Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - October 26, 2021, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO) TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL OCTOBER 26, 2021 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public during discussion. If you wish to speak, please see the instructions listed above. The normal process on any particular agenda item is that the motion is placed on the floor, input is received from the audience, the Council is given an opportunity to comment on the issue or respond to the audience concerns, and the vote is taken. On ordinances, there is time provided for public input at the time of the first reading. AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO) TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Motion approving Roadway Safety Targets 2.Motion approving Transit Safety Targets 3.Motion approving Transit Asset Management Targets ADMINISTRATION: 4.Motion approving Limited English Proficiency Plan 5.Motion approving FTA Title VI Program for submission to the Iowa Department of Transportation HEARINGS: 6.Hearing on Public Participation Plan: a.Motion approving Public Participation Plan POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING** **The Regular City Council Meeting will immediately follow the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Committee Meeting. PROCLAMATION: 1.Proclamation for “Lung Cancer Awareness Month,” November 2020 CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the Council members vote on the motion. 2.Motion approving payment of claims 3.Motion approving Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of October 12, 2021 4.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period October 1 - 15, 2021 5.Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses: a.Class C Liquor License and Sunday Sales - London Underground, 212 Main Street 6.Resolution approving Investment Report for Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 7.Medical Dispatch Quality Assurance Software: a.Resolution waiving Purchasing Policies and Procedures for competitive bidding of professional services and approving a single-source contract b.Resolution authorizing the Ames Police Department to enter into an Agreement with Pro-QA for a five-year, fixed cost service in an amount not to exceed $129,428 8.Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign Certificate of Consistency with City’s 2019-2023 CDBG Consolidated Plan on behalf of Youth & Shelter Services and The Bridge Home for funding under the State of Iowa’s Continuum of Care Grant 9.Resolution approving Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $50,000 to Professional Services Agreement with BrownWinick of Des M oines, Iowa, for legal services rendered regarding service territory Ruling from the Iowa Utilities Board 10.Resolution approving Change Order No. 3 to Blade Runner Turbomachinery Services, LLC, of Navasota, Texas, for Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul project in the amount of $181,357.44 11.Campustown Public Improvements (Welch Avenue): a.Resolution approving Change Order No. 3 in the amount of ($91,687.18) b.Resolution accepting completion 12.Resolution accepting completion of the Tahira and Labh Hira Park Concrete Work PUBLIC FORUM: This is a time set aside for comments from the public on topics of City business other than those listed on this agenda. Please understand that the Council will not take any action on your comments at this meeting due to requirements of the Open Meetings Law, but may do so at a future meeting. The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public; however, at no time is it appropriate to use profane, obscene, or slanderous language. The Mayor may limit each speaker to three minutes. POLICE: 13.Motion approving/denying renewal of Class C Liquor with Sunday Sales - North Grand Cinema, 2801 Grand Avenue ADMINISTRATION: 14.Resolution approving Agreement for Water Service Operations and Territory Transfer with Xenia Rural Water District 2 PLANNING & HOUSING: 15.Resolution approving Downtown Facade Grants 16.Staff Report regarding request by Zoning Board of Adjustment to define “Temporary” in the Zoning Ordinance 17.Ames 2040 Plan Public Draft Comments PARKS & RECREATION: 18.Resolution approving/motion denying the placement of Agility Course Equipment (type of playground amenity) in Carr Park HEARINGS: 19.Hearing on vacating Utility Easement across Red Lobster property located at 1100 Buckeye Avenue: a.Resolution approving vacating Easement ORDINANCES: DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: COUNCIL COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as provided by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa. 3 ITEM: AAMPO 1 DATE: 10-26-21 AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: ROADWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS BACKGROUND: As required by the FAST Act, the Iowa Department of Transportation was required to establish safety measures for five metrics. The Iowa DOT submitted the State Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) annual report to the Federal Highway Administration on August 31, 2021. The report included the State’s 2018-2022 safety targets for the performance measures established in 23 § 490.207 as follows: Performance Measure Five Year Rolling Averages 2016-2020 Baseline 2018-2022 Target Number of Fatalities 345.2 337.8 Fatality Rate* 1.053 1.037 Number of Serious Injuries 1,391.6 1,327.2 Serious Injury Rate* 4.241 4.073 Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 128.6 129.8 *Rates are per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) As was the process last year, the Ames Area MPO is required within 180 days of the State’s submission of the safety performance measures (by February 27, 2022), to adopt safety performance targets which either support the Iowa DOT’s targets or set our own quantifiable targets in a process approved by the Iowa DOT. The performance measures apply to all public roadways within the Ames Area MPO and it is required to reflect the performance measures and targets in all Metropolitan Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs. Each update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan will report system performance measure progress towards achieving these targets. The Transportation Improvement Programs will be required to describe how implementation of the TIP anticipates making progress towards achieving the targets. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve supporting the safety performance targets established by the Iowa Department of Transportation in coordination with Iowa MPOs. 2. Direct the Ames Area MPO to set its own quantifiable roadway safety performance targets in coordination with the Iowa Department of Transportation. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: The Iowa DOT has developed these roadway safety targets in coordination with all the Iowa MPOs. The Transportation Technical Committee reviewed these targets and unanimously recommended approval. Therefore, it is recommended by the Administrator that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. ITEM: AAMPO 2 DATE: 10-26-21 AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: TRANSIT SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS BACKGROUND: The Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) regulation, 49 CFR Part 673, requires that state and transit agencies that created a safety plan make the safety performance targets available to states and MPOs to aid in the planning process and to coordinate with states and MPOs in the selection of state and MPO safety performance measures. Transit agencies that receive 5307 funding, which includes CyRide, are required to update their PTASP’s annually. CyRide approved their PTASP on August 11, 2021 and provided it to the Ames Area MPO on August 20, 2021. MPOs are required to adopt their initial transit safety targets no more than 180 days after receiving the PTASP’s, thus AAMPO must adopt these transit safety targets by February 16, 2022. These targets are based on a review of the previous 5 years of Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) performance data and are derived from the safety performance measures established under the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. The CyRide Transit Board approved the following transit safety targets: Mode of Transit Service Fatalities (Total) (per 100 thousand Injuries (Total) Injuries (per 100 thousand Safety Events (Total) (per 100 thousand System Reliability (VRM/Failures) 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 42,273.16 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 38,450 Upon approving the Transit Safety targets, the Ames Area MPO will be required to reflect the performance measures and targets in all future planning document updates such as Metropolitan Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs. Each update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan reports baseline conditions and system performance progress towards achieving these targets. Transportation Improvement Programs are required to describe how implementation of the TIP anticipates making progress towards achieving the targets. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the transit safety performance targets provided by CyRide. 2. Approve the transit safety performance targets, provided by CyRide, with Transportation Policy Committee modifications. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: CyRide developed these transit safety targets using the previous five years of performance data from the Ames region and they are derived from the safety performance measures established under the National Public Transportation Plan. The Transportation Technical Committee reviewed these targets and unanimously recommended approval. Therefore, it is recommended by the Administrator that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. ITEM: AAMPO 3 DATE: 10-26-21 AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT (TAM) PERFORMANCE TARGETS BACKGROUND: The Federal Transit Administration has developed rules for transit asset management for recipients of Chapter 53 funds that own, operate, or management public transportation capital assets. These rules apply to the Ames Transit Agency - CyRide. Prior to adopting the initial plan, transit agencies were responsible for developing an initial set of performance targets of asset percentage by category past their useful life benchmark (ULB). On May 23, 2017, using the initial targets adopted by CyRide, the Ames Area MPO established the first performance targets for the MPO using the same targets. Every year, CyRide approves a new Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan, which includes new performance targets for the next five-year period starting the following year. On October 8, 2021, CyRide provided their updated TAM Targets and TAM Plan to the Ames Area MPO as federally mandated. While the MPO is not required to update or modify their performance targets to match CyRide’s, it is appropriate for the MPO to adopt CyRide’s updated performance targets within 180 days of receiving the TAM Plan update (which would be by April 6, 2022). The CyRide Transit Board approved the following TAM targets, per fiscal year: TAM Performance Measure Class 2021 Target Year-End 40'-60' Buses 42% of fleet exceeds CyRide's ULB of 15 yrs. 26% 20% 34% 22% Cutaways 22% of fleet exceeds FTA ULB of 8 yrs. 0% 0% 0% 0% Minivans 0% of fleet exceeds FTA ULB of 8 yrs. 0% 0% 0% 0% Shop Trucks 50% of fleet exceeds CyRide’s ULB of 10 yrs. 0% 0% 0% 0% Admin./Maint.Facility 0% of facilities rated under 3.0 on TERM scale 0% 0% 0% 0% Intermodal Facility 0% of facilities rated under 3.0 on TERM scale 0% 0% 0% 0% CyRide noted that they did not meet the 2021 cutaway targets as it took longer to get 6 cutaway buses delivered due to the pandemic. Because of supply chain and manufacturing delays caused by effects of the pandemic, everything is taking longer to deliver, including small buses. It is now estimated that it will take 12-18 months for a cutaway delivery. There are no repercussions from FTA or Iowa DOT for not meeting this target timeline. Upon approving TAM targets, the Ames Area MPO will be required to reflect the performance measures and targets in all future planning document updates such as Metropolitan Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs. Each update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan reports baseline conditions and system performance progress towards achieving these targets. Transportation Improvement Programs are required to describe how implementation of the TIP anticipates making progress towards achieving the targets. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the transit asset management (TAM) performance measures, as provided by CyRide. 2. Approve the transit asset management (TAM) performance measures, provided by CyRide, with Transportation Policy Committee modifications. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: The proposed transit asset management (TAM) targets were developed by CyRide as a part of their Transit Asset Management Plan. The Transportation Technical Committee reviewed these targets and unanimously recommended approval. Therefore, it is recommended by the Administrator that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. ITEM: AAMPO 4 DATE: 10-14-21 AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) PLAN BACKGROUND: The U.S. DOT requires that any entity which receives federal funds create a limited English proficiency Plan in accordance with Executive Order 13166 and the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since MPOs receive both FHWA and FTA funding, the Ames Area MPO is required to create its own LEP Plan. The primary objective of the LEP Plan is to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency are provided meaningful access to the Ames Area MPO’s various transportation planning information and processes. The LEP Plan was prepared in accordance with the U.S. DOT’s requirements and the recent guidelines published by the Iowa DOT. Per U.S. DOT recommendation, the LEP Plan follows the four-factor analysis methodology. The four analysis factors and sections of the plan are as follows: 1. The number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. Pages Section Title Key Topics 4-6 Factor 1 – LEP Population Provision 7 Contact Participation Plan 8 Services and Programs Planning Documents 9-10 Available for Outreach Iowa State University 11-12 Conclusion Strategies, Updating the LEP Plan, Contact Information The LEP Plan lists the following language assistance services and resources that the MPO will leverage (discussed on pages 11-12): 1. Oral Interpretation Services – TheBigWord, City Staff, Google Translate 2. Written translation of vital documents (Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Policy & Procedures, and a Title VI Complain Form) to Mandarin Chinese, per the Safe Harbor Provision requirements 3. Bureau of Refugee Services 4. MPO Website – Automatic translation to over 90 different languages 5. Regional Partners – Coordinate with regional agencies and groups such as CyRide and Iowa State University ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. 2. Adopt the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan with Transportation Policy Committee modifications. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: The LEP Plan was developed based on applicable federal and state regulations, the U.S. DOT guidance, and the newly updated Iowa DOT guidance. The Transportation Technical Committee has reviewed the LEP Plan and unanimously recommended approval. Therefore, it is recommended by the Administrator that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, thereby adopting the LEP Plan. 1 | P a g e Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds of the Ames Area MPO member governments. These contents are the responsibility of the Ames Area MPO. The U.S. government and its agencies assume no liability for the contents of this report or for the use of its contents. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan 2021 Update 2 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Four-Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 3 Factor 1 – LEP Population .......................................................................................................................... 4 American Community Survey (ACS) Data ............................................................................................. 4 Overview of Language Data ................................................................................................................... 4 Safe Harbor Provision ............................................................................................................................. 4 Factor 2 – Frequency of Contact ................................................................................................................. 7 Previous Requests ................................................................................................................................... 7 Iowa State University Students ............................................................................................................... 7 Public Participation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 7 Factor 3 – Importance of Services and Programs ....................................................................................... 8 MPO Services and Programs................................................................................................................... 8 Vital Services and Documents ................................................................................................................ 8 Planning Documents ............................................................................................................................... 8 Factor 4 – Resources Available for Outreach ............................................................................................. 9 MPO Public Outreach Strategies............................................................................................................. 9 City of Ames ........................................................................................................................................... 9 CyRide and Iowa State University ........................................................................................................ 10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Language Assistance Services .............................................................................................................. 11 Outreach Strategies ............................................................................................................................... 12 Updating the LEP Plan .......................................................................................................................... 12 Contact Information .............................................................................................................................. 12 3 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Introduction Background The primary objective of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan is to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency are provided meaningful access to the Ames Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization’s (AAMPO’s) various transportation planning processes. Executive Order 13166, signed August 11, 2000, “requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.” Additionally, in accordance with this Executive Order, the U.S. DOT issued its own LEP Guidance, which applies to all recipients of U.S. DOT funding, including MPOs. The Iowa DOT also provides additional guidance to Iowa MPOs regarding outreach to limited English proficiency persons as a part of their Public Participation Plan guidance. The Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance.” MPOs receive federal funding from both the FHWA and FTA and are therefore required to adhere to Title VI requirements. Regarding Title VI, any conduct that has a disproportionate effect on persons with limited English proficiency is prohibited, since this conduct would constitute national origin discrimination. Four-Factor Analysis The U.S. DOT LEP guidance recommends the use of a Four-Factor Analysis during the creation of LEP Plans. The following are the four factors: 1. The number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. The Four-Factor Analysis will act as the framework for the AAMPO’s LEP Plan. Each of the four factors will be included as a separate section in this document. 4 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 1 – LEP Population The first analysis factor is the number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. American Community Survey (ACS) Data The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) is an excellent data source for summarizing socioeconomic data, including data on English proficiency. For this analysis, data was downloaded from https://data.census.gov for the census tract level. 5-year ACS data was gathered for years 2015 through 2019. Only census tracts with greater than 10% of their land area located within the MPO boundary were included in the analysis. Overview of Language Data Table 1 shows an abbreviated overview of the language data for Ames Area MPO region. Around 86% of the population within the AAMPO region speak only English. Nearly 14% of the population speak a language other than English. Just under 6% of the population are classified with limited English proficiency (speaks English less than “very well”). Table 1: Abbreviated Overview of Language Populations Category Population Percentage Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Speak English "very well" 5,392 7.9% Speak English less than "very well" 3,949 5.8% TOTAL 67,981 100.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data Safe Harbor Provision The U.S. DOT’s LEP guidance references the Department of Justice’s Safe Harbor Provision, which outlines circumstances that can provide a “safe harbor” for recipients regarding the translation of written materials for LEP populations. In short, the Safe Harbor Provision recommends a written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5% or 1,000 persons, whichever is less. It also adds that the translation of non-vital documents, if needed, can be provided orally. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of all the language group populations, as defined in the American Community Survey. The only language group within the AAMPO boundary which met the above Safe Harbor Provision criteria was Chinese (including Mandarin & Cantonese). Although this group constituted less than 5% of the total population (3.3%), greater than 1,000 people fell within this group (2,263). See Figure 1 for a map summarizing limited English proficiency populations by census tract within the AAMPO region. 