 7, 2022, and when it expires all subdivision
authority reverts back to the City and there is no shared management of the Fringe Area. If
8
City Council believes an extension is valuable, it would need to be for several months to work
through Option 1 or Option 2 and allow for a Plan to be approved, staff would suggest March
15th.
9
Attachment A
CITY OF AMES ANNOTATED COPY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISOR LETTER
September 20, 2022
Mayor John Haila and Members of the Ames City Council
City of Ames
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
Mayor Jon Popp and Members of the Gilbert City Counci l
City of Gilbert
105 SE 2nd Street
Gilbert, IA 50105
RE: Changes to the Draft Ames Urban Fringe Plan Based on Public Input
Dear Mayor Haila, Mayor Popp, and City Council Members,
As you are aware, a draft of the Ames Urban Fringe Plan was made available for public review and
comment on May 17, 2022. The public comment period occurred through June 14, 2022. A general
comment form, as well as an interactive map where comments could be made, were available on the
Story County Planning and Development Department's website. Three public meetings were also held. A
public presentation of the Plan was given on May 23, 2022, at the Ames Public Library and comments
were received in a public hearing format at that meeting. Two open house meetings were also held
where staff were available to answer questions. The open house meetings were held at Gilbert City Hall
and Oakwood Church on May 26, 2022, and June 7, 2022, respectively. Over 150 participants attended
the meetings. Almost 100 map comments and 25 form submi ssions during the month-long comment
period were received along with phone calls and emails. All comments and a transcript of the May 23,
2022, meeting have been provided to city staff.
Story County greatly appreciates everyone who provided comments and has been engaged in this
process. The Plan covers many complex issues that residents of the planning area passionately care
about. The County has considered all comments received and looks forward to the cooperators doing
the same. We also ask for your consideration of several changes to key areas of the Plan in response to
public input. By taking these comments into account, the County believes the Ames Urban Fringe Plan
will be mutually beneficial to the City of Gilbert, City of Ames, Story County, and the residents we serve.
The main issue areas identified by the County in review of the comments received include:
10
• Opposition to the annexation of existing rural residential developments and their
inclusion in the Urban Growth designation. Most comments were specific to the Meadow
Glen area, a residential development along Meadow Glen Road (east of State Avenue),
south of Ames.
• Opposition to the annexation of certain Environmentally Sensitive Areas and their inclusion
in Urban Growth areas. Specifically, a property commonly known as the Champlin Farms
property, an approximately 137-acre property to the southwest of Meadow Glen along
Dartmoor and Zumwalt Station Road, which contains a portion of Worle Creek and a
tributary.
• Opposition to the Urban Reserve Overlay. Most comments identified that too large of an
area was identified as Urban Reserve. They also identified that it is an area in which Ames
does not have plans to grow during the life of the Plan but places additional land use
restrictions on property owners. Specifically, concerns were raised about the Urban
Reserve Overlay applied to the area between Ames and Gilbert and southwest of Ames,
including Iowa State University- owned land. Comments identified that these areas should
be preserved and were not areas where city growth should occur.
• Opposition to proposed limitations on conditional uses in the Urban Reserve Overlay and
Urban Growth areas.
• Opposition to the limitations on the division of land to create new, buildable lots for
dwellings in the Urban Reserve Overlay and Agriculture and Farm Service designation.
• Opposition to restrictions on new rural residential development.
Based on these issues, the County proposes the following changes:
• Remove the strategy to limit certain conditional uses through an amendment to
the County's Land Development Regulations.
• Supplant the Urban Reserve Overlay's annexation policies with a policy that
annexation of areas in the Urban Reserve Overlay is not permitted during the life of
the Ames Urban Fringe Plan.
Additionally, further discuss reducing the area mapped with the Urban Reserve
Overlay.
This policy change is requested in response to the comments regarding the area between
Ames and Gilbert and southwest of Ames, including Iowa State University-owned land.
However, generally regarding the Urban Reserve Overlay, the County has concerns that
growth in these areas during the life of the Plan may detract from the viability of infill
opportunities or the cooperators' Urban Growth areas. The County appreciates Ames Plan
2040's attention to infill development and focus on priority growth areas. We also appreciate
Ames' work on its Climate Action Plan and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Towards sustainability goals, we want to ensure that growth occurs in areas that are near city
boundaries to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase access to alternative transportation.
We also want to ensure growthoccurs in areas that have planned land use scenarios with a
mix of uses and densities, such as the Urban Growth areas.
11
• Consider adding a policy that the County is not agreeing to support the annexation
of Urban Growth or Urban Reserve Overlay areas through the adoption of the Plan
and shall review all annexation requests at the time of a request to determine
whether to support, or not support, an annexation. The County's review may also
include recommendations on protections for environmentally sensitive areas.
While annexation in accordance with the Plan and the land Use Framework Map is required, by
adopting the Plan and its policies that annexation is compatible with a given land use
designation, the County is not agreeing to support any specific annexation request in these
areas. The other cooperators may also wish to clarify that they are not committing to approve
all annexation requests conforming to the Plan by adopting the Plan and its policies. This policy
would also create a clear review procedure for annexation requests.
• Consider adding a policy that the annexation of properties in the Urban Reserve Overlay (if
permitted) should be weighed against the Urban Growth areas' development, planned
infrastructure investments in the areas, and their viability. This would be in addition to the
policy that "annexation is coordinated with the timely and efficient provision of adequate
public facilities and services.
Annexation shall be permitted when city infrastructure is available or planned to be available
to serve the development. Infrastructure includes for streets, wastewater treatment, and
potable water distribution of sufficient size to support emergency services. Infrastructure
extensions should be logical and beneficial to overall goals for the growth of an area and not
just for the convenience of one development project."
• Consider mapping the Champlin Farms property as Agriculture and Farm Service with the
Urban Reserve Overlay, but not as annexable, and the areas to the east along State Avenue
and Meadow Glen Road as Rural Residential - Existing.
The County is requesting the area's designation be changed from Urban Growth to reduce its
priority for annexation. This is in response to public input and to ensure the area does not detract
from Urban Growth areas that are the city's priority for growth. Annexation during the life of the
Plan may be premature given the city's lower priority for growth to the southwest versus other
areas designated as Urban Growth.
• Extend the Urban Growth area adjacent to Gilbert one-half mile north of 170th to match
their Comprehensi ve Plan.
This would create uniform policies to follow when reviewing development requests in Gilbert's
growth area.
12
• Simplify the policy for reducing lot sizes for dwellings in the Agriculture and Farm
Service designation and adopting the same policy in the Urban Reserve Overlay as
follows:
Divisions for the creation of new development lots are not permitted. Parcels with existing
dwellings or parcels on which a dwelling may be constructed 35 acres or greater in size may be
divided once for the purpose of reducing their size constructing a dwelling on a parcel between to a
minimum of one and a maximum five net acres, if permitted by County zoning requirements
(e.g., through farmstead, LESA, or residential parcel subdivision exceptions). The
remaining land shall not be considered buildable for a dwelling and be preserved as an outlot,
through a deed, or by other restriction.
• Add an implementation strategy for the County to consider allowing Accessory Dwelling
Units, or second dwellings.
The County will be considering this change to its code in the next year and wanted to make the
other cooperators aware. This strategy may also address the public comments concerned with
the restriction on the creation of new lots for single-family dwellings in the Agriculture and
Farm Service and Urban Reserve Overlay designations.
• Remove the limitation on the amount of land (40 acres) that can be requested to be amended
to Rural Residential - Expansion through an individual Land Use Framework Map Amendment
request.
With the target of no more than 60 new rural subdivision lots, allowing a larger area to be
requested to be amended could result in better site design and more open space preserved
while not resulting in an oversupply of rural subdivision lots.
• Removing the restriction on the number of times per year the cooperators hear Land Use
Framework Map amendment requests and clarify the process to request an amendment to
the Rural Residential -Expansion designation for properties in the Urban Reserve Overlay.
This restriction may make it prohibitive for a buyer to enter into an agreement to purchase
land on the condition that it is first amended to a designation that allows a certain
development prior to purchase. Additionally, the draft Plan does not make an amendment
request to the Rural Residential-Expansion designation for properties in the Urban Reserve
Overlay possible without first amending the text of the Plan. This process should be clarified in
the Plan.
• Remove parcels inadvertently included in the planning area that are outside of
Ames' two-mile review area.
13
• Consider allowing the reconfiguration or division of land in the Agriculture and Farm
Service Designation and Urban Reserve Overlay for commercial or conditional
uses, similar to the allowance to reduce the lot size for single-family dwellings. No
new development lots could be created for additional commercial or conditional
uses. The County may consider a policy to route these plats to the other
cooperators for comment related to their subdivision standards.
The County would request the cooperators consider these issues and others raised by the
public comments. County Planning and Development staff is available to work through these
issue areas and changes with the cooperators and their staff. However, if an agreement
between the cooperators cannot be reached on these issues, the County would propose a
work session to seek mutually agreed upon solutions. The County understands that while
the cooperators may have different goals, having a plan and policies for the fringe area is
necessary to facilitate orderly, efficient growth in the interest of all those involved. Thank
you and we look forward to continui ng to work with you on this Plan.
Lati ah Faisal, Chair
Story County Board of Supervisors
Brad Perkins – Uh, good evening. My name is Brad Perkins. My address is
5500 240th Street. Geographically, that is just to the southwest area of Ames,
just south of Highway 30. My wife and I run Raspberry Hill Bed and Breakfast
and we are within the Fringe Plan, and now we would be in the Urban Reserve
Overlay. My concern with the Urban Reserve Overlay is that by designating
certain conditional use permits that cannot be had, even though zoning would
tell you, it gives everyone for every property, zoning tells you what you can and
what you cannot do. My problem with the Urban Reserve Overlay, and several
of the others, is that it states which conditional use permits you cannot do in that
particular area. And my problem with this is that it is overriding County Code.
The County Ordinance tells us based on your zoning, which conditional use
permits you can and cannot have. State of Iowa Code that sets up fringe plans
clearly states that the Fringe Plan is for subdivision and zoning changes. And, a
fringe plan is a good thing. It's good to know where, where development is
going to happen. This way, everybody is on a level playing field. Nobody can
buy out land from unsuspecting property owners and then turn around and sell it
because they had the inside track on what was going to happen someday. Fringe
plans are good, but overriding County Code is not, and that is a change for this
that was not present in any of the previous Fringe Plans. And my problem with
this is that it takes every property owner that falls under that Urban Reserve,
and you are losing property rights as a result. The Urban Reserve Overlay is
17,000 acres. The City of Ames is just barely over 17,000 acres currently. In
other words, this is a huge area of land, and it affects drastically every property
owner's rights that is within that Urban Reserve Overlay. My suggestions for
changes to the Fringe Plan would be, one, get rid of the restrictions on
conditional use permits. I think that is just setting the County up for problems in
litigation on down the line. Those are problems the County does not need.
County Zoning - the County Zoning Office, the County Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Board of Adjustment - those are the boards within the County
that decide those things and that's where it should be left. It should not be the
City of Ames saying, oh, now we've thrown the Urban Reserve on you, and now
these particular conditional use permits. As an example, four years ago, we
obtained conditional use permits for a bed and breakfast at the property on that
location. Under this current Plan, I would not have been able to do the exact
same business in the exact same location. Well, what would happen? The
person who is trying to sell their land now I would have to go somewhere else
and that's what's going to happen to every person in that Urban Reserve
Overlay. If maybe you're not planning on a home business, maybe you're not
planning on a bed and breakfast. Maybe you're not planning on a campground
or whatever, whatever uses, but maybe you're going to try to sell it someday,
and that person is. Now selfishly, if we took all 17,000 acres and said, we can't
have any bed and breakfast on any of that, I guess that's one way for us to kill
my competition. All right. However, there are some other things I may want to
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
do on 74 acres as my family develops a business there, maybe there's some
other things that I would like to do with that land. Maybe there's other
conditional use permits that I would like to achieve. Maybe expand my business
and expand the offerings that my kids could do someday. With the Urban
Reserve Overlay as it is, that would not be an option for a lot of those
conditional uses. One, please get rid of the restrictions on conditional use
permits. Two, do we really need to have 17,000 acres in the urban reserve
overlay if we don't have any plans to do anything with that land for the next 20
to 50 years? A business could start running its entire course and then end in that
time before the City is even ready to develop out that direction.
Kim Christiansen -- I am Kim Christiansen. I live at 2985 South Dakota
Avenue. I'm here tonight as a Trustee representing Washington Township. In
the last 10 years, Washington Township has lost over 24% of its population. I
am here tonight to ask the other three contiguous townships for support for the
Washington Township and for their own rural citizens. I'm here tonight to ask
Story County Planning Director, the Story County Supervisors to represent the
rural citizens of Story County. I'm here tonight to read the Washington
Township position statement. Statement of position regarding the proposed
Ames Urban Fringe Plan May, 2022. We are gravely concerned about the
proposed Ames Urban Fringe Plan and how it will affect Washington Township
in Story County, Iowa. Township property and growth are necessary to support
and maintain our volunteer fire department and other services. Due to years of
annexation and expansion of the Ames city boundaries, Washington Township
has shrunk from 23,040 acres to less than 12,000 acres. The Township territory
further limited by over 3,100 acres of ISU controlled land, more than half of
which do not pay taxes. Story County's proposed Urban Fringe Plan gives
complete, virtually complete, control to the city of Ames for an additional 5,800
acres leaving less than 3,100 acres in the entire township for possible growth. In
order to protect and possibly expand Washington Township's tax base in the
future, the Township Trustees respectably request the following actions.
Number one, eliminate the Urban Reserve Overlay from all Agriculture and
Farm Service designations in Washington Township. Remove the Urban
Growth designation from Meadow Glen rural subdivision and change it to Rural
Residential-Existing. And number three, remove the Urban Growth designation
from the north of Zumwalt Station Road, and replace it with Agriculture Farm
Service designation with no Urban Reserve Overlay. Signed, Pamela Iasevoli -
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Township Clerk, Robert Finch - Trustee, Kevin Winchell – Trustee, Kim
Christiansen - Trustee. Thank you.
Steve Harvey - Hi, my name is Steve Harvey. Oops, sorry. I don't have my
hearing aids on. I live on 265th, which is on the fringe of your Fringe overlay. I
just have a comment and then I have a question. My wife and I just bought a 15
acre horse ranch, right on the Southern end of all this.
And I can guarantee you, I didn't pay three quarters of a million dollars to have
somebody tell me what I can and can't do on my farm - number one. Number
two, I spent a very long time in the military as a sniper for a Special Forces unit,
and I'm not real happy with your fringe overlay. My question is, somebody told
me that I'm going to be removed from the Kelley Fire Department. Is that true,
or who was going to be my fire supplier?
Schoeneman stated they’d need to look into it.
Harvey, “It's on 265th, you can see it right on the map.”
Diekmann, “What designation are you?”
Harvey, “agriculture”
Diekmann, “are you Farm Service or are you Urban Growth area?”
Harvey, “No, there's a 40, a 40 acre lot. Then another 40 acre lot. Then my 15
acre lot.”
Diekmann, “We’ll have to look at a map with you. If it's shown as blue on that
wall map –”
Harvey, “It's not shown as blue. It's green.”
Diekmann, “If it's green, then you’re ag and farm service.”
Harvey, “Okay. So, who covers my fire?”
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Diekmann, “Well, nothing's changing about services unless you change
jurisdiction. So you'll stay whatever fire protection you have, whethe r it's Kelley
or it's in Franklin Township out of Gilbert. Unless you're annexed to Ames.
That's the only time that would change. If Ames annexes you, you become
protected by the Ames fire department. Otherwise there's no changes to utilities
–”
Harvey, “So basically what you're telling me is I get nothing for you to put me
on the overlay.”
Diekmann, “Well, an overlay doesn't do anything to you. It's showing general
intent for the future.”
Harvey, “Actually it tells me what I can and can't do on my farm. So it does
kind of do something.”
Diekmann, “County zoning is going to apply first. After county zoning, if
there's a question that involves a comprehensive plan, that's when the Fringe
plan applies. Zoning is the first factor. So that's, that's where it's going to apply
to every –“
Harvey, “You have to understand. I spent a very long time in the military, so I
have a problem when somebody from the government says, I'm here, from th e
government and I’m here to help. That’s where I stand.”
Diekmann, “That’s fine. It’s not relevant to the land use comments though. So
let's try to keep it focused on in the Fringe Plan and not your history of service.
It's not really relevant.”
Kent Vickre - Well, thank you and Kelly, I mean, you can see what I'm first
name basis here because I've been kind of for four, five years addressing
dressing the fire, my fire concerns which will bring up more about the Kelly fire
department. So my five minutes, I'd like to discuss Meadow Glen area and
specifically the urban growth description. The description, the pack, it says city
infrastructure, street trail connections, are achievable at low cost. However, the
city infrastructure is not available and it is not low cost. In fact, the cost is so
much at the city of Ames is only interested in annexing Meadow Glen through
voluntary annexation to force the estimate is $70,000 on each household. It is
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
too much for them to do. Also reviewing the Rural Residential Existing it’s
obvious that Meadow Glen should be Rural Residential because we have private
wells, septic systems and a private road. The road is completely private on our
property. In fact, issues already been addressed, and I know sent to you Kelly,
and, you know, the response was that from the city’s perspective, it illustrates if
the city grows southwest, possible or likely, then Meadow Glen would be
annexed. It is not shown as growth because the city would not expect additional
development. Therefore it seems obvious that Meadow Glen is only Urban
Growth because it's easy to annex. That's the only reason that area doesn't fit the
definition. That's what you've said. I understand Ames would like to annex
Meadow Glen and for four years I've been talking to Ames City Council,
supervisors, everyone who will listen at meetings. Here's an excerpt from my
letter that I'd like to read that I sent to Council members. If the area is
incorporated into the City of Ames, the Kelley Fire department will not receive
funding from area. To clarify, incorporation of this area will shift $30,000
property tax from Kelley Fire Department to Ames to our department. This is
concerning because area does not have fire hydrants and requires tanker trucks
to bring water. Simply put, we cannot shift money from Kelley Fire Department
to the City of Ames and expect them to provide service without the Kelley Fire
Department’s tanker trucks, the area would have to rely on Slater, which triples
our response times. I'd like to emphasize, this is not against the Ames Fire
Department. They do a great job. It's simply the right tool. The Ames’ Fire
Department cannot bring water to a rural fire because they rely on fire hydrants.
That's why we need the Kelley Fire Department and it will not be there if were
annexed. And this sets us up to be annexed. And you know, my question is, or
my feelings is, I've talked about this for four or five years. I realize annexation
is good for the city of Ames, but what is my life and my neighbor's life worth? I
think life should be a priority over annexing and the growth of Ames. I ask this,
I'm asking you to make sure this is not overlooked until someone loses their life.
Please put an emphasis on people's life safety over Ames growth and
development profits. Number two, I'm asking you to be a good neighbor to
surrounding communities. This consideration will only promote the City of
Ames, instead of forcing residents to move outside th e overlay into Slater or
Boone County. Number three, remove the Urban Growth designation from
Meadow Glen Rural Subdivision, and change it to Rural Residential-Existing. I
do thank you for your time in this public format. And you know, again, I know,
I know your job is important, and the growth of Ames, but I think the priority of
life and the existing residents has to be number one. And I really want you to
please think about that. Thank you.
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Christine Hausner -- My name's Christine Hausner, Southwest Ames. I have
been dealing with this for six years. I was pregnant with my now six year old
when I went to the first City Council meeting, and I'm tired of dealing with this
and I'm not mincing words anymore. Short of it is AUFP is wrong. The city
voted in February of 2020 4-2, that they were only interested in including north
of Highway 30 for growth in the 2040 plan. They voted to take southwest Ames
out. A City Council member was even quoted in the paper saying that they
wanted to use Highway 30 as a southern boundary. Somehow over COVID,
without anything on the agenda about our particular area, everything went back
on as Urban Growth in my area, and Urban Reserve for the whole thing. So
apparently that is how our city government works. They vote on something and
then just change it when they want to do something else. The 2040 Plan was to
be used as a guideline for the AUFP. The AUFP contradicts how the council
voted for the 2040 Plan. The AUFP is wrong. Southwest Ames, west of State,
south of Highway 30 needs to be taken out of the AUFP. This is a 2005
environmental impact study, ecological and archeological, done of just our
Worley Creek corridor and surrounding woodlands. City of Ames thinks that
they know better than all of the experts involved in this. This is a letter from our
local chapter of the Audubon Society that supports conservation in this area and
condones urban development in this area. City of Ames thinks that they know
better than one of the largest conservation societies on the planet. That is
because the City of Ames doesn't care about the environment only when it
serves their purpose. And if the County approves this plan as is, that will be the
stance that they take as well. They did mark most of my areas “Environmentally
Sensitive”, but this is the part that they don't want you to know. They would
have to destroy this area and our ecosystem in order to put an urban
development in southwest Ames. So you can't mark something as
“Environmentally Sensitive” just to reserve it for the City to destroy it later
when someone proposes an urban development. That's not how it works. So
20,000 acres, there is only one conclusion. It's about control. So my six year
old, his favorite place in this planet as our family home and the area that my
family has been on for almost a hundred years and five generations. I don't want
to have the conversation with him one day that his mommy couldn't do enough
to save it. That is the unfortunate reality in our world today that there are too
many people on this planet having the same conversations with the younger
generations because we are too stupid and too greedy to do what is right, and
too stupid to save it. I am so fearful for what this planet is going to look like
when my child is my age and it will look like that because of governments like
this one that keep gobbling up all of our farm land to the point they are no
longer sustainable. This is Iowa – ag should come first. Yes. And in the process,
we are going to destroy the environment until there's nothing left to save. So it's
going to take, what, a hundred years to do urban sprawl for 20,000 acres? You
don't have to worry about it cause we're not going to make it that long. This
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
whole process has shown me that this is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. It
is about control and totalitarianism. Why would a county wan t to give up so
much control to one city? I'm hoping that Story County will put their foot down
and take back control from the tyrant that is the city of Ames.
Joyce Peterson -- My name is Joyce Peterson and I live on 265th street, just
outside the city limits, and I have some concerns that I would like to voice to
you. First of all, I will verify that plan of Ames has always been to move to the
north, that 30 would be a boundary. I was on Planning and Zoning Commission
about 20 years ago, and at that time that was what we understood. And I was not
aware that it'd ever changed. My concern is in the manner of which this has
been handled. First of all, doesn't seem like anybody in this area that's affected
has really been asked for comments before. You've got the whole plan set up
and we haven't had any input yet. You give us 30 days for input, but our
meeting isn't until the seventh. And we sat here listening to you talk very
quickly, hard to keep up with what you were saying and take it all in at once. So
we're really going to need to have that meeting in the Oakwood Church to get
our questions answered. So that cuts our time to 15 days to make comments and
very little time to do very much research. So I'm concerned about that. I'm also
concerned about the way that this notice was given, because several of my
neighbors who are involved in this, didn't get a notice about this meeting. It was
up to our neighborhood to pass the word around so that people could find out
what was going on. So I'm concerned about that also. My other concern is the
land use and the farming. On your map, it shows us in the blue area, we are a
farmland. We are a farmer and we have 40 acres right there onto 265th street.
We're on the south side. The north side is farm land. The east and west sides are
farm land. It's all farmland, but you wouldn't know that by looking at your map,
because it's not marked that way. It's not marked agriculture so people will not
realize until they are told that this is farm ground and is being gobbled up by the
City. And I hope that you will reconsider some of these things, and perhaps give
us a little more time. I don't know how soon you're planning to vote, but I think
we need some time to really go over this. Thank you.
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
David Whitaker -- Hello. Good afternoon, David Whitaker, Whitaker
Marketing Group. Also a landowner in the area here as well. But question
comes on the real estate side of the world. So I've had the opportunity to work
for some of the people in the room, and I've had people call me to sell their
land. When they do normally, as a realtor, we try and sell it with whatever the
highest and best use is. So normally when people come to us, they want the
most successful outcome. For some people that means no hog confinement, for
some people that means I want the most money. So a lot of people that we sell
for arguably do want the most money out of their land. And right now because
of the 35 acre buildable urban sprawl rule, oftentimes in this Urban Fringe, the
highest and best use, or where I can get the most money for my client is a,
buildable house or somebody that wants their little McMansion or a place
outside of town. So I guess my question is, can I assume that looking at this and
looking at the Urban Reserve Overlay, it takes a lot more acres out of where it's
not just Amelia and Marcus at the County, making the decision with a LESA
score, et cetera, if it is a buildable site or not. Some that I've sold that have been
in the Ames Urban Fringe Plan that did have 35 acres were deemed not
buildable. Is this going to pigeonhole some of the land owners to not have that
decision-making ability of what the highest and best is and possibly lose
money?
Schoeneman responded, “No. I think it provides clarification on what's allowed
in terms of divisions for new dwellings. And that 35 acre rule was county-wide.
98% of the county's zoned A-1 Agriculture where we require 35 acres for a
dwelling.
Whitaker, “So currently at the county, they can split it right now. If it hasn't
been split, an aliquot parcel, they can't split a parcel?”
Schoeneman responded, “No. There's certain exceptions that have to be met.
And not every parcel can be split.
Whitaker, “So will this modify the LESA score at all? Is there going to be any
difference to the LESA score if we try to get one to make it a buildable parcel?
Is there any regulation to that if it's in the blue area, the Urban Reserve Overlay,
blue hash?”
Schoeneman, “In that area, no divisions are proposed to be allowed to create
new development lots.
Whitaker, “Okay so if they could have, but they wouldn't be able to now, is that
what I'm hearing?”
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Schoeneman, “Yeah.”
Whitaker, “Thanks. Just a question. Thank you.”
Evan Sievensend -- My name is Evan Sievensend I’m at Meadow Glen Road.
That's southwest Ames. So a lot of my comments have already been mentioned
by previous presenters so I won't repeat myself here, but, I guess I just wanted
to make the point that the plan and the ones who wrote it took a lot of time to
very carefully define all of the different areas -- whether it's Urban Growth or
Agricultural, Rural Residential-Existing there's clear definitions of each. So my
request is, since you provide clear definitions, when you apply those to
properties, use those definitions to apply those to the properties. And what it
means specifically as mentioned by a previous commenter, just in my own little
corner of Ames and the Meadow Glen area, we fit nearly - to a tee - every single
definition of Rural Residential-Existing. We're all in one to three acre lots,
wells, septics, there's - one hundred percent - it's already developed. There's no
urban growth to be had, yet we are defined as Urban Growth. So my only
request again, is if you're going to take the time to define the areas, the land that
you apply those definitions too should fit those definitions. All right. Thanks.
Alex Christiansen -- Alex Christiansen, live in Southwest Ames. When I
started reading through the updates to the Fringe Plan, I quickly remembered
the wise words of my Iowa State University professor. He taught us to ask
ourselves these two questions. Number one, who wrote it, that gets answered by
his second question, who benefits? The updates to the Fringe Plan stripped
property rights and give the city of Ames tremendous amounts of power over
the land while providing no benefits to anyone living in the two mile Fringe.
We have been told this is necessary, but the number of acres set aside in the
Urban Growth and Urban Reserve would more than double the number of acres
currently in this city. Most of this land has no growth plans in the foreseeable
future. This is not necessary. This is not right. This is not voluntary. This is a
land grab. This only benefits the city of Ames. There has been a lot of talk about
public input, which is great. So many of us have taken a lot of time out of our
lives, away from our families to understand the Fringe plan and attend meetings.
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
What I don't understand is the public input has been clear and overwhelmingly
against this plan, as it is currently proposed. Especially in the Southwest. As we
live in the Fringe, we are the ones most affected. I'm pleading with the County
to do more for us than simply asking for our input. You are our representation,
please listen. And more importantly, act on our input. Thank you.
Ross Schade –Hi, my name's Ross. I live on Sandhill trail. I've been living in
the jurisdiction of the Fringe Plan since 2010, and I have a lot of record that can
be split, and per Story County can be a buildable lot, could be built upon.
However, because I've always been in the Urban Fringe, could not split and put
a new buildable parcel on that lot. I've called City of Ames and Story County
several times and they say I can split the lot, but I just couldn't put a dwelling on
it. I see some language in here that I don't really understand. What I can do with
this land once split, I understand that it can't be used for development, but I also
see that it has to be reserved for as an outlot. So there's no building of any sorts
that can be done?
Schoeneman responded, “No, and I really need to look at the specifics of your
property, because when you say the ‘lot of record phrase’ that, under county
zoning, isn't divisible either.”
Schade, “Yeah, it is. Well, for Story County it is. I guess, if I've already been
under the Ames Fringe Plan, which maybe some of you have not, but I've been
under it for a while now, is there any changes to my division requirements? I've,
I've read the previous plans half a dozen times. I've read this one several times.
And for me, I don't understand what the difference is. If I'm ag and farm service
right now within the Ames Fringe, is there anything different for me? Because I
can't pull it out of these documents.
Schoeneman answered, “In Ag and farm service under the current Fringe Plan,
you can only divide off a farmstead. The remaining land after that division is
not buildable. In the proposed draft, we've opened it up for other exceptions to
allow if you meet the LESA exception, if you are wanting to do a residential
parcel subdivision, to create one lot from your 35 acres, the remainder wouldn't
be buildable – that’s the outlot phrase that you see -- but beyond just historic
farmsteads, if you meet a different exception in ag farm service, not with the
Urban Reserve Overlay, it does give you more options.”
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Schade, “Okay so I do have a LESA score below the threshold where I can have
a buildable lot on less than 20 acres, which I've done. And, but it also says I can
divide it.”
Schoeneman, “I'd like to look at that. If you could get in touch, we can talk
more about the specifics with the new plan.”
Schade, “So you’re telling me with the new plan, there's more choices?”
Schoeneman, “In ag farm service, Urban Reserve, as proposed, does not. If
you're in the overlay that would not allow a division .”