5 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Table 2: Breakdown of Language Group Populations Category Population Percentage Total: 67,981 100.0% Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Spanish: 1,294 1.9% Speak English "very well" 961 1.4% Speak English less than "very well" 333 0.5% French, Haitian, or Cajun: 118 0.2% Speak English "very well" 87 0.1% Speak English less than "very well" 31 0.0% German or other West Germanic languages: 377 0.6% Speak English "very well" 368 0.5% Speak English less than "very well" 9 0.0% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 180 0.3% Speak English "very well" 150 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 30 0.0% Other Indo-European languages: 1,188 1.7% Speak English "very well" 870 1.3% Speak English less than "very well" 318 0.5% Korean: 660 1.0% Speak English "very well" 196 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 464 0.7% Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): 4,036 5.9% Speak English "very well" 1,773 2.6% Speak English less than "very well" 2,263 3.3% Vietnamese: 169 0.2% Speak English "very well" 30 0.0% Speak English less than "very well" 139 0.2% Tagalog (incl. Filipino): 142 0.2% Speak English "very well" 118 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 24 0.0% Other Asian and Pacific Island languages: 763 1.1% Speak English "very well" 496 0.7% Speak English less than "very well" 267 0.4% Arabic: 244 0.4% Speak English "very well" 189 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 55 0.1% Other and unspecified languages: 170 0.3% Speak English "very well" 154 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 16 0.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data; Purple = Met Safe Harbor Criteria 6 | P a g e Figure 1: Limited English Proficiency Map (Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data) 7 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 2 – Frequency of Contact The second analysis factor is the frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. Previous Requests To date, the Ames Area MPO has never received a request for language assistance services, written or oral, from any individuals or groups with limited English proficiency. However, it is anticipated that the proportion of limited English proficiency individuals within the region could increase. Therefore, the probability of contact with a limited English proficiency group or individual may increase as well. Iowa State University Students It is worth noting that approximately 31,000 of 68,000 of the Ames region’s population is comprised of the student body of Iowa State University. Iowa State University has a sizable enrollment of minority populations, including Chinese students, which may have limited English proficiency. The MPO does not typically see many direct contacts from Iowa State University students. However, the MPO does frequency communicate and coordinate with Iowa State University and CyRide, both of which do frequently interact with students. Iowa State and CyRide both have representatives on the MPO’s technical and policy boards. CyRide, whose staff conducts many of the MPO’s transit planning activities as a part of a joint planning agreement, has its own LEP Plan. CyRide’s LEP Plan follows a similar four factor analysis to this LEP Plan and includes detailed breakdowns of the Iowa State student body as well as CyRide’s interactions with limited English proficiency students who utilize their bus transit system. Public Participation Plan The Ames Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) summarizes how the MPO involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts, including engagement goals and strategies. The PPP also highlights the MPO’s commitment to providing its planning services to all members of the public, including underserved populations such as those with limited English proficiency. 8 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 3 – Importance of Services and Programs The third analysis factor is the nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. MPO Services and Programs The Ames Area MPO provides and coordinates various transportation planning and improvement efforts throughout the Ames region. This includes a data-driven and community-based planning approach which identifies necessary transportation improvements and programs in the region. The MPO also directs the programming and use of federal funds on future transportation projects (including roadway, transit, and multi-modal improvements). Since every individual directly utilizes or relies upon the region’s transportation system in some capacity, the MPO’s transportation planning activities impact everyone within the region. Vital Services and Documents The MPO does not provide any emergency-based services such as medical treatments or basic needs services (food, water, shelter, etc.). The MPO does maintain various planning documents (described below) as well as a Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Policy & Procedures, and a Title VI Complain Form. These three Title VI documents are considered vital, per FTA Circular 4702.1B. Planning Documents The Ames Area MPO maintains five core planning documents including: 1. Public Participation Plan (PPP) 2. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 3. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 4. Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) 5. Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) More information about these planning documents can be found on the MPO website. They are also summarized within the Public Participation Plan. The MPO also maintains other documents and materials such as Title VI documentation, an Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture document, and this LEP Plan. These are also all located on the MPO website. The MPO always prioritizes inclusivity when developing transportation plans, studies, documents, and programs. The impact a transportation project or initiative will have on underserved populations, including limited English proficiency individuals, is always considered when evaluating that project or initiative. The MPO, through the strategies and procedures developed in the Public Participation Plan and LEP Plan, will always attempt to encourage outreach to and allow participation by limited English proficiency groups. 9 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 4 – Resources Available for Outreach The fourth analysis factor is identifying the resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. MPO Public Outreach Strategies The MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) outlines goals and strategies for public outreach and participation. Some of public outreach methods listed in the PPP and utilized by the MPO include: • AAMPO Website (www.aampo.org) – Automated translations available for over 90 languages. • E-Mail Notifications – Signup available on the MPO website. • Publications – Including Ames Tribune, ISU Daily, and radio stations. • TV & Streaming – Meetings are broadcast on the local governmental access cable channel (Channel 12), the City of Ames YouTube Channel, and as a live stream on the city’s website. • Social Media – The MPO utilizes the City of Ames’ social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. • City Side – The City of Ames Newsletter, City Side, is distributed monthly by mail to all City of Ames residents. City of Ames The following are a list of resources that the City of Ames has for ensuring access for LEP persons: • Oral Interpretation Service o The City of Ames offers the Language Line Interpretation Service. If there is a non- English speaking individual that comes into a city department, staff can show them the brochure for the Language Line Interpretation Service and have them select the language that they understand (the languages are written in both the native language and in English). Staff members can call the Language Interpretation Service and asks for the appropriate interpreter as pointed out by the customer. Staff members can utilize a speaker phone so both the staff member and the customer can be on the line at the same time. Flyers offering the Language Line Interpretation Service will be posted in the Administrative Offices. Additionally, where best appropriate, staff employees will also utilize Google Translator Interpretation Service from their computers and/or as application on their cell phones. • The City of Ames, as needed, will work with the Bureau of Refugee Services. • The City of Ames has developed a list of all City employees that speak, write, or read a language other than English fluently. The City of Ames may contact employees on this list for interpretation services as their schedule permits. A current list will be maintained in the in the Human Resources internal website. 10 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN • The City of Ames will also allow LEP persons to use an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the Language Line interpretation services offered by the City of Ames. • The City’s web page can allow its information to be translated into different languages by selecting the language of choice. CyRide and Iowa State University CyRide’s LEP Plan provides an excellent summary of the resources they have available to them for reaching out to Limited English Proficiency persons. Some of these resources include: • Google Translate for documents, notices, agendas, flyers, and other printed materials. • Coordination with the Iowa State University’s International Student & Scholars • Coordination with Iowa State University’s Intensive English & Orientation Program/Office of the Registrar • Coordination with local human service organizations through Story County’s Human Services Council and United Way’s Transportation Collaboration Committee • Coordination with Community Partners (such as the City of Ames, Iowa State University, and the Iowa State University Student Government) • CyRide has a contract with “CTS Language Link” who is a 24/7/365 Telephone Interpreting service that supports over 240 languages and has 24-hour support. According to CyRide’s LEP Plan, this service costs about $0.82/min. 11 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Conclusion Summary A four-factor analysis was conducted, per the U.S. DOT LEP guidance, to determine which language assistance services are appropriate for the MPO to implement for effective communication with limited English proficiency persons. The four analysis factors included: 1. The number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. Language Assistance Services The Ames Area MPO is currently staffed and fiscally supported by the City of Ames. Therefore, the MPO will plan to leverage the resources that the City of Ames has available for engaging limited English proficiency persons. The following is a list of the language assistance services the MPO will provide: 1. Oral Interpretation Services – The MPO will leverage the Language Line Interpretation Service through TheBigWord. If there is a non-English speaking individual that comes into a city department, staff can show them the brochure for the Language Line Interpretation Service and have them select the language that they understand (the languages are written in both the native language and in English). Staff members can call the Language Interpretation Service and asks for an appropriate interpreter, as pointed out by the customer. The City of Ames has also developed a list of all City employees that speak, write, or read a language other than English fluently. The City of Ames may contact employees on this list for interpretation services as their schedule permits. A current list is maintained in the Human Resources internal website. Note that the Ames Area MPO will also allow LEP persons to use an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the Language Line interpretation services offered by the Ames Area MPO. Additionally, where best appropriate, staff employees will also utilize Google Translator Interpretation Service from their computers and/or as application on their cell phones. 2. Written Translations (Vital Documents) - The MPO will provide a written translation of all vital documents (Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Policy & Procedures, and a Title VI Complain Form) to Mandarin Chinese, per the Safe Harbor Provision requirements. 3. Bureau of Refugee Services – The MPO will, as needed, work with the Bureau of Refugee Services. 12 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN 4. MPO Website – The MPO’s website can allow its information to be automatically translated into over 90 different languages. 5. Regional Partners – The MPO will work with its regional agencies and contact groups such as Iowa State University and CyRide to establish and provide additional language assistance services to the MPO, as needed. The MPO will continue to monitor for any translation requests made from LEP persons and will evaluate whether full written language translations may be required for any of the core transportation planning documents or other MPO materials in the future. The MPO will leverage its oral interpretation services for the translation of any planning document or written material, upon request. Outreach Strategies The MPO will continue to coordinate with its regional contacts, as outlined in the Public Participation Plan, regarding outreach strategies for limited English proficiency persons. Additionally, the MPO will continue to utilize its various public outreach resources such as: the MPO website (with automated translations into over 90 different languages), e-mail notifications, publications, radio stations, Channel 12, streaming, social media, and the City of Ames newsletter, City Side. Updating the LEP Plan The MPO will continue to monitor and update the LEP Plan per Iowa DOT and U.S. DOT requirements. Some reasons an update may be warranted include: • Changes in the region’s LEP population (number, proportion, location) as indicated by new Census and ACS data. • New analysis strategies for evaluating LEP populations and resources. • New interactions with or translation requests from LEP persons. • Updates to LEP policies or procedures at the local, state, or federal level. The MPO evaluates if an update to the LEP Plan is warranted during its annual self-certification process. The MPO’s Transportation Policy Committee may also direct the creation of an updated LEP Plan at its discretion. Contact Information The Ames Area MPO wants to ensure that its Limited English Proficiency Plan is effective in providing outreach and translation services for limited English proficiency persons. Anyone who requires language assistance services should contact the Ames Area MPO using the information below: Ames Area MPO 515 Clark Ave Ames, IA, 50010 Phone: (515) 239-5169 Email ITEM: AAMPO 5 DATE: 10-26-21 AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM BACKGROUND: As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration funding, the Ames Area MPO is required to submit a Title VI Program meeting FTA guidelines as described in FTA Circular 4702.1B. These programs are required to be updated at least every three years, or as warranted. This year, the Iowa DOT is requiring that MPOs submit their updated Title VI Programs by November 1, 2021. The Title VI Program prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance. MPO staff prepared this FTA Title VI Program update in accordance with FTA Circular 4702.1B and using the template provided by the Iowa DOT. Attached with the Title VI Program are the MPO’s Title VI Notice to the Public, instructions for filing a Title VI discrimination complaint, the Public Participation Plan (PPP), the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan, the meeting minutes for approval of the program, demographic maps with transit (CyRide) routes, and demographic maps with MTP and TIP projects. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the FTA Title VI Program for submission to the Iowa Department of Transportation. 2. Approve the FTA Title VI Program, with Transportation Policy Committee modifications, for submission to the Iowa Department of Transportation. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: The FTA Title VI Program was developed in accordance with FTA Circular 4702.1B, using the template provided by the Iowa DOT. The Transportation Technical Committee unanimously recommended approval. Therefore, it is recommended by the Administrator that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the Title VI Program for submission to the Iowa Department of Transportation. FTA Title VI Program Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010 Prepared in accordance with FTA C 4702.1B. Adopted on October 26, 2021. 1 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Date: 10-26-2021 Recipient Profile Recipient: Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Administrative Head: John Joiner MPO Administrator Name Title Recipient Title VI Coordinator: Brian Phillips City of Ames Title VI Coordinator Name Title Address: Ames Area MPO, 515 Clark Avenue City/State: Ames, Iowa Zip Code/County: 50010, Story County Phone: (515) 239-5160 Fax: (515) 239-5404 Email: John.Joiner@cityofames.org Website: www.aampo.org What strategies has your planning process developed for ensuring, demonstrating, and sustaining compliance with Title VI? The Ames Area MPO annually undergoes a self-certification process. This self-certification includes a review of the MPO’s compliance with Title VI requirements. MPO staff also periodically review Title VI and public participation requirements to ensure all staff are up to date on the latest Title VI and public outreach procedures and strategies. The MPO posts its Title VI notice, complaint procedure, and complaint form on the MPO website as well as at Ames City Hall. As outlined in the MPO’s Public Participation Plan and Limited English-Proficiency Plan, the MPO always ensures all underserved populations are made aware of and can actively participate in all MPO meetings, transportation planning activities, and transportation planning document updates. In the MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan, one of the project evaluation criteria is the improvement of access to transit for transit dependent, disabled, and disadvantaged populations. The MTP also includes an environmental justice assessment. 2 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO General Requirements Attach a copy of recipient’s Title VI Notice to the Public. (See Appendix A) Required elements: X A statement that the agency operates programs without regard to race, color, or national origin X A description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to request additional information on the recipient’s Title VI obligations X A description of the procedures that members of the public shall follow in order to file a Title VI discrimination complaint against the recipient List locations where the notice is posted: Ames Area MPO Office, Room 212 (515 Clark Ave, Ames, IA) Ames City Hall Entrance (515 Clark Ave, Ames, IA) www.aampo.org Please attach a copy of the recipient’s instructions to the public regarding how to file a Title VI discrimination complaint, including a copy of the complaint form. (See Appendix B) Are complaint procedures and the complaint form posted on the recipient’s website? Please provide the URL: www.aampo.org X X X 3 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO 3. Please list and describe any transit-related Title VI investigations, complaints, or lawsuits filed with, concerning, or naming the recipient in the last three years. Date Filed (Month, Day, Year) Summary (include basis of complaint: race, color, or national origin) Status Action(s) Taken Investigations NONE --- 1.---- 2.---- Lawsuits NONE --- 1.---- 2.---- Complaints NONE --- 1.---- 2.---- X 4 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO 4. Please attach a public participation plan that includes an outreach plan to engage minority and limited English proficient populations, as well as a summary of outreach efforts made in the last three years. (See Appendix C) Please describe the methods used to inform low-income and minority populations of planning efforts for transportation-related services and/or improvements: The Ames Area MPO utilizes a variety of methods for outreach to minority and low-income populations. These outreach strategies, described in more detail in the Chapter 3 of the Public Participation Plan, include the MPO’s website, e-mail notifications, the use of local publications and media sources, social media, and the City of Ames Newsletter, City Side. These outreach methods described above inform of various public input opportunities, described in Chapter 4 of the Public Participation Plan. These input opportunities include public hearings, public input sessions, public workshops & open houses, public surveys, and public comments. The MPO ensures that all meetings are held at a convenient, accessible, and ADA compliant locations. MPO meetings are primarily held at Ames City Hall, which is easily accessible via CyRide’s transit routes by using the bus stop at the south side of the building. The Ames Area MPO participates in and coordinates with the Story County Transportation Collaboration, which includes representatives from groups and organizations that share in interest in reducing transportation barriers. The MPO also engages various regional advocacy groups for disadvantaged, minority groups, and limited English-speaking individuals. These groups are listed in Appendix B of the Public Participation Plan. List minority and/or community media utilized to ensure notification of public meetings or public review of recipient documents for residents in minority and low-income areas: The Ames Area MPO utilizes the following publications & medias: Ames Tribune, Iowa State Daily, Des Moines Register, Story County Sun, KASI/KCCQ radio, KURE student radio at Iowa State, KHOI community radio, Channel 12 (Ames Governmental Channel), Channel 16 (Ames Public Access), and YouTube (City of Ames YouTube channel). The MPO also makes use of the City of Ames Newsletter, City Side, which is distributed with all Ames utility bills. When was the public participation plan last reviewed? Please describe how. The Public Participation Plan was last reviewed and updated in 2021. The current PPP was adopted by the Transportation Policy Committee on October 26, 2021. MPO staff review the current PPP during the annual self-certification process to ensure it accurately reflects the MPO’s current engagement strategies and the latest state and federal requirements. X 5 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO 5. Please attach a copy of the recipient’s plan for providing language assistance to persons with limited English proficiency, based on the DOT LEP Guidance, Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 239, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-12-14/html/05- 23972.htm. (See Appendix D) What steps has the recipient taken to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important components of its programs and services to persons with limited English proficiency? The Ames Area MPO’s Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan follows the four-factor analysis process, as recommended by the U.S. DOT. As a part of this process, the LEP Plan identifies LEP populations located within the Ames region, the frequency with which those persons encounter the MPO’s services and programs, the importance of the MPO’s services and programs to people’s lives, and the resources available for the MPO to outreach to persons with limited English proficiency. Some of the ways the MPO ensures meaningful access for limited English persons include: 1.Oral Interpretation Services – The MPO will leverage the Language Line Interpretation Service through TheBigWord. If there is a non-English speaking individual that comes into a city department, staff can show them the brochure for the Language Line Interpretation Service and have them select the language that they understand (the languages are written in both the native language and in English). Staff members can call the Language Interpretation Service and asks for an appropriate interpreter, as pointed out by the customer. The City of Ames has also developed a list of all City employees that speak, write, or read a language other than English fluently. The City of Ames may contact employees on this list for interpretation services as their schedule permits. A current list is maintained in the Human Resources internal website. Note that the Ames Area MPO will also allow LEP persons to use an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the Language Line interpretation services offered by the Ames Area MPO. Additionally, where best appropriate, staff employees will also utilize Google Translator Interpretation Service from their computers and/or as application on their cell phones. 