Diekmann commented, “You're on Sandhill Trail -- so as the way I would
understand it, and I'm not interpreting their zoning rules, I'm just talking about
the Fringe Plan -- Ag and Farm Service designation, fundamentally the same as
your current situation. The overlay kind of locks that in and confirms that it
doesn't really give you more options. It doesn't give you more options. So some
of those lots of record issues as what, what Story County Planning would have
to deal with, but from a Fringe Plan perspective, I think you're essentially in the
same spot as you are now for that part of the Fringe Plan.
Lisa Volk -- My name's Lisa, I technically live in Boone. I wanted to live in
Story County. This is my story. Three years ago, I was moving from Illinois
back here and my sister, brother, and I own 37 acres between 190th and
Cameron School Road, butts up to Bella Woods with a road that comes from
Bella Woods to our property, with a fire hydrant there. We went and met with
Story County, City of Ames, and I wanted to build, and they said, no, you
cannot. If you choose to develop it as a subdivision and pave 190th street, we
will allow you to build on that property. Okay. That was not financially feasible.
I now live in Boone County. We have since tried to sell the property and they
have told us we have no plan for that to be a subdivision, and so we're not able
to sell the property. I feel bad for the woman over there talking ag because I
understand that. They've labeled part of our property as a wetland. You can't
just label property wetland by driving by and looking at weeds and that's what's
happened to us.
Liesel Danielson -- It's emotional guys. Because this is our land. It's not your
land, our land. And I want to read the letter that Christine showed you fr om the
Audubon Society. It got sent to the City Council members and they never talked
about it. It never got brought up in the meetings. So dated October 16th, 2021 -
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
City Council Members, Big Bluestem Audubon society has learned that the
Ames City Council may soon decide about future development plans for
currently natural landscape along Worle Creek between Dartmoor Road and
U.S. Highway 30. Local citizens have contacted our conservation organization
with concerns about loss of the Creek's water quality and destruction of the
important natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. We understand that the city's
tentative plan is to save this area for future housing developments and to
straighten and use Worle Creek as a storm drainage system. This official letter
shall go on record the Big Bluestem Audubon society based in Ames opposes
the plan in any other kind of developments threatening water quality and natural
landscape adjoining Worle Creek. Our organization is dedicated to protecting
local birds and all other wildlife plus plants, water quality, air quality, and all
other aspects of natural environment. Thus making urban development plans for
this area have very large concern for us. We ask that this letter be included in
any such project discussion at upcoming city council meetings. Information was
provided to our chapter indicating the development plans for this area first
appeared in 2005. Since then professors from ISU and other conservation
professionals have reported concerns about potential dama ges to nature here
such as threatened or endangered species of plants, birds, and other wildlife
while clearing forest and lowering water quality of Worle Creek. As a final
note, Ames was designated an official bird friendly Iowa community in 2020 by
a committee representing multiple Iowa conservation organizations and
agencies. Since then, major destruction of natural habitat along Ioway Creek,
over by South Duff Bridge, has greatly concerned the bird friendly Iowa
steering committee, possibly threatening revocation of the city's official
designation. Approving of, and proceeding with, development plans for the
Worle Creek area could make such revocation of the city's award and even
greater possibility in this time of worldwide climate change and environmen tal
destruction. It is time for Ames to place a high priority upon protecting all of its
natural landscapes. Respectfully, Douglas C. Harr, the Vice President of the Big
Bluestem Audubon Society.
Leo Milleman -- Good evening. I'm Leo Milleman, live up on the northeast
side of Ames, up on the map near Bloomington. I just have two questions. The
property there that is in the Fringe Area, should Gilbert and Ames decide they
want a hiking trail, a bicycle trail, can they take our property in the Fringe area
to build some against our wishes or use eminent domain? And question number
two would be, should the city of Ames or Gilbert decide that they want new
wells to supply water, either to the cities or to supply industry, such as
Lincolnway Energy or that. Can they use eminent domain on the Fringe
properties to take land that drill without permission or use eminent domain?
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Diekmann, “So I'll assume that's directed at me, at City of Ames.”
Milleman, “I can use Gilbert too, I live in the land between the two, so.”
Diekmann, “I thought you were on the northeast side of Ames. Did I not hear
that correctly?”
Milleman, “Correct. Northeast, both agricultural and preservation land. I don't
know. So a lot of us here, we don't understand the terminology. What’s the
power of the city to take land for those two purposes - decide to build a park,
you know, because it looked good to have a park between Ames and whatever,
those kinds of questions.”
Diekmann, “So I'm not really going to answer the trail question as that would
involve a lawyer to answer that one specifically because I think there's some
nuances to how trails are allowed or not allowed within Iowa. And I can't speak
for if Story County wanted to pursue it, or City of Ames wanted to pursue it. So
I can't quite answer your trail question. I just know there's more to it than what I
can answer. Gilbert's not involved I think in the area of this plan, it's strictly
Ames or Story County from where I believe your land is. In terms of the wells,
that's a public purpose for the city of Ames. So we've, in this area, have
acquired new wells sites. We've negotiated for that. I don't think we've used
eminent domain. But as a public purpose for a water supply, any city can use
eminent domain under state law and follow those rules to acquire something for
a public purpose and clearly water wells are that. The trail is kind of a whole
different conversation that I can't really give you a clear answer on tonight.”
Schoeneman, “Thanks for those questions. I just wanted to state that with or
without the Fringe Plan, I don't think that would impact the eminent domain.”
Diekmann, “If you're wondering where Ames water wells are going to be, this
doesn't depict those areas. That's a question I'd have to push off to John Dunn in
our water department to understand what aquifers they look at, and what we
believe are the most optimal location for wells in the future. The Fringe Plan
won't dictate public facilities like that. Whether it's in the, whether it's in the
City or in the County. Because we do have wells that are out in the County now.
They're not in a slate to be annexed into the city. We also have obviously lots of
wells in the city.”
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
David Whitaker -- Quick question, too. Does it change any taxation? I know
you're not the Assessor's office, but if I'm in the Urban Reserve, or the Urban
Growth or Residential…”
Schoeneman, “You would need to change jurisdictions, otherwise it doesn't
change.”
Diekmann, “The plan will not have any effect on taxation. It's only if you
change, what she said, jurisdictions. If you become a property that's in Ames
and you have different levy rates than if you're in the county. Zoning is going to
be the one that's dictating value, not the comprehensive plan or the Fringe Plan.
Again, you said it right. I'm not the City or the County Assessor. So take what I
say with a grain of salt, but it should be based on I believe it's based on zoning
and use of the property differently than what a long-term plan says.”
Doug McKay -- My name is Doug McKay. I live, I actually live in town, but I
own ground to the Southwest in Ames, in one of these districts. I don't know
what you call it. Two comments, one Kelly, you earlier said how the city can
control things for two miles out. And if they expand the city limits, that extends
that to two miles out further.
I wonder if you've ever given any consideration to the fact that maybe
somebody two and a half miles out has got some plans to do something. And
they want to, maybe they want to split off a 40 acre lot for maybe their parents
or their kids or something and split it into two, which I think now isn’t possible,
correct?
Schoeneman, “Might be.”
McKay, “Okay. But now all of a sudden, the city, maybe they're in the process
of doing this and the city says, well, we're moving the city limits out without
telling anybody. And I just wonder if there was any possibility that you have
thought of maybe when you do, it takes a while to expand the city limits, I
think. And if you thought about maybe notifying people that are going to
become in that two mile range after the city limits gets expanded.”
Schoeneman, “So there's a specific policy to deal with that situation that's
proposed. Similar to the current Fringe Plan as well. So when the city's two mile
jurisdictional boundary expands, we would allow subdivisions allowed under
county zoning in that area, under county A-1 Agricultural Zoning. So that might
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
be division once into two. It might be just division of the farmstead, but if you
want to do any other types of development that would require us to go through
an amendment process to map that in a different designation.
Diekmann, “Doug, just to follow up on that, the current plan has a policy where
I'll say the boundary is frozen from the time we agreed in 20011. What Amelia
says I think is likely to be the proposed language again. I, as the city of Ames, I
don't have an interest at two and a half miles away from the city. That's not an
area that's that I can show you on a map I have any directional concern about, so
the city of Ames has no issue with freezing that jurisdictional designation.
McKay, “Yeah, I understand. But all of a sudden, the city limits expands
because somebody voluntarily comes in and you allow it, then it does affect that
person.”
Diekmann, “But that's what I'm saying. I think the City of Ames is more than
fine with continuing the current policy where that is frozen, and when new lands
become within two miles, the City of Ames doesn't take jurisdiction over
those.”
McKay, “That sort of leads me into my other comment, which is more related to
the city having control. You know I've heard, Amelia, that you or somebody
else in the county has said that would be something that we would allow, and
we don't think the city would not allow it just because you know, it wouldn't be
that big a deal.
For example, I, you know, I don't know what, I don't know what it might be, but
something, but I can tell you that I think that the city wants control. And I'll give
you an example of what they did to me. Several years ago, well, many years
ago, probably 25-30 years ago, we rented a little piece of ground, about half as
big as this room, to a public utility Iowa Network Services who served, I don't
understand exactly what they do with the law. They have a lot of telephone
equipment that goes through this little building that they put out there. That's
about it. And about, we rented it to him for many years. And about three years
ago, I think, I think it was before the pandemic, they came to me and they
wanted to buy that piece of property. And I said, okay, no big deal. It's less than
a tenth of an acre. It's maybe less than a hundredth of an acre. And I went to the
city and they said, well, you can't do that because you'd have to plot all of your
property and agreed to bring it all into the city limits. And of course that would
be very expensive and I didn't want to do that. So I had to work around it by
renting out to this company for 99 years instead of selling it to them, which we
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
both would have preferred, but that's the way the city operates. They get control
and they take control right down to the letter of the law.
Schoeneman, “Okay, let's move on to some Zoom comments. So if you are on
Zoom and you'd like to make a comment, raise your hand. If you're on the
phone on Zoom and you can't push the raise the hand button, push star nine on
your phone, and then we will unmute you and call on you to make your
comment.”
Kent Spillers – Hi Kelly. This is Kent Spillers, 3439 GW, Carver. We were
involved in an annexation before Scenic Point was built. A few years back, we
bought our property before the other was sold. I'm hearing a lot from southern
Ames, and other than one person tonight, I don't hear a lot from like northern
Ames people, like going up to Gilbert, and I thought I'd hear a little bit more
about that. So I appreciate the woman that talked about northern Ames. We're a
little bit worried because we're just not sure if we're going to get brought back
into the annexation, or what's going to happen on the north side of town. The
maps are, I don't know, a little bit vague, but we're in the same boat. And then
when the gentlemen mentioned about like Washington Township, technically I
belong to an island. So we're in Franklin Township up here at 3439, and I get a
little bit worried and we don't have the thousands of acres. It's me and my 92
year old neighbor below me who has 42 acres. So between us, we have 45 acres.
Just curious how the urban expansion is going north.
Diekmann, “So for your property, I'm going to remember this I think from a few
years back, your situation in the current plan versus the proposed plan is the
same. You were shown as an urban service area in the last plan, and it's the
same as urban growth here. Same story is when you were left out of that
annexation, we're not, as the City of Ames, trying to do involuntary
annexations, which means we're proactively annexing land. We're responding to
development. There's no development land really around you. Like you said, it's
kind of bottom land towards Ioway Creek. So I would say your situation is
unchanged between this plan and the last plan. Way further north is where the
growth is planned so I don't really see anything in this plan directly affecting the
two houses or three houses that are on GW Carver. Does that answer what
you're asking?”
Spillers, “It does. I just feel bad that no one’s reaching out from the north side
of Ames, and I'm just curious as to why it. Was it that clear cut?”
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Diekmann, “Yeah, I think we've just had the one comment about 190th Street.”
Lisa Volk, “Can I raise my hand one more time?”
Schoeneman, “Let’s get through Zoom first.”
Kay Ann Taylor -- Well, in response to what Kent just said, I'm a little bit on
the northeast. And after listening to what other people have said tonight, the
majority of them, I'm alarmed. I'm not happy about any of this, and I agree
wholeheartedly that the city is overstepping. Even if they aren't doing it now, it's
like one man said that, you know, when you're two miles out, then you're going
to want to come two miles more. And I think there needs to be better
communication all around. The postcard didn't do much, it would be helpful if
we had a list of everybody who's involved on all of these areas so we could
communicate with each other. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Jim Quarnstrom – Jim Quarnstrom, I live at 5667 Skycrest Drive. When was
this meeting planned? When did you know you were going to come here today?
Diekmann, “I think we picked this day by about two-ish weeks ago, one and a
half to two weeks ago.”
Quarnstrom, “Okay. You might have gotten more comments from north Ames
if the postcards were mailed before last Friday. Mine hit the mailbox at 11:00
AM today. I empathize with people here who have deep concerns. I don't know
enough to have a concern one way or the other, but I know this, 40 cents in any
of the other people that got it today, it was a waste of money, which tells me
that part of the plan sucked. Thank you.”
Sharon Okerberg -- I am very new to all of this, definitely a foreigner. And I
do not understand why my piece of property, which has been my piece of
property for five or six years, and we have courses and we do mental health
counseling, and we have young people from the schools coming and getting
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
better. So I want to know if, off of 69, somewhere in this rectangle just north of
Ada Hayden, if you say it right, are you going to change our right to have horses
and help kids?
Schoeneman, “That sounds like a conditional use permit process under county
zoning, not impacted by the Fringe Plan likely if you're not doing a division. I'd
need to look at your specific property. So we have county zoning that's separate
from the Fringe Plan. Fringe plans and the comprehensive plans are forward
looking usually, but county's zoning still applies. And for certain business uses
you need a home business permit or a conditional use permit, which goes before
a board for approval. I think I left you a message today. So why don't you give
me a call and we can talk about further what we need to do. Oh, maybe. Okay. I
think it was Melinda. Yeah. So thank you.”
Lisa Volk -- The last thing I want to say about my thing I forgot to tell you is
after I went to Gilbert, Story County and Ames, my sister's at the meeting, I was
on Zoom. They told me I couldn't build on the land unless I developed as a
subdivision. Shortly after that, a certain land development company reached out
to me over and over again, saying, sell us our land you can build on that. Over
and over again. I'm not going to say who it was, but over and over again, if you
sell some land, we'll allow you to build on it.
Diekmann, “Can I ask clarification? You mean after you sold it to them, they
would sell a lot back to you? What do you mean?”
Volk, “I wasn't allowed to build on it. We just wanted to keep it as the 37 acres,
I wanted to build a little house on there. They told me no, unless I developed as
a subdivision. I couldn't. They said no, but if I would have sold it to this land
development company, then I could have built on it.”
Schoeneman, “You’re in the Mangel’s Subdivision, right? On 190th? Your
property you’re referencing is an outlot and existing subdivision. I think there's
already been two to three divisions for new lots for houses in that property, and
that's why that's limited.”
Brad Perkins -- I haven't checked my mail today. The only reason I knew
about the meeting tonight was a neighbor. I haven't checked my mail today. It
could be in there—
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Schoeneman, “I emailed you.”
Perkins, “You did but that's what I'm saying is if the only way people were
going to find out about the meeting was through that postcard, I'm saying it is
very possible that they haven't seen it until maybe they got home from work
today. All right. So anyway, I knew about it, but yes, yes, you did send me an
email and I had neighbors tell me, so I did know about it ahead of time. But
Amelia, I would like to say though that, with what you said a little bit ago abou t
conditional use permits, the Fringe plan does affect conditional use permits.
Schoeneman, “Some designations do, could, if the County went ahead and
amended its zoning code, after the fringe plan, as a strategy in the Fringe Plan, it
may be that to meet . . . it's a strategy in the Fringe plan that's proposed. It's
proposed as a strategy to consider amending conditional use permits allowed, to
ensure they are compatible with certain Fringe Plan designations.”
Diekmann, “Some of you that have been engaged on the southwest side, Brad's
one that's heavily engaged, the first presentation you saw with the county P and
Z, that is not what's proposed. It had language that suggested that Ames had a
say in conditional use permits. We've cleaned that up. Ames has no say in
conditional use permits. Ames is still going to advocate that Story County
consider changing their regulations. The Fringe Plan is changing none of that. It
would be up to Story County to pursue that at a later date. So then the way that
Amelia has it now outlined it's different than the first time you saw it, Brad.
And that was a mistake. Ames has no authority to have any direct involvement
in a conditional use permit. All we can do is encourage Story County to
consider things.”
Perkins, “I don’t have a problem–there is a serious difference between, ‘Hey,
would you consider - that seems reasonable’, or ‘that is not allowed.’ That is a
very, or, rather City of Ames has approval authority. Right? Those are, those are
very different.”
Diekmann, “So for public comment, we want to be as clear as we could. We
knew it would generate comment, which is good. If I didn't put it in there, now
at the last meeting, I came back, everyone would be upset about something
changing. So it's easier to pair it down if people agree with those comments than
it is to add something in.”
Perkins, “I guess I better read the new version.”
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Diekmann, “So it still has a list, it's not written the way you saw it the first time
where Ames has a say in it. That's what's different. That would be so many of
the measures in the plan, talk about future efforts by Story County, and maybe
in some cases with one of the cities. Those things would not be happening this
summer. So in terms of the overall schedule, Amelia said yes, some of the
postcards went out later than anticipated. Others went out more than a week
earlier. So many people got them, some got delayed it sounds like. What's
happening next is, tonight is the first effort for public comment, the workshop
on Thursday, and then the workshop in Ames in June. And then you have more
time after that to get comment in. And what you're going to ask—we didn't
outline this really—what happens after? What happens after that is all of the
comment we get is going to be forwarded independently to Gilbert, to the Board
of Supervisors, and to the Ames City Council, and they'll have to give direction
on what to do next. What do they want to alter in a plan, before we actually start
in the public hearing approval process to do that? We may have at one point
hoped to see that happening in July. That seems highly unlikely at this point. I
think we still want to see momentum carrying forward.
After you get through the public comment period, don't really want to just kind
of sit on it. You want to still move forward. So I think still later this summer,
there will be progress towards an update to the plan. I don't think it's going to be
on the same schedule of trying to be done in July. So at the end of June, when
the comments done, it goes back to each one of our boards or councils, and
they'll tell staff what to do next—what to edit, what to add, what to take out in
response to comment. So that's, what's going to happen next. And then when
there is a final, complete draft that we've been told to move forward with as
staff, that's when we'll start another round of public hearings where you will be
in front of actual boards that are decision makers, not just tonight where you're
giving comments to staff, to convey to other people. So that's kind of the overall
process later this summer, that'll be there maybe early this fall, we'll get final
decisions. Maybe late summer we'll get final decisions. Kind of depends on how
the comments come in and how the different entities react. And I think we have
another commenter. I think the last one probably for the night.
Mark Barton -- I live at 3634 Cameron School Road, Northeast, and we moved
there in August. The first thing we noticed is we get a notice that right next door
to us would be annexed by the City of Ames. I’m wanting to put up a building,
they told me I had to stay back the double setback of 110 feet. And now they're
relocating all of our electrical lines from our side of the road to the other side of
the road. And I'm just wondering, is there going to be some new designation?
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
So right next to me, just annexed to the city of Ames, all their electrical lines be
moved across the road. We have a larger setback across the road, we’re
concerned that somebody's going to bring in a third lane through there. I've been
driving from Boone to Ames for 31 years so I've seen north Ames grow from
crop land to the development that’s there now. So I see why the people down
south have concern, but this plan right here is going to be endorsed as it is, or is
there going to be changes?
Schoeneman, “Again, we're going to take all the comments to Board of
Supervisors and our city councils to get direction on what changes to make.”
Barton, “Currently right now I'm Rural Residential Existing. There'll be a bit
more discussion before a decision is made, right? Including us?
Diekmann, “There'll be another round again for the next 30-ish days to provide
comment. We'll send it back out to the decision-making bodies, then they'll
redirect what they want to redirect for later this summer. And then there'll be
another round of notice to go towards public hearings with, with planning and
zoning commissions, with city councils, with boards of supervisors later this
summer.
Barton, “So we will get the chance to look at any proposed changes too right?”
Diekmann, “Absolutely.”
Barton, “Okay. Thank you.”
Diekmann, “I think we're at the end of our time. So again, if you have
comments, feel free to drop off a written one with us, you have our email
contact information and the online tools through Story County. If you want to
drop in on Thursday and ask more specific questions about us, we'll be there.
Public Meeting Ames Library Transcript
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
Gilbert Open House Comments
'91 'OOlillll (00
'-J\CJL ~ _/Q§l \Je_ (}_
IR,io t ~~
l
\
~. , ... ~ .
~~
~~I
NJIJ .
.-=~
~\ .,
. .. 'lm \····~~····jt
-"f.:,) ' :. \If'UhUW{!l? ._ __ . _ . I . .
l-' J.c
. ~.lll:!l · i 8 .. l I . .
" .. ;· "jro
~
r Of\
. . :.........,..r.n ~··--11 '
" "' ·~) • I' . 1 . ~-Ji.::;"~OJ!.. J /t Q;'!;@§Iiiij@l!)@;lll 0-Yh0. /f ~;f:f{f{/ . -~~· '\\,_...: 1'-'--==r "'f' ~. ' 7 . ! ~· @!mw -u:;::;::;~~::;::; . . ?c/ '/ . . . . . .. .. . 8 ~l!i!li1ll!m f . ~~ .
~~~ ;· ,. :1 •. r.·
,.__ ·1~7, : .. I ~~-
. ~ S1 ' ' '.(1. : .• • • " ~ ~ ' ~ oomlll~
@lMl!Gb!§ll;s 0 ~ , • • S1 I. " U lo "~·· o I ~ :; --<!t&fhm ~ -~, . ~ -~ .: _ ~
. 001))~-· • "" ~ . -•
"" . . . . ~. . ... ·iifJDI€1) . . .....
........ ....
0 J" :li\ .. . I I .... ""
0
• ~...._ .• j ~ '·! '· -~-. : .. Jl : :: .. :. _, l . . ~ . • • ' ' ... :h' ~~ -"Wr-::-d;l~-~~ __ ; . .. • • .. , 1
o ·~ • • . U I • • o " • --
-
1300lll!in ,.
[;J:;:OO!a!J ~~
64ri OOII•ns•Y
l'.ll!JiB0l·" .!;! -.
o ' -~ -· .. ~.. ' ' •
'' . ~-~ni •. ·-.,..-·; '·. • • -~Waml€00 . ;: . ! 'c"'-L. ·· _. ,. ~~ ........!!,§~ Mml:flp ~ ;.· .. ::;-------"!'"" Tr....-f" •
"" . ,. § (!)~
~0) 'k I
~~ . ;.
llltro@lul'lll:l1 -.· . . ·~ .
8 ' ~ Wllu>€11 . . I ij
I
ij~m , ~
·~ ~ . ~
!
~ ••. i1t . A · Ill '$)~ ....
~ ill mlll€13
-~--=--~
= ~!all
(j.l!l· I . ~¥//.(.«' ~ ~ ~ll.l!)
I'll . ~'1
. ___ _f'.i"Z(~~d?:J?7777777':"/'7 l !§'
liJ
'
. 'ijlll1tj!ffim
fil'2&i!i!edij•Qafl ~ .lk!riJJil:jtjQJ ~ ~ ~
&m l t
~
€13 mill®. ..
~i
~~
I G!I!IilQ
..
&
®I ~
~ !aim !illllmla!J
~
I
~
smm ?.:.i:::JJJ?i>r-§
•
flilillll m ,_,;. ~ flilillll m
a
e~ = tmlll€»
r
\
....... I
•
f 1\1
~P
(3 (YijA!IID!:l!l.!1-Jlllia!fiD ll:ll!i1 ..
Ames Urban Fringe
Plan Draft Land Use
Framework Map
c..
Legend
Ada Hayden Watershed
Protection Area
Environmentally Sensitive
Overlay
IS23 Airport Protection Overlay
~Urban Reserve Overlay
~subsurface Mining Overlay
Urban Growth
Rural Residential-Existing
Rural Residential-Expansion
Agriculture and Farm
Service
City Limits
,._ .. County Boundary
N o o.25 o.5 1 1·5 2 Miles
Gilbert Open House Comments
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Oakwood Church Ames Open House
Amelia Schoeneman, AICP
Director, Planning and Development Story County
900 6th Street
Nevada, lA, 50201
Amelia ,
Subject Ames Area Urban Fringe Plan Renewal and Amendment
Good morning Amelia,
I have attached the revised Gilbert wants to make to the maps. The key points I have taken
away from the informational meetings and the Gilbert city council meetings are as follows:
1. Ames future growth to the North will be restricted to 1901h street.
2 . Future growth between the exiting Gilbert city limits an 1901h will be by the City of
Gilbert exclusively .
The reasoning behind this is based on several factors:
1. Ames cannot support the infr astructure North of 1901h as well as Gilbert can today
2. Gilbert has recently expanded and updated both their water and sewer system to
support this area as future growth
3 . Gilbert school system is in this area North of 1901h street
4 . The Gilbert fire District services this area North of 1901h street and when annexed by
Gilbert will sti ll service and be supported financially by the area North of 190th street .
Thank you for the work you have done to address the issues that ha ve changed since this
agreement was put together .
Please make these changes and forward copies to the City of Gilbert.
Best regards,
~Go1'f
Jo athan C. Popp M ~yor, City of Gilbert
Cc: City of Gilbert
105 Southeast 2nd Street
Gilbert, lA 50105
Other Email and Written Comments
69 All ~-" sn
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Sent:Friday, June 3, 2022 4:35 PM
To:'Beth Geisinger'
Subject:RE: Geisinger Land Purchase - Urban Fringe Plan
Hi Beth,
The northern 40 acre parcel would still be buildable for one dwelling if it were designated as Urban Growth. The plan would only limit if you wanted to divide the
property for a smaller or additional building lots. Under the draft plan, if you wanted to do further land divisions, annexation into the city would first be
required.
The Urban Growth area is planned for future city (Gilbert) growth, if a developer were to purchase land and propose new development. In terms of what type of
land uses that would entail, you’d need to refer to the City of Gilbert’s Comprehensive Plan. I’ve attached a screen shot below from their plan that shows more
specific planned land uses.
Let me know if you have further questions.
‐Amelia
Other Email and Written Comments
2
Other Email and Written Comments
3
From: Beth Geisinger <bethgeisinger@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 4:04 PM
To: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: Geisinger Land Purchase ‐ Urban Fringe Plan
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi Amelia,
We recently purchased 73 acres of land north of Ames and south of Gilbert on George Washington Carver Ave and will close on it June 15th. It came
with one building eligibility. We plan to build a house on the north part of this land within 1-2 years.
However, we recently learned of the new Ames Urban Fringe Plan, and our land happens to fall into the blue category: Urban Growth. (Our land has
the two stars on it in the map below.) So I’m wondering what this will look like for us? Will we still be able to obtain a building permit? What is the
plan for the area around us? Should we build a house? What would you recommend? If there’s any more information you could give me, I would
really appreciate it. Thanks so much!
I’ve attached screen shots from the presentation below. And added the two stars on our land.
Thanks again,
Beth Geisinger
712-870-4395
Other Email and Written Comments
4
Other Email and Written Comments
5
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:Charles Hurburgh <churburgh@mchsi.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 26, 2022 11:37 AM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Meadow Glen
[External Sender ‐ Please Use Caution]
Thank you. You have now confirmed what I thought I calculated from the map ‐ that its future development to the west that MGR is potentially blocking. I am
sure that the potential annexation of the ISU Curtiss Farm building site, which is in progress to allow the passage of a sewer line for the ISU feed mill, further
reduces the future connectivity of MGR to Story County and further reduces the land area available for an 80‐20 plan annexation.,
It would help very much if the county and city planners had been direct and clear; you know the historical resistance of this area to annexation. MGR is not the
same case as worle creek area resisting Urban Reserve classification. I would like to talk to you, not by email, about the history and basically the gorilla in the
room issue that is putting us at an impasse.
Best wishes
Charles Hurburgh
Charles R. Hurburgh
2519 Meadow Glen
Ames, Iowa 50014
515‐292‐3429; cell 450‐8027
churburgh@mchsi.com
Charles R. Hurburgh
2519 Meadow Glen
Ames, Iowa 50014
515‐292‐3429
churburgh@mchsi.com
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Charles Hurburgh <churburgh@mchsi.com>
Sent:Monday, April 18, 2022 8:43 PM
To:Kimberly B. Grandinetti
Cc:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:septic
[External Sender ‐ Please Use Caution]
I have not heard from scharnweber.
However the P and Z meeting last week, which was much more active that I think they figured it would be, surfaced
another issue.
We are classified urban growth, for which the only real criterion we met is Ames wants to annex you) brought into play
the 250 ft rule of sewer connection. I have not measured but eyeball says our house may be closer than 259 ft from the
trunk line in the valley behind us. But we cannot connect that way.. directly down the hill would create too much
pressure against other houses that are lower. So…how is that handled.
Ames city planner has said he would do whatever he can to bring about annexation of the Meadow Glen area. The
hangup of course is the unwillingness of the city to pay for the sewer and water hookups estimated at 70,000 + per
house, and further unwillingness to negotiate on the issue. For example I am looking at a significant expense even with
the grant to reinstall a septic so there could be some compromise here.
Best
Charles Hurburgh
Charles R. Hurburgh
2519 Meadow Glen
Ames, Iowa 50014
515‐292‐3429
churburgh@mchsi.com
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Christine <christinehausner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 17, 2022 4:14 PM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Dr. William Norris
Attachments:Norris report 1994.pdf
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
He also did a thesis on this area in the 90s. This is on record at Iowa State. I just wanted to send this to you as well for
your information. I may have quoted some of this in my email to you. It is attached. Thanks!
Christine
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Christine <christinehausner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 17, 2022 4:10 PM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Re: Regarding the 2040 plan and urban fringe
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi, Amelia, I realized that this didn't copy over from my letter into your email so I just wanted this to be on the
record. Thanks!
The following are rare and infrequent plant species that were inventoried for the Journal of Iowa Academy
of Science in 2001. I have attached a copy of this study.
Christine
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 10:26:09 AM CST, Amelia Q. Schoeneman <aschoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
wrote:
Hi Christine,
Thank you for the email and information. I will look through it at all and let you know if I have questions.