2.Written Translations (Vital Documents) - The MPO will provide a written translation of all vital documents (Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Policy & Procedures, and a Title VI Complain Form) to Mandarin Chinese, per the Safe Harbor Provision requirements. 3.Bureau of Refugee Services – The MPO will, as needed, work with the Bureau of Refugee Services. X 6 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO 4.MPO Website – The MPO’s website can allow its information to be automatically translated into over 90 different languages. 5.Regional Partners – The MPO will work with its regional agencies and contact groups such as Iowa State University and CyRide to establish and provide additional language assistance services to the MPO, as needed. 6. List all non-elected committees and councils, the membership of which is selected by the recipient: No committees or councils comprised of non-elected members selected by the Ames Area MPO were in place during the reporting period. Representatives on Ames Area MPO committees are selected by each member jurisdiction. Describe the process the recipient uses to encourage the participation of minorities on such committees. Each member jurisdiction follows its own procedures regarding the appointment of representatives the Ames Area MPO’s committees. However, the Ames Area MPO encourages member jurisdictions to consider members of minority groups when appointing individuals. Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Voting Members on Ames Area MPO committees: Group Number Male 14 Female 8 White 22 Black or African American 0 American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 Asian 0 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 Other 0 *Note the data in the above table is summarizing all voting members of the Ames Area MPO’s Transportation Policy and Technical Committees. 7 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO 7. If applicable, describe the efforts the recipient uses to ensure subrecipients are complying with Title VI: Not applicable for the Ames Area MPO. Include a schedule of subrecipient Title VI program submissions: (Insert table or list) N/A Has the recipient constructed a facility, such as a vehicle storage facility, maintenance facility, operation center, etc., with Federal Transit Administration funds? __ __ Yes __X__ No If yes, please attach the Title VI equity analysis conducted during the planning stage with regard to the location of the facility. Please attach a copy(ies) of board meeting minutes, resolution(s), or other appropriate documentation showing the board(s) of directors or appropriate governing entity(ies) or official(s) responsible for policy decisions reviewed and approved the Title VI Program. (See Appendix E) X 8 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Requirements of Planning Agencies Has the planning agency developed a demographic profile of the planning area that includes identification of the locations of socioeconomic groups, including low- income and minority populations? Provide a summary of the planning area demographics. Yes, please refer to Appendix C of the attached Public Participation Plan. Demographic categories analyzed include disability, limited English proficiency, poverty status, race, and age. Please describe the procedures by which the mobility needs of minority populations are identified and considered within the planning process. The Ames Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan defines public engagement goals and strategies, including outreach strategies and accommodations for minority populations. The MPO ensures that its various meetings are held at convenient and accessible locations that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Most MPO meetings are held at Ames City Hall, which is easily accessible via CyRide’s transit network via the bus stop located on the south side of the building. The MPO website is automatically translated into over 90 different languages. The MPO also participates in and coordinates with the Story County Transportation Collaboration which includes representatives from groups and organizations that share an interest in reducing transportation barriers. During the AAMPO’s MTP updates, Environmental Justice (EJ) populations, including minority populations and low-income populations are identified in the MPO’s region. Projects which are identified in the MTP are evaluated to see if they disproportionately adversely affect minority and low-income populations. The MPO also considers the project’s beneficial and/or adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations when developing, evaluating, and prioritizing projects in the MTP. Please attach demographic maps that show the impacts of the distribution of State and Federal funds in the aggregate for public transportation projects. (See Appendix F) X X 9 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO 4. Please attach analysis of the planning agency’s transportation system investments that identifies and addresses any disparate impacts. (See Appendix G) List adverse social, environmental, economic or demographic impact identified in the planning process: The Ames Area MPO has reviewed both MTP and TIP projects and their socioeconomic impacts and has determined that there are no adverse impacts. As previously stated, the Ames Area MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Forward 2045, incorporates an analysis of project impacts on Environmental Justice populations. A map showing proposed MTP project and Environmental Justice Populations is shown in the Appendix G attachment. Also attached are maps showing the FFY22-25 TIP projects in relation to minority and poverty populations. During future project planning and evaluations, the MPO will continue to consider the project’s beneficial and/or adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations when developing, evaluating, and prioritizing projects in the MTP. X 10 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Declaration of the Respondent I declare that I have provided information as a part of the Title VI Program to the best of my knowledge and believe it to be true, correct, and complete. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respondent Date I declare that I have reviewed and approved the information provided in the Title VI Program and to the best of my knowledge believe it to be true, correct, and complete. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respondent Date 11 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix A – Title VI Notice to Public 12 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix B – Instruction to File Title VI Discrimination Complaint 13 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix C – Public Participation Plan The following pages contain the Ames Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan, adopted on October 26, 2021. 1 | P a g e Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds of the Ames Area MPO member governments. These contents are the responsibility of the Ames Area MPO. The U.S. government and its agencies assume no liability for the contents of this report or for the use of its contents. The Public Participation Plan 2021 Update 2 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN CONTENTS 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Document Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 AAMPO Overview and Planning Area ............................................................................................. 4 1.3 Transportation Policy Committee ..................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Transportation Technical Committee ................................................................................................ 6 1.5 MPO Staff & Contact Information .................................................................................................... 6 2 - Regulations ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Transportation Planning Requirements ............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Iowa DOT Requirements .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Title VI .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Limited English Proficiency.............................................................................................................. 8 2.6 Iowa Open Meetings ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 Iowa Public Records.......................................................................................................................... 9 3 - Public Outreach Strategies ................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Ames Area MPO Website ............................................................................................................... 10 3.2 E-Mail Notifications ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Publications ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 TV & Streaming .............................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 Social Media .................................................................................................................................... 11 3.6 City Side (City of Ames Newsletter) .............................................................................................. 11 4 - Public Input Methods........................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Public Hearings ............................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Public Input Sessions ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Workshops & Open Houses ............................................................................................................ 12 4.4 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................ 12 4.5 Comments........................................................................................................................................ 13 4.6 Visualization Techniques ................................................................................................................ 13 5 - Planning Documents ............................................................................................................................ 14 5.1 Public Participation Plan (PPP) ....................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) ....................................................................................... 15 3 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .................................................................................. 16 5.4 Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) ........................................................................... 17 5.5 Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) .............................................................................................. 18 5.6 Amendments.................................................................................................................................... 19 6 - Underserved Populations ..................................................................................................................... 20 6.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Accommodations ............................................................................................................................. 20 6.3 Complaint Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A – List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 22 Appendix B – List of MPO Stakeholders & Public Groups ..................................................................... 23 Appendix C – Demographic Data ............................................................................................................. 25 4 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 1 - Introduction 1.1 Document Purpose The Public Participation Plan (PPP) details how the Ames Area MPO (AAMPO) involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts. This document will provide public and stakeholder engagement goals and strategies that the MPO plans to implement so that all interested parties have ample opportunity to get involved with the MPO’s transportation planning efforts and planning document updates. It will also detail how the MPO will provide easy access to relevant transportation planning information and documentation. MPOs are federally required to develop a PPP. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that MPOs update their PPP at least every five years. Even though five years is the maximum timeframe between PPP updates, AAMPO continually reviews its public and stakeholder engagement strategies and will update its PPP whenever warranted. 1.2 AAMPO Overview and Planning Area The AAMPO was officially designated the MPO of the Ames urbanized area by the Governor of Iowa in March 2003. This designation was the result of the Ames urbanized area having a population greater than 50,000 in the 2000 Census. As a result of the 2010 Census, the urbanized areas of Ames and Gilbert were combined into one urbanized area, therefore requiring the Metropolitan Planning Area to be expanded to encompass this area in its entirety. The Ames Area MPO approved the current Metropolitan Planning Area boundary on November 13, 2012 (shown in Figure 1). The City of Gilbert and Iowa State University were added to the Transportation Policy Committee on March 26, 2013. Figure 1: AAMPO Boundary (Adopted Nov 13, 2012) 5 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN The Ames Area MPO provides and coordinates various transportation planning and improvement efforts throughout the Ames urban area. This includes coordination and consultation with the MPO’s various stakeholders, which are described in Appendix B. Ames is located in central Iowa and is served by Interstate 35, US Highway 30, and US Highway 69. Surface transportation needs are met through over 251 centerline miles of streets. The community has a very progressive transit system, CyRide, which typically carries approximately six million passengers each year. While most transit users have Iowa State University ties, CyRide serves the entire Ames community. The Ames Area MPO area includes the Ames Municipal Airport, which serves general aviation needs for business, industry, and recreation users. On average, 104 aircraft operations occur per day at the Ames Municipal Airport. Railroads provide freight service to the area by dual east-west mainline tracks and a northern agricultural spur. The Ames Area MPO consists primarily of two standing committees: The Transportation Policy Committee and the Transportation Technical Committee. 1.3 Transportation Policy Committee The Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) is the policy setting board of the MPO and the membership consists of local officials. Voting membership on the committee includes city and county governments located, wholly or partially, in the Ames Area MPO planning boundary, as well as the local transit agency. Currently the TPC membership includes the City of Ames, City of Gilbert, CyRide, Boone County, and Story County. The Iowa Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Iowa State University serve as advisory, non-voting, representatives. Transportation Policy Committee Membership Representative Agency Member Representative Agency Role City of Ames (Chair) City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames Boone County Story County Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) City of Gilbert Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Transit Administration ‡ Iowa State University ‡ ‡ Non-voting 6 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 1.4 Transportation Technical Committee The Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) consists of technical personnel from various agencies involved in transportation issues within the planning area. The TTC formulates the procedural details of the Transportation Planning Work Program. The committee reviews and monitors the output of various MPO activities identified in the work program and makes recommendations to the policy committee. The committee is also responsible for assisting in developing Transportation Improvement Programs and Metropolitan Transportation Plans. The Iowa Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration serve as advisory, non-voting, representatives. ‡ Non-voting 1.5 MPO Staff & Contact Information There are numerous ways to contact and engage with the MPO staff, including: Website: www.aampo.org Primary Phone: (515) 239-5169 Email: Staff Contact List Mail/Office: Ames Area MPO 515 Clark Ave Ames, IA, 50010 Transportation Technical Committee Membership Representative Agency Member Representative Agency Role City of Ames (Chair) City of Ames (Vice-Chair) City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) Iowa State University Boone County Story County Ames Community School Dist. Ames Economic Development Commission Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Transit Administration ‡ 7 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 2 - Regulations There are several federal and state regulations pertaining to participation in the MPOs transportation planning activities for members of the public and agency stakeholders. These regulations are described in the following section. 2.1 Transportation Planning Requirements 23 CFR 450.316 details several federal requirements that MPOs need to follow regarding public and stakeholder participation. In short, these regulations cover the development and content requirements for Public Participation Plans, documentation of public comments on planning documents such as Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs), the 45- day public comment period requirement for initial or revised PPPs, and coordination with regional agencies and officials which are responsible for other planning activities or are affected by regional planning activities. 2.2 Iowa DOT Requirements The Iowa DOT provides guidance documentation to Iowa MPOs and RPAs for the development and maintenance of Public Participation Plans. Within this guidance, the Iowa DOT states various requirements that help ensure that PPPs are both effective and comply with the various federal requirements and regulations. Some of the more significant requirements are listed here: • The PPP is required to be updated at least every five years. • The PPP must be developed in consultation with all interested parties. • The minimum required public comment period is 45 calendar days before final adoption. • The Draft PPP must be submitted to Iowa DOT staff for review before final adoption. • The Final PPP must be provided to Iowa DOT, FHWA, FTA, and published online. • The PPP must cover public-related procedures for all five of the MPOs core planning documents which include the MTP, PPP, PTP, TIP, and TPWP. • All draft planning documents provided to the public for input should be in final draft form. • Timeframes and notification methods for meeting agendas, public hearing notices, and public comment periods should be explicitly stated in the PPP. • Meeting agendas, meeting minutes, current planning documents, and Title VI documentation (including notice to public, complaint form, and related documents) should be posted on the MPO’s website. 2.3 Title VI “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance.” MPOs receive federal funding from both the FHWA and FTA and are therefore required to adhere to Title VI requirements. Additionally, FTA has published FTA Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. All recipients of FTA funds, including MPOs, 8 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN are subject to these requirements. In addition to Title VI specific regulations, there also additional non- discrimination protection regulations that agencies receiving federal funds must follow. Section 162 (a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 USC 324) covers the prohibition of sex-based discrimination. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination based on disabilities. 2.4 Environmental Justice The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that “Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” There are several regulations pertaining to environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations including Executive Order 12898, U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(a), FTA Circular 4703.1, and FHWA Order 6640.23A. These regulations ensure that government agencies (such as MPOs), are providing reasonable opportunities for all people (regardless of race, color, origin, or income) to be able to actively participate in decisions and planning efforts that may affect their environment and/or health. Additionally, MPOs need to assess and consider the potential impact their planning efforts and future projects may have on the health and the environment for minority and low-income populations. 2.5 Limited English Proficiency Executive Order 13166, signed August 11, 2000, “requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.” Additionally, in accordance with this Executive Order, the U.S. DOT issued its own LEP Guidance, which applies to all recipients of U.S. DOT funding, including MPOs. 2.6 Iowa Open Meetings Chapter 21 of the Code of Iowa details the full regulations pertaining to the open meetings law. Some key points that relate to MPO meetings include: • Public notice must be given for the time, date, place, and agenda for meetings. • Meetings need to be held at a place and time reasonably accessible to the public. • Meetings must be conducted in open session, with certain exceptions that may apply for holding a closed session. • Meeting minutes must be kept which include the date, time, place, members present, and actions taken. • Electronic meetings may be conducted only in circumstances where meeting in person is impossible or impractical. Electronic meetings still need to be accessible to the public and minutes still need to be kept. 9 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 2.7 Iowa Public Records Chapter 22 of the Code of Iowa details the full regulations pertaining to the public records law. Some key points that relate to MPO meetings include: • The public has the right to examine and copy public records. • The agency may adopt and enforce reasonable rules regarding the examination and copying of the records. • If the agency’s physical possession, the right to examine public records should be free of charge. • The agency may charge a reasonable fee for time and expense required for supervising examination and copying the records, not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. • Some records are considered confidential and are not subject to public release in the absence of a court order, as outlined in Chapter 22.7. 10 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 3 - Public Outreach Strategies The goal of the Ames Area MPO is to ensure that all interested parties are well-informed and have ample notice and ability to provide meaningful input for all transportation planning activities and initiatives. To do this, AAMPO utilizes various strategies and mediums for which to reach out to members of the public as well as the region’s stakeholders (see Appendix B for a list of stakeholders). 