-Amelia
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Christine <christinehausner@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:53:40 AM
To: aschoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov <aschoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: Regarding the 2040 plan and urban fringe
Other Email and Written Comments
2
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Amelia,
My name is Christine Hausner and my family home is located at 3505 245th Street. I am writing to you in
regards to the urban fringe plan review that will be coming up. To give you some background, my family
has been on or surrounded by the former Champlin Farm for nearly 100 years. My son is the fifth
generation to be a part of this area. I have been working tirelessly for years regarding the conservation of
this area and Worle Creek corridor due to its environmental sensitivity. I would like the opportunity to
educate you on this area and how beautiful and important this area is. I would also like to say that, in
reading your agenda regarding the fringe plan and your determinations, I was very pleased to see how
many points emphasized protecting greenspace and environmental concerns. I apologize for the length
of this email but there is A LOT of pertinent information.
It is continually brought up that the “sewer and water are right there” at the very end of Dartmoor off of
State Street but I would like to educate you on what would have to happen in order for that expansion to
occur to provide urban development in this area. The devastation that occurred to put this small area in,
in retrospect, many neighbors wished they hadn’t done it. This would create the destruction of over a half-
mile of native timber creating a 100+-wide swath of leveled timber including 100+-year-old oak trees and
unnaturally straightening a tributary to Worle Creek (which has already caused problems in the current
sewer area with landslides due to the unnatural flow of the water). I know it is easy to make decisions
based on paper or looking at something from the road so I took a GoPro and traveled the area of both
what would be the sewer expansion and Worle Creek proper. It has been proposed that Worle Creek
proper would be the sole storm sewer drainage system. This would mean that any piece of trash,
chemical on someone’s lawn, oil in someone’s driveway, salt on the roads would go straight into the
creek, effectively destroying it. One video shows this creek and what would be destroyed. The other
video shows exactly what habitat would be destroyed and the lengths that would have to be undertaken
along native timber and a tributary for a small amount of land available with no options for growth because
of the 4000+ acres (and growing) of Iowa State property surrounding this area. You may view those
here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnJl-UbD7J8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDlcp7sSNfo
In 2005, the city had proposed doing a sewer expansion alongside Worle Creek proper. The city paid for
an ecological/archaeological study prior to moving forward. All experts involved were surprised at what
they found. You may view that study here.
https://www.cityofames.org/government/departments-divisions-i-z/public-works/engineering/worle-creek
Other Email and Written Comments
3
It is about 140 pages long and very thorough. I have taken some statements from that study that highlight
the general summary of these findings.
The study concluded that the entire Worle Creek area functions as a moderate to high quality greenbelt; it provides habitat
for a diversity of animal species, some of which appear to be declining in abundance across their ranges but none of
which are threatened or endangered. The report's recommendations include pursuing engineering options for sewer
routing and construction that significantly reduce fragmentation of existing woodland habitat.
A review of the floristic quality assessment that included mitigation recommendations was presented by Cathy Mabry
McMullen, PhD of Iowa State University's Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology. The purpose of this
study was to determine the floristic quality levels of the area as well as identify any threatened, endangered, or special
concern species that are present in the area. The report concluded that the corridor is of regional conservation value and
recommended that the sewer largely avoid the wooded areas.
The results of the floral and faunal studies were decisive in determining the course of discussions and the final
recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee not to build the sewer in the lowland area immediately adjacent to
Worle Creek.
In the fauna report by Dr. Keith Summerville from Drake he states in his summary he
recommends:
"Because of time constraints associated with this work, additional data on faunal species likely to occur
within Worle Creek area" " the entire Worle Creek area functions as a moderate to high quality
greenbelt...the bulk of the species I found are considered "common" but the concentration of these
species in Worle Creek makes the area highly valuable for conservation...to pursue additional and
more intensive field surveys of the area of the area for both bull and smooth green snakes both which are
of special concern in Iowa, to conduct a more temporally extensive butterfly survey that fly in spring and
mid to late summer and pursue sewer engineering options that significantly reduce fragmentation of
existing woodland habitat in the Worle Creek area."
In the Floristic Quality Assessment by Cathy Mabry McMullin and Don Farr both of Iowa State
"The Norris study conducted in 1994 used the rapid assessment method which was highly sensitive to the
presence of exotic shrub species of brush honeysuckle and multiflora rose. his study did NOT include tree
size (a factor recommended for subsequent studies). The Norris method was not designed to include
herbaceous vegetation. Our inclusive study of the understory species revealed a surprising floristic
richness, reflected in higher quality ratings than those based only of woody species."
"Spring inventory was conducted April 28 to May 12 and summer inventory conducted June 2 to July 7,
2004."
Other Email and Written Comments
4
"Because our inventory ended on July 7, roughly halfway through the growing season, and carried out
relatively quickly by two researchers, the number of species in each parcel and for the corridor as a whole
should be considered a minimum. Therefore, because the FQI (Floristic Quality Index) is in part
determined by native species diversity, additional botanical work would undoubtedly result in a higher
parcel and overall FQIs."
“Based on my field surveys and communication with various landowners, Worle Creek does contain habitat that appears
to be suitable for several species of animals that are Special Concern in Iowa:
1) Bull snake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) (reported from the yard of Erv Hauser 2004) 2)
Smooth green snake ( Opheodrys vernalis) ("occasionally" seen in the area (Hausner personal communication)
3) Sleepy duskywing skipper (Erynnis brizo) (adults fly in late April)
4) Zabulon skipper (Poanes zabulon) (adults fly in early May and a 2nd brood occurs in August)
5) Striped hairstreak (Satyrium liparops) (adults fly in July)”
The habitats at Worle Creek may be suitable for the following species that are listed as Special Concern:
* Erynnis brizo, Sleepy Duskywing skipper, an oak feeder as a caterpillar, adult flight period is late April to early May.
* Poanes zabulon, Zabulon skipper, a grass feeder found along woodland edges of moist forest, found May and a second
brood (larger?) late July to August. This species would be at the northern edge of its range in Story County.
* Satyrium liparops, Striped hairstreak, a feeder on cherry and other Rosaceae, this species is an adult in July.
It is also likely that several of the species identified as "declining" throughout Iowa (sensu Schlict and Orwig 1998) are
present in the Worle Creek area (Staphylus hayhurstii, Enodia 14 . l anthedon, Hemiargus isola). Loss or fragmentation of
woodland habitat at Worle Creek will most likely affect the butterfly community in two ways (Summerville and Crist 2001 ).
At least two species of birds that breed in the Worle Creek area are considered regionally important for conservation by
Partners in Flight (PIF) (Punjabi 2001): Wood duck and Northern Rough-winged swallow. Several other species that likely
nest in the Worle Creek area are considered to be in a general decline across their ranges due to loss of mature forest
haqitat and cowbird parasitism associated with forest fragmentation, especially Red-eyed vireo, Wood thrush, Scarlet
tanager, and Ovenbird (Ambuel and Temple 1983, Robbins et al. 1989, Schmidt 2003 and references therein). Thus, any
fragmentation or loss of "B" and "C" quality woodlands at Worle Creek will negatively impact these bird species.
State Archaeologist Cynthia L. Peterson
Given that the potential for superrficial and subsurface archaeological sites exists, Phase I archaeological
investigation is recommended with 55-ha (54.6 percent ) of the 100.7 ha project area to locate potential
archaeological sites prior to any planned ground disturbing activities."
Other Email and Written Comments
5
The following are rare and infrequent plant species that were inventoried for the Journal of Iowa Academy
of Science in 2001. I have attached a copy of this study.
In my efforts with conservation regarding the former Champlin Farm and Worle Creek corridor, I reached
out to many people and organizations. The USDA commissioners had this to say via email.
My recommendation would be to recommend that she works with Story County Conservation and Iowa
Natural Heritage Foundation. Because of studies proving the presence of rare species on the land, I think
Christine has a case to work with those two organizations to purchase the land from the current owner
and pursue permanent protection in the hands of Story County Conservation.
She should also get in contact with the DNR. Several of the amphibian, reptile, and bird species
observed in the 2005 report have since been listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Concern under
the updated Iowa Wildlife Action Plan. The wildlife and forestry divisions would probably be the most
helpful.
I reached out to our local chapter of The Audubon Society, Big Bluestem Audubon (I have attached their
letter to council below this response). This was their reply.
The board members all agreed that BBAS is willing to send an official letter of opposition to the City of
Ames, based upon likely destruction of bird and other wildlife habitat, native plant life, and the natural
stream, all occurring if the City's proposed project is to proceed.
16 October 2021
Ames City Council
Ames City Hall
515 Clark Ave
Ames, IA 50010
Other Email and Written Comments
6
City Council Members:
Big Bluestem Audubon Society has learned that Ames City Council may soon decide about future development
plans for currently natural landscape along Worrell Creek, between Dartmoor Rd. and U.S. Highway 30. Local
citizens have contacted our conservation organization with concerns about loss of the creek’s water quality and
destruction of important natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. We understand that the city’s tentative plan is to save
this area for future housing developments and to straighten and use Worrell Creek as a storm drainage system.
This official letter shall go on record that Big Bluestem Audubon Society, based in Ames, opposes the plan and any
other kind of developments threatening water quality and natural landscape adjoining Worrell creek. Our
organization is dedicated to protecting local birds and all other wildlife, plus plants, water quality, air quality and all
aspects of natural environment, thus making urban development plans for this area a very large concern for us. We
ask that this letter be included in any such project discussion at upcoming City Council meetings.
Information was provided to our chapter indicating that development plans for this area first appeared in 2005. Since
then, professors from ISU and other conservation professionals have reported concerns about potential damages to
nature here, such as threatened or endangered species of plants, birds, and other wildlife, while clearing forest and
lowering water quality of Worrell Creek.
As a final note, Ames was designated an official “Bird Friendly Iowa Community” in 2020 by a committee
representing multiple Iowa conservation organizations and agencies. Since then, major destruction of natural habitat
along Ioway Creek has greatly concerned the Bird Friendly Iowa steering committee, possibly threatening revocation
of the city’s official designation. Approving of and proceeding with development plans for the Worrell Creek area
could make such revocation of the city’s award an even greater possibility. In this time of worldwide climate change
and environmental destruction, it is time for Ames to place a high priority upon protecting all of its natural
landscapes.
Respectfully,
Douglas C. Harr
Vice President, Big Bluestem Audubon
Other Email and Written Comments
7
I reached out to several of the professors that were involved in the study to see what their thoughts
were. One professor, who wished not to be quoted due to their current position at Iowa State, was
devastated that this was being proposed. These are some responses via email.
It has been a long time, probably the 1990's, since I walked Worle Creek. In my view Worle Creek is valuable given
its rich cultural/archaeological history and the rare plant and animal records that Jimmie summarizes.
Ultimately, it comes down to quality of life for Ames citizens: do they value these increasingly scarce semi‐natural
areas as a place to retreat from busy professional and personal lives? Or are people so busy with what is going on in
their work cubicles and on their computer screens that they have lost touch with such areas?
As someone who over the past 30 years has spent hundreds of hours exploring these scraps of semi‐natural areas
within the Ames city limits, I sincerely hope that the decision makers find reason not to proceed.
Bill (Dr. William Norris)
My only involvement with the area was as Chair of the ISU Outdoor Teaching Labs Committee, I insisted that the
City (in preparing their future development plans in the 2‐mile area surrounding the then‐existing city limits) install
a lift station rather than use a gravity fed system for their sanitary sewer. The latter system would have simply
destroyed the creek and the woods along it as the sewer was installed. This was in the section through Curtiss Farm,
which we had an interest in (both the constructed prairies and the woods along the stream). They dislike lift stations
because they are expensive and require more maintenance. Cathy Brown agreed and, as I recall, the City put that in
their speculative plans at the time. I have not seen what they intend to do now with the latest 2040 plan. I would
think the University would still have interest in the area. Bill's reference to Cathy's report and his thesis are
appropriate and good.
James Pease, Ph.D.
Emeritus Assoc. Professor, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, ISU
Environmental, Interpretive, and Wildlife Consulting
Jimmie Thompson, who has now since passed, was integral in studying the plant life for this area. He
was an expert in cataloging plant species and was well known in this field. He recovered the artifacts,
which I have in my possession, that led to the designation of one of the Native American historical
sites. He and I have spoken several times about how important this area is and the need for
conservation.
There are two registered historical sites on the former Champlin property, one including a Native
American burial ground (my great-grandfather accidentally dug one up with a backhoe in the 40s). I
reached out again to the State Archaeologists for their input regarding this matter and spoke with Lara
Other Email and Written Comments
8
Noldner who is the bioarcheological director, and after her review, she said to me that this is not an area
that should be developed without serious consideration, “The report also recommends additional
archaeological testing for future development in areas of high to moderate site potential prior to any
further development.” I am inserting her email to council from 04/22/2019 below.
Dear Ames City Council Members,
I understand that Christine Hausner has been in contact with you regarding her concerns for sensitive
areas, including one recorded prehistoric burial site, on her family’s property that could possibly be
proposed for annexation in your Comprehensive Plan. Per the Iowa Code (Ch263B.7-9) the University of
Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist is responsible for the protection of ancient human remains and
burial sites (defined as over 150 years old) in the state, so we often consult on projects like this to assist
planners and developers in the avoidance of unwanted impacts to known burial sites and areas where
undocumented burial sites are possible. I made some calls to City Council members today to get more
details on the project you all are working on and spoke with Bronwyn. She let me know that your
discussion at the City Council’s meeting tomorrow will involve your Comprehensive Plan which you are
developing in part to determine areas for future annexations around Ames.
Given Christine’s concerns I have attached a report that our office produced in 2004 after archaeological
survey for the Worle Creek Sanitary Sewer Extension. Please note that this report,
especially archaeological site locations, are confidential and not for public disclosure. You will see
that documented on Linn Lloyd’s property (Sections 17-18 T83N-R24W) are archaeological sites 13SR82
and 13SR73, as well as areas with high to moderate potential for additional cultural deposits (Figure 6 on
pg 13) in the area surveyed. 13SR82 is a known prehistoric burial site, which per the Iowa Code (sections
523I.316.6 and 716.5) is protected from intentional disturbance, and was indicated for avoidance;
basically, no ground disturbing activity can occur there. The report also recommends additional
archaeological testing for future development in areas of high to moderate site potential prior to any
further development.
We are happy to consult further on your planning project and please feel free to contact me with any
questions or concerns you might have. I will also mention that our office maintains the database of all
known archaeological sites in Iowa and can provide site searches for any City projects that would help
identify similar culturally sensitive areas as needed.
Lara K. Noldner, PhD
Bioarchaeology Director
Office of the State Archaeologist
University of Iowa
With regards to endangered and protected species, the bull snake is an endangered species. Neighbors
have seen them within the last year and my parents had a 6-foot-long one on their patio within the last six
years. Wood ducks are on a protected list. If you go down to the creek in the spring, you will always kick
one up. My dad had five of them sitting in his oak tree this past spring. We have several migratory birds
that stop here and nest here. We have herons stopping over, hawks, and eagles. There is a green snake
that is endangered and this is one of the ONLY places in central Iowa that would have the habitat
necessary for these snakes. We also have a specific plant here that has never been found anywhere else
in Story County. There are hundreds of oak trees which are necessary for butterfly migration. The open
spaces are necessary for all forms of bird and insect life. The creeks are necessary to sustain all forms of
life.
Other Email and Written Comments
9
The consulting firm in 2005 advised to not move forward with the sewer expansion due to the
environmental sensitivity of this area...yet here we still are. The consulting firm for the 2040 plan advised
the city to stay away from this area...yet here we still are. Every expert that worked on this study, plant,
animal, and archaeological, advised that the city protect this area and to go elsewhere...yet here we still
are. ISU only continues to grow and isn’t going anywhere...yet here we still are. The fact remains that, if
this ecological/archaeological study had been done PRIOR to the short sewer expansion off of State
Street, this sewer expansion would NEVER have happened. Every council since this study has voted no
to city annexation and to a sewer expansion based on the environmental sensitivity of this area. In this
political climate that focuses so much on global warming, carbon footprinting, climate change, and
environmental protection, I’m honestly not sure why we are still talking about this. There has been no
other area in or around Ames that has been as vocal as we have been about protecting their area. We
show up to the council meetings and we have been fighting this for YEARS. Do the needs and wants of
the people that live here mean nothing? Do our thoughts not count? Does the environment and our
ecosystem not matter? When we left prior to Covid, RDG had advised the council to dismiss this
area. Cory, who was in charge, even said during a council meeting, out of every community in and
around Ames that he had spoken with and did research on, SW Ames was by definition a rural
community. The council had voted to not do anything with SW Ames south of Highway 30. They said
they wanted to focus on north of Highway 30 and west yet somehow now the former Champlin property is
“high priority” and, as far as I know, there was never any vote regarding this to change it so no public
notice or I, along with several neighbors, would have shown up at the council meeting.
Of any place in and around Ames that would fit your narrative regarding greenspace and sensitive areas
that should be protected, this is it. Every expert that was involved in the study and I have spoken with
since still years later are very adamant that this area should not be developed, and at the very least, they
all recommended that further studies need to be performed at different times of year to get the full
spectrum of the ecosystem that we have here in order to make a determination regarding
development. Shouldn’t that be considered at the very least? It has been proposed to put 400 houses
out here and that the city could still be “mindful of the environment.” That is not only improbable but it is
IMPOSSIBLE.
I have worked tirelessly regarding this matter for the last several years. I have had published articles with
FACETS and the Ames Tribune. You may find those here.
https://www.amestrib.com/story/news/2020/02/29/ames-woman-is-using-gofundme/1610819007/
Ames woman using GoFundMe - Issuu
Other Email and Written Comments
10
Ames woman using GoFundMe - Issuu
The 145-acre Champlin Lloyd Farm is located southwest of
the Ames city limits, adjacent to the current city boun...
I am hopeful that you will read through all of this information to make an educated decision on how to
proceed further. In summary, we have protected and sensitive animal and plant life in this area (some of
whom most certainly have been upgraded since the 2005 study was completed and some that haven’t
been found anywhere else in Story County) and further studies need to be undertaken prior to any
determination regarding development. The fact still remains that it isn’t feasible or cost effective. From
a practical standpoint, millions of dollars would be spent for a small area of land with no growth potential,
but I am more concerned about what effects that would have on the environment. The area has a
medium to high propensity for Native American artifacts throughout the area and that needs to be
overseen by the state. Any kind of urban development in this area would effectively destroy native timber
and a creek and its tributary that provide habitat for countless animals. As sensitive as concerns for the
environment are in this day and age, the sewer expansion would never have happened if the
ecological/archaeological study had been done first. I have looked through the study extensively several
times and I always seem to find something new. After reading through it again this morning, I am
absolutely BAFFLED with this amount of data regarding the sensitivity of this area that we are still even
talking about this! In the words of the consulting firm that conducted that study, “Discussion by the Committee
and results of the vote clearly demonstrated a desire to endorse a sewer route concept that avoids environmental impact
to the Worle Creek corridor.”
I know that I am just a girl whose heart is involved in this. I grew up here. Two sets of great-grandparents
lived here. My dad’s words out of his mouth when he found out that the Champlin property was for sale
after 100 years were, “I might as well die now.” I cannot put into words how much this has devastated my
family and how many tears we have shed over this. I am crying right now as I’m typing this. My family’s
spirit is embedded in every tree and every blade of grass on this property. But I am not the only
one. There are dozens of families in this area and throughout this city who feel as I do, that this area
should be protected and conserved and given the respect it deserves. I may be just a girl with a big heart
but I’m also a girl that has science, experts in their field, a bona fide conservation society, and neighbors
who are standing by me and backing me up. I wish more than anything that I had been rich and had the
money to buy this property and turn it over to conservation. I am exhausted from dealing with this and I
don’t know what more that I can do to persuade the powers that be how important this area is. If there is
something more that I can do, please let me know! I am free anytime to discuss this matter further. I am
hopeful that you will see this area as we all do, as something that should be revered, not destroyed. Once
Other Email and Written Comments
11
something is destroyed, it is gone forever. We only get one Earth. We can’t trade it back in for a new one
and start all over again. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Christine Hausner
3505 245th Street
Ames, IA 50014
(515) 450-1153
Christine
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:grantridge@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, June 15, 2022 1:12 AM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Ames Urban Fringe Plan
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi Amelia Schoeneman,
Thank you for all the information you and your staff have been providing regarding the Fringe Plan.
Fringe Plan meeting on Zoom. It was very interesting, to put it mildly. And then I stopped by the Plan meeting in Gilbert.
But now I am a little confused, because I think I heard something to the effect that the planned Fringe Plan adoption schedule might be
revised because of all the public questions and concerns. Did I miss further information about that? I am also wondering about what
might possibly happen as a result of the upcoming Iowa Supreme Court decision that reportedly could affect 28E agreements.
I was hoping to visit your office and ask a few questions about my 145 acres in the Fringe area before making any comments on the
proposed Plan. I didn't want to comment until I had more information so any comment I made would be based on reality. But I
obviously missed the deadline for the official survey, for which I really apologize. June has been busier than expected.
Would it still be possible to comment on the Plan, if it turned out that I had any comments? And would it be possible to come to the
Story P & D office sometime in the next few days to ask a few questions? I don't think it would take long, if I could look at a map with
you.
Thank you in advance for responding to this message. And thank you for your land-use planning work. The Ames meeting was
certainly a reminder that it's not easy to develop a land-use plan in 2022. And I'm guessing that is true in a lot of the nation, not just
Story County. Best wishes --
Cindy
Cindy Hildebrand
grantridge@aol.com
57439 250th St.
Ames, IA 50010
Other Email and Written Comments
2
"I hear the heart-stirring whistle of an upland plover; time was when his forebears followed the buffalo as they trudged shoulder-deep
through an illimitable garden of forgotten blooms." (Aldo Leopold)
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Sent:Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:24 AM
To:'Connie Buss'
Subject:RE: Ames Urban Fringe Plan
Connie,
I have received your comments.
First, I’ve never been employed by the City of Ames.
If Meadow Glen were annexed, the only infrastructure requirement would be residents would have to connect to city sewer if it’s available within 200 feet and
your septic system fails. Instead of replacing the septic system, you’d connect to city sewer at that point. This is true eve
is available within 200 feet.
Regarding emergency services, if annexed, Ames police would serve you. Ames fire would also be the first responders and could call Kelley Fire if assistance was
needed with larger fires. Ames does carry some water on their trucks and would respond to medical calls.
The Plan is not giving permitting authority to Ames for conditional uses, home business permits, or other types of permits. The draft does currently suggest
limiting certain conditional uses in the Urban Reserve and Urban Growth designations. The County would need to consider amending its code after the Plan’s
adoption for this to take effect.
The Ames Urban Fringe Plan gives the county greater review authority over annexations and limits annexations only to certain land use designations, under
certain conditions. State law allows the Board of Supervisors to review and provide comment only on certain annexation without a Plan.
Similarly, state law grants cities review authority over land divisions within two miles of their boundaries. The Ames Urban
required to annex and meet city standards when a land division is proposed and what areas fall under the County’s review standards. Without the Plan, Ames
and Gilbert would have review authority over all land divisions within two miles of their boundaries.
-Amelia
From: Connie Buss <jonconbuss@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:56 PM
To: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: Ames Urban Fringe Plan
Other Email and Written Comments
2
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Amelia,
I am writing to you to share my feelings about the impact that the Ames Urban Fringe Plan would have on rural Story County, the people that you are supposed
to represent. I know that you worked for Ames Planning and Zoning for a while before you became part of the Story County group. That puts you in a special
position, knowing the in’s and out’s of Ames’ plans. However, I would ask that you please consider who you represent and the wishes of the rural community.
The Ames Fringe Plan would be a win for Ames, but I do not see any wins for rural Story County. If you see how it could benefit this area, I would love to have
you respond to this. So far, all I see is Ames taking over our way of life.
If Meadow Glen is annexed, as Ames wants, there is no way that the tax base would be there to support the services of rural Story County as effectively.
Especially, I am concerned about the viability of the Kelley Fire Dept, who has responded to issues at our home in the past. We are very thankful for the quick
response time and good care. If they could not remain viable, then our services would be from Huxley. This adds at least 10 minutes of response time. If we had
that extra time when we needed Kelley FD, we could have had a major loss of property, and potentially, life. Our house insurance would increase as we are
further from services. Without the tax base, what would it do for the Story County Sheriff’s office and other departments, to
fire dept, but I would expect other services would take a hit, as well. At this point, Ames Fire Dept has no water tanker truck, and no plans to add one to their
fleet, so they are no help when there are no fire hydrants. Would you like to live in this situation?
Environmental concerns are also significant with the local Audobon Society sending information to you and others there, but we never heard anything discussed
about that. Just push it under the rug, rip out the trees and expect life to continue in the wild. It could change flood plain of the area and make a huge mess of
Worle Creek. Yes, tree removal would be needed for sanitation systems to support additional creeping of Ames into our rural community. Upsets the balance of
nature!
If you lived in the area that is effected, would you do voluntary annexation? Would the cost be affordable? This could bankrupt families, leaving no choice for
them but to move. BUT, that seems to be what Ames wants, so the developers could take over our beautiful rural land. I don’t understand how anyone could
afford water, sewer, streets and all that is required with annexation? And where we live, we were told that no services would be available for over 10 years.
I was told that home businesses, bed and breakfasts, etc would not be allowed in the fringe areas. Why? It does not support the rural community, like you are
supposed to be helping, it only supports Ames and it’s “potential growth.” Iowa State University census is expected to drop, why are
“need” that they have to “secure” all these acres? As many acres as Ames already has? Makes no sense, except to pad pockets of developers in the future, again
ruining our rural lifestyle.
In February 2020, Ames voted to not include the SW are in the growth area. Many reasons were listed as to why it was not included. But, now it is
included….Why? Kelly said it was to “secure” the area for future growth, even though development acres aren’t there and cost of services to extra acres doesn’t
make sense at all.
I do not know any neighbors in SW fringe area that support anything about the Ames Urban Fringe Plan. I cannot speak for other areas, but I do know that this
group of PEOPLE, NEIGHBORS do not want to be included in the plan. Please support our wonderful rural community, not Ames, and help change the fringe plan
so that SW Ames is not included in the plan.
Other Email and Written Comments
3
Thank you for taking time to read and understand, and hopefully, have compassion for people in our community.
Connie (& Jon) Buss (4453 246th Street Ames, IA 50014)
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Diekmann, Kelly <kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org>
Sent:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:05 AM
To:mkepolashek@msn.com; Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:RE: AUFP designations for Meadow Glen Road
[External Sender ‐ Please Use Caution]
Hello Emil, form the City’s perspective it illustrates that if the City does grow southwest it is possible or likely the
Meadow Glen Road area would be annexed as well to meet state law requirements about how annexations are
configured. It is not shown as a growth area because the City would expect additional development along Meadow
Glen Road.
Kelly Diekmann
Planning and Housing Director
515.239.5400‐ main| 515.239.5181 direct| 515.239.5404 ‐fax
kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org | City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org | ~ Caring People ~ Quality Programs ~ Exceptional Service ~
From: Emil Polashek <mkepolashek@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:44 PM
To: ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov; Diekmann, Kelly <kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org>
Subject: AUFP designations for Meadow Glen Road
[External Email]
Dear Kelly and Amelia,
Would you please explain the rationale for the proposed Ames Urban Fringe Plan designation for Meadow
Glen Road? The April 6 Memorandum mentions lumping former categories Urban Residential, Commercial
Nodes, and Planned Industrial under the new proposed category Urban Growth. However, as the Meadow
Glen Road area is already fully built out, it would seem to fit much better under the proposed new category
Rural Residential—Existing.
Sincerely,
Emil Polashek
Reference:
Other Email and Written Comments
2
The current AUFP shows Meadow Glen Road as Urban Residential.
https://storycogis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=83bcd2b7123b443ea06ee58d160a
a53d
The draft AUFP changes the designation to Urban Growth.
https://storycogis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=be58607cd9d645e7a20f2be9daa5f
6e5
Other Email and Written Comments
3
The Ames 2040 Future Land Use plan shows Meadow Glen Road as Residential Neighborhood 2 ‐
Established, RN‐2.
https://www.cityofames.org/home/showpublisheddocument/64331/637750873509670000
Other Email and Written Comments
4
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Evan Sivesind <evan.sivesind@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 14, 2022 2:12 PM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Cc:Diekmann, Kelly; Sahlstrom, Eloise
Subject:Re: Ames Urban Fringe Plan Renewal and Amendment
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi Amelia,
Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful response; it's much appreciated. I'll reach out if I have any further
questions.
Evan
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:04 PM Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov> wrote:
Evan,
Thanks for reaching out and being interested in this process. We will have more opportunities for feedback soon. I
believe you called in last night and provided a comment—we appreciated everyone’s comments so early in the process.
I had framed the memo and presentation with our Planning and Zoning Commission in mind so I apologize that some of
the concepts like “development” were not clear.
The fringe plan at its core is about the division of land. So when we say development, that’s what we are referring to.
For instance, if you were to create a second lot from your current property and it was designated as an Urban Growth
area, annexation would first be required.
The fringe plan does not limit county zoning authority. If your property is considered buildable for a dwelling in its
current configuration and zoning district (or a shed), you can still do that. Meadow Glen is currently in a similar
designation in the fringe plan called Urban Residential, which requires annexation prior to development. As I am sure
you’ve noticed, we’ve issued several permits recently for new accessory structures, solar arrays, and home additions in
Meadow Glen. Things would work similarly as they do now.
With or without the fringe plan, if your septic system fails and there is city sewer within 200 feet, you are required to
connect. That’s a state requirement.
That note in the Rural Residential—Existing section is guidance for new county development. One division into a
second buildable lot for a dwelling may be permitted in the Rural Residential—Existing designation as it is currently
Other Email and Written Comments
2
proposed. We wanted to clarify that it would not require a common wastewater system like would be required in new
rural residential subdivisions. Since in order to complete a division in the Urban Growth area, annexation is required,
that covers the wastewater requirements. You could replace your septic if sewer wasn’t available and no divisions for
new development were proposed. I checked with our Environmental Health Department and they’ve done several
septic repair and replacement permits recently while the area has been designated as Urban Residential.