3.1 Ames Area MPO Website The Ames Area MPO website, www.aampo.org, provides information about all MPO activities and efforts and can be automatically translated into over 90 languages. Current versions and information on the five core planning documents (MTP, TPWP, TIP, PPP, & PTP) are detailed on this website. The PTP webpage has information regarding their upcoming meetings, agendas, and meeting notes. Some past planning document versions are also directly available along with an email link to request older versions. Information on upcoming public comment periods, public input sessions, workshops, and public hearing dates can also be found on the website. The Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Complaint Form, and all Title VI documentation can be found on the website. Information on all Transportation Policy Committee and Transportation Technical Committee meetings are all referenced including agendas, meeting materials, and meeting minutes. The AAMPO also provides additional information and links about other transportation planning initiatives on the website such as transit planning, Safe Routes to School maps, and the Regional ITS Architecture document. The AAMPO will also now begin to work on providing more access to transportation data (both from internal and external data sources) through interactive web maps (examples will include traffic volumes, intersection turning movement counts, segment & intersection crash data, as well as MTP & TIP projects). 3.2 E-Mail Notifications Anyone may sign up online at https://www.cityofames.org/living/email-notification-sign-up to receive MPO-related notifications pertaining to upcoming meetings, events, and news items. Subscribers to this service may opt out at any time after initial sign up. 3.3 Publications Information about all MPO meetings is added to the existing public meeting calendar which is produced weekly and is distributed to local newspapers such as the Ames Tribune and ISU Daily. Formal notices for public hearings are published in the Ames Tribune. Press releases to area newspapers and radio stations will be used utilized to notify citizens of upcoming MPO activities. 3.4 TV & Streaming The City of Ames maintains a local governmental access cable channel (Channel 12), a YouTube channel, and a live stream on the City’s website for broadcasting public meetings. This includes the MPO’s Transportation Policy Committee meetings and workshops. Archived versions of these meetings can also be found on the YouTube channel or on the City’s website. 11 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 3.5 Social Media The Ames Area MPO does not currently have its own social media account on any platform. However, the public is provided notice about MPO plan updates through the City of Ames’s social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. The public can submit comments and feedback on MPO-related posts on those social media platforms. 3.6 City Side (City of Ames Newsletter) Meeting information for the AAMPO is included as a part of the City of Ames’ newsletter, City Side, which is distributed monthly by mail with utility bills to City of Ames residents. City Side is also posted on the City of Ames social media accounts. 12 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 4 - Public Input Methods The Ames Area MPO wants to ensure that the public has numerous methods to provide input on the MPO’s planning documents and planning efforts. This section outlines the various strategies the MPO utilizes to provide ample opportunity for citizens and stakeholders to be involved. The AAMPO will always consider and respond to all public input received during program development and planning processes. 4.1 Public Hearings The AAMPO Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) hosts formal public hearings for final approval of any of the core planning documents during the committee meeting. Additionally, the public is welcome to comment during TPC meetings on any of the agenda items when that item is up for discussion and is also provided an opportunity to provide comments on topics not on the agenda. Public hearing notices are published between 4 to 20 days prior to the public hearing date, per Iowa Code 362.3. Typically, the MPO will publish notices one to two weeks prior to a public hearing date. 4.2 Public Input Sessions MPO staff will hold Public Input Sessions, which are informal opportunities for members of the public to provide comments, input, and ask questions about MPO plans and documents. These sessions are typically one hour in length. They may be held virtually (Microsoft Teams, Zoom, etc.) or in-person in Ames City Hall. These sessions are designed to be flexible, allowing the public to come and go at any point during the specified time period of the input session. Staff will provide copies of any needed materials, such as copies of planning documents, as appropriate. Public Input Sessions are typically held at least once during the public comment period of each of the five core planning documents. They may also be held for other important MPO planning efforts. 4.3 Workshops & Open Houses Workshops and open houses are typically meetings with a series of activities aimed to be visually engaging and gather public input in the form of written, spoken, or other forms. Workshops and open houses can employ several activities such as visual preference surveys, mapping activities, discussions, and other input gathering strategies. Workshops and open houses are commonly utilized during the development of Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs) but may be held during other planning efforts, as appropriate. 4.4 Surveys Surveys may be conducted using the MPO website or by using mailings to gather input and information from a large number of citizens. The AAMPO typically conducts a Regional Transportation Survey during development of MTPs. This survey helps residents present their opinions on the current state of the transportation system and their hopes for the future of the transportation system. It also helps the MPO gather information about the public’s travel characteristics and preferences. 13 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 4.5 Comments The MPO always accepts comments from the public for any topic, whether in-person, by phone, or by email (see Section 1.5 for contact information). The MPO also monitors social media posts for any feedback. The MPO holds public comment periods for all five core planning documents. This is the opportunity when members of the public can submit their comments to MPO staff on the final draft planning document before it is finalized and brought forward for the public hearing and final approval. A public comment period is also required for any amendments to planning documents. Public comments received on the MTP and the TIP are always documented within the final version of the planning document. 4.6 Visualization Techniques The MPO ensures that visualization techniques are incorporated into public participation activities. The MPO website and interactive web-based GIS maps may be utilized to provide another method of receiving feedback and comments. One application of this would be the ability of citizens to provide project-specific feedback on projects listed in the MTP or the TIP on an interactive GIS map. 14 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5 - Planning Documents This section will describe each of the five core planning documents that the MPO maintains as well as the development process for each planning document (including public participation processes). 5.1 Public Participation Plan (PPP) The PPP details how the AAMPO involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts. It provides public and stakeholder engagement goals and strategies that the MPO plans to implement so that all interested parties have ample opportunity to get involved with the MPO’s transportation planning efforts and planning document updates. It also details how the MPO will provide easy access to relevant transportation planning information and documentation. The PPP is required to be updated at least every five (5) years, or as needed (the MPO will periodically review the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained within this plan to ensure full and open participation process). The development process (shown in Figure 2) includes a 45-day public comment period, a public input session, and a public hearing. Information on the Public Participation Plan and how to sign up for e-notifications about meeting dates and news is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/about-the-mpo/public- participation-plan. Figure 2: Public Participation Plan Development Process 15 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), formally known as the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), acts a framework for guiding the AAMPO’s transportation investments and policy decisions over a 25-year period by identifying a regional vision for a multi-modal transportation system through stakeholder and community input. This includes developing short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans for regional project programming based upon a performance-based, community-driven approach. The MTP is required to be updated every five (5) years. The development process for the MTP is shown in Figure 3. Because the MTP utilizes a community-driven planning approach, members of the public and regional stakeholders need to be involved early in the plan’s development. As such, during the initial plan development, multiple input methods may be utilized including surveys, workshops (for the public, TTC, and TPC), and public open houses or input sessions. During review of the final draft plan, there will be a 30-day public comment period, at least one public input session, and a public hearing on the date of final approval. Information on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/ames-mobility-2040-lrtp. Figure 3: Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development Process 16 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Transportation Improvement Program is a 4-year implementation program for federally funded and regionally significant transportation projects within the Ames region. It reflects the investment priorities that are established in the MTP. Additionally, any projects funded with Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities) funding needs to be identified previously in the Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) prior to being identified in the TIP. The AAMPO TIP is included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is developed by the Iowa DOT. The TIP is updated annually. The development process (shown in Figure 4) includes a 30-day public comment period, a public input session, and a public hearing. Information on the Transportation Improvement Program is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/tip. Figure 4: Transportation Improvement Program Development Process 17 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.4 Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) The Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) functions as the regional work plan for the Ames Area MPO. Each TPWP covers one fiscal year and defines the anticipated work and tasks to be performed. This work is broken down into major planning activities. The document includes details on who will perform the various planning activities, the schedule for completing the activities, the resulting products and expectations of each activity, as well as the total program budget for the year (including funding amounts for each activity). A new TPWP is developed annually, since each TPWP only covers a single fiscal year. The development process (shown in Figure 5) includes a 30-day public comment period, a public input session, and a public hearing. Information on the Transportation Planning Work Program is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/tpwp. Figure 5: Transportation Planning Work Program Development Process 18 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.5 Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) The primary purpose of the Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) is to promote joint, coordinated passenger transportation planning programs that further the development of the local and regional transportation systems. It provides key community decision makers with the knowledge of how individuals are currently being transported throughout Ames, the additional transportation needs and service requests identified, and recommended strategies or projects to overcome these needs. A new PTP is developed every five (5) years, at a minimum, with updates as needed. Specifically, Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities projects or strategies need to be identified in the PTP before a project can be included in the AAMPO’s TIP, which is required to obtain grant funding. The development process (shown in Figure 6) includes coordination with and review by the Transportation Collaboration (TC) of Story County, which functions as the AAMPO’s Transportation Advisory Group (TAG). This process also includes reviews by both the TTC and TPC, a 30-day public comment period, and a public hearing. Information on the Transportation Planning Work Program is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/passenger- transportation-plan. Additionally, the TAG group is required to have at least two meetings every fiscal year with meeting minutes submitted to the Iowa DOT annually by July 31st. Figure 6: Passenger Transportation Plan Development Process 19 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.6 Amendments While each of the core planning documents are updated under the respective time cycles, they can be amended in between updates when the need arises. One example of an amendment being required would be if a project’s programmed budget or timeline needs to be modified in the current TIP. Amendments are also subject to public review requirements and procedures. The AAMPO requires that before any core planning document can be amended, the amendment must be reviewed by the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) and the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC). Additionally, amendments to the PTP need to be reviewed by the Transportation Collaboration (TC) of Story County. A minimum of a 15-day public comment period (45 days for the PPP) must also occur prior to an amendment to any core planning document. A public hearing and final approval of the amendment must then occur at a TPC meeting. 20 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 6 - Underserved Populations 6.1 Overview The Ames Area MPO is committed to providing planning services across the Ames region that benefit all members of the public regardless of race, color, national origin, age, gender, income, or disability. To meet this commitment, the AAMPO follows the obligations outlined for Iowa MPOs in the state and federal regulations stated in Section 2 of this document. Appendix C provides an overview of regional demographic data for underserved population groups using American Community Survey (ACS) data. 6.2 Accommodations The MPO ensures that its various meetings are held at convenient and accessible locations that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Most MPO meetings are held at Ames City Hall, which is easily accessible via Transit as there is a CyRide bus stop on the south side of the building. There are also bike racks located at Ames City Hall. The MPO website is also automatically translated into over 90 different languages. The Ames Area MPO participates in and coordinates with the Story County Transportation Collaboration (conducted under the leadership of the United Way of Story County), which includes representatives from groups and organizations that share an interest in reducing transportation barriers. During the AAMPO’s MTP updates, Environmental Justice (EJ) populations, including minority populations and low-income populations are identified in the MPO’s region. Projects which are identified in the MTP are evaluated to see if they disproportionately adversely affect minority and low- income populations. The MPO also considers the project’s beneficial and/or adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations when developing, evaluating, and prioritizing projects in the MTP. The AAMPO develops and maintains a separate Limited-English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. This plan helps ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency have access to the MPO’s various transportation documents and planning processes. Within this plan, areas within the Ames region with limited English proficiency are identified. As recommended by the U.S. DOT, the LEP Plan follows the four-factor analysis process. Those four factors are: 1. The number or proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency come into contact with MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. CyRide, which helps staff the Ames Area MPO, also maintains its own respective LEP Plan. CyRide also maintains its own FTA Title VI Program. 21 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 6.3 Complaint Procedures Any person wishing to file a formal discrimination complaint may do so by completing the Title VI Complain form. This form can be accessed online on the main page of the AAMPO website or by contacting the MPO. More information on the complaint form and process can be found on the website. This complaint form should be returned to the MPO’s current Title VI Civil Rights Coordinator, who’s contact information is identified on both the form and online. 22 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix A – List of Acronyms Acronym Definition 23 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix B – List of MPO Stakeholders & Public Groups The Ames Area MPO communicates with a wide variety of stakeholders so that feedback throughout the MPO’s various planning processes is comprehensive and properly reflects community values. The following stakeholders are identified as primary targets for key messages and communications on MPO planning activities and planning document updates. 1. Local, State, & Federal Government Agencies • Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) • Boone County • City of Ames • City of Gilbert • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) • Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) • Iowa State University (ISU) • Story County Note: The Ames Area MPO maintains agreements with the Iowa DOT and CyRide. The Iowa DOT and the AAMPO update their joint planning agreement annually as a part of the TPWP development process. CyRide and the AAMPO typically update their cooperative agreement every 3 years. 2. Local & Regional Transportation Groups & Agencies • Ames Area Running Club • Ames Bicycle Coalition • Ames Kidical Mass • Ames Velo • Central Iowa Bicycle-Pedestrian Roundtable • Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance (CIRTPA) • Des Moines Area MPO (DMAMPO) • Iowa Bicycle Coalition 3. Local, Community, & Development Groups/Organizations • Ames Chamber of Commerce • Ames Convention and Visitors Bureau • Ames Economic Development Commission • Ames Historical Society • Ames Home Builders Association • Ames School District • Campustown Action Association 24 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN • Downtown Ames • First Responders (Police, Fire, EMS) • Gilbert School District • Hospitals • Iowa State University Student Government • Local Developers • Neighborhood Associations & Groups 4. Advocacy Groups for disadvantaged, minority groups, and limited English-speaking individuals • Story County Transportation Collaboration (United Way of Story County) • Engaging International Spouses (EIS) – YWCA Ames • Human Service Organizations (previous Story County Human Service Council, no longer formal group) • International Students & Scholars (ISS) • Intensive English & Orientation Program 25 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix C – Demographic Data The following pages contain tables and maps summarizing demographic data within the Ames Area MPO’s boundary. Five-year data (2015-2019) was obtained at the census tract level from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) dataset, available at https://data.census.gov. Data for the following demographic groups is summarized: • Disability Status (Table 1, Figure 7) • Poverty Status (Table 2, Figure 8) • Race (Table 3, Figure 9) • Limited English Proficiency (Table 4, Table 5, Figure 10) • Age (Table 6, Figure 11) Table 1: Overview of Reported Disability Status Disability Population Percentage Hearing Difficulty 1,173 1.7% Vision Difficulty 740 1.0% Cognitive Difficulty 2,047 2.9% Ambulatory Difficulty 1,677 2.4% Self-Care Difficulty 570 0.8% Independent Living Difficulty 1,469 2.1% DISABILITY REPORTED 4,657 6.6% NO DISABILITY REPORTED 65,850 93.4% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data Table 2: Overview of Poverty Status Poverty Status Population Percentage Below Poverty Level 16,040 26.5% Above Poverty Level 44,442 73.5% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data 26 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Table 3: Overview of Population by Race Race Category Population Percentage White 58,104 79.0% Black or African American 2,116 2.9% Asian 7,664 10.4% Hispanic or Latino 2,707 3.7% Some Other Race 822 1.1% Two or More Races 2,150 2.9% WHITE 58,104 79.0% NON-WHITE 15,459 21.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data Table 4: Abbreviated Overview of Language Populations Category Population Percentage Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Speak English "very well" 5,392 7.9% Speak English less than "very well" 3,949 5.8% TOTAL 67,981 100.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data 27 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Table 5: Breakdown of Language Group Populations Category Population Percentage Total: 67,981 100.0% Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Spanish: 1,294 1.9% Speak English "very well" 961 1.4% Speak English less than "very well" 333 0.5% French, Haitian, or Cajun: 118 0.2% Speak English "very well" 87 0.1% Speak English less than "very well" 31 0.0% German or other West Germanic languages: 377 0.6% Speak English "very well" 368 0.5% Speak English less than "very well" 9 0.0% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 180 0.3% Speak English "very well" 150 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 30 0.0% Other Indo-European languages: 1,188 1.7% Speak English "very well" 870 1.3% Speak English less than "very well" 318 0.5% Korean: 660 1.0% Speak English "very well" 196 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 464 0.7% Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): 4,036 5.9% Speak English "very well" 1,773 2.6% Speak English less than "very well" 2,263 3.3% Vietnamese: 169 0.2% Speak English "very well" 30 0.0% Speak English less than "very well" 139 0.2% Tagalog (incl. Filipino): 142 0.2% Speak English "very well" 118 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 24 0.0% Other Asian and Pacific Island languages: 763 1.1% Speak English "very well" 496 0.7% Speak English less than "very well" 267 0.4% Arabic: 244 0.4% Speak English "very well" 189 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 55 0.1% Other and unspecified languages: 170 0.3% Speak English "very well" 154 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 16 0.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data; Purple = Meets Safe Harbor Crite 28 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Table 6: Overview of Population by Age Group Age Group Population Percentage ≤ 19 17,476 25.5% 20-34 29,831 43.5% 35-54 10,919 15.9% 55-64 3,158 4.6% ≥ 65 7,221 10.5% LESS THAN 65 61,384 89.5% GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 65 7,221 10.5% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data 29 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 30 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 31 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 32 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Figure 10: Limited English Proficiency Map (Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data) 33 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 14 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix D – Limited-English Proficiency (LEP) Plan The following pages contain the Ames Area MPO’s LEP Plan, adopted on October 26, 2021. 1 | P a g e Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds of the Ames Area MPO member governments. These contents are the responsibility of the Ames Area MPO. The U.S. government and its agencies assume no liability for the contents of this report or for the use of its contents. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan 2021 Update 2 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Four-Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 3 Factor 1 – LEP Population .......................................................................................................................... 4 American Community Survey (ACS) Data ............................................................................................. 4 Overview of Language Data ................................................................................................................... 4 Safe Harbor Provision ............................................................................................................................. 4 Factor 2 – Frequency of Contact ................................................................................................................. 7 Previous Requests ................................................................................................................................... 7 Iowa State University Students ............................................................................................................... 7 Public Participation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 7 Factor 3 – Importance of Services and Programs ....................................................................................... 8 MPO Services and Programs................................................................................................................... 8 Vital Services and Documents ................................................................................................................ 8 Planning Documents ............................................................................................................................... 8 Factor 4 – Resources Available for Outreach ............................................................................................. 9 MPO Public Outreach Strategies............................................................................................................. 9 City of Ames ........................................................................................................................................... 9 CyRide and Iowa State University ........................................................................................................ 10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Language Assistance Services .............................................................................................................. 11 Outreach Strategies ............................................................................................................................... 12 Updating the LEP Plan .......................................................................................................................... 12 Contact Information .............................................................................................................................. 12 3 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Introduction Background The primary objective of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan is to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency are provided meaningful access to the Ames Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization’s (AAMPO’s) various transportation planning processes. Executive Order 13166, signed August 11, 2000, “requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.” Additionally, in accordance with this Executive Order, the U.S. DOT issued its own LEP Guidance, which applies to all recipients of U.S. DOT funding, including MPOs. The Iowa DOT also provides additional guidance to Iowa MPOs regarding outreach to limited English proficiency persons as a part of their Public Participation Plan guidance. The Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance.” MPOs receive federal funding from both the FHWA and FTA and are therefore required to adhere to Title VI requirements. Regarding Title VI, any conduct that has a disproportionate effect on persons with limited English proficiency is prohibited, since this conduct would constitute national origin discrimination. Four-Factor Analysis The U.S. DOT LEP guidance recommends the use of a Four-Factor Analysis during the creation of LEP Plans. The following are the four factors: 1. The number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. The Four-Factor Analysis will act as the framework for the AAMPO’s LEP Plan. Each of the four factors will be included as a separate section in this document. 4 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 1 – LEP Population The first analysis factor is the number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. American Community Survey (ACS) Data The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) is an excellent data source for summarizing socioeconomic data, including data on English proficiency. For this analysis, data was downloaded from https://data.census.gov for the census tract level. 5-year ACS data was gathered for years 2015 through 2019. Only census tracts with greater than 10% of their land area located within the MPO boundary were included in the analysis. Overview of Language Data Table 1 shows an abbreviated overview of the language data for Ames Area MPO region. Around 86% of the population within the AAMPO region speak only English. Nearly 14% of the population speak a language other than English. Just under 6% of the population are classified with limited English proficiency (speaks English less than “very well”). Table 1: Abbreviated Overview of Language Populations Category Population Percentage Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Speak English "very well" 5,392 7.9% Speak English less than "very well" 3,949 5.8% TOTAL 67,981 100.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data Safe Harbor Provision The U.S. DOT’s LEP guidance references the Department of Justice’s Safe Harbor Provision, which outlines circumstances that can provide a “safe harbor” for recipients regarding the translation of written materials for LEP populations. In short, the Safe Harbor Provision recommends a written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5% or 1,000 persons, whichever is less. It also adds that the translation of non-vital documents, if needed, can be provided orally. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of all the language group populations, as defined in the American Community Survey. The only language group within the AAMPO boundary which met the above Safe Harbor Provision criteria was Chinese (including Mandarin & Cantonese). Although this group constituted less than 5% of the total population (3.3%), greater than 1,000 people fell within this group (2,263). See Figure 1 for a map summarizing limited English proficiency populations by census tract within the AAMPO region. 5 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Table 2: Breakdown of Language Group Populations Category Population Percentage Total: 67,981 100.0% Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Spanish: 1,294 1.9% Speak English "very well" 961 1.4% Speak English less than "very well" 333 0.5% French, Haitian, or Cajun: 118 0.2% Speak English "very well" 87 0.1% Speak English less than "very well" 31 0.0% German or other West Germanic languages: 377 0.6% Speak English "very well" 368 0.5% Speak English less than "very well" 9 0.0% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 180 0.3% Speak English "very well" 150 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 30 0.0% Other Indo-European languages: 1,188 1.7% Speak English "very well" 870 1.3% Speak English less than "very well" 318 0.5% Korean: 660 1.0% Speak English "very well" 196 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 464 0.7% Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): 4,036 5.9% Speak English "very well" 1,773 2.6% Speak English less than "very well" 2,263 3.3% Vietnamese: 169 0.2% Speak English "very well" 30 0.0% Speak English less than "very well" 139 0.2% Tagalog (incl. Filipino): 142 0.2% Speak English "very well" 118 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 24 0.0% Other Asian and Pacific Island languages: 763 1.1% Speak English "very well" 496 0.7% Speak English less than "very well" 267 0.4% Arabic: 244 0.4% Speak English "very well" 189 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 55 0.1% Other and unspecified languages: 170 0.3% Speak English "very well" 154 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 16 0.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data; Purple = Met Safe Harbor Criteria 6 | P a g e Figure 1: Limited English Proficiency Map (Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data) 7 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 2 – Frequency of Contact The second analysis factor is the frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. Previous Requests To date, the Ames Area MPO has never received a request for language assistance services, written or oral, from any individuals or groups with limited English proficiency. However, it is anticipated that the proportion of limited English proficiency individuals within the region could increase. Therefore, the probability of contact with a limited English proficiency group or individual may increase as well. Iowa State University Students It is worth noting that approximately 31,000 of 68,000 of the Ames region’s population is comprised of the student body of Iowa State University. Iowa State University has a sizable enrollment of minority populations, including Chinese students, which may have limited English proficiency. The MPO does not typically see many direct contacts from Iowa State University students. However, the MPO does frequency communicate and coordinate with Iowa State University and CyRide, both of which do frequently interact with students. Iowa State and CyRide both have representatives on the MPO’s technical and policy boards. CyRide, whose staff conducts many of the MPO’s transit planning activities as a part of a joint planning agreement, has its own LEP Plan. CyRide’s LEP Plan follows a similar four factor analysis to this LEP Plan and includes detailed breakdowns of the Iowa State student body as well as CyRide’s interactions with limited English proficiency students who utilize their bus transit system. Public Participation Plan The Ames Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) summarizes how the MPO involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts, including engagement goals and strategies. The PPP also highlights the MPO’s commitment to providing its planning services to all members of the public, including underserved populations such as those with limited English proficiency. 8 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 3 – Importance of Services and Programs The third analysis factor is the nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. MPO Services and Programs The Ames Area MPO provides and coordinates various transportation planning and improvement efforts throughout the Ames region. This includes a data-driven and community-based planning approach which identifies necessary transportation improvements and programs in the region. The MPO also directs the programming and use of federal funds on future transportation projects (including roadway, transit, and multi-modal improvements). Since every individual directly utilizes or relies upon the region’s transportation system in some capacity, the MPO’s transportation planning activities impact everyone within the region. Vital Services and Documents The MPO does not provide any emergency-based services such as medical treatments or basic needs services (food, water, shelter, etc.). The MPO does maintain various planning documents (described below) as well as a Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Policy & Procedures, and a Title VI Complain Form. These three Title VI documents are considered vital, per FTA Circular 4702.1B. Planning Documents The Ames Area MPO maintains five core planning documents including: 1. Public Participation Plan (PPP) 2. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 3. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 4. Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) 5. Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) More information about these planning documents can be found on the MPO website. They are also summarized within the Public Participation Plan. The MPO also maintains other documents and materials such as Title VI documentation, an Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture document, and this LEP Plan. These are also all located on the MPO website. The MPO always prioritizes inclusivity when developing transportation plans, studies, documents, and programs. The impact a transportation project or initiative will have on underserved populations, including limited English proficiency individuals, is always considered when evaluating that project or initiative. The MPO, through the strategies and procedures developed in the Public Participation Plan and LEP Plan, will always attempt to encourage outreach to and allow participation by limited English proficiency groups. 9 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Factor 4 – Resources Available for Outreach The fourth analysis factor is identifying the resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. MPO Public Outreach Strategies The MPO’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) outlines goals and strategies for public outreach and participation. Some of public outreach methods listed in the PPP and utilized by the MPO include: • AAMPO Website (www.aampo.org) – Automated translations available for over 90 languages. • E-Mail Notifications – Signup available on the MPO website. • Publications – Including Ames Tribune, ISU Daily, and radio stations. • TV & Streaming – Meetings are broadcast on the local governmental access cable channel (Channel 12), the City of Ames YouTube Channel, and as a live stream on the city’s website. • Social Media – The MPO utilizes the City of Ames’ social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. • City Side – The City of Ames Newsletter, City Side, is distributed monthly by mail to all City of Ames residents. City of Ames The following are a list of resources that the City of Ames has for ensuring access for LEP persons: • Oral Interpretation Service o The City of Ames offers the Language Line Interpretation Service. If there is a non- English speaking individual that comes into a city department, staff can show them the brochure for the Language Line Interpretation Service and have them select the language that they understand (the languages are written in both the native language and in English). Staff members can call the Language Interpretation Service and asks for the appropriate interpreter as pointed out by the customer. Staff members can utilize a speaker phone so both the staff member and the customer can be on the line at the same time. Flyers offering the Language Line Interpretation Service will be posted in the Administrative Offices. Additionally, where best appropriate, staff employees will also utilize Google Translator Interpretation Service from their computers and/or as application on their cell phones. • The City of Ames, as needed, will work with the Bureau of Refugee Services. • The City of Ames has developed a list of all City employees that speak, write, or read a language other than English fluently. The City of Ames may contact employees on this list for interpretation services as their schedule permits. A current list will be maintained in the in the Human Resources internal website. 10 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN • The City of Ames will also allow LEP persons to use an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the Language Line interpretation services offered by the City of Ames. • The City’s web page can allow its information to be translated into different languages by selecting the language of choice. CyRide and Iowa State University CyRide’s LEP Plan provides an excellent summary of the resources they have available to them for reaching out to Limited English Proficiency persons. Some of these resources include: • Google Translate for documents, notices, agendas, flyers, and other printed materials. • Coordination with the Iowa State University’s International Student & Scholars • Coordination with Iowa State University’s Intensive English & Orientation Program/Office of the Registrar • Coordination with local human service organizations through Story County’s Human Services Council and United Way’s Transportation Collaboration Committee • Coordination with Community Partners (such as the City of Ames, Iowa State University, and the Iowa State University Student Government) • CyRide has a contract with “CTS Language Link” who is a 24/7/365 Telephone Interpreting service that supports over 240 languages and has 24-hour support. According to CyRide’s LEP Plan, this service costs about $0.82/min. 11 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN Conclusion Summary A four-factor analysis was conducted, per the U.S. DOT LEP guidance, to determine which language assistance services are appropriate for the MPO to implement for effective communication with limited English proficiency persons. The four analysis factors included: 1. The number and proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency encounter MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. Language Assistance Services The Ames Area MPO is currently staffed and fiscally supported by the City of Ames. Therefore, the MPO will plan to leverage the resources that the City of Ames has available for engaging limited English proficiency persons. The following is a list of the language assistance services the MPO will provide: 1. Oral Interpretation Services – The MPO will leverage the Language Line Interpretation Service through TheBigWord. If there is a non-English speaking individual that comes into a city department, staff can show them the brochure for the Language Line Interpretation Service and have them select the language that they understand (the languages are written in both the native language and in English). Staff members can call the Language Interpretation Service and asks for an appropriate interpreter, as pointed out by the customer. The City of Ames has also developed a list of all City employees that speak, write, or read a language other than English fluently. The City of Ames may contact employees on this list for interpretation services as their schedule permits. A current list is maintained in the Human Resources internal website. Note that the Ames Area MPO will also allow LEP persons to use an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the Language Line interpretation services offered by the Ames Area MPO. Additionally, where best appropriate, staff employees will also utilize Google Translator Interpretation Service from their computers and/or as application on their cell phones. 2. Written Translations (Vital Documents) - The MPO will provide a written translation of all vital documents (Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Policy & Procedures, and a Title VI Complain Form) to Mandarin Chinese, per the Safe Harbor Provision requirements. 3. Bureau of Refugee Services – The MPO will, as needed, work with the Bureau of Refugee Services. 12 | P a g e LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN 4. MPO Website – The MPO’s website can allow its information to be automatically translated into over 90 different languages. 5. Regional Partners – The MPO will work with its regional agencies and contact groups such as Iowa State University and CyRide to establish and provide additional language assistance services to the MPO, as needed. The MPO will continue to monitor for any translation requests made from LEP persons and will evaluate whether full written language translations may be required for any of the core transportation planning documents or other MPO materials in the future. The MPO will leverage its oral interpretation services for the translation of any planning document or written material, upon request. Outreach Strategies The MPO will continue to coordinate with its regional contacts, as outlined in the Public Participation Plan, regarding outreach strategies for limited English proficiency persons. Additionally, the MPO will continue to utilize its various public outreach resources such as: the MPO website (with automated translations into over 90 different languages), e-mail notifications, publications, radio stations, Channel 12, streaming, social media, and the City of Ames newsletter, City Side. Updating the LEP Plan The MPO will continue to monitor and update the LEP Plan per Iowa DOT and U.S. DOT requirements. Some reasons an update may be warranted include: • Changes in the region’s LEP population (number, proportion, location) as indicated by new Census and ACS data. • New analysis strategies for evaluating LEP populations and resources. • New interactions with or translation requests from LEP persons. • Updates to LEP policies or procedures at the local, state, or federal level. The MPO evaluates if an update to the LEP Plan is warranted during its annual self-certification process. The MPO’s Transportation Policy Committee may also direct the creation of an updated LEP Plan at its discretion. Contact Information The Ames Area MPO wants to ensure that its Limited English Proficiency Plan is effective in providing outreach and translation services for limited English proficiency persons. Anyone who requires language assistance services should contact the Ames Area MPO using the information below: Ames Area MPO 515 Clark Ave Ames, IA, 50010 Phone: (515) 239-5169 Email 15 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix E – Meeting Minutes for Approval of Title VI Program Insert TPC meeting minutes here when ready. 