There are some other nuances to rezoning requests (if you were to request to rezone your property to commercial for
instance), conditional use permits, and other non‐residential (commercial, industrial) development that we are still
working through and will be after the fringe plan amendment process has concluded. Limits on these beyond when a
division is proposed will require an amendment to the Story County Code of Ordinances. Currently, in our code and the
current plan, we do require that rezonings are compatible with the fringe plan designation for a property and if it isn’t,
an amendment to the plan must be approved before the county acts on a rezoning request.
Let me know if you have other questions.
‐Amelia
From: Evan Sivesind <evan.sivesind@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 8:45 AM
To: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>; kdiekmann@city.ames.ia.us
Subject: Ames Urban Fringe Plan Renewal and Amendment
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi Amelia and Kelly,
I appreciated the presentation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission yesterday. I have a few
questions I am seeking clarification on, that I think could help ease many people's concerns.
According to the memorandum titled "Ames Urban Fringe Plan Renewal and Amendment", in the Urban
Growth Area section, it states
Annexations
Require annexation before land is developed or further divided.
Other Email and Written Comments
3
Compatible Zoning Districts
Specific land uses planned for this area can be found in the applicable city comprehensive plan. Annexation is
required prior to development.
How do these sections apply to parcels that are already developed?
In this context, can you please define 'developed' and 'development'? I assume building a house on an
undeveloped lot would be considered development. But on a lot that already has been developed, is putting up
a shed? Would repair of an existing septic system or well require annexation? Would having a new septic or
well installed in the event of failure be prohibited without annexation? If your house burns down are you
allowed to rebuild?
Further, in the Rural Residential - Existing section, it specifically states that " Individual wastewater systems
and wells are permitted." No such statement exists in the Urban Growth section. Which again leads to the same
questions as above- on lots already developed, can septics and wells be repaired or replaced in an Urban
Growth area?
Thanks for your time and attention and look forward to your answers.
Evan Sivesind
Virus-free. www.avast.com
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:ncloyd1@aol.com
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 1:48 PM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Concerning Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Dear Amelia,
I am e-mailing you, to ask you to take a look at the framework map made out by the city of Ames and the Story County Planning & Development. My husband
and I have 38 acres in section 29 in grant township in Story County, under the name Neale and Shirley Cloyd Trust.
The Urban Fringe Plan is to be no further out than two miles from the city of Ames. Two miles is from new highway 30 to 260, which is the road coming west
out of Shipley. The Urban Reserve Overlay is reaching out further south than their two mile limit. It includes properties on the east side of Sand Hill Trail which is
Jim Fagans 40 acres and Neale and Shirley Cloyds Trust of 38 acres. It also includes Mike and Dr. Taylor Drakes property, Andrew Swanson 235 acres, W.
Guthrie Trust 155 acres, and Joann Walker 160 acres.
I appears to us and the people that I mentioned above that the Urban Reserve Overlay should be taken off these areas, as they are outside of the two miles of
city property. At the last meeting, I was talking to Kelly and he said he made a mistake when he included the land below 260 Rd. in the Urban Reserve Overlay.
Also there is a big concern about the quantity of acres being put in the Urban Reserve Overlay. That too many acres are being included in this plan for the
actual growth that is happening for Ames. There was 250 people in growth last year and one year Ames lost 600 people.
I would ask that the land in section 29 be taken off of the Urban Reserve Overlay Plan at this time, and take another look at it in five years.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely Shirlely J. Cloyd
26198 Sand Hill Trail
Ames, Ia. 50010
515-290-0387
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:Latifah A. Faisal
Sent:Monday, June 6, 2022 12:14 PM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:FW: concerning Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map
FYI.
An addition to the public comments list.
Latifah
Latifah Faisal
Board of Supervisors, Chair
Story County
900 6th Street | Nevada, Iowa 50201
Phone: (515) 382-7203 | Email: Lfaisal@storycountyiowa.gov
She/Her/Hers
Engaging our diverse communities to responsibly provide quality opportunities and services that matter
Accountability | Collaboration | Environment | Equity | Inclusivity | Innovation | Wise Use of Resources
From: ncloyd1@aol.com <ncloyd1@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:50 AM
To: Latifah A. Faisal <LFaisal@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: concerning Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Dear Latifah Faisal,
I am e-mailing you, to ask you to take a look at the framework map made out by the city of Ames and the Story County Planning & Develoment. My husband
and I have 38 acres in section 29 in Grant township in Story County, under the name Neale and Shirley Cloyd Trust.
The Urban Fringe Plan is to be no further out than two miles from the city limits of Ames. Two miles is from new highway 30 to 260, which is the road coming
west out of Shipley. The Urban Reserve Overlay is reaching out further south, than their two mile limit. It includes properties on the east side of Sand Hill Trail,
Other Email and Written Comments
2
which is Jim Fagan's 40 acres and Neale and Shirley Cloyd's Trust 38 acres. It also includes part of Andrew Swanson 235 acres, W Guthrie trust 155 acres, and
Joann Walker 160 acres.
It appears to us and the people that I have mentioned above that the Urban Reserve Overlay should be taken off of these areas
miles of city property.
Also there is a big concern about the quantity of land being put in the Urban Reserve Overlay. That too many acres are being included in this plan for the
actual growth that is happening for Ames. There was 250 in growth last year and one year Ames lost 600 people.
I would ask that the land in section 29 be taken off of the Urban Reserve Overlay Plan at this time and take another look at it in five years.
Thank you,
Sincerely, Shirley J. Cloyd, 26198 Sand Hill Trail, Ames, Iowa 50010 515-290-0387
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Sent:Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:57 AM
To:'Vern vande brake'
Cc:Laura Lascio; Tony Lascio
Subject:RE: questions about property
Hi Vern,
The Ames Urban Fringe Plan is an existing plan. The process we are going through right now is a renewal of that plan,
plus changes, so that’s what I mean by amendment. The existing plan is expiring, so we need to renew it. It’s a
comprehensive amendment, not just to one portion of the plan. Ames, Gilbert, and the County are the cooperators in
the Plan and have initiated the renewal and amendment process. County staff has taken the lead and been working with
the cities. There aren’t multiple versions. You can find the draft here.
Yes, not buildable for a dwelling. An accessory structure to support agricultural operations on the site would be allowed.
If the plan expired and we had not adopted a new plan yet, Ames and Story County would need to review the division of
the property. Both Ames and the County’s standards would need to be met, including for city infrastructure unless the
city waived those requirements. Again, the County’s standards to allow a division for additional buildable lots in the A‐1
Agricultural Zoning District would not be met. A house would need to be constructed on the property first.
Regarding the process to develop multiple residential lots in the county, that would require a rezoning before we could
consider that type of subdivision. Rezonings must be compatible with future land use plans.
Your current designation is in the Study Area: The area between the cities of Ames and Gilbert, because of its key
location, is identified as the ‘Story County Study Area’ and is set aside as an exception to the Urban Fringe Plan until a
detailed study for potential land uses in the area is completed. The County and respective cities shall retain their
jurisdictional powers in the study area and continue to maintain status quo with respect to current land use, zoning and
subdivision until a joint decision is made.
This designation would need to be changed to a designation that supports rural residential development. This process
starts with an application request (letter) to the Ames Planning and Housing Department. The City of Ames then
forwards the request to Story County and Gilbert to take action on if they will consider the request. A majority support
of the entities is required to allow the amendment application to be submitted for consideration. Proposed
amendments to the Ames Urban Fringe Plan require approval by all three cooperating entities (Ames, Gilbert, and Story
County). The draft Plan has additional, specific standards that need to be met in order to support a change to allow rural
residential development. You can find those under the Rural Residential – Expansion designation.
If an Ames Urban Fringe Plan Amendment were approved to change the property to a designation that supported the A‐
1 Agricultural Zoning District, then a rezoning application could be submitted. There are other standards for a rezoning
beyond compatibility with the AUFP that we would also need to consider.
I can’t speak to the city’s requirements. In the draft plan, this isn’t an area where annexation is planned in the short‐
term.
‐Amelia
Other Email and Written Comments
2
From: Vern vande brake <vern.vandebrake@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:48 PM
To: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Cc: Laura Lascio <lauralascio@gmail.com>; Tony Lascio <alascio@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: questions about property
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hello Amelia,
Thank you for the clarification that you responded with.
One question I have is related to the "With the amendment," statement you referenced earlier. It was also
mentioned at the public meeting. I am confused with how an amendment is initiated and who is the stakeholder of the
draft? What criteria determines there be an amendment or is every amendment specific to the situation, resulting in
numerous amendments being drafted?
When you say "it’s not buildable" I am assuming you are making reference to a dwelling. Does this also apply to the
construction of a farm building? The "nor divisible" designation relates to the finge plan, but at the plan's expiration
what would the future hold? If the city were to annex this into its boundaries then what will the stipulations be
regarding additional division of the property? Can annexation occur prior to the expiration of the fringe plan? What
would change if this were to occur?.
Another question I have is what are the rules for rural subdivisions? What are the rules for subdivisions in the city?
What is the current designation of my property on the current fragment plan?
Open to your thoughts.
Best regards,
Vern Vande Brake
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 4:05 PM Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov> wrote:
Hi Laura,
Under County Zoning and the A‐1 Agricultural Zoning District, the parcel would require a subdivision to be further
divided. The only type of subdivision allowed in the A‐1 Agricultural Zoning District is a Residential Parcel Subdivision,
which requires an existing dwelling to be in place on the property and tax rolls before it can be submitted.
We have a 35 acre minimum parcel size require to construct a house in the zoning district. The property does not meet
this requirement. The only exception that may apply would be the LESA score exception (a low agricultural value versus
Other Email and Written Comments
3
development score). Under the county code, the LESA exception only applies to properties in the Ames Urban Fringe
that are designated as Agriculture and Farm Service. This property is not.
With the amendment, it may be located in the Agriculture and Farm Service Designation, and the Urban Reserve
Overlay. This may allow one dwelling to be constructed. I am going to save this email as a comment on the Fringe Plan
regarding that. The Urban Reserve Overlay would not allow further divisions.
So in short, right now it’s not buildable nor divisible. With the proposed Fringe Plan, it might be buildable but I will need
to think through that some more with the final draft. It would not be divisible for another dwelling once one had been
built on under the proposed Fringe Plan. Let me know if you’d still like to discuss.
‐Amelia
From: Laura Lascio <lauralascio@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Cc: Vern Vande Brake <vern.vandebrake@gmail.com>; Tony Lascio <alascio@gmail.com>
Subject: questions about property
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi Amelia,
My dad, Vern Vande Brake, and I have questions related to a parcel that he owns just north of 190th Street in
Ames. He is copied on this email. I've also copied my husband, Tony.
We'd like to know if we can divide this parcel so that our family (Laura and Tony) can purchase some acres of
it?
We'd also like to know what the options are to build on this property.
And, will the building options change after the implementation of the Urban Fringe plan.
Other Email and Written Comments
4
Ideally, we'd like to talk with you by phone this week - doing a conference call together to discuss the
possibilities. Can we get on your calendar to make that happen?
Below is a link to the parcel.
https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=165&LayerID=2145&PageTypeID=4&PageID=1
108&KeyValue=0516300360
Thank you for your help!
Laura
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:Lisa K. Heddens
Sent:Thursday, June 30, 2022 6:20 PM
To:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Fwd: Ames Urban Fringe Plan
Amelia,
Don’t think I shared this comment with you. Sorry. This is from Kim’s son.
Don’t think I have any others but will double check.
Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Clark Coffman <clarkcoffman63@gmail.com>
Date: June 7, 2022 at 12:47:17 PM CDT
To: "Lisa K. Heddens" <LHeddens@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: Ames Urban Fringe Plan
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Dear Supervisor Heddens,
As a resident of Meadow Glen Road, I want to encourage the planners to use their own definitions and classify Meadow Glen Road
as “Rural Residential—Existing” rather than “Urban Growth”. Meadow Glen road is an existing rural subdivision that is fully built out,
is on a privately maintained road, and owners provide their own water and septic systems. This matches the description of “Rural
Residential—Existing”. The “Urban Growth” designation would require that “City infrastructure, street, and trail connections are
available, or achievable with low‐cost”. As has been pointed out, at multiple public meetings, this is not the case. This area does not
provide additional housing, a goal of Ames planners, as no additional housing would be built. It is existing, not growth. Please
reclassify this neighborhood.
Other Email and Written Comments
2
Our property is also near to Worrell Creek, an environmentally sensitive area that needs to be protected. New development that
impacts Worrell Creek, as proposed in the current plan is environmentally irresponsible. Worrell Creek is a fragile area and could
easily be harmed if areas around the creek are developed.
Finally, as noted at the public meetings, the City of Ames Fire service could not meet the needs of this neighborhood due to a lack of
water tanker capacity. We rely on, and our taxes support, the Kelley fire department for fire protection. The impact of losing the
Meadow Glen Road neighborhood would decimate the Kelley fire department. This should concern those government officials who
are stewards of Story County.
Thank you.
Clark Coffman
2810 Meadow Glen Road
Ames IA
Other Email and Written Comments
6/16/2022
To: Kelly Diekmann and Amelia Schoeneman
From: Chuck Winkleblack and Justin Dodge – Hunziker Development Group LLC
Re: Ames Urban Fringe Plan Update
In reviewing the draft document for the Ames Urban Fringe Plan update, we have specific comments we
would like to share while the jurisdictions update the plan.
In general, we support the Ames Urban Fringe Plan update and the need for land protection for future
urban development. We live in an amazing community that is blessed to be growing, but our county
continues to be short of housing stock in both rural and incorporated areas. As a community, we must
therefore continue to seek new, creative rental and buying options for our residents.
As mentioned previously, we have specific concerns with the current draft plan. These concerns are
detailed below.
• One identifiable concern is the lack of opportunity to grow residential rural expansion. There is
no land identified for this option with a challenging process to land additions. Among the criteria
of concern is the wording “shall” which is coupled with subjective language such as: “previously
approved area will be considered when granting an amendment.” The mandate of being
adjacent to existing rural residential or the rural residential expansion area (which has no land
identified) is unworkable and severely limits options to the point of nonexistence. The farm
ground LESA score can be too high to develop, and the natural areas are to be protected, which
then leaves NO land for development.
• We believe the forty-acre limitation is unrealistic. Given the criteria for storm water
management, the need to account for streets, and the density and lot size requirements, we
conclude that forty acres will not be adequate.
• Planning for the construction of a mere three homes per year over 20 years in rural Story County
is significantly lower than the current absorption rate and market conditions and must be
considered. This restriction would force those families looking for additional space out of Story
County and into surrounding counties, where additional space is readily available.
• We are concerned with the diction used when referring to affordable housing, specifically
“direct” affordable housing. We would recommend amending this to “encourage.”
• Limiting amendment applications to January and July appears to restrict amendments and we
would recommend removing this stipulation.
• Achieving a majority vote will be challenging if Gilbert is not participating in votes South of 190th
Street. If the vote is only between the City of Ames and Story County, when one jurisdiction
votes it down and the other votes it up, the amendment automatically fails.
In conclusion, we support updating the Ames Urban Fringe Plan, but we believe it must allow for
development in unincorporated areas. The plan as presented makes that not only unlikely, but nearly
impossible. We hope to work together to produce a plan that protects the natural beauty of our county
while allowing for sustainable growth and housing opportunities for Story County residents.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Other Email and Written Comments
Story County Supervisors
Officials-
We. as the Grant Township Trustees have just been fully made aware ofthe proposed
expansion plans regarding the city of Ames and further encroachment into Grant.
Washington and Milford townships.
We are all a little in dismay that we have not been collectively contacted by you (the
supervisors) and intormed of how this will atlect our tax base and in result the ability to
provide adequate fire protection for the residents of said townships.
We are all opposed to such expansion and while we realize that city growth can not be
entirely road blocked. we firmly believe that there should be some kind of organized
effort starting w·ith your positions to have a plan to deal with these new obstacles placed
in our future und the path of our well l?eing.
Ames has been notoriously uncooperative in their reach for tire protection into rural areas
and they are not equipped to deal with such events. Not to mention the possibility of a
disaster occurring at two ethanol plants now within the districts .
Speaking only tor Grant township now but the same problem will ex!::t ~~:~ .. !!!f..:.!·~ :~~. ·.,·~
are on tenuous ground with the city of Nevada for our fire protection currently. Further
loss of tax base may force our agreement with them to be nullified due to lack of money
to keep up with rising costs and possibly more complicated tire and rescue calls . Past
perfmmance would only lead us to believe that Ames will NOT pick up tire protection
tor these areas and we suspect that Ames will be collecting the levies on those areas
while not taking responsibilities tor the risks involved to the residents there .
We need clarification on some of these basic points before you (the supervisors) would
place your stamp of approval on any proposed expansion plans.
n; ~ Grant Township Trustee
~ J '::£ G rant Township Trustee
~job ¥ Grant Township Trustee
--+-~-1=' Grant Township Clerk
Other Email and Written Comments
__________________________________________________________________________________
VIA USPS and CERTIFIED to:
To:
Re: Substantial Concerns About The Fringe Plan
Dear Story County Supervisor,
I am reaching out to you as my county authority regarding the proposed Fringe Plan.
Although I have been a resident in Story County since 2014, it was almost by accident that I
discovered the Fringe Plan proposal.
Around mid-May, as a I was cleaning out my car, I noticed a postcard on the floor that
looked like a typical advertisement. I nearly threw it away, but then noticed that it had a
“semi-official” appearance to it. Upon closer examination I saw that it was notifying county
residents that our property was subject to a major rezoning and about to undergo a complete
change in jurisdiction (moving from Story County authority to the City of Ames). I was
shocked—how could so many citizens facing a major proposal with such dramatic
ramifications be so poorly noticed?
When I attended two of the presentations I couldn’t help but notice two very disappointing
aspects: there were very few county residents in attendance; and not one of my questions
was answered with any specificity regarding what to expect in fact from the rezoning of our
neighborhood.
Defective Notice and Substantive Unfairness
The above personal experience delineates two fatal deficiencies with the Fringe Plan:
Defective Notice and Substantive Unfairness. The first is a procedural error that is likely to
spark litigation to successfully enjoin this entire process. The procedural error is one of
“defective notice”. In short, the citizens being affected by the Fringe Plan were not noticed in
a manner that was sufficient to receive, much less merit, their attention. When Real
Property rights are involved, the persons whose property rights are affected have a right to
sufficient notice that is intended to adequately apprise them of important events and
upcoming decisions that may affect their ownership.
Simply mailing out a flaky postcard that looks like an ad for a “brake job” as a general mailer
certainly falls far short of sufficient notice. In fact, every citizen affected by the Fringe Plan
should have received at a minimum two mailings, one First Class, and the other Certified,
addressed to each affected property owner—at a minimum.
PATRICK R. ANDERSON, ESQ.
ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
O: 877-903-7828; Fax: 515-686-6087
pryanlawyer@gmail.com info@patrickandersonlaw.com
Patrickandersonlaw.com
Business Office: 2410 State Ave., Ames, IA 50014
20 Avalon Court
Alamo, California 94507
2398 Walsh Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95051
931- 10th. Street
Modesto, California 95354
12100 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Other Email and Written Comments
The second fatal deficiency is one of substance: The Fringe Plan is patently unfair as
proposed and insufficiently presented. There is absolutely no way for any affected property
owner to know with any accuracy what to expect to happen in their neighborhood should this
defective plan be ratified and approved by the Story County Supervisors. In effect, the
County Supervisors are being intimidated by and unduly pressured by the City of Ames
officials to sign off on a “blank check”. And that, without any recourse should the Fringe Plan
be interpreted to the detriment of the County Citizens.
When one examines the Fringe Plan map and sees various designations, one cannot help
but notice that the words used for the designations really don’t have any objective definition
and meaning. It’s unfortunate also that the various proposals in the Plan are subject to a
wide variety of interpretations and applications—many of which may be completely
unforeseen by today’s leadership. In fact the wording appears to be a semi-clever
nomenclature that essentially rezones huge areas, but without any substantive definition.
When I asked for specifics regarding what to expect in various areas (all with the interesting
rezoning type wording), I received dismissive and nonresponsive answers. When I inquired
in a more subtle manner by asking if a “trailer park” had been proposed for a particular area,
the City representive knew the area in question very well and answered, “a trailer park
there? Well, no, not formally as yet.”
Imagine if a county citizen approached the Story County Zoning Commission with a project
that they wanted to construct on their property. Normally, the owner would be required to
provide a plat map or site plan, plus show a plan of what they propose to build. Of course,
the project may intrude on the rights of neighbors and may require the consent or at least no
complaints from any affected neighbors. But rather than provide a specific plat or site and
project design, the property owner gives dismissive answers to the Commissioners’
questions. And of course the owner also indicates that the neighbors don’t care and really
don’t need to know any specifics of what’s being proposed here. Is the Zoning Commission
likely to approve that property owner’s project? Of course not, but that is exactly what the
Story County Board of Supervisors are being pressured to do for the City of Ames and that
to the detriment and expense of the many county residents. The Fringe Plan is a radical
rezoning without any knowledge of what the county citizens may expect to happen in their
respective neighborhoods.
While there are many additional and very serious deficiencies with the Fringe Plan*, the two
cited above are sufficient to merit a stepped up scrutiny and obvious rejection by the Story
County Supervisors as our elected representatives on behalf of the Story County resident
citizens.
Very truly yours,
Patrick R. Anderson
Attorney at Law
*Serious environmental concerns: Worle Creek—under the Plan this creek will end up
looking like a Los Angeles flood control viaduct; Native American burial and artifacts—none
of which are even brought up much less addressed in the Fringe Plan.
Other Email and Written Comments
*There are many additional, sophisticated approaches to planning and zoning that are
completely missing from this draconian and high pressure, time constrained methodology.
*The present and long time use of many of the proposed areas for rezoning are completely
incompatible with the proposed rezoning by the Fringe Plan.
Other Email and Written Comments
Other Email and Written Comments
Tom Wynia, 523 Broad Street, Story City. Came to office on 5/18/22. Had read about the proposed
cooperative agreement in the newspaper and wanted to see draft map. Representing a property owner
whose property is not in the updated Fringe area (i.e. outside of 2-mile radius). Upset about Conceptual
Review comments that have been provided to their client concerning developing that property (which is
outside the Fringe). Asked for meeting dates for the public forum and open houses. Staff provided him a
postcard with that information.
Michael Drake, 26398 Sand Hill Trail. you want to know what ability the county would have to obstruct
to Ames annexing Urban Reserve if there’s a conflict about the annexation not meeting policies or if
growth has been inappropriate. What ability does the county have to stop that?
Dial back Urban Reserve, 60,000 seems too much, what about additional tiers of reserve allowed with
every five year review
Why over 2 mile Urban Reserve along Sand Hill
Charles Hurburgh. Issue with Meadow Glen is hookups and cost. They’d have to pay for sewer
connection if available. What if involuntary, Ames would have to pay. Is there room for a compromise?
Reduced cost, special assessment? We need to get this figure out with the current Fringe Plan—the time
is now.
Also, what about Kelly fire? Can they have hydrants?
Other Email and Written Comments
1
Alanna L. Patterson
From:Gould, Julie <julie.gould@cityofames.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 26, 2022 10:24 AM
To:Diekmann, Kelly; Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Subject:Jerry Sloan - 5105 N Daytona and Fringe Plan designation
[External Sender ‐ Please Use Caution]
FYI, Jerry Sloan stopped in. Amelia, he said you know him well.
He said he will likely attend the Fringe Plan meeting in Gilbert, but he wants to make sure his property and the parcel to
the north does not get designated with mining overlay.
Thank You,
Julie Gould
Planner
515.239.5400‐ main| 515.239.5443 direct| 515.239.5404 ‐fax
juile.gould@cityofames.org | City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org | ~ Caring People ~ Quality Programs ~ Exceptional Service ~
Other Email and Written Comments
Other Email and Written Comments
Other Email and Written Comments
Other Email and Written Comments
Online Subbmited Comments
1
Amelia Q. Schoeneman
From:Amelia Q. Schoeneman
Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:12 PM
To:'Kari Stagg'
Cc:Andrea E. Wagner
Subject:RE: Questions about AUFP
No problem, Kari.
You are understanding correctly except that the 17 acre piece could be further divided through the same residential parcel subdivision process so there was a lot
for a house at least one net‐acre in size or greater and a remainder that would not be buildable for a dwelling.
From: Kari Stagg <kari.stagg@ames.k12.ia.us>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:05 PM
To: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: Re: Questions about AUFP
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Thank you so much, Amelia.
I was more concerned with the ability to make a residential parcel subdivision with one property being in the AUFP and one not. We will be ok with
keeping the two parcels the sizes they are now if it would allow us to build one dwelling on each. So am I understanding correctly that we can have
two dwellings as long as we keep the lot sizes the same, build on the 37 acres first, and wait until that dwelling is on the tax code to have the 17 acres
added into a residential parcel subdivision before building there?
Your patience with me is greatly appreciated. As you can tell, this is not an area that I am familiar with.
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:41 PM Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov> wrote:
Hi Kari,
Other Email Written Comments
2
The Urban Reserve Overlay is currently proposed to not allow further divisions of land to create additional developable parcels or reduce the size of a property.
I believe your plan was to build a house on the 37 acre piece as it is currently, and then complete a residential parcel subdivision of that entire piece and the
property to the south to make the property to the south or a portion thereof buildable for a dwelling. Under the Urban Reserve designation, if the 37 acre piece
was surveyed as one lot (its configuration would not change), that would be OK. The lot to the south that’s outside of the Ames Urban Fringe Plan area could be
reduced in size/further divided for a dwelling. This is only because the lot to the south is outside of the AUFP planning area.
I believe that Andrea has gone through that subdivision process with you and what that requires. Let us know if you have additional questions.
From: Andrea E. Wagner <AWagner@storycountyiowa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 1:20 PM
To: 'Kari Stagg' <kari.stagg@ames.k12.ia.us>
Cc: Amelia Q. Schoeneman <ASchoeneman@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: RE: Questions about AUFP
Hi Kari,
Thank you for reaching out. I am including our director on this email—Amelia Schoeneman—because I think she will be better equipped to answer questions
about the updated Fringe designations. Based on the draft map, it appears the 37‐acre parcel is proposed to be designated as Agriculture and Farm Service,
with an Urban Reserve Overlay.
Amelia is out of the office the remainder of this week, but she will get back in touch with you as soon as she is able.
It sounds like you’ve already been to our website with information about the draft plan, but I will link to it here just in case:
https://www.storycountyiowa.gov/1243/Ames‐Urban‐Fringe‐Plan
Other Email Written Comments
3
As you will see on that webpage, we do have three public meetings coming up to receive comments in‐person from the general public. The first is a public
forum next Monday, May 23rd, at the Ames public library, and the others on May 26th and June 7th will be an open house format where individuals can ask staff
questions. The meeting on May 26th is at Gilbert City Hall, and the meeting on June 7th is at City Church on Oakwood Road in Ames.
I am also going to note your questions down, as these are important for staff to be aware where clarification is needed in the plan.
All best,
Andrea
From: Kari Stagg <kari.stagg@ames.k12.ia.us>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:03 PM
To: Andrea E. Wagner <AWagner@storycountyiowa.gov>
Subject: Questions about AUFP
[External Sender - Please Use Caution]
Hi Andrea,
We are learning more about the new Ames Urban Fringe Plan, and part of the information that we discovered is that our 37 acre lot will be part of
the plan. There is so much information to take in, and it is kind of confusing to me. I was reading something about developments, but couldn't
understand it. Do you happen to know if the new plan will prevent us from making a development so that we can build on both parcels? Or if we
would need to and/or be able to build two dwellings on the 37 acres?
Other Email Written Comments
4
If you aren't the person that can help me with this, do you happen to know who I would direct my questions to?
Thank you again for all of your help. You are a wealth of knowledge for me as I navigate this new territory.
Kari
--
Kari Stagg
Ames Middle School Secretary
515-268-2412
kari.stagg@ames.k12.ia.us
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not
the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast
integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small
organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
Other Email Written Comments
5
--
Kari Stagg
Ames Middle School Secretary
515-268-2412
kari.stagg@ames.k12.ia.us
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Other Email Written Comments
Comment # Reference Map Comment
1 North
It doesn't seem prudent or responsible land stewardship to designate an area between two environmentally
sensitive areas for an undetermined future possibility for annexation as Urban Reserve. Further, how much
farmland can continue to be removed?
2 North
Farmland is removed at our peril. The city needs to create different housing alternatives, including low
income, rather than continue eating up farmland.
3 North area between 180th and 190th needs to stay farmland
4 North Ames shoudl nt be allowed to grow nirth of 190th , it canibalizes our (Ames) school district
5 North Gilbert shoudl have a reserve to grow donw to 180th but maintain the farmland between 180th and 190th
6 North
PLEASE leave the land between 180th and 190th from a half mile west of GW Carver to a half mile east of
HWY 69 Agriculture and Farm Service. DO NOT change it to Urban Reserve! PLEASE!!
7 North Iowa State land
8 North Does urban growth around Gilbert have the same restrictions as urban growth around Ames?
9 North This is an existing rural subdivision. It should be marked as one.
10 North
This is an existing, exclusive subdivision where a builder and wealthy people were allowed to build on 10 acres
lots when no one else is allowed by the City of Ames. Interesting how that works.
11 North Concern that AUFP would further limit mineral extraction ability on this and other properties with natural
12 North
Concern that without ability to further divide or do a limited residential development, only option would be to
sell to Martin Marietta/Bishop Farms
13 North Need heigher standards or policies for Subsurface Mining Overlay and surface operations
14 North Stockpiling so close to road causes noise impacts on residential area. Need standards.
15 North Underground mining buffer from MM
16 North Truck traffic issues with Martin Marietta‐‐now trucks using this exit to avoid turning left on Riverside
17 North This is a test point. It will be deleted.
18 East Do not think this is within two miles of Ames' city limits. Check radius on map.
19 East
No overlays are necessary because Ames already has subdivision authority in the fringe. This is over‐reach, a
clear land grab that is totally unnecessary. Why would our county give away control to Ames?? Let
20 East This land grab overlay by Ames is taking away property rights of rural citizens. Story County should not let this
21 Southwest 1 I have a concern about the conditional uses being eliminated!!!!!
22 Southwest 1
This entire area should not have the Urban Reserve Overlay because the Ames City Council voted not to
include land south of Highway 30 in Southwest Ames in the 2040 Plan. You are ignoring their vote!