16 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix F – Demographic Maps with Transit Routes The Ames Area MPO awards funds to the Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) for bus purchases and projects that are utilized systemwide. Therefore, the following maps show the location of different demographic groups in relation to CyRide’s transit route network. Data Source: 2015-2019 ACS 17 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Data Source: 2015-2019 ACS 18 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Appendix G – Demographic Maps with MTP & TIP Projects Source: Ames Area MPO MTP (Forward 45), Page 175 19 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Data Source: 2015-2019 ACS 20 | P a g e 2021 FTA TITLE VI PROGRAM |AAMPO Data Source: 2015-2019 ACS ITEM: AAMPO 6 DATE: 10-26-21 AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: FINAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP) BACKGROUND: The Public Participation Plan (PPP) details how the Ames Area MPO involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts. It includes goals and strategies that the MPO will implement so that all interested parties have ample opportunity to get involved with the MPO’s transportation planning efforts and planning document updates. It also details how to access transportation planning information and documentation. All MPO’s are federally required to have a PPP. The Iowa DOT requires that MPO’s update their PPP every five years. The Ames Area MPO’s last update to the PPP was in 2016, thus, an update is due in 2021. The Iowa DOT provided new guidelines for the development of PPP’s and this draft was developed utilizing these new guidelines. The Draft PPP is broken into six primary sections, which are shown below. Additionally, Appendix B shows a list of stakeholders and public groups, and Appendix C breaks down demographic data for underserved populations. Section Pages Section Title Key Topics 1 4-6 Introduction Information 2 7-9 Regulations Regulations 3 10-11 Strategies Newsletter 4 12-13 Methods Houses, Surveys, Comment Periods, Visuals 5 14-19 Documents PTP, Amendments 6 20-21 Populations Overview/Goals, Accommodations, Complaint Procedures The following table details the minimum public comment periods and procedures for review of final drafts or amendments for each of the five core planning documents: Planning Document Public Comment Period Minimum Length (Days) Public Input Sessions (# Sessions) Public Comment Period Minimum Length (Days) Public Participation Plan 45 1 or more Transportation Plan 30 1 or more Improvement Program 30 1 or more Planning Work Program 30 1 or more Transportation Plan 30 1 or more The Draft PPP was approved by the Transportation Policy Committee on September 8, 2021, and a 45-day public comment period was opened. The Iowa DOT was also provided the draft document and submitted its comments. The Final PPP addresses all comments received by the Iowa DOT. No public comments were received by staff. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the Final Public Participation Plan. 2. Adopt the Final Public Participation Plan with Transportation Policy Committee modifications. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: The Public Participation Plan was developed based on applicable federal and state regulations and the latest Iowa DOT guidance. The final document addresses all comments received by staff. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Administrator that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 | P a g e Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and in part through local matching funds of the Ames Area MPO member governments. These contents are the responsibility of the Ames Area MPO. The U.S. government and its agencies assume no liability for the contents of this report or for the use of its contents. The Public Participation Plan 2021 Update 2 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN CONTENTS 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Document Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 AAMPO Overview and Planning Area ............................................................................................. 4 1.3 Transportation Policy Committee ..................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Transportation Technical Committee ................................................................................................ 6 1.5 MPO Staff & Contact Information .................................................................................................... 6 2 - Regulations ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Transportation Planning Requirements ............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Iowa DOT Requirements .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Title VI .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Limited English Proficiency.............................................................................................................. 8 2.6 Iowa Open Meetings ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 Iowa Public Records.......................................................................................................................... 9 3 - Public Outreach Strategies ................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Ames Area MPO Website ............................................................................................................... 10 3.2 E-Mail Notifications ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Publications ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 TV & Streaming .............................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 Social Media .................................................................................................................................... 11 3.6 City Side (City of Ames Newsletter) .............................................................................................. 11 4 - Public Input Methods........................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Public Hearings ............................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Public Input Sessions ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Workshops & Open Houses ............................................................................................................ 12 4.4 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................ 12 4.5 Comments........................................................................................................................................ 13 4.6 Visualization Techniques ................................................................................................................ 13 5 - Planning Documents ............................................................................................................................ 14 5.1 Public Participation Plan (PPP) ....................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) ....................................................................................... 15 3 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .................................................................................. 16 5.4 Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) ........................................................................... 17 5.5 Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) .............................................................................................. 18 5.6 Amendments.................................................................................................................................... 19 6 - Underserved Populations ..................................................................................................................... 20 6.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Accommodations ............................................................................................................................. 20 6.3 Complaint Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A – List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 22 Appendix B – List of MPO Stakeholders & Public Groups ..................................................................... 23 Appendix C – Demographic Data ............................................................................................................. 25 4 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 1 - Introduction 1.1 Document Purpose The Public Participation Plan (PPP) details how the Ames Area MPO (AAMPO) involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts. This document will provide public and stakeholder engagement goals and strategies that the MPO plans to implement so that all interested parties have ample opportunity to get involved with the MPO’s transportation planning efforts and planning document updates. It will also detail how the MPO will provide easy access to relevant transportation planning information and documentation. MPOs are federally required to develop a PPP. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that MPOs update their PPP at least every five years. Even though five years is the maximum timeframe between PPP updates, AAMPO continually reviews its public and stakeholder engagement strategies and will update its PPP whenever warranted. 1.2 AAMPO Overview and Planning Area The AAMPO was officially designated the MPO of the Ames urbanized area by the Governor of Iowa in March 2003. This designation was the result of the Ames urbanized area having a population greater than 50,000 in the 2000 Census. As a result of the 2010 Census, the urbanized areas of Ames and Gilbert were combined into one urbanized area, therefore requiring the Metropolitan Planning Area to be expanded to encompass this area in its entirety. The Ames Area MPO approved the current Metropolitan Planning Area boundary on November 13, 2012 (shown in Figure 1). The City of Gilbert and Iowa State University were added to the Transportation Policy Committee on March 26, 2013. Figure 1: AAMPO Boundary (Adopted Nov 13, 2012) 5 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN The Ames Area MPO provides and coordinates various transportation planning and improvement efforts throughout the Ames urban area. This includes coordination and consultation with the MPO’s various stakeholders, which are described in Appendix B. Ames is located in central Iowa and is served by Interstate 35, US Highway 30, and US Highway 69. Surface transportation needs are met through over 251 centerline miles of streets. The community has a very progressive transit system, CyRide, which typically carries approximately six million passengers each year. While most transit users have Iowa State University ties, CyRide serves the entire Ames community. The Ames Area MPO area includes the Ames Municipal Airport, which serves general aviation needs for business, industry, and recreation users. On average, 104 aircraft operations occur per day at the Ames Municipal Airport. Railroads provide freight service to the area by dual east-west mainline tracks and a northern agricultural spur. The Ames Area MPO consists primarily of two standing committees: The Transportation Policy Committee and the Transportation Technical Committee. 1.3 Transportation Policy Committee The Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) is the policy setting board of the MPO and the membership consists of local officials. Voting membership on the committee includes city and county governments located, wholly or partially, in the Ames Area MPO planning boundary, as well as the local transit agency. Currently the TPC membership includes the City of Ames, City of Gilbert, CyRide, Boone County, and Story County. The Iowa Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Iowa State University serve as advisory, non-voting, representatives. Transportation Policy Committee Membership Representative Agency Member Representative Agency Role City of Ames (Chair) City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames Boone County Story County Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) City of Gilbert Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Transit Administration ‡ Iowa State University ‡ ‡ Non-voting 6 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 1.4 Transportation Technical Committee The Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) consists of technical personnel from various agencies involved in transportation issues within the planning area. The TTC formulates the procedural details of the Transportation Planning Work Program. The committee reviews and monitors the output of various MPO activities identified in the work program and makes recommendations to the policy committee. The committee is also responsible for assisting in developing Transportation Improvement Programs and Metropolitan Transportation Plans. The Iowa Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration serve as advisory, non-voting, representatives. ‡ Non-voting 1.5 MPO Staff & Contact Information There are numerous ways to contact and engage with the MPO staff, including: Website: www.aampo.org Primary Phone: (515) 239-5169 Email: Staff Contact List Mail/Office: Ames Area MPO 515 Clark Ave Ames, IA, 50010 Transportation Technical Committee Membership Representative Agency Member Representative Agency Role City of Ames (Chair) City of Ames (Vice-Chair) City of Ames City of Ames City of Ames Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) Iowa State University Boone County Story County Ames Community School Dist. Ames Economic Development Commission Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Iowa Dept. of Transportation ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Highway Administration ‡ Federal Transit Administration ‡ 7 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 2 - Regulations There are several federal and state regulations pertaining to participation in the MPOs transportation planning activities for members of the public and agency stakeholders. These regulations are described in the following section. 2.1 Transportation Planning Requirements 23 CFR 450.316 details several federal requirements that MPOs need to follow regarding public and stakeholder participation. In short, these regulations cover the development and content requirements for Public Participation Plans, documentation of public comments on planning documents such as Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs), the 45- day public comment period requirement for initial or revised PPPs, and coordination with regional agencies and officials which are responsible for other planning activities or are affected by regional planning activities. 2.2 Iowa DOT Requirements The Iowa DOT provides guidance documentation to Iowa MPOs and RPAs for the development and maintenance of Public Participation Plans. Within this guidance, the Iowa DOT states various requirements that help ensure that PPPs are both effective and comply with the various federal requirements and regulations. Some of the more significant requirements are listed here: • The PPP is required to be updated at least every five years. • The PPP must be developed in consultation with all interested parties. • The minimum required public comment period is 45 calendar days before final adoption. • The Draft PPP must be submitted to Iowa DOT staff for review before final adoption. • The Final PPP must be provided to Iowa DOT, FHWA, FTA, and published online. • The PPP must cover public-related procedures for all five of the MPOs core planning documents which include the MTP, PPP, PTP, TIP, and TPWP. • All draft planning documents provided to the public for input should be in final draft form. • Timeframes and notification methods for meeting agendas, public hearing notices, and public comment periods should be explicitly stated in the PPP. • Meeting agendas, meeting minutes, current planning documents, and Title VI documentation (including notice to public, complaint form, and related documents) should be posted on the MPO’s website. 2.3 Title VI “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance.” MPOs receive federal funding from both the FHWA and FTA and are therefore required to adhere to Title VI requirements. Additionally, FTA has published FTA Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. All recipients of FTA funds, including MPOs, 8 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN are subject to these requirements. In addition to Title VI specific regulations, there also additional non- discrimination protection regulations that agencies receiving federal funds must follow. Section 162 (a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 USC 324) covers the prohibition of sex-based discrimination. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination based on disabilities. 2.4 Environmental Justice The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that “Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” There are several regulations pertaining to environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations including Executive Order 12898, U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(a), FTA Circular 4703.1, and FHWA Order 6640.23A. These regulations ensure that government agencies (such as MPOs), are providing reasonable opportunities for all people (regardless of race, color, origin, or income) to be able to actively participate in decisions and planning efforts that may affect their environment and/or health. Additionally, MPOs need to assess and consider the potential impact their planning efforts and future projects may have on the health and the environment for minority and low-income populations. 2.5 Limited English Proficiency Executive Order 13166, signed August 11, 2000, “requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.” Additionally, in accordance with this Executive Order, the U.S. DOT issued its own LEP Guidance, which applies to all recipients of U.S. DOT funding, including MPOs. 2.6 Iowa Open Meetings Chapter 21 of the Code of Iowa details the full regulations pertaining to the open meetings law. Some key points that relate to MPO meetings include: • Public notice must be given for the time, date, place, and agenda for meetings. • Meetings need to be held at a place and time reasonably accessible to the public. • Meetings must be conducted in open session, with certain exceptions that may apply for holding a closed session. • Meeting minutes must be kept which include the date, time, place, members present, and actions taken. • Electronic meetings may be conducted only in circumstances where meeting in person is impossible or impractical. Electronic meetings still need to be accessible to the public and minutes still need to be kept. 9 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 2.7 Iowa Public Records Chapter 22 of the Code of Iowa details the full regulations pertaining to the public records law. Some key points that relate to MPO meetings include: • The public has the right to examine and copy public records. • The agency may adopt and enforce reasonable rules regarding the examination and copying of the records. • If the agency’s physical possession, the right to examine public records should be free of charge. • The agency may charge a reasonable fee for time and expense required for supervising examination and copying the records, not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. • Some records are considered confidential and are not subject to public release in the absence of a court order, as outlined in Chapter 22.7. 10 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 3 - Public Outreach Strategies The goal of the Ames Area MPO is to ensure that all interested parties are well-informed and have ample notice and ability to provide meaningful input for all transportation planning activities and initiatives. To do this, AAMPO utilizes various strategies and mediums for which to reach out to members of the public as well as the region’s stakeholders (see Appendix B for a list of stakeholders). 3.1 Ames Area MPO Website The Ames Area MPO website, www.aampo.org, provides information about all MPO activities and efforts and can be automatically translated into over 90 languages. Current versions and information on the five core planning documents (MTP, TPWP, TIP, PPP, & PTP) are detailed on this website. The PTP webpage has information regarding their upcoming meetings, agendas, and meeting notes. Some past planning document versions are also directly available along with an email link to request older versions. Information on upcoming public comment periods, public input sessions, workshops, and public hearing dates can also be found on the website. The Title VI Notice to the Public, Title VI Complaint Form, and all Title VI documentation can be found on the website. Information on all Transportation Policy Committee and Transportation Technical Committee meetings are all referenced including agendas, meeting materials, and meeting minutes. The AAMPO also provides additional information and links about other transportation planning initiatives on the website such as transit planning, Safe Routes to School maps, and the Regional ITS Architecture document. The AAMPO will also now begin to work on providing more access to transportation data (both from internal and external data sources) through interactive web maps (examples will include traffic volumes, intersection turning movement counts, segment & intersection crash data, as well as MTP & TIP projects). 3.2 E-Mail Notifications Anyone may sign up online at https://www.cityofames.org/living/email-notification-sign-up to receive MPO-related notifications pertaining to upcoming meetings, events, and news items. Subscribers to this service may opt out at any time after initial sign up. 3.3 Publications Information about all MPO meetings is added to the existing public meeting calendar which is produced weekly and is distributed to local newspapers such as the Ames Tribune and ISU Daily. Formal notices for public hearings are published in the Ames Tribune. Press releases to area newspapers and radio stations will be used utilized to notify citizens of upcoming MPO activities. 3.4 TV & Streaming The City of Ames maintains a local governmental access cable channel (Channel 12), a YouTube channel, and a live stream on the City’s website for broadcasting public meetings. This includes the MPO’s Transportation Policy Committee meetings and workshops. Archived versions of these meetings can also be found on the YouTube channel or on the City’s website. 11 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 3.5 Social Media The Ames Area MPO does not currently have its own social media account on any platform. However, the public is provided notice about MPO plan updates through the City of Ames’s social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. The public can submit comments and feedback on MPO-related posts on those social media platforms. 3.6 City Side (City of Ames Newsletter) Meeting information for the AAMPO is included as a part of the City of Ames’ newsletter, City Side, which is distributed monthly by mail with utility bills to City of Ames residents. City Side is also posted on the City of Ames social media accounts. 12 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 4 - Public Input Methods The Ames Area MPO wants to ensure that the public has numerous methods to provide input on the MPO’s planning documents and planning efforts. This section outlines the various strategies the MPO utilizes to provide ample opportunity for citizens and stakeholders to be involved. The AAMPO will always consider and respond to all public input received during program development and planning processes. 