23 Southwest 1
Meadow Glen should be rural residential existing as there is no possibility for growth and the Ames City
Council voted not to go this direction as part of the 2040 plan.
24 Southwest 1
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
Comment # Reference Map Comment
25 Southwest 1 Conditional uses should NOT be part of this plan. County zoning should be left alone.
26 Southwest 1
You can't mark something environmentally sensitive just to destroy it later because the city isn't being
transparent about what they will do to it.
27 Southwest 1
Urban growth in this area would absolutely destroy the water quality, trees, wildlife and ecosystem. If there is
a place to allow rural acreages this would be it. The environmental cost is way too high to destroy this area
28 Southwest 1
How can the city vote SW Ames out of the 2040 plan only to be brought back in as highest priority? The city
needs to be held to this decision. It doesn't make sense. They didn't go with their own direction.
29 Southwest 1 Iowa state land
30 Southwest 1
Public comment doesn't work with the city because they literally do not care and in the end will do whatever
they want anyway.
31 Southwest 1 This is Iowa State land
32 Southwest 1
The City of Ames absolutely 100% DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT unless it serves their purpose.
They have proven it with the UFP.
33 Southwest 1 This is Iowa State land
34 Southwest 1
According to the city, Ames Fire can save our lives but we will watch our stuff burn to the ground, those of us
who don't have fire hydrants after they bankrupt Washington Township and our volunteer fire dept because
Ames doesn't have tanker trucks.
35 Southwest 1
If this UFP goes through, the City of Ames will have gone against EVERY previous city council, TWO consulting
firms, MULTIPLE experts in their field, and one of the largest conservation groups on the planet.
36 Southwest 1 Please remove Urban Overlay/conditional use restrictions as there are no development plans for this area.
37 Southwest 1
We weren't even given a full 30 days for public comment. Not everyone was notified via postcard and some
got them the day the presentation was done. Just another example of how the City and County have failed us.
38 Southwest 1
Worle Creek has one of the top two eroding creeks in Ames which will certainly get worse with urban
development which can cost millions to fix with reconstruction for a problem that could have been avoided.
39 Southwest 1
A LOT of destruction would have to come to this area to develop it for only a little bit of land if it was
available, which it isn't, to literally go nowhere because of ISU and Boone County.
40 Southwest 1
The tributary to Worle would be STRAIGHTENED and habitat BULLDOZED to extend a sewer for at least a half‐
mile. I know BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID TO PUT IT IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! It has already caused
issues with erosion and landslides!
41 Southwest 1 Iowa state land
42 Southwest 1
The Audubon Society supports conservation in this area and advises against changing air and water quality
which would damage the ecosystem here which would certainly happen with an urban development.
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
Comment # Reference Map Comment
43 Southwest 1
The city planner says we'll never have a rural development here, not on his watch. Why not? They are all
over the City of Ames. This is an area that warrants it! Minimizes damage to the environment and ecosystem
44 Southwest 1
Why is there urban reserve over ISU property? They've already told the city planner they aren't interested in
ever selling their land. To make it look like there is more land available in SW Ames than there actually is?
45 Southwest 1
65 million dollars in 2019 was the figure to develop JUST SW Ames. For what, maybe 300 acres of land if it
was available, which it isn't, with no potential for growth. How does that make financial sense? IT DOESN'T!
46 Southwest 1
There is no way an urban development fits the aesthetic of this area and it would go against the city's and
county's own descriptions of buffers between ag and urban. Across the street from a farm studying cow farts?
47 Southwest 1
Not once has Ames asked us what would we be happy with. It doesn't matter what the people living here
want. Maybe it's time to actually start listening to the people who know what they're talking about, the
48 Southwest 1
How can us in the county feel like we have unbiased representation when our planning director has been
working on the Ames P&Z Board of Adjustments for the last three years during the entire time these things
have been discussed? Conflict of interest?
49 Southwest 1
Ames wants people's businesses to fail to force people out. Now they'll have more control than they had
before. We can't even vote for them but they can tell us what to do!
50 Southwest 1
The only reason SW Ames is in this is because Ames made a mistake over 20 years ago and spent millions on
the interchange thinking it would blow up. It didn't. So they are now going to punish us all here for a mistake
51 Southwest 1
The City of Ames has a reputation for doing things because they can and not thinking about whether or not
they should, as evidenced by this UFP. The county needs to take back control!
52 Southwest 1
The county had in their letter to the cities that they wanted all areas marked Urban Reserve to be left as
ag/rural residential so the county is going back on that point because there are now something like 20,000
53 Southwest 1
SW Ames is unique, there is no other place in and around Ames with our specific issues, concerns and data
backing us up. It should be treated as such! When all of the people that show up for meetings are from this
54 Southwest 1
The county needs to be supporting us and backing us up. We need these supervisors and commissioners to
please listen to us. The push for this DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
55 Southwest 1 Iowa state farm
56 Southwest 1
How can the city slap a designation on something without doing their due diligence and research like all
experts have advised to find out if they can even use it for what they want to (maybe/someday) use it for?
57 Southwest 1 This is an existing rural subdivision ‐ Ballantyne Subdivision
58 Southwest 1
The UFP is a very bad idea. All it is doing is allowing Ames to reserve land for developers. Call a spade a spade,
that's what it's for. When the planner says he wants to tie up this land for 50 years, if not forever, that's
59 Southwest 1
Meadow Glen Subdivision fits perfectly the definition of an existing rural subdivision and should be marked as
such. It is shown correctly in the 2040 Plan.
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
Comment # Reference Map Comment
60 Southwest 1
Over 20,000 acres in reserve/urban growth? That's the size of Ames! It is solely and completely about
CONTROL! Totalitarianism at its finest.
61 Southwest 1
Iowa State properties are not supposed to have growth designations. Remove Urban Reserve Overlays from
all ISU land. It is deceiving to show it that way.
62 Southwest 1
What's the point of public outreach? The city has already proven they don't address any concerns, letters, or
questions. They don't care what we have to say. They've already made up their mind. I'm hopeful the county
will have a different perspective
63 Southwest 1
This property would a bad place for urban growth. It does not fit the character of the area, but would also
require city utilities that would destroy beautiful Worle Creek. This is an environmentally sensitive area that
must be preserved and protected.
64 Southwest 1
65 Southwest 1
Rural residential developments have been allowed in many places around the city, so why not here? It is the
best option for preserving this natural area while also allowing housing that fits in well with the existing
66 Southwest 1
This whole process for the last several years has made me lose my faith in local government. This has taught
me that this is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Shouldn't it be time for that to change? This nonsense
67 Southwest 1
68 Southwest 1
It should be obvious by now that NO ONE supports this overreaching fringe plan. Pleaselisten to the county
residents because we are the ones who have to live with your decisions. Ames has enough control already ‐
no reason to give them more.
69 Southwest 1
The Ames City Council voted not to include Southwest Ames south of Highway 30 in their 2040 growth plan.
Please designate this area as Ag and Farm Service as intended!
70 Southwest 1 This is an Iowa State Farm ‐ not Urban Growth! Ames can't build on an ISU Farm!
71 Southwest 1 ISU LAND ‐ remove designation
72 Southwest 1
These properties are just as much Rural Residential Existing as Cameron Estates and Bella Woods ‐ and have
been here a lot longer. NOT URBAN GROWTH!
73 Southwest 1 ISU LAND ‐ Remove designation
74 Southwest 1
What do you have against rural acreages? Ames doesn't seem to have a problem with it when it comes to ISU
coaches and doctors. Their homes are left alone. Is that by design?
75 Southwest 1 ISU LAND ‐ Remove Overlay designation
76 Southwest 1
It's always been understood that Highway 30 is the southern border of Ames and SW Ames mostly belongs to
ISU. They need close proximity to campus for their research & teaching farms. Their neighbors understand
that and the city needs to as well.
77 Southwest 2 This is Iowa State land
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
Comment # Reference Map Comment
78 Southwest 3 Iowa state land
79 Southwest 4 Iowa state land
80 Southwest 5 Iowa state land
81 Southwest 6 Iowa state land
82 Southwest 7 Iowa state land
83 Southwest 8 Iowa state land
84 Southwest 9 Iowa state land
85 Southwest 10 Iowa state land
86 Southwest 11 Iowa state land
87 Southwest 12 Iowa state land
88 Southwest 13 Iowa state land
89 Southwest 14 Iowa state land
90 Southwest 15 Iowa state land
91 Southwest 16 Iowa state land
92 Southwest 17 Iowa state land
93 Southwest 18 All ISU land should be shown as Civic University with NO overlays.
94 Southwest 19
ISU land should not have ANY designation, including Ag and Farm Service! The city and county DO NOT
control any ISU property.
95 Southwest 20
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
12
34
5
11
12
13
14
15
6
16
177
8
9
10
Pictometry Intl Corp, Story County IA, Maxar
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
Legend
Ada Hayden Watershed Protection Area
Environmentally Sensitive Overlay
Airport Protection Overlay
Urban Reserve Overlay
Subsurface Mining Overlay
Urban Growth
Rural Residential-Existing
Rural Residential-Expansion
Agriculture and Farm Service
City Limits
County Boundary
Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map Public Comments
´
St
o
r
y
Pictometry Intl
Corp, Story County
IA, Earthstar
Geographics
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
18
19
20
Pictometry Intl Corp, Story County IA, Maxar
0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.17
Miles
Legend
Ada Hayden Watershed Protection Area
Environmentally Sensitive Overlay
Airport Protection Overlay
Urban Reserve Overlay
Subsurface Mining Overlay
Urban Growth
Rural Residential-Existing
Rural Residential-Expansion
Agriculture and Farm Service
City Limits
County Boundary
Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map Public Comments
´
St
o
r
y
Earthstar
Geographics
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
St
o
r
y
21 23
25
27
29
31
33
36
78
79 80 41
55
57
59
61
63
65
6769
71 73
75
22
24
26
2830
32
34
3537
38
39 40
42
43
44
45 46
47
48
49 50
51
52
53
54
56
58
6062
64 66
68
70
72
74
76
Pictometry Intl Corp, Story County IA, Maxar
Legend
Ada Hayden Watershed
Protection Area
Environmentally Sensitive
Overlay
Airport Protection Overlay
Urban Reserve Overlay
Subsurface Mining Overlay
Urban Growth
Rural Residential-Existing
Rural Residential-Expansion
Agriculture and Farm Service
City Limits
County Boundary
0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07
Miles
Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map Public Comments
´
St
o
r
y
Pictometry Intl Corp, Story
County IA, Earthstar
Geographics
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
27
31 33
77
78
79 80 41
8182838485
86 87
88 89
90 91
92
57
61
65
69
93
94
24
26
32
34 353739 40
44
4754
95
Pictometry Intl Corp, Story County IA, Maxar
Legend
Ada Hayden Watershed Protection Area
Environmentally Sensitive Overlay
Airport Protection Overlay
Urban Reserve Overlay
Subsurface Mining Overlay
Urban Growth
Rural Residential-Existing
Rural Residential-Expansion
Agriculture and Farm Service
City Limits
County Boundary
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.1
Miles
Ames Urban Fringe Plan Draft Land Use Framework Map Public Comments
´
St
o
r
y
Earthstar
Geographics
Online Map Comments Cross Referenced
1
ITEM #:____22__ __
STAFF REPORT
Front Yard Parking Regulations and
Driveway Specifications Zoning Text Amendment
October 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed a staff report on July 26, 2022 related to front yard parking
regulations and potential enforcement issues for noncompliant parking . City Council
examined several examples of front yard parking and driveway configurations as they
related to 454 properties that had potentially noncompliant front yard parking. Front Yard
parking is restricted within Zoning Ordinance Section 29.406 (7) to only being allowed
upon driveways that lead to the garage or side/rear yard. The graphic below depicts
prohibited parking areas for single and two-family homes.
City Council provided direction to amend the zoning standards rather than seek
enforcement on these existing driveways. Additionally, City Council determined it
would prefer to allow for additional driveway parking options to encourage onsite
parking over street parking. Direction from July 26th included the following:
•Allow for existing driveway configurations to be permitted as preexisting,
•Allow for additional flared parking (to the side of the driveway) when not
in front of a house,
•Limit second curb cuts to when a property has at least 150 feet of
frontage,
•Set new standards for a minimum driveway exception of at least two cars
(20 feet wide) for all properties unless there is compliant two-car parking
in a rear yard,
•Create a driveway permit process enforceable by the Planning Director.
2
In addition to these primary issues, staff noted in July that related issues may also
need to be addressed to comprehensively update driveway permitting. Therefore,
Staff is now proposing to amend sections of the Zoning Ordinance related to
parking, driveway design, and permitting. Staff believes these additional changes
will streamline the review process and clarify the intent and purpose of the
driveway and parking standards.
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS:
As staff began preparing amendments related to front yard parking and driveways, a
number of related issues to continuity of the code language and standards for paving
have become apparent to City staff. Staff now proposes to address parking standards
and driveways standards broadly to consolidate the review processes and hopefully make
the information more readily understandable for the customer. The primary focus is on
driveways for single and two-family homes, but additional changes related to
nonconformities and parking lot permitting would align with the discussions and process
related to driveways. Single and two-family related changes are distinguished from
broader additional parking related items of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff approached the driveway changes with the assumption that City Council
intended to allow for all existing paving to be allowed as “pre-existing” compared
to nonconforming. This was based upon City Council discussion in July as part of the
initial direction. The difference in the terminology is “pre-existing” allows for
something to be reconstructed whether it complies with width, location, or other
zoning standards, whereas the nonconforming standard expects eventual
conformance to zoning standards, typically at the time of reconstruction. If City
Council did not intend to allow for all front yard paving and driveways to be pre -existing,
but instead to be treated as nonconforming, staff would need this direction for the zoning
text amendment.
Single- and Two-Family Home Amendments
Driveway Width
Currently no width of a driveway is specified within the Zoning Ordinance. The default is
to have a nine-foot-wide driveway, which matches parking lots standards for a parking
space. The Rental Code requires a minimum of nine feet for all licensed rentals,
regardless of existing conditions. However, nine feet is wider than many older driveways
in the City, which can cause issues for repaving. Specifying a minimum driveway width
will assist staff in administration of paving existing driveways and for new driveways.
3
Staff proposes to allow for a nine-foot wide minimum driveway width. This would
apply to all new paving for driveways. Existing paved driveways would not need to
widened based upon City Council intent to allow for existing paving to be maintained as
a pre-existing improvement. Improvement of unpaved driveways would occur through
voluntary paving at the owner’s discretion, licensing a property as a rental, or if a garage
is added onto and the driveway is required to be improved with the new improvements on
a site.
Driveway Approach/Curb Cut Width
The driveway approach (curb cut) width is also proposed to be addressed. Currently the
Zoning Ordinance says to use the minimum width specifications of SUDAS, unless
circumstances warrant a wider approach. Staff has concerns about the range of
allowances with the current language and that it will be consistently applied to match
expectations of driveways being proportional to garage width without a more specific
standard.
Public Works recommends including the SUDAS guidance of a 10-foot wide
minimum driveway approach for all driveways, even if it’s is less than 10 feet in width
on site. The SUDAS residential maximum is 30 feet, but by the standard of “minimum
width necessary” the 30-foot width should not be typically allowed. Staff also proposes
to set a maximum width of 20 feet to 24 feet, this would not allow for extra wide
driveways or driveways that lead directly to three car garages. Stating a maximum as
described by staff will provide for consistency and lead to the tapered driveway
design for larger garages and minimize overall paving and interruptions of on-
street parking along a curb.
Define Driveway
Staff proposes changes to “vehicular maneuvering areas” to use the more
common terminology of parking lots and driveways for single and two family uses.
Corresponding adjustments to definitions will be made as necessary. Staff would also
clarify the relationship of a sidewalk and a driveway distinction for single-family homes in
Section 29.404 On-Site Sidewalks.
Driveway and Paving Manual
Staff proposes to create a new Driveway and Paving Manual with guidance on how
to comply with the paving and driveways standards of the Zoning Ordinance. This
Manual will be referenced in the Zoning Ordinance and administered by staff as
administrative guidance with illustrations and examples of how to typically meet
standards. Staff would update the manual as needed for review of driveway permits.
4
Permitting
Due to previous ambiguity of not needing a driveway permit within the front yard parking
standards section, the standards for parking lots and driveway permitting need to be
rewritten to clearly explain expectations for a variety of situations. Current code language
references circumstances related to paving and reconstructing parking lots and
allowances for nonconformities. None of these processes and standards currently are
consolidated into a standard permit process section of Building/Zoning Permits or Site
Development Plans.
Staff proposes to modify 29.1502 Building/Zoning Permit section to identify
specifically the need for permits related to driveways (single and two family)
parking lot striping, landscape changes, and outdoor storage. These are all types
of administrative permits that fit within the intended review authority of the new driveway
permits and should be listed together. In addition, depending on the outcome of the
driveway width paving, the language for pre-existing and nonconforming paving will be
modified as necessary with the permitting process.
OTHER PARKING AND PARKING LOT AMENDMENTS:
Front Yard Parking
Staff proposes to retitle Front Yard Parking to include Driveways in the title to use
a more common terminology. The proposed new allowances for flared parking and the
20-foot-wide driveway allowance will be written as exceptions to the front yard parking
limitations on parking locations. The design standards of driveways will be part of a
separate driveway subsection.
Staff also proposes to modify front yard parking in relation to Group Living uses.
An allowance exists for group living to have front yard parking in limited circumstances
when set behind a primary façade. However, it appears that for corner lots the limitation
of parking in relation to the secondary facade is not clear and it should be updated to
reflect the intent that front yard parking is not permitted for either yard on a corner lot.
Front Yard Parking references will also be updated to address multiple building
sites, such as apartments. Multiple building sites do not neatly fit the front yard parking
diagram included in the code. Staff desires to clearly define that the forward most
buildings define the front yard as it relates to the street, and it is not an issue when set
back buildings are further back on a site.
Staff also proposes to clarify the terminology in the Zoning Ordinance that
references “parking between a building and street.” By practice this has meant
5
literally between a building façade and the street, not the entire front yard. This would
now become the definition with the proposed text amendment.
Staff also proposes to acknowledge an exception process for all properties when
they have more than two street frontages. An example of this was the Downtown
Fareway that exists on a lot with four street frontages, the NC zoning was modified to
account for this by restricting parking on two sides. Staff proposes adding a similar
exception for all zoning districts as part of the Parking Section.
Parking Standards
The proposed zoning text amendments affect Section 29.406 (Parking) of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff proposes to modify other parking sections concurrent with front
yard and driveway standards.
The City allows for buildings and uses that existed prior to 2000 to have up to a 10%
increase in parking demand before triggering current parking requirements. Howeve r, it
is unclear how such an allowance works with residential uses. Staff proposes to clarify
the allowance for a change of use within existing buildings as part of 29.9406 (3) to
not allow for reversions to other residential uses or increase units in apartment
buildings without providing for required parking. This change will make the parking
section consistent with other language in other parts of the code.
Parking Lot Reconstruction Permitting
With the changes to permitting for driveways described above, it leaves parking lot paving
and reconstruction awkwardly positioned as part of the parking standards. Therefore,
Staff proposes to clean up the distinction of parking lot reconstruction with a
change in the site development plan requirements, which are currently tied into the
Parking Lot Striping Plan and front yard parking references that Staff proposes to
move.
The current site development plan standards do not define “redevelopment” and how
replacement paving relates to nonconforming conditions. The default is to consider 150
square feet of “new” paving to trigger a site development plan, with an exception for
maintenance. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not define either maintenance or
redevelopment which creates confusion for customers at times.
Staff proposes to expressly state that parking lot reconstruction is allowable with
a Parking Lot Striping Plan rather than a new site development plan if the
reconstruction is less than one-acre in size and conforms to the other criteria of
the Zoning Ordinance. The one-acre threshold will match the City’s stormwater
management threshold of Chapter 5b.
6
If parking lot reconstruction changes the design or location it would still be subject
to the Site Development Plan permit process. The same standards apply to a
nonconforming parking lot whether it is a building zoning permit or a site developmen t
plan, the Site Development Plan requires a more robust application process that includes
the use of licensed design professional, typically a civil engineer. Staff would also
modify the standards of previously approved site development plans and
nonconformities to correspond to the proposed permitting changes.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a full range of changes related to City
Council’s direction regarding front yard parking and the related issues at its September
21st meeting. Staff described the circumstances that lead to City Council’s review of the
issue. Most of the discussion amongst the members focused on the proposed allowances
for additional paving and widening of driveways. No one from the public provided input.
The focus was on the two specific issues of allowing for additional pavin g in the front yard.
Staff described the proposed allowance for flared parking towards side property line and
the new allowance for all properties to have a 20 -foot-wide driveway, even if it was
partially in front of the existing house. Staff also noted that in the SF-COD area the 12-
foot maximum width driveway limitation would continue to apply. The Commission voted
3-2 to support most of the proposed changes, including the flared parking option,
but it did not support allowing for a 20-foot driveway for all properties.
One important issue that Staff is requesting direction from the City Council is
whether to finalize a draft ordinance that allows the 20-foot driveway for all
properties even if the driveway extends partially in front of the house, as proposed
by Staff, or to follow the P&Z recommendation, which would not permit paving in
front of a house to widen a driveway and only allow for it to be widened as a flare
to the side.
STAFF COMMENTS
City Council’s intent to create flexibility for homeowners and a clear permitting process
related to driveways requires additional direction on specific standards. Staff believes
the combination of changes to both standards and permitting processes that are
being proposed will improve compliance with standards and consistency in
administration.
One fundamental issue related to the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation to not allow for a minimum 20-foot front yard driveway needs to
be addressed. Staff originally proposed this as option to create equal side-by-side
7
parking options for all properties. The impact of this allowance will be focused in
the older neighborhoods of the City that have one car garage where adding a flare
to the side may not be possible. New neighborhoods already have two-car garages
and would not be impacted by the proposal.
In addition to City Council’s direction from July regarding five issues, staff
proposes additional amendments described above to improve the usefulness and
clarity of parking standards.
The summary of staff proposed amendments described above are as follows:
For Single and Two-Family Houses Amendment
a. Establish a minimum driveway width of 9 feet for all new paving.
b. Establish minimum 10-foot and maximum 20-24-foot driveway approaches.
c. Change “Vehicle Areas” to Parking Lots and Driveway , clarify sidewalk
crossings, and update corresponding definition changes as needed,
d. Move all permitting processes to Article XV Procedures, include new
Building/Zoning Permit references for Driveways, Parking Lots,
Landscaping, and Outdoor Storage
e. Reference a Driveway Design Manual administered by staff.
Other Parking and Parking Lot Related issues
a. Update front yard parking and parking between the building and the street
with miscellaneous changes.
b. Alter the pre-existing buildings prior to 2000 parking rate allowance to not
apply to residential uses.
c. Exempt parking lot reconstruction of 1 acre or less from Site Development
Plan review, but require Parking Lot Building/Zoning Permits.
d. Modify the nonconformities section for paving and parking lots to address
preexisting driveways and reconstruction of parking lots.
With City Council’s direction on the issues within this report, staff will then work
with the City Attorney’s office to complete drafting of the new ordinance and
present it to City Council for approval on first reading at an upcoming meeting.
1
ITEM # 23
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 TRAFFIC SYSTEM CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS – GRAND
AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY FINDINGS
STUDY BACKGROUND:
Forward 2045, the Ames Area MPO’s latest Metropolitan Transportation Plan, identified
the need for a study of the Grand Avenue corridor from 9th Street to 24th Street (see Figure
1). The study looked at current traffic operational deficiencies along this corridor and the
projected growth of traffic from anticipated continued development north of Ames.
Figure 1: Study Area
The City of Ames Traffic System Capacity Improvements Program provides for the
planning, design, and construction of improvements identified in Forward 2045.
Therefore, the city programmed this study in 2021/22 with the anticipation that its findings
will guide future corridor project programming.
STUDY FINDINGS:
For this study (See Attached), the project’s engineering consultant, HDR Engineering,
Inc., conducted planning and conceptual-level engineering design services along the
study corridor that included assessing traffic volumes, bicycle/pedestrian volumes, origin-
destination data, evaluating traffic operations, and conducting safety analyses. Using
data-driven processes, initial alternatives were developed for all the identified
intersections along the study corridor. These alternatives were presented at a public
open house, with a summary of the feedback in the attached project report
presentation.
Table 1 summarizes the recommended improvements at each major intersection along
the corridor. Further details can be found in the attached project report.
Table 1: Summary of Recommended Key Improvements
Estimated Project Costs
Intersection Construction Design/Admin ROW/Easement Total
24th $600,000 $90,000 $0 $690,000
STAFF COMMENTS ON STUDY FINDINGS:
The corridor study coordinated the planning and conceptual design of several
intersections along Grand Avenue (US HW 69) that require improvement. By evaluating
all the improvements together, staff can ensure each location’s design will work with other
intersections within the study area. It should be noted that the improvements identified in
the study will help inform staff when proposing projects during the annual Capital
Improvements Plan development. However, the final design of each project will go
through the regular public improvement process and include its own public meeting and
feedback process. At this point of developing project concepts, the type of right-of-
way impacts are generally known, but the exact acquisition needs from private
property owners will not be determined until the detailed design plans are
developed in the future.
It should be noted that in 2007 the City staff proposed intersection improvements
for 13th and Grand Ave. ( See Presentation Slides). As a result of opposition from
the property owners and residents who were to lose land in front of their homes,
the City Council decided not to proceed with the project at that time.
The project that is currently being considered for the 13th and Grand Avenue
intersection has been revised to mitigate the amount of private property that will
be needed for construction. This was accomplished by modifying the alignment
and profile of the roadway segments as well as minimizing lane widths.
The current CIP programs the 13th Street and Grand Avenue improvements in FY 2024/25
[design & right-of-way] and FY 2025/26 [construction of intersection and shared-use path]
of the Traffic System Capacity Improvements program. The 20th Street and Grand Avenue
intersection will likely be proposed for the FY 2027/28 project. The remaining projects will
appear in future years of the CIP as funding allows.
The public will have an opportunity to offer input into each of the five intersection
projects before they are brought to City Council for approval of plans and
specifications. Therefore, Staff is not seeking specific direction from City Council
at this time. All that is requested is a motion from City Council accepting the study.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Motion accepting the study findings as summarized in the study report and
implementation plan.
2. Do not approve the findings of the study.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This study was completed using transportation planning and traffic engineering best
practices and presented at a public meeting. The study findings will help guide the City in
the designing and programming of future projects along this corridor.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
Source: Google Earth
Grand Avenue Intersection
Improvements Study
Mike Forsberg, HDR
10/25/2022
Study Background
•Group of Grand Ave projects –Addressing similar issues/trends
•Desire for multimodal accommodations along the corridor
Study Methodology
•9th Street to 24th Street
•Historical safety analysis and
mitigation strategies
•Operations analysis for year 2045
(AAMPO MTP horizon year)
•Improvements development /
screening
•Recommended improvements
•Public Open House (4/28/22)
•Report and Implementation Plan
Grand Ave & 9th Street
No-Build Conditions
Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR)
(All numbers in seconds)
Grand Ave & 9th Street
Key Improvements
•Leading pedestrian interval
•Shared-use path west side of Grand
Expected Benefits
•Increased bike/ped awareness in
crosswalk
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 9th Street
Public Feedback
•Mostly positive
•Concerns related to CyRide continuing
to turn southbound left in shared lane
Planning-Level Cost
•$70K (construction)
Next Steps
•Program shared-use path through
Shared-Use Path System Expansion
in a future CIP
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 13th Street
No-Build Conditions
Grand Ave & 13th Street
Key Improvements
•Left-turns all directions
•New traffic signal
•Shared-use path west side of Grand
•Leading pedestrian interval
Expected Benefits
•Reduce crashes
•Operations at LOS C
•Improved driver expectancy
•Increased bike/ped awareness in
crosswalk
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 13th Street
Public Feedback
•Mostly positive to address east/west
delay
•Concerns from adjacent residents on
property impacts
Planning-Level Cost
•$2.8M (ROW/acquisition and
construction)
Next Steps
•Preliminary and final design; ROW
acquisition
•Per CIP, design/ROW in 2024/25 and
Build Improvements
•8 Total Property
Acquisitions
•Significant front yard
impacts to over 30
properties
2007 Conceptual
Design
Grand Ave & 16th Street
No-Build Conditions
Grand Ave & 16th Street
Key Improvements
•Raised median on Grand at 16th
•Shared-use path west side of Grand
Expected Benefits
•Reduce crashes –eliminate crossing
conflicts
Public Feedback
•Opposition to build improvements
•Need to maintain east/west crossing
for peds/bikes
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 16th Street
Planning-Level Cost
•$54K (construction)
Next Steps
•Additional study following adjacent
improvements
•Coordinate with CyRide and DOT for
future plan consistency
•Reevaluate in next MTP
•If pursued in future, incorporate wider
median for peds/bikes (cost increase
to $180K)
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 20th Street
No-Build Conditions
Grand Ave & 20th Street
Key Improvements
•Left-turn lanes on Grand
•Restripe 20th for left-turn lanes
•Shared-use path south side of 20th
•Leading pedestrian interval
Expected Benefits
•Reduce crashes –eliminate crossing
conflicts
•Improved driver expectancy
•Increased bike/ped awareness in
crosswalk
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 20th Street
Public Feedback
•Mostly positive
•Concern over southbound right-turning
trucks/buses
Planning-Level Cost
•$450K (construction)
Next Steps
•Program roadway widening
improvements through the Traffic
System Capacity Improvements in CIP
•Program shared-use path through
Shared-Use Path System Expansion
Build Improvements
Grand Ave & 24th Street
No-Build Conditions
Grand Ave & 24th Street
Key Improvements
•Restriping 24th for dedicated
left-turn lanes
•New traffic signal
•Three lanes on 24th east to
Jensen Ave
•Decrease southwest corner
radius
•Leading pedestrian interval
Build Improvements
Expected Benefits
•Improved driver expectancy
•Increased bike/ped awareness in crosswalk
Grand Ave & 24th Street
Public Feedback
•Mostly positive
Next Steps
•Program roadway restriping
and radius modification
through the Traffic System
Capacity Improvements in CIP
•Program shared-use path
through Shared-Use Path
System Expansion in a future
CIP
Build Improvements
Planning-Level Cost
•$600K (construction)
Questions?