4.1 Public Hearings The AAMPO Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) hosts formal public hearings for final approval of any of the core planning documents during the committee meeting. Additionally, the public is welcome to comment during TPC meetings on any of the agenda items when that item is up for discussion and is also provided an opportunity to provide comments on topics not on the agenda. Public hearing notices are published between 4 to 20 days prior to the public hearing date, per Iowa Code 362.3. Typically, the MPO will publish notices one to two weeks prior to a public hearing date. 4.2 Public Input Sessions MPO staff will hold Public Input Sessions, which are informal opportunities for members of the public to provide comments, input, and ask questions about MPO plans and documents. These sessions are typically one hour in length. They may be held virtually (Microsoft Teams, Zoom, etc.) or in-person in Ames City Hall. These sessions are designed to be flexible, allowing the public to come and go at any point during the specified time period of the input session. Staff will provide copies of any needed materials, such as copies of planning documents, as appropriate. Public Input Sessions are typically held at least once during the public comment period of each of the five core planning documents. They may also be held for other important MPO planning efforts. 4.3 Workshops & Open Houses Workshops and open houses are typically meetings with a series of activities aimed to be visually engaging and gather public input in the form of written, spoken, or other forms. Workshops and open houses can employ several activities such as visual preference surveys, mapping activities, discussions, and other input gathering strategies. Workshops and open houses are commonly utilized during the development of Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs) but may be held during other planning efforts, as appropriate. 4.4 Surveys Surveys may be conducted using the MPO website or by using mailings to gather input and information from a large number of citizens. The AAMPO typically conducts a Regional Transportation Survey during development of MTPs. This survey helps residents present their opinions on the current state of the transportation system and their hopes for the future of the transportation system. It also helps the MPO gather information about the public’s travel characteristics and preferences. 13 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 4.5 Comments The MPO always accepts comments from the public for any topic, whether in-person, by phone, or by email (see Section 1.5 for contact information). The MPO also monitors social media posts for any feedback. The MPO holds public comment periods for all five core planning documents. This is the opportunity when members of the public can submit their comments to MPO staff on the final draft planning document before it is finalized and brought forward for the public hearing and final approval. A public comment period is also required for any amendments to planning documents. Public comments received on the MTP and the TIP are always documented within the final version of the planning document. 4.6 Visualization Techniques The MPO ensures that visualization techniques are incorporated into public participation activities. The MPO website and interactive web-based GIS maps may be utilized to provide another method of receiving feedback and comments. One application of this would be the ability of citizens to provide project-specific feedback on projects listed in the MTP or the TIP on an interactive GIS map. 14 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5 - Planning Documents This section will describe each of the five core planning documents that the MPO maintains as well as the development process for each planning document (including public participation processes). 5.1 Public Participation Plan (PPP) The PPP details how the AAMPO involves the public and stakeholders in its transportation planning efforts. It provides public and stakeholder engagement goals and strategies that the MPO plans to implement so that all interested parties have ample opportunity to get involved with the MPO’s transportation planning efforts and planning document updates. It also details how the MPO will provide easy access to relevant transportation planning information and documentation. The PPP is required to be updated at least every five (5) years, or as needed (the MPO will periodically review the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained within this plan to ensure full and open participation process). The development process (shown in Figure 2) includes a 45-day public comment period, a public input session, and a public hearing. Information on the Public Participation Plan and how to sign up for e-notifications about meeting dates and news is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/about-the-mpo/public- participation-plan. Figure 2: Public Participation Plan Development Process 15 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), formally known as the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), acts a framework for guiding the AAMPO’s transportation investments and policy decisions over a 25-year period by identifying a regional vision for a multi-modal transportation system through stakeholder and community input. This includes developing short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans for regional project programming based upon a performance-based, community-driven approach. The MTP is required to be updated every five (5) years. The development process for the MTP is shown in Figure 3. Because the MTP utilizes a community-driven planning approach, members of the public and regional stakeholders need to be involved early in the plan’s development. As such, during the initial plan development, multiple input methods may be utilized including surveys, workshops (for the public, TTC, and TPC), and public open houses or input sessions. During review of the final draft plan, there will be a 30-day public comment period, at least one public input session, and a public hearing on the date of final approval. Information on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/ames-mobility-2040-lrtp. Figure 3: Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development Process 16 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Transportation Improvement Program is a 4-year implementation program for federally funded and regionally significant transportation projects within the Ames region. It reflects the investment priorities that are established in the MTP. Additionally, any projects funded with Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities) funding needs to be identified previously in the Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) prior to being identified in the TIP. The AAMPO TIP is included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is developed by the Iowa DOT. The TIP is updated annually. The development process (shown in Figure 4) includes a 30-day public comment period, a public input session, and a public hearing. Information on the Transportation Improvement Program is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/tip. Figure 4: Transportation Improvement Program Development Process 17 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.4 Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) The Transportation Planning Work Program (TPWP) functions as the regional work plan for the Ames Area MPO. Each TPWP covers one fiscal year and defines the anticipated work and tasks to be performed. This work is broken down into major planning activities. The document includes details on who will perform the various planning activities, the schedule for completing the activities, the resulting products and expectations of each activity, as well as the total program budget for the year (including funding amounts for each activity). A new TPWP is developed annually, since each TPWP only covers a single fiscal year. The development process (shown in Figure 5) includes a 30-day public comment period, a public input session, and a public hearing. Information on the Transportation Planning Work Program is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/tpwp. Figure 5: Transportation Planning Work Program Development Process 18 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.5 Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) The primary purpose of the Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) is to promote joint, coordinated passenger transportation planning programs that further the development of the local and regional transportation systems. It provides key community decision makers with the knowledge of how individuals are currently being transported throughout Ames, the additional transportation needs and service requests identified, and recommended strategies or projects to overcome these needs. A new PTP is developed every five (5) years, at a minimum, with updates as needed. Specifically, Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities projects or strategies need to be identified in the PTP before a project can be included in the AAMPO’s TIP, which is required to obtain grant funding. The development process (shown in Figure 6) includes coordination with and review by the Transportation Collaboration (TC) of Story County, which functions as the AAMPO’s Transportation Advisory Group (TAG). This process also includes reviews by both the TTC and TPC, a 30-day public comment period, and a public hearing. Information on the Transportation Planning Work Program is always available on the MPO website at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/passenger- transportation-plan. Additionally, the TAG group is required to have at least two meetings every fiscal year with meeting minutes submitted to the Iowa DOT annually by July 31st. Figure 6: Passenger Transportation Plan Development Process 19 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 5.6 Amendments While each of the core planning documents are updated under the respective time cycles, they can be amended in between updates when the need arises. One example of an amendment being required would be if a project’s programmed budget or timeline needs to be modified in the current TIP. Amendments are also subject to public review requirements and procedures. The AAMPO requires that before any core planning document can be amended, the amendment must be reviewed by the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) and the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC). Additionally, amendments to the PTP need to be reviewed by the Transportation Collaboration (TC) of Story County. A minimum of a 15-day public comment period (45 days for the PPP) must also occur prior to an amendment to any core planning document. A public hearing and final approval of the amendment must then occur at a TPC meeting. 20 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 6 - Underserved Populations 6.1 Overview The Ames Area MPO is committed to providing planning services across the Ames region that benefit all members of the public regardless of race, color, national origin, age, gender, income, or disability. To meet this commitment, the AAMPO follows the obligations outlined for Iowa MPOs in the state and federal regulations stated in Section 2 of this document. Appendix C provides an overview of regional demographic data for underserved population groups using American Community Survey (ACS) data. 6.2 Accommodations The MPO ensures that its various meetings are held at convenient and accessible locations that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Most MPO meetings are held at Ames City Hall, which is easily accessible via Transit as there is a CyRide bus stop on the south side of the building. There are also bike racks located at Ames City Hall. The MPO website is also automatically translated into over 90 different languages. The Ames Area MPO participates in and coordinates with the Story County Transportation Collaboration (conducted under the leadership of the United Way of Story County), which includes representatives from groups and organizations that share an interest in reducing transportation barriers. During the AAMPO’s MTP updates, Environmental Justice (EJ) populations, including minority populations and low-income populations are identified in the MPO’s region. Projects which are identified in the MTP are evaluated to see if they disproportionately adversely affect minority and low- income populations. The MPO also considers the project’s beneficial and/or adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations when developing, evaluating, and prioritizing projects in the MTP. The AAMPO develops and maintains a separate Limited-English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. This plan helps ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency have access to the MPO’s various transportation documents and planning processes. Within this plan, areas within the Ames region with limited English proficiency are identified. As recommended by the U.S. DOT, the LEP Plan follows the four-factor analysis process. Those four factors are: 1. The number or proportion of persons with limited English proficiency who are eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by MPO services and programs. 2. The frequency with which persons with limited English proficiency come into contact with MPO services and programs. 3. The nature and importance of the MPO’s services and programs in people’s lives. 4. The resources available to the MPO for outreach to persons with limited English proficiency, as well as the costs associated with the outreach. CyRide, which helps staff the Ames Area MPO, also maintains its own respective LEP Plan. CyRide also maintains its own FTA Title VI Program. 21 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 6.3 Complaint Procedures Any person wishing to file a formal discrimination complaint may do so by completing the Title VI Complain form. This form can be accessed online on the main page of the AAMPO website or by contacting the MPO. More information on the complaint form and process can be found on the website. This complaint form should be returned to the MPO’s current Title VI Civil Rights Coordinator, who’s contact information is identified on both the form and online. 22 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix A – List of Acronyms Acronym Definition 23 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix B – List of MPO Stakeholders & Public Groups The Ames Area MPO communicates with a wide variety of stakeholders so that feedback throughout the MPO’s various planning processes is comprehensive and properly reflects community values. The following stakeholders are identified as primary targets for key messages and communications on MPO planning activities and planning document updates. 1. Local, State, & Federal Government Agencies • Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) • Boone County • City of Ames • City of Gilbert • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) • Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) • Iowa State University (ISU) • Story County Note: The Ames Area MPO maintains agreements with the Iowa DOT and CyRide. The Iowa DOT and the AAMPO update their joint planning agreement annually as a part of the TPWP development process. CyRide and the AAMPO typically update their cooperative agreement every 3 years. 2. Local & Regional Transportation Groups & Agencies • Ames Area Running Club • Ames Bicycle Coalition • Ames Kidical Mass • Ames Velo • Central Iowa Bicycle-Pedestrian Roundtable • Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning Alliance (CIRTPA) • Des Moines Area MPO (DMAMPO) • Iowa Bicycle Coalition 3. Local, Community, & Development Groups/Organizations • Ames Chamber of Commerce • Ames Convention and Visitors Bureau • Ames Economic Development Commission • Ames Historical Society • Ames Home Builders Association • Ames School District • Campustown Action Association 24 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN • Downtown Ames • First Responders (Police, Fire, EMS) • Gilbert School District • Hospitals • Iowa State University Student Government • Local Developers • Neighborhood Associations & Groups 4. Advocacy Groups for disadvantaged, minority groups, and limited English-speaking individuals • Story County Transportation Collaboration (United Way of Story County) • Engaging International Spouses (EIS) – YWCA Ames • Human Service Organizations (previous Story County Human Service Council, no longer formal group) • International Students & Scholars (ISS) • Intensive English & Orientation Program 25 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix C – Demographic Data The following pages contain tables and maps summarizing demographic data within the Ames Area MPO’s boundary. Five-year data (2015-2019) was obtained at the census tract level from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) dataset, available at https://data.census.gov. Data for the following demographic groups is summarized: • Disability Status (Table 1, Figure 7) • Poverty Status (Table 2, Figure 8) • Race (Table 3, Figure 9) • Limited English Proficiency (Table 4, Table 5, Figure 10) • Age (Table 6, Figure 11) Table 1: Overview of Reported Disability Status Disability Population Percentage Hearing Difficulty 1,173 1.7% Vision Difficulty 740 1.0% Cognitive Difficulty 2,047 2.9% Ambulatory Difficulty 1,677 2.4% Self-Care Difficulty 570 0.8% Independent Living Difficulty 1,469 2.1% DISABILITY REPORTED 4,657 6.6% NO DISABILITY REPORTED 65,850 93.4% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data Table 2: Overview of Poverty Status Poverty Status Population Percentage Below Poverty Level 16,040 26.5% Above Poverty Level 44,442 73.5% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data 26 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Table 3: Overview of Population by Race Race Category Population Percentage White 58,104 79.0% Black or African American 2,116 2.9% Asian 7,664 10.4% Hispanic or Latino 2,707 3.7% Some Other Race 822 1.1% Two or More Races 2,150 2.9% WHITE 58,104 79.0% NON-WHITE 15,459 21.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data Table 4: Abbreviated Overview of Language Populations Category Population Percentage Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Speak English "very well" 5,392 7.9% Speak English less than "very well" 3,949 5.8% TOTAL 67,981 100.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data 27 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Table 5: Breakdown of Language Group Populations Category Population Percentage Total: 67,981 100.0% Speak only English 58,640 86.3% Spanish: 1,294 1.9% Speak English "very well" 961 1.4% Speak English less than "very well" 333 0.5% French, Haitian, or Cajun: 118 0.2% Speak English "very well" 87 0.1% Speak English less than "very well" 31 0.0% German or other West Germanic languages: 377 0.6% Speak English "very well" 368 0.5% Speak English less than "very well" 9 0.0% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 180 0.3% Speak English "very well" 150 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 30 0.0% Other Indo-European languages: 1,188 1.7% Speak English "very well" 870 1.3% Speak English less than "very well" 318 0.5% Korean: 660 1.0% Speak English "very well" 196 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 464 0.7% Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): 4,036 5.9% Speak English "very well" 1,773 2.6% Speak English less than "very well" 2,263 3.3% Vietnamese: 169 0.2% Speak English "very well" 30 0.0% Speak English less than "very well" 139 0.2% Tagalog (incl. Filipino): 142 0.2% Speak English "very well" 118 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 24 0.0% Other Asian and Pacific Island languages: 763 1.1% Speak English "very well" 496 0.7% Speak English less than "very well" 267 0.4% Arabic: 244 0.4% Speak English "very well" 189 0.3% Speak English less than "very well" 55 0.1% Other and unspecified languages: 170 0.3% Speak English "very well" 154 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 16 0.0% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data; Purple = Meets Safe Harbor Crite 28 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Table 6: Overview of Population by Age Group Age Group Population Percentage ≤ 19 17,476 25.5% 20-34 29,831 43.5% 35-54 10,919 15.9% 55-64 3,158 4.6% ≥ 65 7,221 10.5% LESS THAN 65 61,384 89.5% GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 65 7,221 10.5% Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data 29 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 30 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 31 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 32 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Figure 10: Limited English Proficiency Map (Source: 2015-2019 ACS Data) 33 | P a g e PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 12, 2021 The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:01 p.m. on October 12, 2021, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, and Rachel Junck. Council Member David Martin was brought in electronically. Ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone was also present. CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda. 1.Motion approving payment of claims 2.Motion approving Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of September 28, 2021 3.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period September 16 - 30, 2021 4.Motion approving ownership change for Class A Liquor License, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Green Hills Residents’ Association, 2200 Hamilton Drive, Suite 100 5.Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses: a.Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer), and Sunday Sales - Target Store T-1170, 320 S Duff Avenue 6.RESOLUTION NO. 21-528 authorizing the Mayor to sign Certificate of Consistency with City’s 2019-2023 CDBG Consolidated Plan on behalf of Youth & Shelter Services and The Bridge Home for funding from Iowa Finance Authority 7.RESOLUTION NO. 21-529 waiving Purchasing Policies’ formal bidding requirements and extending an engagement with Ahlers and Cooney, P.C., of Des Moines, Iowa, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for legal services related to application of Iowa Code Chapter 20 8.RESOLUTION NO. 21-530 setting date of hearing for October 26, 2021, for vacating Utility Easement on Lot 5 in Block 2 of the Southwood Subdivision, First Addition (1100 Buckeye Avenue) 9.RESOLUTION NO. 21-531 approving Professional Services Agreement for the 2021/22 Traffic System Capacity Improvements - Grand Avenue Corridor Study (9th Street to 24th Street) with HDR, Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska, in an amount not to exceed $84,853 10.RESOLUTION NO. 21-532 approving renewed 28E Agreement for Tobacco, Alternative Nicotine, and Vapor Product Enforcement between the Police Department and the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division 11.RESOLUTION NO. 21-533 approving Amendment to Agreement between the City and Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa to extend the date of completion for the construction of a home at 1126 Grand Avenue 12.RESOLUTION NO. 21-534 awarding contract to Fischer Brothers, LLC, of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, for the Furman Aquatic Center Play Structure Refurbishment Project in the amount of $59,300 13.RESOLUTION NO. 21-535 approving Change Order No. 8 with SCS Engineers, of Clive, Iowa, regarding engineering services for compliance with U. S. EPA’s Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Standard in an estimated amount of $53,585 14.RESOLUTION NO. 21-536 approving contract and bond for CyRide 2022 HVAC Improvements Project 15.RESOLUTION NO. 21-537 approving contract and bond for SE 16th Street and South Duff Avenue Transmission Modifications 16.RESOLUTION NO. 21-538 approving Final Plat for Sunset Ridge Subdivision, Eleventh Addition 17.RESOLUTION NO. 21-539 approving Final Plat for Quarry Estates Subdivision, Fifth Addition 18.RESOLUTION NO. 21-540 accepting completion of 2019/20 Collector Street Pavement Improvements (Bloomington Road - Grand Avenue to Hoover Avenue) 19.RESOLUTION NO. 21-541 accepting completion of the Water Treatment Plant Lime Pond Underdrain Improvements project Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum. Richard Deyoe, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, Iowa, stated he was hoping to speak later regarding the creation of the Resident Police Advisory Committee. Mayor Haila indicated that the item Mr. Deyoe was referring to was for third passage and adoption of the Ordinance and no public input would be taken; that is why he asked him to speak during Public Forum. Mr. Deyoe noted that a couple years ago he had wanted to put an ad in the Tribune stating that “the government should allow all citizens love.” He had spoken to someone at the Tribune and was told they didn’t understand what the ad was about and refused to publish it. Public forum was closed when no one else came forward to speak. PRESENTATION OF 2021 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS: Public Relations Officer Susan Gwiasda presented highlights from the 39th Annual Residential Satisfaction Survey. Ms. Gwiasda noted that it was an unusual year to take a survey, but overall, the results were consistent with previous years. She commented that assistance was received from the Institute for Design Research and Outreach (IDRO), College of Design. Surveys were mailed to 1,350 randomly selected utility users and 1,000 were emailed to randomly selected Iowa State University students. There were 600 surveys returned, which was down from 2020 (804). Of the 600 surveys 22% were from non-students and 54% were from students (all online). She noted that each survey that is sent out includes a cover letter from the Mayor and the 12-page survey. As a thank-you, a coupon is included in the mailing as an incentive gift to either have a free entry into the Furman Aquatic Center or $2.00 off a book at the Library. There is also an entry form to complete; where the Mayor draws two winners who receive gift certificates. The completed Survey results will be placed on the City of Ames website under the City Manager’s Office. Ms. Gwiasda mentioned that regarding “On-going service priorities” the programs that citizens requested more funding in were: Arts Programs, Fire Protection, Human Service Funding, and Law Enforcement. Following the pandemic, derecho, and the drought, stormwater drainage improvements fell out of the top three priorities and were replaced by improvements to existing parks. She speculated that this change could be due to the current drought that the City is experiencing, which is not causing any stormwater drainage problems, plus due to COVID, there are more people who are going outside. Ms. Gwiasda explained that this would be a good item to watch in the next few years to see if there are continued changes. One of the questions asked on the survey was “Did you experience a power outage?” and for 2021, there were 80 citizens who reported yes versus only 48 in 2020. This significant increase was 2 probably due to the derecho. The preferred method of information dissemination was email along with letters and then social media. Overall, a total of 97% of Ames residents ranked their overall satisfaction for City services as Good/Very Good. Ms. Gwiasda said that even though 2020 was a difficult year, the City still ended on a high note. Council Member Betcher commented that she was surprised that the ratings were as high as they were, and that the City didn’t see the anomalies it was expecting to see after everything that happened in 2020. Ms. Gwiasda reminded the Council that she will be coming back to the Council next year to take suggestions for any changes to make to the 2022 survey. LONG-TERM LAND LEASE WITH HEARTLAND SENIOR SERVICES AS REQUESTED FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF TWO LOTS AT 205 S. WALNUT: City Manager Steve Schainker said that the City of Ames has worked with Heartland Senior Services for several years. The property at 205 S. Walnut Avenue was purchased by the City from the Ames Community School District to house the senior day-care program administered by Heartland Senior Services with CDBG funds. The City has leased the building and land to Heartland for many decades. The building has exceeded its useful life; therefore, a new facility providing Heartland’s much-needed services is warranted. Mr. Schainker explained that the strategy now is to build on the existing site and because the land is owned by the City of Ames it requires City Council approval. Mr. Schainker stated that if the Council approved moving forward, staff will prepare a long-term lease with Heartland Senior Services; in return the City will make sure the site is used as a senior day-care program only for the length of the lease. To move forward, there will be two items that will need to be done: 1) accept the deeding of a small parcel to the south of the building currently owned by Heartland adjacent to the City’s property and consolidate the two properties into a single lot of approximately one acre, and 2) lease the combined property to Heartland for 50 years in exchange for $1, with options to renew. Council Member Gartin felt that Heartland Senior Services provides an essential service and an updated facility would reflect the community’s values. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to direct staff to prepare a long-term lease with Heartland Senior Services, as requested, for approximately one acre at 205 S. Walnut. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. STAFF REPORT ON ARTISTICALLY-PAINTED FIRE HYDRANTS: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips noted that this item was in response to the Council’s direction to gather feedback from City staff regarding the concept of an Artistic Fire Hydrant Painting Program. Feedback was gathered from the Fire Department, Public Works, and the Public Art Commission to identify potential challenges with the project. He mentioned there were some concerns about the Program, including maintaining the operation of the fire hydrants, visibility, the scale of this kind of Program, managing the Program, and maintaining the paint on the hydrants. The Public Art Commission has a number of active initiatives and had indicated at its last meeting that they preferred not to take on anything additional at this time. Fire Chief Rich Higgins mentioned that in Ames there is a great water distribution system. He stated that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 291 allows fire hydrants to be painted a 3 different color if there are different water flow requirements. The City can adopt a local standard that allows the hydrants to be painted a different color; which the City has done through the Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS). All fire hydrants are painted green, which creates uniformity, and in fire service this equals safety which equals efficiency. Chief Higgins stated that when a firefighter pulls up on a scene, they want to spend more time making sure everyone is out of the property and the fire is contained opposed to looking for a fire hydrant. He explained that at this time staff has no desire to start changing the colors of the hydrants in the community. Mr. Phillips explained that there were two options for the Council to choose from. Option 1 was to not implement a fire hydrant painting at this time, and Option 2 was to direct the Public Art Commission to work with City staff to develop a formal fire hydrant painting program. He also indicated that the original requestor had proceeded to paint a hydrant adjacent to his house and would need direction from the Council about what to do with the painted hydrant. If the Council chooses to not proceed with the Program, staff would proceed to repaint the fire hydrant back to its original color. It was staff’s recommendation to not implement a fire hydrant painting at this time and proceed with repainting the one hydrant back to its original color. Mayor Haila asked if any City Ordinance indicates what a citizen can and can’t do regarding fire hydrants. Mr. Phillips noted there were two sections that would relate to this topic. One section relates to interfering with hydrants and altering it in any way. There were also a couple areas of State Law and City Ordinance that speak to unauthorized “tinkering” of fire hydrants. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to approve Option 1, which is to not implement a fire hydrant painting program at this time. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Junck. Voting Nay: Martin. Motion declared carried. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to direct staff to repaint the fire hydrant that was previously decorated by a citizen. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Council Member Martin said he voted against Option 1 because he thought the “gist” of the motion was to never pursue a fire hydrant painting program, but he knows that is not what the motion said. He felt it would be good to revisit this idea after the Public Art Commission has the capacity to review the information. Mr. Martin stated that when looking at future projects for next year he hoped this topic would come up again. DISCUSSION REGARDING ADOPTION OF NEW WARDS AND PRECINCTS FOLLOWING STATE REDISTRICTING: City Attorney Mark Lambert explained that the Legislature is in the process of redistricting. This is done to draw new lines defining U.S. Congressional districts, and Iowa House and Iowa Senate Legislative Districts. Redistricting is done every ten years after a census is done. The census is usually done in the Spring, but there was a delay and the information wasn’t available until September 2021. On October 5, 2021, the Legislature considered and rejected the first set of maps. It is expected that the second set of maps would be ready by October 21, 2021. Mr. Lambert stated that if the second map is adopted, the City of Ames has a little more time to draw new wards and precincts, 4 which is the Council’s responsibility. If the Legislature rejects the second set of maps, it is likely that by mid-November, the Legislature will approve the third/final set of maps, which would give the City a very small amount of time. The wards and precincts at the City and County level have to be done by January 15, 2022, according to Iowa law, unless that deadline is extended, and per City Attorney Lambert, the extension is not expected to happen. The purpose of Mr. Lambert’s memo was to give the Council an overview of the process and give them a “heads-up” that staff will need to move expeditiously when the Legislature approves the maps. He mentioned that in speaking with Story County Auditor Lucy Martin, she explained that the County will draw wards and precincts for the entire County. The Auditor’s office felt it would be easier to plot out the entire County opposed to leaving out the City of Ames and doing the rest of the County. Mr. Lambert noted that precincts have to fit within a State Legislative District, the population cannot exceed 3,500 people, must be contiguous, and must follow “census blocks boundaries,” etc. He mentioned that the Iowa Secretary of State’s office had purchased software to help with re-precincting. GIS Coordinator Ben McConville has gone through training to use the software and to create a map for the City of Ames. Council Member Gartin wanted to know what the City had previously done regarding the maps. Attorney Lambert said that ten years ago the City had drawn its own maps. Mr. Gartin asked if it is a burden on staff to have the City create its own map. Mr. Lambert explained that he had spoken with Mr. McConville and was told it would take a couple of days to draw a map; however, the Legal Department would need to write a detailed Ordinance. Council Member Martin wanted to know what level of direction the Council should give regarding the maps. He inquired if the Council directed staff to go ahead and draw the maps, would there be any reason that the Council would expect the maps from the County to be a lot different. Attorney Lambert indicated that he couldn’t imagine that the maps would be a lot different. All the wards would need to approximately have the same amount of people in them and the wards have to be contiguous and compact. Council Member Junck inquired what the time constraints would be if the Council waited for the map from Story County before the City drew its own. Mr. Lambert anticipated it would take a couple of weeks after the Legislature approves the maps and adopts the State Plan. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Option 2, which was to have City staff prepare a second map so that more than one map can be considered. Council Member Beatty-Hansen commented that she would rather prefer to see what the County Auditor does. Council Member Gartin mentioned that this is not something this Council has done before. Historically, the City has prepared its own map and he wanted to make it a staff-driven exercise. Mr. Gartin felt the City should do their own. Vote on Motion: 3-3. Voting Aye: Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin. Voting Nay: Beatty-Hansen, Junck, Martin. Motion failed. 5 Moved by Junck, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve Option 1, directing staff to wait until the Council sees the map produced by the Story County Auditor, and then decide whether to adopt that map or request City Staff to develop an alternative map. Council Member Martin said that he was having difficulty understanding how anyone else’s map would compare to what the City would do, but doesn’t see a problem with having someone else do the work of putting a map together. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay: Gartin. Motion passed. STAFF REPORT ON AMES 2040 PLAN COMMENTS: Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann noted that attached to the Staff Report were all the comments that were received regarding the Ames 2040 Plan. Mr. Diekmann mentioned there were some questions about the map itself regarding Land Use Designations and staff has some other edits they would like to make to the map after reviewing the comments. He noted that staff will be coming before the Council at the next meeting to review the recommended map changes. Staff is looking for any feedback from the Council, and if more time is needed to review the comments, that would be fine, but would need to have direction at the next City Council meeting to keep on schedule. Council Member Betcher noted that the Council received a very lengthy email concerning this topic earlier today, and she would like to have more time to review all the input that was received from the community. Ms. Betcher was supportive of not giving any direction tonight and waiting until the next meeting. Council Member Beatty-Hansen said she also liked the idea of waiting until the next meeting to provide feedback. Mayor Haila indicated that he had had a previous discussion with a citizen who had inquired about the Residential Low-Density Park (RLP) or a manufactured home park. The Mayor noted it was not referred to anywhere in the Plan and wanted to know if there was an appropriate place to put the RLP. Director Diekmann explained that in the Land Use Chapter with each designation, whether it is Residential Neighborhood (RN) or not, there is a corresponding Zoning District listed for educational purposes. It was pointed out that RLP is not in any of the Land Use Designations, but later in the Chapter under the “matrix of compatibility.” RLP is listed as provisional within RN-3 (suburban medium and high-density designation). If staff were to follow current policy the RLP would be in RN-3, subject to a rezoning and site plan review by City Council. Many RLPs are currently located in high-density designations. Director Diekmann indicated it could be a policy question as to if RN-3 should be located in a low- or high- density land use designation. The 1997 LUPP says a RLP could be placed in either density. The Mayor asked if the matrix gave any indication if a RLP should be in low or high density. Mr. Diekmann stated that it indicates “provisional” for both densities. It was asked if Director Diekmann had a recommendation of where to put a RLP. Mr. Diekmann indicated that very few Comp Plans take that specific land use into significant consideration and it is often relegated as a secondary status as it is not a common development pattern. He felt it would be up to the Council as to where they felt the RLP should go. Director Diekmann felt it should go into RL-5 as that is where most RLPs are, but if the 6 Council wanted to indicate other zones, that would be possible as well. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to direct staff to add the RLP Zoning District as a corresponding zoning district for both RN-3 and RN-5. Council Member Martin stated he was looking at the chart on Page 70 of the Draft Ames 2040 Plan, specifically at RN-3 (Expansion) and RN-3 (Multifamily) and asked if he was reading that correctly. Director Diekmann indicated that there was a typo as RN-3 (Multifamily) should be RN-5 (Multifamily). Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried. Council Member Gartin said that he would like to have more time to review the comments and asked if everything would be updated on the City website to be in one location. Mr. Diekmann noted that everything that was in the Council’s packet was everything he had received except for the email from Scott Renaud that was received earlier. Mr. Gartin wanted to know if additional feedback could still be received. Mr. Diekmann noted that citizens can still submit comments through the website or through planning staff for the next couple of weeks. Director Diekmann will email any new information that comes in to the Council. On October 26, 2021, Mr. Diekmann will be coming before the Council asking for changes to the map and any additional changes that are recommended before the Public Hearing will start. Mayor Haila opened public input and closed it when no one came forward. Director Diekmann noted that when it comes to the map, one thing that the Council will hear is what is the level of precision on the map. Commonly Comp Plans are not meant to be precise, but a little “fuzzy” on the boundaries. He thought that one area that will have a lot of discussion will be the Natural Area Designations. The style of map that the Council has seen before shows property lines and will not be to the inch level on the map. He mentioned that the Council did not have the Implementation Chapter of the Plan, and staff intentionally did that as they wanted to know where they were going with the Plan before staff wrote how the implementation was going to happen. Director Diekmann suggested that, due to the nature of the Plan, staff should catalog every action and policy in it and say it has a certain timeline or is an ongoing activity. He felt there were 10-15 significant projects that need to happen, and Council needs to make a list of what staff needs to work on as a City for the next 10-15 years. STAFF REPORT ON SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND DETACHED GARAGES ON SINGLE-AND TWO-FAMILY LOTS: City Planner Benjamin Campbell explained that Grant Thompson of 407 Pearson Avenue in Country Club Estates contacted Council regarding his inability, by Code, to demolish and rebuild an existing non-conforming garage. The accessory structure is considered nonconforming regarding the setbacks. The current garage is deteriorating, and Mr. Grant would like to replace it in the same location. Remodeling and rehabilitation of the garage would be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance; however, replacement of a nonconforming structure is prohibited. The current garage is approximately six feet from the rear (west) property line and estimated to be several inches from the side (north) property line. The minimum setback in the Residential Low Density (RL) requires a minimum setback of 20 feet from the rear property line and eight feet from the side 7 property line. Although the Zoning Ordinance has exceptions for accessory buildings that allow reduced setbacks of as little as three feet, they do not apply in this situation. There is no allowance to rebuild or place a structure at a setback of less than three feet anywhere within the single-family zoning district. The homeowner could build a new garage on the property by complying with the setbacks, but doing so would significantly reduce the usable area of the rear yard. The nonconforming standards apply uniformly across the City for all types of structures. While having a garage is not a right guaranteed by the Zoning Ordinance, nor is it even required, it is generally recognized as desirable along with having usable yard space on a property. Mr. Campbell noted that the City does allow for accessory structures to encroach into setbacks per Code Section. 29.408(7)(a)(i); however, it does state that “a detached garage or accessory building wholly...,” and the word “wholly” has been interpreted as that the accessory structure can be three feet from the property line if it is “wholly” within the rear yard/completely behind the primary structure. Mr. Campbell noted that staff had done a visual survey in Old Town and the neighborhood south of Campus and found that over 600 properties have nonconforming structures. Staff also looked at Accessory Structure Ordinances for Ankeny, Des Moines, West Des Moines, and Iowa City. Each city had different standards, but were generally three to five feet for setbacks of accessory structures. Planner Campbell stated that the options available for the Council were to: 1.Modify Setbacks for All Accessory Structures (New and Existing) a.Adjust the rear yard exception to apply across the rear yard (from side lot line to side lot line, behind the primary structure) regardless of whether it is partially in a side yard. b.Change the side-yard setbacks as well as when the structure is located within a rear yard by allowing for side setbacks to also be reduced to three feet. 2.Create Reconstruction Standards for Nonconforming Accessory Structures 3.Amend the Zoning Ordinance to address both Option 1 and 2 4.Modify “Minor Area Modification” Exceptions to include Accessory Structures 5.Decline the request Council Member Gartin mentioned that there was another benefit to Option2 that was not noted, and that was that the community would benefit from having buildings that were falling apart be replaced. He said that he was leaning towards Option 2. Council Member Beatty-Hansen commented that she liked Option 2 as well, but was leaning more towards Option 3 as it had parts of Options 1 and 2. Council Member Junck stated she was leaning towards Option 3 as well as it doesn’t just focus on only non-conforming garages, but also allows for other opportunities for other types of garages. Ms. Beatty-Hansen stated that the properties need to be maintained in order to maintain a good quality stock of housing and accessory structures. Council Member Betcher noted that in her neighborhood there is a garage that is within inches of the property line, and there are a number of houses that have a similar situation. She was concerned about how much additional paving there might be in order to create conformity. Ms. Betcher asked if there was a planning reason to seek conformity. Director Diekmann explained that once a standard is set, the City is expected to have it be applied equally. Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if the Council was going to make a motion regarding Option 1 would they need to specify Option 1A or Option 1B. Director Diekmann confirmed that was correct as 8 Option 1A and 1B are different. He noted that there are a lot of nuances to zoning. Accessory garages are controlled by 25% of a rear yard being able to