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Ave Intersection Improvements Study
July 25, 2022September 19, 2022
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Page | i
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Methodology ......................................................................................... 2
Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 2
Traffic Operations ............................................................................................ 2
Safety Analysis ................................................................................................ 2
3. Intersection Evaluations & Improvements ....................................................... 2
Grand Avenue & 9th Street .............................................................................. 3
Grand Avenue & 13th Street ............................................................................ 5
Grand Avenue & 16th Street ............................................................................ 7
Grand Avenue & 20th Street ............................................................................ 9
Grand Avenue & 24th Street .......................................................................... 11
4. Improvements Summary & Implementation Plan .......................................... 13
Cost Summary & Implementation Plan ......................................................... 14
List of Abbreviations
• AAMPO: Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
• MTP: Metropolitan Transportation Plan
• CIP: Capital Improvements Plan
• TDM: Travel Demand Model
• HCM: Highway Capacity Manual
• MUTCD: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• DOT: Department of Transportation
• ICAT: Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
• PCR: Potential for Crash Reduction
• LPI: Leading Pedestrian Interval
• LOS: Level of Service
• ROW: Right-of-Way
Page | 1
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
1. Introduction
The purpose of this project was to identify needs and recommended
improvements at key intersections along Grand Avenue from 9 th Street to 24th
Street in the Ames, Iowa. Specifically, the following intersections were the
primary focus for this study.
• Grand Avenue & 9th Street
• Grand Avenue & 13th Street
• Grand Avenue & 16th Street
• Grand Avenue & 20th Street
• Grand Avenue & 24th Street
The study area for this project was selected based on previously planned
improvements to the Grand Avenue intersections at 13 th Street, 16th Street and
20th Street identified in the AAMPO Forward 2045 MTP and the City of Ames
CIP. Intersections at 9th Street and 24th Street were also included in the study.
Figure 1 shows the project study area.
This portion of Grand Avenue serves north Ames as a vital connection between
commercial, residential, and educational uses. It is also part of the National
Highway System and state highway system as US Highway 69. Average daily
traffic volumes range between approximately 14,000 and 21,000 vehicles per
day, with continued traffic growth anticipated in the future with continued
residential and commercial growth to the north.
This study developed a plan for improvements that balance multimodal mobility
and safety needs of this corridor with the character and quality of life for adjacent
neighborhoods and property owners in accordance with the City's Complete
Streets Plan and other applicable standards. Using traffic operations and safety
assessments combined with local knowledge, this plan addresses existing
deficiencies while also helping to position the corridor to be resilient to future
demand and enhanced multimodal connections. The improvements
recommended by the study were identified based on their ability to be
implemented with limited impacts to surrounding properties and neighborhood
character.
Figure 1. Study Area
Page | 2
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
2. Study Methodology
Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts were collected at study intersections by the City of Ames in
November and December of 2021 after the opening of the Grand Avenue
extension south of S 5th Street to S 16th Street. The AAMPO also provided the
latest TDM which provided the basis for forecasting corridor traffic growth through
the horizon year for the project, year 2045. The TDM was updated prior to
developing forecasts to account for planned land uses of a new aquatic center
near Lincoln Way & Oak Avenue and Lincoln Way Mixed Use Development south
of downtown.
Traffic Operations
Traffic operations analysis was completed using Synchro 11 software, which
replicates procedures from the HCM. Conditions were evaluated for the AM and
PM peak hours under existing and year 2045 no-build and build conditions.
Traffic Signal Warrants from the MUTCD were evaluated at the Grand Avenue &
16th Street intersection to identify if a signal is warranted and would be considered
during concept development.
Safety Analysis
A safety analysis was conducted for the study area to determine locations with
high crash frequencies and crash patterns that could be used to identify safety
improvements. Crashes were collected for years 2015 through 2019 using the
ICAT. This study used a methodology (still in draft format) that the Iowa DOT has
developed to evaluate the relative safety performance of intersections across
Iowa. The methodology uses a potential for crash reduction to evaluate safety as
a function of experienced crashes per year compared to an expected number of
crashes per year based on the type of intersection. With this methodology, the
following three tiers of rated safety performance for intersections were used to
focus on locations with the greatest potential for crash reduction following
improvements:
• Tier 1: PCR > 1 – Likely for safety improvement with improvements
• Tier 2: 0 ≤ PCR ≤ 1 – Potential for safety improvement with improvements
• Tier 3: PCR < 0 – Performing better than predicted
3. Intersection Evaluations & Improvements
Following review and evaluation of intersections to determine improvement
needs, strategies were identified for each intersection to address these needs.
Initial concepts at each study intersection were developed by combining
strategies. The initial concepts were reviewed with the City of Ames staff and
strategies were selected to create a recommended concept for each study
intersection. The recommended concepts include a combination of the following
strategies:
• Spot roadway widening at intersections to add left-turn lanes
• Restriping lanes to provide dedicated left-turn lanes
• Shared-use paths
• Leading pedestrian interval – providing the walk indication to pedestrians
before a vehicular green signal, to allow pedestrians to move into the
intersection first and provide greater awareness of pedestrians.
A public open house was held on April 28th, 2022 where the recommended
concepts were reviewed, next steps were shared, and feedback was gathered
from the public.
The following sections provide an overview for each study intersection (from
south to north), including background on improvements at each location,
completed evaluations and recommended improvements.
Page | 3
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 9th Street
While the 9th Street corridor does not carry high levels of vehicular traffic, the
signalized intersection with Grand Avenue does see pedestrian traffic as the
9th Street corridor connects several parks, trails, and recreational facilities
nearby. No operational or safety deficiencies were previously noted for
improvement at this intersection. Previously planned improvements identified in
the Ames MTP include a shared-use path along Grand Avenue between 6th and
16th Street. The shared-use path project was identified as a fiscally constrained
bicycle and pedestrian path planned for completion in 2025-2029. This shared-
use path improvement would provide a continuous path facility from Lincoln Way
to Ada Hayden along with the section of shared-use path from Lincoln Way to 6th
Street that is programmed for fiscal year 2022/2023 of the CIP.
Safety Analysis
Source: Iowa DOT Draft Safety Analysis Guide and ICAT Crash Data (2015-2019)
Traffic Counts & Operations
Grand Avenue traffic volumes are projected to grow by 10% by year 2045 and
9th Street is projected to grow by 20%. Existing operations are LOS ‘A’ during
AM and PM peak hours and expected to remain at LOS ‘A’ in year 2045 no -build
conditions.
Page | 4
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Page | 5
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 13th Street
The intersection of Grand Avenue & 13th Street has consistently been one of the
most congested locations in the city for years. Traffic volumes are relatively high
on all approaches, particularly Grand Avenue. The traffic signal operates with
split signal phasing for north-south traffic because of shared through/left-turn
lanes with heavy turning traffic volumes. The east-west approaches also have
shared through/left-turn lanes, creating slowing/stopped traffic in the inside
through lanes on 13th Street. Widening options are constrained by ROW and
utilities adjacent to the street. The Traffic System Capacity Improvements section
of the CIP includes the addition of turn-lanes, which are scheduled for design
and ROW in years 2024/2025 and construction in years 2025/2026. Additionally,
the MTP identified a shared-use path along Grand Avenue between 6th and 16th
Street that was identified as a fiscally constrained bicycle and pedestrian path
planned for completion in 2025-2029.
Safety Analysis
Source: Iowa DOT Draft Safety Analysis Guide and ICAT Crash Data (2015-2019)
Traffic Counts & Operations
Grand Avenue traffic volumes are projected to grow by 10% by year 2045 and
13th Street is projected to grow by 30%. Existing PM peak hour operations are
LOS ‘D’ due to northbound/southbound split phasing. Operations are expected
to degrade further by year 2045 and approach LOS ‘E’. Existing queue lengths
on Grand Avenue and 13th Street are expected to increase by 100’ by year 2045
to ~550’ on Grand Avenue and ~350’ on 13th Street during the PM peak hour.
Page | 6
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Page | 7
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 16th Street
The 16th Street stop-controlled approaches to Grand Avenue experience high
delays. 16th Street also serves as an east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossing
of Grand Avenue due to vulnerable road user concerns of using the adjacent
east-west corridors and signalized crossings on Grand Avenue at 13th Street and
20th Street. The Multimodal Roadway Improvements section of the CIP includes
an enhanced intersection crossing planned for implementation in years
2023/2024. Additionally, the MTP identified a shared-use path along Grand
Avenue between 6th and 16th Street that was identified as a fiscally constrained
bicycle and pedestrian path planned for completion in 2025-2029.
Safety Analysis
Source: Iowa DOT Draft Safety Analysis Guide and ICAT Crash Data (2015-2019)
Traffic Counts & Operations
Grand Avenue traffic volumes are projected to grow by 10% by year 2045 and
16th Street is projected to grow by 20%. Existing operations are LOS ‘E’ for side
street stopped traffic during the PM peak hour due to limited gaps in traffic on
Grand Avenue to allow for 16th Street traffic to turn onto or cross Grand Avenue.
Operations are expected to degrade further by year 2045 to LOS ‘F’ during the
PM peak hour. Note that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection.
Page | 8
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Page | 9
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 20th Street
The intersection of Grand Avenue & 20th Street experiences a moderate level of
pedestrian and bicycle travel. There are three schools located along the 20th
Street corridor within a half mile of Grand Avenue. 20th Street is also a designated
bicycle-friendly street and has bike lanes planned for the corridor in the 2045
MTP from Ames High School to Duff Avenue. Other previously planned
improvements include the addition of left-turn lanes and signal improvements
projected in the MTP as short-term projects (2025-2029).
Safety Analysis
Source: Iowa DOT Draft Safety Analysis Guide and ICAT Crash Data (2015-2019)
Traffic Counts & Operations
Grand Avenue traffic volumes are projected to grow by 10% by year 2045 and
20th Street is projected to grow by 20%. Existing operations are LOS ‘A’ during
AM and PM peak hours and expected to remain at LOS ‘A’ in year 2045 no -build
conditions.
Page | 10
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Page | 11
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 24th Street
The intersection of Grand Avenue & 24th Street has shared through/left-turn lanes
for the east-west approaches, creating slowing/stopped traffic in the inside
through lanes on 24th Street. On the east side of Grand Avenue, 24th Street
quickly transitions from a four-lane roadway to a two-lane roadway. The
intersection experiences a moderate level of pedestrian and bicycle travel as a
result of the existing side path along the south side of 24 th Street west of Grand
Avenue and adjacent North Grand Mall. Previously planned improvements
identified in the MTP include a shared-use path on the south side of 24th Street
from Grand Avenue to Duff Avenue planned for completion in 2025-2029.
Safety Analysis
Source: Iowa DOT Draft Safety Analysis Guide and ICAT Crash Data (2015-2019)
Traffic Counts & Operations
Grand Avenue and 24th Street traffic volumes are projected to grow by 10% by
year 2045. Existing operations are LOS ‘B’ during AM and PM peak hours and
expected to remain at LOS ‘B’ in year 2045 no-build conditions.
Page | 12
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Page | 13
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
4. Improvements Summary & Implementation Plan
The following Grand Avenue intersection improvements are summarized by
intersection and type of improvement in Table 1.
Key
Improvements
Intersection
Grand Avenue &
9th Street
Grand Avenue &
13th Street
Grand Avenue &
16th Street
Grand Avenue &
20th Street
Grand Avenue &
24th Street
Add Left-Turn
Lanes All Directions Northbound &
Southbound Lefts
Restripe to
Include Left-Turn
Lanes
Eastbound &
Westbound Lefts
Eastbound &
Westbound Lefts
Raised Median
On Grand Avenue
Through
Intersection
Three-Lane Road Grand Avenue to
Jensen Avenue
Shared-Use Path
Along Grand
Avenue
(West Side)
Along Grand
Avenue
(West Side)
Along Grand
Avenue
(West Side)
Along 20th Street
(South Side)
Along 24th Street
(South Side)
New Traffic
Signal New Mast Arms for
All Approaches New Mast Arms for
All Approaches
Coordinate Signal
System
Northbound &
Southbound
Progression
Northbound &
Southbound
Progression
Northbound &
Southbound
Progression
Northbound &
Southbound
Progression
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
All Pedestrian
Movements
All Pedestrian
Movements All Pedestrian
Movements
All Pedestrian
Movements
Update Yellow
and Red Time All Directions Eastbound &
Westbound
Dedicated Left-
Turn Signal
Phasing
All Lefts Northbound &
Southbound Lefts
Table 1. Summary of Key Improvements
Page | 14
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Cost Summary & Implementation Plan
Next steps for improvements at each study intersection are summarized below.
Note that each individual project is expected to go through its own public input
process as part of the preliminary and final design.
9th Street and Grand Avenue
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $70,000 with no ROW acquisition required
• Next Steps: Program the shared-use path improvements on Grand Avenue
through the Shared-Use Path System Expansion Program in a future CIP
13th Street and Grand Avenue
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $2.8 million, including two property
acquisition in the northwest quadrant and minor ROW acquisition on the
remaining quadrants
• Next Steps:
o Preliminary and final design of improvements and ROW acquisition
o Per the CIP, design and ROW is scheduled for years 2024/2025 and
construction is scheduled for years 2025/2026
16th Street and Grand Avenue
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $54,000 with no ROW acquisition required
for improvements illustrated in this report (with 4-foot median);
Improvements to create a median on Grand Avenue wide enough to fit a
pedestrian refuge would require widening of Grand Avenue resulting in
order-of-magnitude costs near $180,000
• Next Steps:
o Additional study of intersection following improvements at Grand
Avenue & 13th Street and Grand Avenue & 20th Street to determine
travel pattern changes for all modes resulting from adjacent
intersection improvements
o Coordinate with CyRide and Iowa DOT for consistency of long-term
plans at the intersection.
o Reevaluate Grand Ave & 16th Street in the next MTP
20th Street and Grand Avenue
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $450,000 with no ROW acquisition required
• Next Steps:
o Program the roadway widening, restriping and traffic signal
replacement through the Traffic System Capacity Improvements
program in a future CIP
o Program the shared-use path improvements on Grand Avenue
through the Shared-Use Path System Expansion Program in a future
CIP
24th Street and Grand Avenue
• Planning-Level Cost Estimate: $600,000 with no ROW acquisition required
• Next Steps:
o Program the intersection restriping and traffic signal replacement
through the Traffic System Capacity Improvements program in a future
CIP
o Program the shared-use path improvements on Grand Avenue
through the Shared-Use Path System Expansion Program in a future
CIP
Appendix | A
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Appendix
• Grand Avenue & 9th Street Intersection Improvements
• Grand Avenue & 13th Street Intersection Improvements
• Grand Avenue & 16th Street Intersection Improvements
• Grand Avenue & 20th Street Intersection Improvements
• Grand Avenue & 24th Street Intersection Improvements
Appendix | A
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 9th Street Intersection Improvements
9th Street
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Appendix | A
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 13th Street Intersection Improvements
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
13th Street
Appendix | A
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 16th Street Intersection Improvements
16th Street
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Appendix | A
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 20th Street Intersection Improvements
20t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Grand Avenue
Appendix | A
Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements Study
Report & Implementation Plan
Grand Avenue & 24th Street Intersection Improvements
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
24th Street
1
Staff Report
CONCEPTUAL PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG STANGE ROAD
NEAR CRESCENT PARK IN THE SOMERSET AREA
October 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Traffic speed and pedestrian safety have been an ongoing issue for residents in the
Somerset area near Crescent Park in the section of Stange Road between Aspen Road
and Northridge Parkway. On December 22, 2015, staff presented a study of the
pedestrian crossings along Stange Road to the City Council (Attachment 4). The result
was installing a set of dynamic speed feedback signs, high visibility crosswalk markings,
and warning signs. Those improvements have been in place since 2015. However, over
the past several years, staff has continued to receive periodic complaints on conflicts
between vehicles, bikers, and pedestrians.
Most recently, On June 14, 2022, City Council referred an email from Janet Brimeyer,
Kris Scheppler, and Sandra Quintero regarding pedestrian safety concerns in the
Somerset area. City Council requested a memo detailing where along Stange Road
there should be a beacon or other calming measure added. Considering staff has
implemented all practicable low-cost improvements already, it is believed that
installing further traffic calming improvements, such as a flashing beacon, will
have minimal effect. Therefore, this report will identify additional capital
improvements that focus on walkability and bikeability of the area that could
lessen complaints.
CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STANGE CRESCENT AREA:
Staff began this process by reviewing the current counts [vehicle, bikes, pedestrians],
traffic speed, and accident data. While the Iowa DOT crash data has not shown any
pedestrian or bicycle crashes in the available history, there are numerous reports of
near misses or other close encounters with vehicles. These reports are likely related to
the limited sight distance from curves in the roadway and the complexity of having four
lanes of traffic when mixing with pedestrian and bike crossings. This can be worsened
at nighttime or other low visibility conditions. Therefore, staff believes some capital
improvements could be made to lessen the stress of road crossings and simplify
interactions between all modes.
Also, staff consulted the original Somerset Village Master Plan layouts developed in
1996. It is clear in that master plan, which a well-known walkability expert designed, that
Stange Road was intended to be a two-lane boulevard roadway with street parking (see
Attachment 1, page 2). However, from the master plan to the final design, Stange Road
was changed to a four-lane road with parking in some areas.
Item No. 24
2
The data collected over the past several years support the premise that many
pedestrian and bike safety issues may have resulted from the four-lane configuration.
This is due to the increased exposure for pedestrians crossing four or more lanes worth
of pavement. Multiple lanes also allow faster and more aggressive driving behavior
especially when the traffic volumes are significantly lower than the capacity of the road.
This is the risk of overbuilding the roadway, an issue that has been greatly minimized
due to the improvement in traffic modeling over the last ten or more years.
The Ames Area MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan “Forward 45” shows that
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Stange Road in the Somerset area are
approximately 7,000 ADT. In the future, by 2045 the traffic volumes are expected to
reach about 8,400 ADT. It should be noted that a two-lane road with turn lanes can
adequately serve up to a range of 15,000 to 18,000 ADT. Four lanes, two through lanes
in each direction, are not likely needed to serve traffic until the ADT reaches
approximately 20,000 or more. These thresholds can vary depending on the number of
trucks [heavy vehicles] or if there is a high proportion of turn traffic. Stange Road, with
forecasted traffic of 8,400, is expected to operate adequately with one lane in
each direction for the foreseeable future.
It appears from the Somerset Village Master Plan that Stange Road was originally
thought to be the main route through the residential area. However, over time the
area has developed into more of a destination commercial district (evening
restaurant and entertainment users). However, Ames also continues to see a demand
for commuter routes for workers coming into Ames from the Northwest along Cameron
School Road to GW Carver. Staff believes it would best serve existing land uses if
GW Carver (both north and south of Bloomington Rd) was prioritized as the
commuter route for through traffic and alternatively, an emphasis on access,
including walking and biking, be put on Stange Road to serve the local
businesses.
Therefore, staff has developed a conceptual design that seeks to bring the
existing infrastructure closer to what was originally planned for the Stange
Crescent area. Generally, this would include taking the outer through and parallel
parking lanes on Stange Road and converting them to back-in angled parking
(considered a bike-friendly parking configuration). The Stange Road intersections of
Aspen Road and Northridge Parkway would be narrowed at the pedestrian crossings to
minimize exposure, and all-way stops would be implemented to clarify the right-of-way
for all users. Finally, the Crescent Park area would be converted into a combined transit
stop and pedestrian mid-block crossing.
It is important to note that the Crescent Park area is currently owned by the Somerset
Property Owner’s Association and if this concept is to move forward, this issue will need
to be addressed with them prior to construction. The improvements in the middle of the
Crescent Park area would be accessed from either side of Stange using Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Also, this treatment is expected to lower the stress of
crossing Stange while improving accessibility to existing transit stops. Currently, transit
3
riders must walk through parked cars while the bus waits in a travel lane of Stange.
Attachment 2 shows these conceptual changes.
The changes are anticipated to add 15 parking spaces, which includes the addition of 4
ADA Accessible stalls. The estimated project cost for design, administration, and
construction is $375,000.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON G. W. CARVER (ASPEN ROAD, NORTHRIDGE
PARKWAY):
In addition to improving pedestrian and bike access near Crescent Park, another
desired outcome of modifying the Stange Road infrastructure will be to deter through
traffic from using this route. GW Carver is designed and situated to provide an
appropriate bypass for commuter traffic. However, staff has also received concerns
from adjacent subdivision residents walking across GW Carver to Somerset
through the Aspen or Northridge Parkway intersections. Therefore, some
improvements could be made to those critical crossing points along the route.
In 2016 staff utilized the Accessibility Enhancement Program of the CIP to install an
East-West crossing on the north side of the GW Carver and Northridge Parkway
intersection. The Aspen Road intersection also needs a crossing. To be proactive, City
Council could choose to program the installation of any missing pedestrian
infrastructure at these intersections to bring both locations up to current
standards. Also, both crossings are prime candidates for RRFB crossing treatments
due to traffic speed and volumes. The installation of enhanced crossing treatments is
expected to provide the necessary level of pedestrian (and bike) crossing
accommodations. A sketch showing the locations of these two intersections has been
provided in Attachment 3.
Those changes are expected to improve the safety and visibility of the crossings given
the potential shifting of commuter traffic from Stange to G. W. Carver. Staff expects to
monitor these changes and make any adjustments needed to keep the crossings
working as designed.
The additional pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, and two RRFB installations along
Carver are estimated to cost $60,000. These improvements can come from
available funds from the Accessibility Enhancement Program and are
recommended for installation regardless of what changes may or may not happen
on Stange Road.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff would recommend that the next step in the process be to reach out to various
stakeholders to get feedback on the proposed concept. If City Council finds merit in the
proposals, staff would speak with the various associations in the Somerset area,
CyRide, and other interested parties that could help refine the final conceptual design. If
4
the Council chooses to proceed with any of these suggested improvements, they
will need to be prioritized with all other capital needs of the City, so the exact year
a project could be programmed is yet unknown. These improvements would need
to be ranked with other proposed projects and occur when funding is available. If
the project is funded by programming in a specific fiscal year of the CIP, staff will follow
the typical design process, including holding project meetings so the public will have
another opportunity to inform the final design before construction.
With this report, staff is seeking City Council direction on the Stange Crescent
and GW Carver crossing improvements and for staff to hold stakeholder
meetings as well as discussions with CyRide to finalize the scope of the
improvements. If City Council chooses, this could be accomplished by a motion
directing staff to proceed with the process described in this report.
COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY
Meeting Date: June 14, 2022
Agenda Item #: Disposition
SUBJECT:Emails from Janet Brimeyer, Kris Scheppler, and Sandra Quintero regarding
Pedestrian Safety Concerns in the Somerset area
ACTION TAKEN:Referred to staff for a memo detailing where along Stange Road there should
be a beacon or other calming measure added
MOTION BY:Beatty-Hansen
SECOND BY:Corrieri
VOTING AYE:Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins
VOTING NAY:None
ABSENT:Junck
By:Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk
Sent to:John Joiner, Public Works Director
Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer
Northridge Pkwy
Aspen Rd
Proposed = 26 + 2 ADA Angled Stalls
Existing = Approx. 18 Parallel Stalls
East Side:
Proposed = 23 + 2 ADA Angled Stalls
Existing = Approx. 20 Parallel Stalls
West Side:
BUS
BUS
FA
L
C
O
N
A
V
E
AS
H
T
O
N
D
R
EDENBURN DR
FA
R
N
H
A
M
D
R
GR
A
Y
H
A
W
K
A
V
E
ASPEN RD KE
N
T
A
V
E
ST
A
N
G
E
R
D
RI
D
G
E
T
O
P
R
D
VA
L
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
R
D
GE
O
R
G
E
W
C
A
R
V
E
R
A
V
E
CLAYTON DR
BRISTOL DR
NORTHRIDGE PKWY
BAYBERRY RD
24TH ST
BLOOMINGTON RD
KINGSTON DR
ROXBORO DR
ALMOND RD
CAMDEN DR
HY
D
E
A
V
E
PINE
H
U
R
S
T
D
R
LO
N
D
O
N
D
R
EVERG
R
E
E
N
R
D
CH
I
L
T
O
N
A
V
E
DALTON ST
CAMBRI
D
G
E
D
R
SYCAMORE RD
CU
L
L
E
N
D
R
YORKSHIRE ST
GREENWOOD RD
WELBECK DR
MAPLE
W
O
O
D
R
D
TUPELO CIR
BR
I
D
G
E
P
O
R
T
D
R
HAMPTON STRIDGETOP CIR
SU
M
A
C
C
I
R
N 1 inch = 600 feet
XY
XY
XY
1
Item # 23
Staff Report
UPDATE ON STANGE CRESCENT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY
(NORTHRIDGE PARKWAY AND ASPEN ROAD)
December 22, 2015
BACKGROUND:
The City Council referred a letter from the Somerset Home Owners Association
requesting that staff look into improving pedestrian crossing safety at the intersection of
Stange Avenue and Northridge Parkway. Though the first and primary focus was on the
Northridge Parkway intersection, the study included Aspen Road as it has similar
issues. In response, staff began by attending the annual meeting of the Somerset’s
association to discuss the process and to hear the experiences of the neighborhood.
The general consensus at the meeting is that the east-west crosswalks needed to be
marked and that depending on the time of day there are factors that cause traffic safety
issues for those intersections adjacent to the Crescent Park.
Staff collected data on traffic volumes, traffic speeds, and a crash history for Northridge
Parkway and Aspen Road intersections. This data was used to conduct a safety
analysis and to evaluate the intersections for traffic control warrants. A brief summary of
the findings is shown below.
Traffic Volumes/Mode Split
Data was collected during the month of September while ISU was in session. It was
also important that data was collected during a period of warm weather as most of the
concerns occur when there is high pedestrian and bicycling activity.
Ranking by Volume Northridge Pkwy Aspen Rd Overall
Cars 83.6% 81.3% 82.5%
SUV’s 9.7% 11.6% 10.5%
Pedestrians 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Buses 1.1% 1.4% 1.2%
Bicycles on Crosswalk 1.0% 1.1% 1.0%
Single-Unit Trucks 0.8% 0.5% 0.7%
Motorcycles 0.6% 0.5% 0.6%
Bicycles on Road 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%
Articulated Trucks 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Daily Traffic = 11,200 9,200 20,400
As shown in the table there are higher than typical pedestrian volumes (~1%) in the
area of Crescents Park. The data also showed that there are as high as 40+
2
pedestrians per hour at its peak, with an average of approximately 10 pedestrians per
hour. This is an important metric when comparing it against the volume and behavior of
motorized traffic that travels through the area. The main purpose of vehicles traveling on
Stange Road (Arterial Street) appears to be commuter traffic, whose focus is on moving
through the area as efficiently as possible.
Therefore, based upon those factors it supported the request to install marked
crosswalks at Northridge Parkway and Aspen Road intersections. Based on the
data that justified this improvement, City staff installed high-visibility pavement
markings, as well as advance warning signs with warning signs at each
respective crossing. Since that time staff has conducted several field studies to
observe how the signs and markings are performing. It appears that there is a
significant improvement in drivers’ willingness to yield to pedestrians. The
improvements also seem to help show pedestrians were they should be walking through
the intersection, whereas before pedestrians would often take a more circuitous route in
order to seek refuge in the median.
The data collected also provided turning movement counts for both intersections that
enabled staff to evaluate traffic control warrants. Data was entered into traffic warrant
analysis software in order to determine if any additional traffic control measures should
be implemented; specifically, if an all-way stop or traffic signal would be needed.
Currently, both intersections are two-way stop controlled, which stops east-west traffic
at each respective intersection. It is notable that neither of the two intersections
warrant an all-way stop or traffic signal. Attached to this report is a summary
showing the detailed evaluation of each warrant analysis.
Traffic Speeds (Stange Road)
Another area of concern is related to the speed of traffic entering the Crescent Park
area. Many comments from the neighborhood described poor compliance with the
posted 25 MPH speed zone. Data was collected to determine the current speed
distributions of the traffic both entering and exiting through the area. Attachment 1
shows graphs that compare the distributions, by direction, of speed on Stange Road at
Aspen Road and Northridge Parkway.
Generally, the data shows that there is relatively good compliance with the
posted speed limit of those vehicles entering Crescent Park area. However, the
data does indicate that speeds pick up slightly as vehicles leave the area. The
following table summarizes the amount of traffic that is exceeding the posted speed limit
by 10 MPH or more:
3
The Northridge Parkway intersection is noticeably more consistent in comparison to the
Aspen Road intersection. It should be noted that when this percentage exceeds 5%
of the distribution it becomes recommended to apply some sort of traffic calming
method to correct the behavior. It was suggested by members of the Homeowner’s
Association that the City consider installing dynamic feedback signs similar to those
used along North Duff Avenue in the Historical Old Town District . It has been the
experience of the public and staff alike that those treatments appear to make
significant improvement along arterial streets where physical improvements
cannot be installed.
Crash History (2005-2015)
In the course of this study staff conducted a thorough review of the crash history for the
intersections as well as for the area around Crescent Park. First, the Northridge
Parkway intersection consistently averages 1.3 crash per year (14 crashes in 11 years).
The crashes did not involve any bicyclists or pedestrians. The crash types include failing
to yield from the stops signs, rear-end, and non-collision type accidents. It should be
noted that non-collision crashes are typically a single vehicle hitting a roadside feature.
Second, between the intersections around the Crescent Park area there were 3
crashes; 2 in 2007 and 1 in 2014. The types of crashes were side swipes and a non-
collision. Crashes were related to the parallel parking stalls and the curvature of the
street.
Finally, the Aspen Road intersection has seen one accident in the past 10 years. It was
a non-collision crash that occurred in 2009. The police report indicated that the road
was covered in ice and the driver lost control of their vehicle. Alcohol was not a factor in
the crash.
In general, the crash history does not indicate any significant pattern or type of
crash that could be mitigated by any particular engineering solution that
maintains the intersections as full-access. Therefore, the crash history was not a
factor in developing recommendations reflected in this study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
During the course of this study, staff reviewed a past traffic study that was presented to
City Council on December 12, 2006. The study looked at these same issues around the
Crescent Park area of Stange Road. What is noteworthy for comparative purposes is
that there appears to be a 5% increase in operating speeds along Stange Road (an
increase of ~1.5 MPH) in comparison with the 2006 data. It was also determined that
there has been a 40% increase in traffic over the last 10 years, or approximately 3.4%
annual growth rate.
For reference, the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan documented that Ames
experiences an overall annual growth of 0.8%. Therefore, this area of Ames has seen
4
significant growth, which is mainly due to the fact that the remaining vacate
properties in Somerset have now been in-filled with new businesses.
The data supports the need for some method to mitigate traffic speeds in order to
reduce the inconsistency in northbound-southbound traffic. Therefore, is it staff's
recommendation that a pair of dynamic feedback signs be installed around the
Crescent Park of Stange Road. This solution could be implemented in the short-term
that would improve the safety and operations for all users alike. The cost of these two
devices will total $10,000. Staff believes the installation of feedback signs, coupled
with the new designated crosswalks and warnings signs, should improve
operations and safety in this area in short-term.
It should be noted that any other improvements to the intersections will require changes
that could significantly impact the geometry and/or parking in the area. Therefore,
should the operations or safety needs become significantly worse in the future, Staff
would recommend a larger study be performed that focuses on how the infrastructure
could be reconfigured to address the situation at that time.
5
0.0%
85.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5 15 25 35 45
Vo
l
u
m
e
Speed (MPH)
Stange Rd & Aspen Rd:
Speed vs. Volumes
NB
SB
NB %
SB %
0.0%
85.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5 15 25 35 45
Vo
l
u
m
e
Speed (MPH)
Stange Rd & Northridge Pkwy:
Speed vs. Volumes
NB
SB
NB %
SB %
Attachment 1
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrants Summary Report
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
spen Rd
EB/WB
1
25
Met? NotesWarrant
Warrant 1, Ei ht-Hour Vehicular Volume
No
Condition A or B Met No 0 Hours met 8 required
Condition A and B M No 0 Hours met 8 required
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
No 0 Hours met 4 required
Warrant 3, Peak Hou
No
Condition A Met?No 0 Hours met 1 required
Condition B Met?No 0 Hours met 1 required
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
No
Condition A Met?No 0 Hours met 4 required
Condition B Met?No 0 Hours met 1 required
Warrant 5, School Crossin
No
1Federal 2009
Warrant 6, Coordinated Si nal S stem
No
Warrant 7, Crash Ex erience
No
Traffic Volume Cond No 0 Hours met 8 required
Ped Condition?No 0 Hours met 8 required
Warrant 8, Roadwa Network
No
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossin
No
AWSC Warrant, Multiwa Sto A lication
No
Condition A Met?No
Condition B Met?No
Condition C Met?No
2Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 1: Eight-hour Vehicular Volume
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name:
Major Street Direction:
Minor Street Direction:
WARRANT 1 MET?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
No
Details:
Condition A Met?
Condition B Met?
No 0 Hours met 8 required
No 0 Hours met 8 required
Hou Major Street Vehicles
(Total of Both Approaches)
High Volume Minor
Approach Vehicles
100% Standard Met?
Cond. A OR Cond. B
80% Standard Met?
Cond. A AND Cond. B
Condition A
100%
Column
Condition B
100%
Column
Condition A
80%
Column
Condition B
80%
Column
00:00 to 01:00 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
00:15 to 01:15 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
00:30 to 01:30 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
00:45 to 01:45 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
3Federal 2009
07:00 to 08:00 524
No
Yes
38
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
07:15 to 08:15 554
No
Yes
34
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
07:30 to 08:30 554
No
Yes
36
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
07:45 to 08:45 542
No
Yes
34
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
08:00 to 09:00 523
No
Yes
33
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
08:15 to 09:15 512
No
Yes
32
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
08:30 to 09:30 476
No
No
29
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
4Federal 2009
08:45 to 09:45 445
No
No
27
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
09:00 to 10:00 409
No
No
27
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
09:15 to 10:15 378
No
No
31
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
09:30 to 10:30 364
No
No
43
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
09:45 to 10:45 346
No
No
39
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
10:00 to 11:00 356
No
No
38
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
10:15 to 11:15 358
No
No
31
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
5Federal 2009
10:30 to 11:30 395
No
No
27
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
10:45 to 11:45 454
No
No
29
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
11:00 to 12:00 491
No
Yes
26
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
11:15 to 12:15 533
No
Yes
26
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
11:30 to 12:30 520
No
Yes
33
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
11:45 to 12:45 504
No
Yes
42
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
12:00 to 13:00 502
No
Yes
46
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
6Federal 2009
12:15 to 13:15 493
No
Yes
49
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
12:30 to 13:30 493
No
Yes
47
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
12:45 to 13:45 459
No
No
40
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
13:00 to 14:00 431
No
No
34
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
13:15 to 14:15 405
No
No
36
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
13:30 to 14:30 383
No
No
36
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
13:45 to 14:45 398
No
No
32
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
7Federal 2009
14:00 to 15:00 387
No
No
41
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
14:15 to 15:15 409
No
No
38
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
14:30 to 15:30 432
No
No
41
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
14:45 to 15:45 475
No
No
44
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
15:00 to 16:00 524
No
Yes
44
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
15:15 to 16:15 595
No
Yes
42
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
15:30 to 16:30 627
Yes
Yes
43
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
8Federal 2009
15:45 to 16:45 624
Yes
Yes
35
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
16:00 to 17:00 655
Yes
Yes
36
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
16:15 to 17:15 673
Yes
Yes
43
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
16:30 to 17:30 756
Yes
Yes
47
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
Yes
No No No No
16:45 to 17:45 802
Yes
Yes
51
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
Yes
No No No No
17:00 to 18:00 810
Yes
Yes
47
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
Yes
No No No No
17:15 to 18:15 777
Yes
Yes
46
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
Yes
No No No No
9Federal 2009
17:30 to 18:30 698
Yes
Yes
45
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
17:45 to 18:45 642
Yes
Yes
47
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
18:00 to 19:00 610
Yes
Yes
50
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
18:15 to 19:15 572
No
Yes
46
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
18:30 to 19:30 560
No
Yes
46
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
18:45 to 19:45 527
No
Yes
42
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
19:00 to 20:00 474
No
No
35
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
10Federal 2009
19:15 to 20:15 409
No
No
30
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
19:30 to 20:30 346
No
No
24
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
19:45 to 20:45 310
No
No
27
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
20:00 to 21:00 270
No
No
28
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
20:15 to 21:15 276
No
No
38
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
20:30 to 21:30 258
No
No
30
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
20:45 to 21:45 222
No
No
26
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
11Federal 2009
21:00 to 22:00 202
No
No
22
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
21:15 to 22:15 162
No
No
15
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
21:30 to 22:30 136
No
No
10
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
21:45 to 22:45 127
No
No
11
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
22:00 to 23:00 112
No
No
9
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
22:15 to 23:15 102
No
No
6
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
22:30 to 23:30 95
No
No
6
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
12Federal 2009
22:45 to 23:45 77
No
No
3
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:00 to 00:00 68
No
No
2
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:15 to 00:15 47
No
No
1
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:30 to 00:30 25
No
No
1
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:45 to 00:45 13
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
13Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 2: Four-hour Vehicular Volume
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
spen Rd
EB/WB
1
25
NoWarrant 2 Met?
Details:
Notes
Low populatio No
0 Hours met 4 required
14Federal 2009
Hourly Volumes
Hou
Major Street
Total All
Approaches (vph)
Minor Street
Highest Volume
Approach (vph)
00:00:00 - 01:00:00 0.00 0.00
01:00:00 - 02:00:00 0.00 0.00
02:00:00 - 03:00:00 0.00 0.00
03:00:00 - 04:00:00 0.00 0.00
04:00:00 - 05:00:00 0.00 0.00
05:00:00 - 06:00:00 0.00 0.00
06:00:00 - 07:00:00 0.00 0.00
07:00:00 - 08:00:00 524.00 38.00
08:00:00 - 09:00:00 523.00 33.00
09:00:00 - 10:00:00 409.00 27.00
10:00:00 - 11:00:00 356.00 38.00
11:00:00 - 12:00:00 491.00 26.00
12:00:00 - 13:00:00 502.00 46.00
13:00:00 - 14:00:00 431.00 34.00
14:00:00 - 15:00:00 387.00 41.00
15:00:00 - 16:00:00 524.00 44.00
16:00:00 - 17:00:00 655.00 36.00
17:00:00 - 18:00:00 810.00 47.00
18:00:00 - 19:00:00 610.00 50.00
19:00:00 - 20:00:00 474.00 35.00
20:00:00 - 21:00:00 270.00 28.00
21:00:00 - 22:00:00 202.00 22.00
22:00:00 - 23:00:00 112.00 9.00
23:00:00 - 00:00:00 68.00 2.00
Hou
Warranted Volumes
Major Street
Total All
Approaches (vph)
Minor Street
Highest Volume
Approach (vph)
15Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Warrant 3 Met?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
spen Rd
EB/WB
1
25
No
Details
Low Population
Condition A Met
Notes
Condition B Met
Notes
Minor Approach Time Delay Condition Met?
Minor Approach Volume Condition Met?
Total Entering Intersection Volume Condition Met?
No
0 Hours met 1 required
No
0 Hours met 1 required
Met
Not Met
Met
No
16Federal 2009
Major Street
Total All
Approaches (vph)
Minor Street
Highest Volume
Approach (vph)
Hour
0:00 0 0
7:00 524 38
8:00 523 33
9:00 409 27
10:00 356 38
11:00 491 26
12:00 502 46
13:00 431 34
14:00 387 41
15:00 524 44
16:00 655 36
17:00 810 47
18:00 610 50
19:00 474 35
20:00 270 28
21:00 202 22
22:00 112 9
23:00 68 2
17Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
spen Rd
EB/WB
1
25
WARRANT 4 MET No
Details
Pedestrian Four Hour Volume Warrant Met?
Pedestrian Peak Hour Warrant Met?Notes
Speed Limit or 85th Percentile Speed on Major Street > 35mph, or
Intersection lies within an Isolated Community with Population < 10,000?
No
No 0 Hours met 4 required
No
18Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 5: School Crossing
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 5 MET?No
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
Details:
Time Period Interval for Students Crossing (min)
Number of Students Crossing in Time Period
Number of Adequate Gaps in Time Period
0
0
0
Other Remedial Measures Attempted?No
d acent Si nal on NB approach?No
Distance to si nal on NB Approach ft -
d acent Si nal on SB approach?
Distance to si nal on SB Approach ft
No
-
Will New Signal Restrict Progressive Traffic?No
19Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 6 MET?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
No
Details:
Approach Direction & Name Acceptable
Platooning?
Adjacent
Coordinating
Signal?
Adjacent
Intersection
Distance
SB Approach Stan e Rd
Yes No N/
NB Approach Stan e Rd
Yes No N/
WB Approach Aspen Rd
Yes No N/
EB Approach Aspen Rd
Yes No N/
No
Unacceptable Platooning?
(At least one approach)
Distance to Closest Signal
(Must be N/A or > 1000)
N/A
20Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 7 MET?
Minor Street Direction
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
No
Details:
Ped Volume Condition Met?
Traffic Volume Condition Met?
Adequate Alternative Trials?
Qualifying Crashes
Major Street Speed Limit
Major Street 85th-% tile Speed
Low Population?No
25
30.00
No
0
No
0 Hours Met 8 Required
No
0 Hours Met 8 Required
Hou
Traffic Volumes Pedestrian Volumes
Major
Street
Vehicles
Minor
Street
Vehicles
80% Standard Met?
A or B
Conditio
n A
Condition
B
Eastbound Ped Volumes Westbound Ped Volumes
PedsPeds > 80? > 80?
00:00 to 01:00 0 0 No No 0 0No No
00:15 to 01:15 0 0 No No 0 0No No
00:30 to 01:30 0 0 No No 0 0No No
00:45 to 01:45 0 0 No No 0 0No No
07:00 to 08:00 524 0 No No 0 0No No
07:15 to 08:15 554 0 No No 0 0No No
07:30 to 08:30 554 0 No No 0 0No No
07:45 to 08:45 542 0 No No 0 0No No
21Federal 2009
08:00 to 09:00 523 0 No No 0 0No No
08:15 to 09:15 512 0 No No 0 0No No
08:30 to 09:30 476 0 No No 0 0No No
08:45 to 09:45 445 0 No No 0 0No No
09:00 to 10:00 409 0 No No 0 0No No
09:15 to 10:15 378 0 No No 0 0No No
09:30 to 10:30 364 0 No No 0 0No No
09:45 to 10:45 346 0 No No 0 0No No
10:00 to 11:00 356 0 No No 0 0No No
10:15 to 11:15 358 0 No No 0 0No No
10:30 to 11:30 395 0 No No 0 0No No
10:45 to 11:45 454 0 No No 0 0No No
11:00 to 12:00 491 0 No No 0 0No No
11:15 to 12:15 533 0 No No 0 0No No
11:30 to 12:30 520 0 No No 0 0No No
11:45 to 12:45 504 0 No No 0 0No No
12:00 to 13:00 502 0 No No 0 0No No
12:15 to 13:15 493 0 No No 0 0No No
22Federal 2009
12:30 to 13:30 493 0 No No 0 0No No
12:45 to 13:45 459 0 No No 0 0No No
13:00 to 14:00 431 0 No No 0 0No No
13:15 to 14:15 405 0 No No 0 0No No
13:30 to 14:30 383 0 No No 0 0No No
13:45 to 14:45 398 0 No No 0 0No No
14:00 to 15:00 387 0 No No 0 0No No
14:15 to 15:15 409 0 No No 0 0No No
14:30 to 15:30 432 0 No No 0 0No No
14:45 to 15:45 475 0 No No 0 0No No
15:00 to 16:00 524 0 No No 0 0No No
15:15 to 16:15 595 0 No No 0 0No No
15:30 to 16:30 627 0 No No 0 0No No
15:45 to 16:45 624 0 No No 0 0No No
16:00 to 17:00 655 0 No No 0 0No No
16:15 to 17:15 673 0 No No 0 0No No
16:30 to 17:30 756 0 No No 0 0No No
16:45 to 17:45 802 0 No No 0 0No No
23Federal 2009
17:00 to 18:00 810 0 No No 0 0No No
17:15 to 18:15 777 0 No No 0 0No No
17:30 to 18:30 698 0 No No 0 0No No
17:45 to 18:45 642 0 No No 0 0No No
18:00 to 19:00 610 0 No No 0 0No No
18:15 to 19:15 572 0 No No 0 0No No
18:30 to 19:30 560 0 No No 0 0No No
18:45 to 19:45 527 0 No No 0 0No No
19:00 to 20:00 474 0 No No 0 0No No
19:15 to 20:15 409 0 No No 0 0No No
19:30 to 20:30 346 0 No No 0 0No No
19:45 to 20:45 310 0 No No 0 0No No
20:00 to 21:00 270 0 No No 0 0No No
20:15 to 21:15 276 0 No No 0 0No No
20:30 to 21:30 258 0 No No 0 0No No
20:45 to 21:45 222 0 No No 0 0No No
21:00 to 22:00 202 0 No No 0 0No No
21:15 to 22:15 162 0 No No 0 0No No
24Federal 2009
21:30 to 22:30 136 0 No No 0 0No No
21:45 to 22:45 127 0 No No 0 0No No
22:00 to 23:00 112 0 No No 0 0No No
22:15 to 23:15 102 0 No No 0 0No No
22:30 to 23:30 95 0 No No 0 0No No
22:45 to 23:45 77 0 No No 0 0No No
23:00 to 00:00 68 0 No No 0 0No No
23:15 to 00:15 47 0 No No 0 0No No
23:30 to 00:30 25 0 No No 0 0No No
23:45 to 00:45 13 0 No No 0 0No No
25Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 8: Roadway Network
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 8 MET? ( A or B)
Minor Street Direction
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
No
Details:
Growth Rates % (per year)
NB SB EB WB
L
T
R
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Condition B, Non-normal Business DayCondition A, Total Entering Volume
Existing Peak Hour
Years
Future Peak Hour
Warrant 1 in 5 Years?
Warrant 2 in 5 Years?
Warrant 3 in 5 Years?
No
No
No
903
903
0.00
Existing Future
Highest Hour
Second Highest Hour
Third Highest Hour
Fourth Highest Hour
Fifth Highest Hour
Yearly Growth Rate (%)
Years
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
No NoCondition A Met?Condition B Met?
26Federal 2009
6: Stan e Rd & As en Rd
Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
WARRANT 9 MET ?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
spen Rd
EB/WB
1
25
No
Details
Note
Minor street approach having a grade crossing
No a roach with a railroad rade crossin
The rail traffic arrival times are uknown, the highest traffic volume hour of the day is used
Percentage of tractor-trailer trucks crossing the track (%)
Percentage of high-occupancy buses crossing the track (%
Number of occurences of rail traffic per day
Distance from the center of the track to the stop or yield line Interpolated
djustment Facto
djustment Facto
djustment Facto
Major Street
Total of Both Approaches (vph)Hour Minor Street
Adjusted Volume Crossing Tracks (vph)
27Federal 2009
6: Stange Rd & Aspen Rd
All-Way Stop Control Warrant: Multiway Stop Applications
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name:
Major Street Direction:
Minor Street Direction:
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
AWSC WARRANT MET No
Details:
Condition A Met?
Condition B Met?
Condition C Met?
No
No
No
Notes: 0 Hours Met 8 Required
Qualifying Crashes
Major Street 85th %-tile Speed
Major Street Speed Limit
0
30.00
25
Hou
Traffic Volumes Bicycle Volume Ped Volumes Condition C
Major
Street
Minor
Street
Major Street Minor Street
Veh Vol > 210 Avg(Veh + Ped
+ Bicycle) >
200
Delay
> 30
North
Bound
Bicycle
Volumes
East
Bound
Bicycle
Volumes
East
Bound
Ped
Volumes
North
Bound
Ped
Volumes
28Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrants Summary Report
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
Northrid e Pkw
EB/WB
1
25
Met? NotesWarrant
Warrant 1, Ei ht-Hour Vehicular Volume
No
Condition A or B Met No 1 Hours met 8 required
Condition A and B M No 0 Hours met 8 required
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
No 0 Hours met 4 required
Warrant 3, Peak Hou
No
Condition A Met?No 0 Hours met 1 required
Condition B Met?No 0 Hours met 1 required
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
No
Condition A Met?No 0 Hours met 4 required
Condition B Met?No 0 Hours met 1 required
Warrant 5, School Crossin
No
1Federal 2009
Warrant 6, Coordinated Si nal S stem
No
Warrant 7, Crash Ex erience
No
Traffic Volume Cond No 2 Hours met 8 required
Ped Condition?No 0 Hours met 8 required
Warrant 8, Roadwa Network
No
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossin
No
AWSC Warrant, Multiwa Sto A lication
No
Condition A Met?No
Condition B Met?No
Condition C Met?No
2Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 1: Eight-hour Vehicular Volume
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name:
Major Street Direction:
Minor Street Direction:
WARRANT 1 MET?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
No
Details:
Condition A Met?
Condition B Met?
No 1 Hours met 8 required
No 0 Hours met 8 required
Hou Major Street Vehicles
(Total of Both Approaches)
High Volume Minor
Approach Vehicles
100% Standard Met?
Cond. A OR Cond. B
80% Standard Met?
Cond. A AND Cond. B
Condition A
100%
Column
Condition B
100%
Column
Condition A
80%
Column
Condition B
80%
Column
00:00 to 01:00 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
00:15 to 01:15 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
00:30 to 01:30 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
00:45 to 01:45 0
No
No
0
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
3Federal 2009
07:00 to 08:00 577
No
Yes
67
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
07:15 to 08:15 609
Yes
Yes
65
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
07:30 to 08:30 593
No
Yes
62
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
07:45 to 08:45 570
No
Yes
62
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
08:00 to 09:00 555
No
Yes
63
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
08:15 to 09:15 536
No
Yes
69
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
08:30 to 09:30 503
No
Yes
80
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
4Federal 2009
08:45 to 09:45 485
No
Yes
78
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
09:00 to 10:00 430
No
No
72
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
09:15 to 10:15 418
No
No
75
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
09:30 to 10:30 408
No
No
66
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
09:45 to 10:45 404
No
No
70
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
10:00 to 11:00 410
No
No
77
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
10:15 to 11:15 421
No
No
79
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
5Federal 2009
10:30 to 11:30 472
No
No
81
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
10:45 to 11:45 496
No
Yes
72
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
11:00 to 12:00 521
No
Yes
74
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
11:15 to 12:15 553
No
Yes
84
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
11:30 to 12:30 539
No
Yes
87
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
11:45 to 12:45 594
No
Yes
99
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
12:00 to 13:00 609
Yes
Yes
104
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
6Federal 2009
12:15 to 13:15 602
Yes
Yes
105
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
12:30 to 13:30 582
No
Yes
100
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
12:45 to 13:45 537
No
Yes
109
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
13:00 to 14:00 509
No
Yes
98
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
13:15 to 14:15 493
No
Yes
88
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
13:30 to 14:30 505
No
Yes
90
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
13:45 to 14:45 492
No
Yes
76
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
7Federal 2009
14:00 to 15:00 478
No
No
74
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
14:15 to 15:15 466
No
No
74
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
14:30 to 15:30 460
No
No
73
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
14:45 to 15:45 478
No
No
78
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
15:00 to 16:00 536
No
Yes
79
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
15:15 to 16:15 583
No
Yes
72
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
15:30 to 16:30 633
Yes
Yes
76
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
8Federal 2009
15:45 to 16:45 697
Yes
Yes
72
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
16:00 to 17:00 758
Yes
Yes
75
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
16:15 to 17:15 811
Yes
Yes
87
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
16:30 to 17:30 882
Yes
Yes
90
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
16:45 to 17:45 902
Yes
Yes
86
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesYes
Yes
No Yes*No Yes
17:00 to 18:00 871
Yes
Yes
83
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
17:15 to 18:15 829
Yes
Yes
75
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
9Federal 2009
17:30 to 18:30 759
Yes
Yes
77
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
17:45 to 18:45 723
Yes
Yes
87
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
Yes
No No No Yes
18:00 to 19:00 666
Yes
Yes
93
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
18:15 to 19:15 647
Yes
Yes
98
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
18:30 to 19:30 608
Yes
Yes
92
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
18:45 to 19:45 553
No
Yes
86
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
19:00 to 20:00 529
No
Yes
86
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
10Federal 2009
19:15 to 20:15 480
No
Yes
90
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
19:30 to 20:30 443
No
No
104
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
19:45 to 20:45 424
No
No
95
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
20:00 to 21:00 391
No
No
93
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
20:15 to 21:15 354
No
No
81
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
YesNo
No
No No No No
20:30 to 21:30 314
No
No
66
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
20:45 to 21:45 271
No
No
68
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
11Federal 2009
21:00 to 22:00 233
No
No
62
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
21:15 to 22:15 211
No
No
60
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?Yes
NoNo
No
No No No No
21:30 to 22:30 189
No
No
54
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
21:45 to 22:45 157
No
No
45
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
22:00 to 23:00 143
No
No
30
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
22:15 to 23:15 124
No
No
23
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
22:30 to 23:30 104
No
No
11
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
12Federal 2009
22:45 to 23:45 80
No
No
8
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:00 to 00:00 66
No
No
6
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:15 to 00:15 41
No
No
2
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:30 to 00:30 27
No
No
1
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
23:45 to 00:45 14
No
No
1
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (600)?Condition A
Condition B
Volume >= 80%
column (480)?
No
No
Volume >= 100%
column (900)?
Volume >= 80%
column (720)?
Volume >= 100%
column (75)?
Volume >= 80%
column (60)?No
NoNo
No
No No No No
13Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 2: Four-hour Vehicular Volume
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
Northrid e Pkw
EB/WB
1
25
NoWarrant 2 Met?
Details:
Notes
Low populatio No
0 Hours met 4 required
14Federal 2009
Hourly Volumes
Hou
Major Street
Total All
Approaches (vph)
Minor Street
Highest Volume
Approach (vph)
00:00:00 - 01:00:00 0.00 0.00
01:00:00 - 02:00:00 0.00 0.00
02:00:00 - 03:00:00 0.00 0.00
03:00:00 - 04:00:00 0.00 0.00
04:00:00 - 05:00:00 0.00 0.00
05:00:00 - 06:00:00 0.00 0.00
06:00:00 - 07:00:00 0.00 0.00
07:00:00 - 08:00:00 577.00 67.00
08:00:00 - 09:00:00 555.00 63.00
09:00:00 - 10:00:00 430.00 72.00
10:00:00 - 11:00:00 410.00 77.00
11:00:00 - 12:00:00 521.00 74.00
12:00:00 - 13:00:00 609.00 104.00
13:00:00 - 14:00:00 509.00 98.00
14:00:00 - 15:00:00 478.00 74.00
15:00:00 - 16:00:00 536.00 79.00
16:00:00 - 17:00:00 758.00 75.00
17:00:00 - 18:00:00 871.00 83.00
18:00:00 - 19:00:00 666.00 93.00
19:00:00 - 20:00:00 529.00 86.00
20:00:00 - 21:00:00 391.00 93.00
21:00:00 - 22:00:00 233.00 62.00
22:00:00 - 23:00:00 143.00 30.00
23:00:00 - 00:00:00 66.00 6.00
Hou
Warranted Volumes
Major Street
Total All
Approaches (vph)
Minor Street
Highest Volume
Approach (vph)
15Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Warrant 3 Met?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
Northrid e Pkw
EB/WB
1
25
No
Details
Low Population
Condition A Met
Notes
Condition B Met
Notes
Minor Approach Time Delay Condition Met?
Minor Approach Volume Condition Met?
Total Entering Intersection Volume Condition Met?
No
0 Hours met 1 required
No
0 Hours met 1 required
Met
Not Met
Met
No
16Federal 2009
Major Street
Total All
Approaches (vph)
Minor Street
Highest Volume
Approach (vph)
Hour
0:00 0 0
7:00 577 67
8:00 555 63
9:00 430 72
10:00 410 77
11:00 521 74
12:00 609 104
13:00 509 98
14:00 478 74
15:00 536 79
16:00 758 75
17:00 871 83
18:00 666 93
19:00 529 86
20:00 391 93
21:00 233 62
22:00 143 30
23:00 66 6
17Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
Northrid e Pkw
EB/WB
1
25
WARRANT 4 MET No
Details
Pedestrian Four Hour Volume Warrant Met?
Pedestrian Peak Hour Warrant Met?Notes
Speed Limit or 85th Percentile Speed on Major Street > 35mph, or
Intersection lies within an Isolated Community with Population < 10,000?
No
No 0 Hours met 4 required
No
18Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e
Warrant 5: School Crossing
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 5 MET?No
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
Details:
Time Period Interval for Students Crossing (min)
Number of Students Crossing in Time Period
Number of Adequate Gaps in Time Period
0
0
0
Other Remedial Measures Attempted?No
d acent Si nal on NB approach?No
Distance to si nal on NB Approach ft -
d acent Si nal on SB approach?
Distance to si nal on SB Approach ft
No
-
Will New Signal Restrict Progressive Traffic?No
19Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 6 MET?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
No
Details:
Approach Direction & Name Acceptable
Platooning?
Adjacent
Coordinating
Signal?
Adjacent
Intersection
Distance
SB Approach Stan e Rd
Yes No N/
NB Approach Stan e Rd
Yes No N/
WB Approach Northrid e Pkw
Yes No N/
EB Approach Northrid e Pkw
Yes No N/
No
Unacceptable Platooning?
(At least one approach)
Distance to Closest Signal
(Must be N/A or > 1000)
N/A
20Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 7 MET?
Minor Street Direction
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
No
Details:
Ped Volume Condition Met?
Traffic Volume Condition Met?
Adequate Alternative Trials?
Qualifying Crashes
Major Street Speed Limit
Major Street 85th-% tile Speed
Low Population?No
25
31.00
No
0
No
2 Hours Met 8 Required
No
0 Hours Met 8 Required
Hou
Traffic Volumes Pedestrian Volumes
Major
Street
Vehicles
Minor
Street
Vehicles
80% Standard Met?
A or B
Conditio
n A
Condition
B
Eastbound Ped Volumes Westbound Ped Volumes
PedsPeds > 80? > 80?
00:00 to 01:00 0 0 No No 0 0No No
00:15 to 01:15 0 0 No No 0 0No No
00:30 to 01:30 0 0 No No 0 0No No
00:45 to 01:45 0 0 No No 0 0No No
07:00 to 08:00 577 0 No No 0 0No No
07:15 to 08:15 609 0 No No 0 0No No
07:30 to 08:30 593 0 No No 0 0No No
07:45 to 08:45 570 0 No No 0 0No No
21Federal 2009
08:00 to 09:00 555 0 No No 0 0No No
08:15 to 09:15 536 0 No No 0 0No No
08:30 to 09:30 503 0 No No 0 0No No
08:45 to 09:45 485 0 No No 0 0No No
09:00 to 10:00 430 0 No No 0 0No No
09:15 to 10:15 418 0 No No 0 0No No
09:30 to 10:30 408 0 No No 0 0No No
09:45 to 10:45 404 0 No No 0 0No No
10:00 to 11:00 410 0 No No 0 0No No
10:15 to 11:15 421 0 No No 0 0No No
10:30 to 11:30 472 0 No No 0 0No No
10:45 to 11:45 496 0 No No 0 0No No
11:00 to 12:00 521 0 No No 0 0No No
11:15 to 12:15 553 0 No No 0 0No No
11:30 to 12:30 539 0 No No 0 0No No
11:45 to 12:45 594 0 No No 0 0No No
12:00 to 13:00 609 0 No No 0 0No No
12:15 to 13:15 602 0 No No 0 0No No
22Federal 2009
12:30 to 13:30 582 0 No No 0 0No No
12:45 to 13:45 537 0 No No 0 0No No
13:00 to 14:00 509 0 No No 0 0No No
13:15 to 14:15 493 0 No No 0 0No No
13:30 to 14:30 505 0 No No 0 0No No
13:45 to 14:45 492 0 No No 0 0No No
14:00 to 15:00 478 0 No No 0 0No No
14:15 to 15:15 466 0 No No 0 0No No
14:30 to 15:30 460 0 No No 0 0No No
14:45 to 15:45 478 0 No No 0 0No No
15:00 to 16:00 536 0 No No 0 0No No
15:15 to 16:15 583 0 No No 0 0No No
15:30 to 16:30 633 0 No No 0 0No No
15:45 to 16:45 697 0 No No 0 0No No
16:00 to 17:00 758 0 No No 0 0No No
16:15 to 17:15 811 0 No No 0 0No No
16:30 to 17:30 882 0 No No 0 0No No
16:45 to 17:45 902 0 No No 0 0No No
23Federal 2009
17:00 to 18:00 871 0 No No 0 0No No
17:15 to 18:15 829 0 No No 0 0No No
17:30 to 18:30 759 0 No No 0 0No No
17:45 to 18:45 723 0 No No 0 0No No
18:00 to 19:00 666 0 No No 0 0No No
18:15 to 19:15 647 0 No No 0 0No No
18:30 to 19:30 608 0 No No 0 0No No
18:45 to 19:45 553 0 No No 0 0No No
19:00 to 20:00 529 0 No No 0 0No No
19:15 to 20:15 480 0 No No 0 0No No
19:30 to 20:30 443 0 No No 0 0No No
19:45 to 20:45 424 0 No No 0 0No No
20:00 to 21:00 391 0 No No 0 0No No
20:15 to 21:15 354 0 No No 0 0No No
20:30 to 21:30 314 0 No No 0 0No No
20:45 to 21:45 271 0 No No 0 0No No
21:00 to 22:00 233 0 No No 0 0No No
21:15 to 22:15 211 0 No No 0 0No No
24Federal 2009
21:30 to 22:30 189 0 No No 0 0No No
21:45 to 22:45 157 0 No No 0 0No No
22:00 to 23:00 143 0 No No 0 0No No
22:15 to 23:15 124 0 No No 0 0No No
22:30 to 23:30 104 0 No No 0 0No No
22:45 to 23:45 80 0 No No 0 0No No
23:00 to 00:00 66 0 No No 0 0No No
23:15 to 00:15 41 0 No No 0 0No No
23:30 to 00:30 27 0 No No 0 0No No
23:45 to 00:45 14 0 No No 0 0No No
25Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 8: Roadway Network
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name
Major Street Direction
WARRANT 8 MET? ( A or B)
Minor Street Direction
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
No
Details:
Growth Rates % (per year)
NB SB EB WB
L
T
R
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Condition B, Non-normal Business DayCondition A, Total Entering Volume
Existing Peak Hour
Years
Future Peak Hour
Warrant 1 in 5 Years?
Warrant 2 in 5 Years?
Warrant 3 in 5 Years?
No
No
No
1,053
1,053
0.00
Existing Future
Highest Hour
Second Highest Hour
Third Highest Hour
Fourth Highest Hour
Fifth Highest Hour
Yearly Growth Rate (%)
Years
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
No NoCondition A Met?Condition B Met?
26Federal 2009
5: Stan e Rd & Northrid e Pkw
Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Intersection Informatio
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lane
Major Street Minor Street
Approch Speed
WARRANT 9 MET ?
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
2
25
Northrid e Pkw
EB/WB
1
25
No
Details
Note
Minor street approach having a grade crossing
No a roach with a railroad rade crossin
The rail traffic arrival times are uknown, the highest traffic volume hour of the day is used
Percentage of tractor-trailer trucks crossing the track (%)
Percentage of high-occupancy buses crossing the track (%
Number of occurences of rail traffic per day
Distance from the center of the track to the stop or yield line Interpolated
djustment Facto
djustment Facto
djustment Facto
Major Street
Total of Both Approaches (vph)Hour Minor Street
Adjusted Volume Crossing Tracks (vph)
27Federal 2009
5: Stange Rd & Northridge Pkwy
All-Way Stop Control Warrant: Multiway Stop Applications
Intersection Informatio
Major Street Name:
Major Street Direction:
Minor Street Direction:
Stan e Rd
NB/SB
EB/WB
AWSC WARRANT MET No
Details:
Condition A Met?
Condition B Met?
Condition C Met?
No
No
No
Notes: 3 Hours Met 8 Required
Qualifying Crashes
Major Street 85th %-tile Speed
Major Street Speed Limit
0
31.00
25
Hou
Traffic Volumes Bicycle Volume Ped Volumes Condition C
Major
Street
Minor
Street
Major Street Minor Street
Veh Vol > 210 Avg(Veh + Ped
+ Bicycle) >
200
Delay
> 30
North
Bound
Bicycle
Volumes
East
Bound
Bicycle
Volumes
East
Bound
Ped
Volumes
North
Bound
Ped
Volumes
12:00 to 13:00 609 156 0 0 0 0 False No Yes
16:45 to 17:45 902 151 0 0 0 0 False No Yes
18:00 to 19:00 666 147 0 0 0 0 False No Yes
28Federal 2009
1
ITEM # _25__
DATE: 10-25-22
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) is preparing to widen Interstate 35 in Polk
County between Ankeny and the Skunk River. Most of the road improvements are being
made to the west side of I-35, but some improvements are required on both sides of the
Interstate north of Ankeny at NE 126th Ave and at the bridge crossings at NE 142nd Ave,
and NE 158th Ave.
The City of Ames owns a 161kV electric transmission line that extends from Ames to
Ankeny east of I-35. This line is directly adjacent the interstate at the above three
locations, and therefore the line must be relocated to accommodate the roadway
improvements
On February 22, 2022 Council approved a professional services agreement with DGR in
the Amount of $291,000 for professional services for the design and easement acquisition
effort; Council also approved $92,000 for purchasing easements. At this same time
Council approved a reimbursement agreement with IDOT covering these same
expenses. On September 13, 2022, Council approved plans and specifications for the
construction and materials to perform the necessary relocation for this project
The recommended award for materials and construction, presented under a separate item
at this same Council meeting, is $2,171,669.20 which represents an increase of
$81,369.20 over the prior Construction estimate . The total estimated cost for this project
including engineering design, easements and crop damages is $2,485,369, which is
3.38% above the $2,404,000 in the 2022 – 2027 Capital Improvements Plan.
Below is a breakdown of currently-projected project
costs.
2
Expenses Funding Sources
Design (DGR) $291,000
29149,
000
Easements/crop damages 22,700
Construction award 2,171,669
FY 2021/22 CIP (IDOT Reimb.) $2,154,000
FY 2022/23 CIP (IDOT Reimb.) 250,000
Requested increase in CAF
CAF 81,369
TOTAL $2,485,369 TOTAL $2,485,369
04,000
In addition to requesting Council to approve the Reimbursement Agreement Addendum
between Ames and IDOT to assure reimbursement of all of the project costs listed
above, staff is also asking City Council to approve an increase of $81,369 to the current
FY2022/23 CIP of $250,000 to the revised total of $331,369 for a total project budget of
$2,485,390, as represented in the above table.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Reimbursement Agreement Addendum with IDOT and a CIP budget
increase of $81,369 for a revised total CIP project cost of $2,485,369.
2. Do not approve the Reimbursement Agreement with IDOT and a CIP budget
increase of $81,369 for a revised total CIP project cost of $2,485,369 and refer
back to staff to review alternatives.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The relocation of this transmission line is necessary to allow the IDOT to make
improvements to Interstate 35. All City costs will be reimbursed by the IDOT through
reimbursement agreements. Approval of the recommended action will allow the City to
move forward with the construction phase of this project. Delaying this relocation project
would also delay IDOT’s highway improvement project. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 , as
described above.
1
ITEM # __26__
DATE: 10-25-22
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) is carrying out highway improvements
along Interstate 35 north of Ankeny. These improvements include construction where I-
35 crosses NE 158th Ave and NE 142nd Ave and at the I-35 interchange of NE 126th Ave.
The City owns a 161kV electric transmission line that is situated on DOT right of way in
this area. The IDOT construction project will require relocation of a portion of the
transmission line in vicinity of these roads.
On September 13, 2022, City Council approved preliminary plans and specifications for
the relocation of the 161 kV Transmission Line from Ames Plant to NE Ankeny. The
project was issued to seventeen companies. 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. The bid was also sent to four plan rooms.
On October 19, 2022, five bids were received as shown below:
Primoris Electric, Inc.
Inver Grove Heights, MN $2,171,669.20
Hooper Corporation
Madison, WI $2,176,625.16
Watts Electric Company
Waverly, NE $2,525,654.67
Michels Power
Neenah, WI $2,950,456.98
Brink Constructors, Inc.
Rapids City, SD $3,354,672.46
Electric Services staff reviewed the bids with an engineer from the City’s consulting
engineer, DGR. They concluded that the apparent low bid submitted by Primoris Electric,
2
Inc., Inver Grove Heights, MN, in the amount of $2,171,669.20 (inclusive of applicable
sales tax) is acceptable.
The engineer’s estimate for the construction phase of this relocation project is
$2,090,300. The recommended award for materials and construction, presented under a
separate item at this same Council meeting, is $2,171,669.20 which represents an
increase of $81,369.20 over the prior Construction estimate. Council also previously
approved an engineering reimbursement agreement with IDOT in the total amount of
$383,000, which includes $291,000 for engineering services and $92,400 for easement
acquisition. The original estimated total project cost is $2,404,000 including $291,000 for
engineering, $22,700 for easements and crop damages and $2,090,300 for construction
labor and materials. The approved FY 2021/22 Capital Improvements Plan includes
$2,404,000 under the project titled “161 kV Line Relocation.” The most current total
estimated cost for this project including engineering design, easements and crop
damages is $2,485,369, which is above the $2,404,000 in the 2022 – 2027 Capital
Improvements Plan. Council is asked to approve an increase in the Capital Improvement
Plan for this project under a separate Council Action Form presented at the same Council
meeting.
Expenses Funding Sources
Design (DGR) $291,000
29149,
000
Easements/crop damages 22,700
Construction award 2,171,669
FY 2021/22 CIP (IDOT Reimb.) $2,154,000
FY 2022/23 CIP (IDOT Reimb.) 250,000
Requested increase in other CAF 81,369
TOTAL $2,485,369 TOTAL $2,485,369
04,000
All engineering and construction expenses for the project will be reimbursed by IDOT. In
a separate action, staff is requesting approval of a revised reimbursement
agreement with IDOT which reflects the construction costs in addition to the
originally approved engineering costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract to Primoris Electric, Inc., Inver Grove Heights, MN, for the
Relocation of 161 kV Transmission Line from Ames Plant to NE Ankeny in the
amount of $2,171,669.20.
2. Award a contract to one of the other bidders.
3. Reject all bids which would delay the IDOT’s project.
3
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In order to facilitate these IDOT improvements, the City’s 161 kV transmission line must
be relocated. The revised reimbursement agreement is being brought before City
Council at this time as a separate agenda item, along with the recommendation for
award of the construction contract.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
ITEM # 27____
DATE: 10-25-22__
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: Resolution Assessing the Costs of Noxious Weeds Destruction
BACKGROUND:
Ames Municipal Code prohibits noxious weeds on all properties. The Inspection Division
was made aware of, and confirmed, the presence of noxious weeds at 1521 Maxwell in
May of 2022. Subsequently, an Order to Abate Nuisance was posted at the property on
5/25/22 with a compliance date of 6/15/22. The order also noticed the owner of the
City’s right to enter the property and abate the nuisance if not completed by 6/15/22.
The nuisance was not abated by the owner within the specified time. As a result, City
staff destroyed the noxious weeds and mailed an invoice to the owner listed below for
the costs of abatement. To date, the bill has not been paid. A certified notice of this
hearing was mailed to the property owner.
Karen Gerber / 1521 Maxwell Avenue $75
Noxious weeds destruction for property located at 1521 Maxwell Avenue
Work performed on July 6, 2022
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council could adopt a resolution to assess these costs to the property
owner shown on the above list, instruct the Finance Director to prepare the spread
sheet on the assessment, and direct the City Clerk’s Office to file the assessment
with the Story County Treasurer.
2. The City Council could choose not to certify these costs to the County Treasurer
and, instead, absorb the costs.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council accept Alternative #1
and adopting a resolution assessing the costs of noxious weeds destruction to the
property owner shown above. The resolution adopted will also instruct the Finance
Director to prepare a spread sheet computing the costs and interest to be paid and
direct the City Clerk’s Office to file a copy of the resolution and spread sheet with the
County Treasurer.
1
ITEM #: 28
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REZONE OF 609.27 ACRES AT 3700-5898 EAST LINCOLN WAY, 799
TELLER AVENUE AND 220 AND 240 SOUTH TELLER AVENUE FROM
“A” (AGRICULTURAL) TO “II” (INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT
BACKGROUND:
Iowa Land And Building Company, subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation, proposes to
rezone multiple properties totaling 609.27 acres of land east of Interstate 35 along East
Lincoln Way and Teller Avenue. The properties are addressed as 3700 -5898 East Lincoln
Way, 799 Teller Avenue and 220 and 240 South Teller Avenue, all within the area
commonly referred to as the Prairie View Industrial Center. The properties were annexed
into the City as part of the larger 2016 East Industrial Annexation. At the time of
annexation, the subject properties were assigned an “A” Agricultural zoning classification.
(See Attachment A) The properties have retained the “A” Agricultural zoning since that
time. The proposal is to rezone the properties to “II” Intensive Industrial zoning
classification. (See Attachment B)
The properties largely consists of undeveloped row-cropped land on 17 parcels ranging
from 30 to 47 acres in size. One smaller parcel consists of 3.28 acres of land along Lincoln
Way and contains a small farmstead. A second large parcel along Lincoln way contains
a couple of outbuildings.
The Ames Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates these properties with the
“Employment” Land Use Category, which supports industrial zoning districts including the
proposed II, Intensive Industrial zone. (See Attachment C) A small amount of area is
shown as open space reflecting an existing stream corridor on the west side of the Prairie
View area.
Water main and sanitary sewer main have recently been extended along East Lincoln
Way to Teller Avenue and along Teller Avenue just south of East Lincoln Way to a new
lift station. The properties included in this rezoning request can be served by these new
mains. A second phase of water and sanitary sewer main is currently being constructed
east of Teller Avenue to the east City limits along East Lincoln Way. Notably the subject
properties are required to secure water service rights from Iowa Regional Utilities
Association per a 2016 agreement and utilize City of Ames water upon development.
Currently all the parcels in the rezoning request can be accessed from East Lincoln Way
or Teller Avenue either directly or via access easements. The Union Pacific Rail Road
line is located along the northern boundary of four of the parcels. A more detailed analysis
of the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation facilities and Utilities is found in the
Addendum below. The applicant has included an explanation of the reasons for rezoning
in Attachment D.
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation:
At the October 5th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting the Commission considered
the proposed rezoning to Intensive Industrial. One nearby resident spoke at the public
hearing with concerns over future nearby operations of industrial uses and its impact on
noise and traffic to residences in the general area.
The Commission asked questions about a small area of floodplain along the far western
edge of the area proposed to be rezoned. Staff explained how all floodplain standards
would apply to any future developme nt. Commission members also asked about future
transportation upgrades to serve buildout of the area. Staff explained buildout of the area
was included in evaluation of Plan 2040 and the recent Forward 45 transportation plan.
The primary improvement will be at the intersection of Lincoln Way and Teller with a future
widening and signalization, but this would occur at some point in the future when needed.
However, individual sites will be evaluated for frontage and access improvements and
they will occur with development.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the City Council
approve the proposed rezoning to Intensive Industrial.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve on first reading the request to rezone the property
located at 3700-5898 East Lincoln Way, 799 Teller Avenue and 220 and 240 South
Teller Avenue from “A” Agricultural to “II” Intensive Industrial.
2. The City Council can deny the request to rezone the property located at 3700 -5898
East Lincoln Way, 799 Teller Avenue and 220 and 240 South Teller Avenue from “A”
Agricultural to “II” Intensive Industrial.
3. The City Council can defer action on this item and request further information from
staff or the applicant.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The request for rezoning is consistent with the existing Future Land Use Map of Ames
Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan as described in the addendum. Impacts on infrastructure
and City services for these parcels are consistent with what has been anticipated for
development in this area. Staff believes the properties are able to be developed and
allow for industrial uses based upon the recent completion of utility extensions. A broad
range of intense industrial uses will be allowed in this area. At the time of site
development, each property will be evaluated through the Minor Site Development Plan
process for conformance to zoning and other developmen t standards, including
coordination of frontage improvements and utility connections.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1.
3
ADDENDUM
REZONING BACKGROUND:
This property is located east of Interstate 35 on both sides of East Lincoln Way, south of
the Union Pacific rail line and north of Highway 30 extending to near Nevada. The land
was annexed in 2016. At the time of annexation, all of the annexed properties were
assigned an “A” Agricultural zoning. The subject properties have remained as “A”
Agricultural zoning since that time. Iowa Land And Building Company has acquired the
land to develop as Industrial. The Prairie View Industrial Center is a “Certified Site” by the
state for economic development purposes.
Ames 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ames Plan 2040 designates the property with the
“Employment” Land Use Category, which supports industrial zoning districts including this
rezoning request to II, Intensive Industrial. See Attachment B. The characteristics of areas
under the Employment Category include traditional manufacturing, warehouse, office and
R&D activity on the east sides of the city as well as office and research activity in the ISU
Research Park. The Employment designation can include high impact, heavy industrial
uses as well. These areas will consist of large sites set aside for industrial activity. These
areas will often have higher amounts of truck traffic with good access to regional
transportation facilities. The II zoning designation allows for a wide range of intensive
industrial uses which are supported in the Employment Land Use Category and this
zoning district is design to meet the intent of supporting large industrial uses.
Proposed Zoning. The subject properties are currently undeveloped aside from a few
scattered existing outbuildings and one home. A request to “II” (Intensive Industrial) is
consistent with the proposed use of the properties in the Ames 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. The II zoning district was specifically created in 2021 for the purpose of
applying it to land east of I-35 related to the Prairie View Industrial area.
Existing Uses of Land. Land uses that occupy the subject property and other
surrounding properties are described in the following table:
Direction from Subject Property Existing Primary Land Uses
Subject Property Undeveloped; Crop Production
North Undeveloped; Crop Production, scattered homesteads
East Undeveloped; Crop Production, scattered
homesteads
South Undeveloped; Crop Production, scattered small
businesses & homesteads
West Crop Production, scattered homes and small business,
Barilla
4
INFRASTRUCTURE
Traffic, Streets & Pedestrian Facilities
The Ames 2040 Comprehensive Plan Mobility Element shows East Lincoln Way being
classified as an arterial street through the area. An arterial collects and distributes traffic
from principal arterials and interstates to streets of lower classification or directly
accesses destinations. An existing Bike facility is currently incorporated with the East
Lincoln Way roadway as a paved shoulder. As this area develops the Bike and Pedestrian
facilities will be upgraded accordingly to allow continued Bicycle and Pedestrian use. This
will include dedicated shared use paths and bike lanes. Development of each site will
follow the City’s sidewalk improvements requirements.
The Ames Forward 45 Transportation Plan includes a future road grade separation
project in the at 580th Street (Teller Avenue) and the Union Pacific Railroad Line to
mitigate future traffic levels on 580th with freight rail traffic on the Union Pacific Rail line.
The timing of this project is subject to funding and traffic needs based upon full buildout
of the Prairie View area. This project would include the construction of a bridge to
separate the respective grades of the railroad and street. A design of this improvement
is not known at this time.
The intersection of Teller and East Lincoln Way will also need improvements as
development occurs in this area. Turn lanes and signalization are anticipated to be
needed over time as sites develop. Individual site access will likely require frontage
improvements for turning lanes, these types of improvements will be the responsibility of
the property owner/developer.
Water Service Territory
A water service buyout agreement was completed between the City of Ames and Central
Iowa Water Association, now known as Iowa Regional Utilities Association (IRU A), prior
to annexation of these properties in January of 2016. The agreement laid out terms for
the purchase of the water rights to the City of Ames for the property owners included in
this rezoning. The agreement restricts IRUA from providing new water service in the area,
but existing customers can continue without changing. Prior to development, property
owners must secure the transfer of water service territory from IRUA to be the City’s
territory.
Water Lines
A new water main has been installed along East Lincoln Way to Teller Avenue then
turning south briefly along Teller to a new lift station being finished by the City of Ames.
The main will have the capability of serving the proposed areas to be rezoned. A second
phase of water main installation east of Teller Avenue has been bid and awarded and has
begun. Long term the City has capacity to add a water tower along Teller to improve
service to the area if needed. The City has overall water treatment capacity to serve
industrial development consistent with our City goals of promoting economic development
for non-resource intensive users. This means that large water users, such as food
processing, may not be able to site a large facility in this area. Individual review of water
usage and connections to the system are part of a Site Development Plan application.
5
Sanitary Sewer Lines
A Sanitary sewer main has been installed along East Lincoln Way to Teller Avenue then
turning south briefly along Teller to a new lift station being finished by the City of Ames.
The main will have limited capability of serving the proposed areas to be rezoned. The
new main will not have the capacity to serve large volume sanitary sewer users at this
time. A future sanitary sewer trunk main extension to the south will be r equired to allow
more capacity in the Prairie View Industrial Center. A second phase of sanitary sewer
main installation east of Teller Avenue has been bid and awarded and has begun.
Sanitary sewer transmission capacity is a limiting factor on intense development in the
area. Intensive sanitary sewer users may have capacity constraints downstream from
the site that limits uses. If the Prairie View area develops intensely and needs additional
capacity a new trunk line would need to extend south to the tre atment plan.
Electrical Service
The properties are located in Alliant Energy territory and Alliant will provide electricity to
the properties in this rezoning application.
Open Spaces
A small stream is located along the far northwestern edge of a portion of the proposed
rezone area. The stream is designated as General Floodplain on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). The Ames Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows a
open space area along the creek. Areas designated as open space can be zoned broadly
consistent with the overall property, or a separate zoning designation could be applied.
The City could choose to place the Environmentally Sensitive Overlay (O -E) designation
on this creek and open space with the II base zone. Due to the limited size and its
location in the area, staff did not recommend adding additional zoning designations. The
flood plain designation of the stream is independent of the overall zoning.
Findings of Fact. Based upon an analysis of the proposed rezoning and laws pertinent
to the proposed map amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:
1. The subject property is owned by Iowa Land And Building Company. The rezoning
request and statement of justification is included as Attachment D.
2. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(1) allows the property owner to initiate an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map.
3. The subject properties are consistent with the land use category of “Employment”
identified on the Ames Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
4. Development in the II zoning district requires a site plan review process to assure that
such development and intensity of use assures a safe, functional, efficient, and
environmentally sound operation.
6
5. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is consistent with what is
already anticipated for the area in the Prairie View Industrial Center.
Public Notice. The City provided mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of
the subject property prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in accordance
with the notification requirements of Chapter 29.
7
Attachment A-Location & Current Zoning
8
Attachment B- Proposed Zoning Designation
9
Attachment C- Land Use Designation
10
Attachment D- Applicants Request
11
12
13
1
ITEM # _ 29__
DATE: 10-25-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIFTH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
(TIF) DISTRICT BOUNDARY WITHIN THE IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL AREA.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Ames established the ISU Research Park Urban Renewal Area and Plan
(URA) on November 10, 2014 (Boundary Map – Attachment A). The URA was created
for economic development purposes and included plans for use of up to $7 million in Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) to facilitate economic development in the area in multiple
phases. The City established the first TIF area within this URA concurrent with approval
of the URA and Plan in 2014. The initial TIF area was designed to generate funds to pay
for the City’s commitments for the construction of infrastructure to support Phase III of the
ISU Research Park expansion, with road improvements to University Boulevard and
Collaboration Way and utility extensions.
Subsequent to the initial approval of the URA and initial TIF Area, the land was subdivided
as the ISU Research Park Phase III Subdivision and the approved lot boundaries
corresponded to the TIF boundaries. In August of 2018, the City approved a request to
modify the Ames Fitness property Lot 5 boundary (creating the current Parcel ‘A’) to allow
construction of an enclosed tennis facility containing four tennis courts (Attachment B).
The boundary line adjustment reduced the size of the abutting outlot. The TIF boundary
was subsequently amended in 2019 to conform to the new property boundaries to ensure
the whole of the property was within one tax district, i.e. the Fifth TIF District.
Ames Fitness is currently planning to expand the size of the bubble to enclose a
total of six tennis courts. An additional six outdoor courts will be constructed to
the south of the enclosed facility. New parking spaces will also be added to the
property.
The proposed ordinance amendment will add 2.532 acres (110,311 square feet) of land
area to the TIF District to account for the proposed concurrent boundary line adjustment
(Attachment C-New Parcel B). It is necessary to amend the area of the TIF to include
the full property to allow for the continued collection of tax increment related to
improvements on this site. It is not necessary to amend the URA since the area is
already within the broader URA boundary.
TIF boundaries must include the full area of a property to allow the Auditor to calculate
assessed value and the increment of taxes to be allocated to the City for TIF. Based
upon correspondence with the Auditor’s Office, adding the land to the TIF area will
not reset the base value that was originally established for improvements that are
already in the TIF area. The value of improvement associated with the new area will
be added to the existing base to then calculate future differences in incremental
values for the TIF.
Amending the boundary will ensure that we continue to receive the revenues that
we have previously relied upon to repay our debt and will potentially allow for
additional TIF revenue related to the planned tennis court expansion.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve on first reading an Ordinance amending the boundary
of the First TIF Area of the ISU Research Park Urban Renewal Plan to include an
additional 2.532 acres of area.
2. City Council can decline to amend the TIF District Boundary of the First TIF Area,
which would remove the new Parcel from the TIF district.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adding the 2.532 acres of land to the TIF area is important to maintain the assumed
incremental value of TIF to pay off debt that was previously issued in support of
infrastructure improvements in this area. Staff estimates that there are two additional
years of increment collection needed to pay off the original TIF debt used to support the
development the ISU Research Park Phase III.
To ensure consistency with legal descriptions, staff will ensure the property owner
records the Plat of Survey for the boundary line adjustment prior to completing the
third reading of this ordinance. Staff will request on November 8th that City Council
waive the rules and complete second and third reading to ensure the ordinance is
published and provided to Story County well in advance of the December 1st
deadline for providing TIF information to the County.
Therefore, the City Manager recommends Alternative No. 1, which is to have first
reading of an ordinance amending the first TIF District within the ISU Research
Park Urban Renewal Area.
ATTACHMENT A: ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL AREA
Attachment B: Ames Fitness Site Expansion & TIF Expansion
ATTACHMENT C: AMENDMENT TO FIRST TIF DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY
AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE
FIFTH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(ISU RESEARCH PARK) SECTION 24.18(2);
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 amended
by deleting the legal description for the Fifth Tax Increment Financing District (ISU
Research Park), contained in Section 24.18(2), and replacing it with the following new
legal description:
“Sec. 24.18. FIFTH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.
…
ISU Research Park Urban Renewal Area
2014 TIF Legal Description
Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, and part of the North Half of Section 22, all
in Township 83 North, Range 24 West of the 5th P.M., Story County, Iowa, all together
being described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 22; thence N00º04’27”E, 149.78 feet
along the West line of said Section 15; thence S88º36’58”E, 713.46 feet; thence
N03º04’35”E, 414.92 feet; thence S87º45’55”E, 585.84 feet; thence S00º11’18”W, 49.93
feet; thence S89º14’47”E, 296.62 feet; thence N56º46’25”E, 622.15 feet; thence
N89º52’19”E, 512.38 feet to the East line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 15;
thence S00º10’26”W, 668.83 feet along said line; thence N89º49’34”W, 40.00 feet;
thence N84º05’51”W, 274.12 feet; thence S78º03’58”W 591.22 feet; thence
S15º31’36”W, 122.07 feet; thence S51º07’52”W, 509.09 feet; thence S35º54’39”W,
375.38 feet; thence S39º49’11E, 705.92 feet to the beginning of a curve; thence
southwesterly, westerly, and northwesterly, 583.54 feet along said curve having a radius
of 810.00 feet concave to the north, a central angle of 41º16’38” and being subtended by
a chord which bears S89º22’02”W, 571.00 feet; thence S19º40’37”W, 79.93 feet to the
beginning of a curve; thence southerly and easterly, 356.26 feet along said curve having a
radius of 890.00 feet concave to the north, a central angle of 22º56’07” and being
subtended by a chord which bears S81º45’59”E, 353.89 feet; thence S00º01’56”E, 197.61
feet; thence S71º56’15”W, 300.81 feet; thence S89º30’54”W, 107.46 feet; thence
S00º28’11”E, 356.16 feet; thence S89º31’49”W, 508.03 feet; thence N00º24’13”W,
356.18 feet; thence S89º31’47”W, 303.04’; thence S89º39’36”W, 96.95 feet to the West
line of said Section 22; thence N00º24’00”W, 349.23 feet to the Southwest Corner of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22; thence N00º23’42”W,
1319.25 feet to the point of beginning (containing 80.00 acres), and Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9, Iowa State University Research Park Third Addition, all within Ames, Story County,
Iowa.
…”
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 , 2022.
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor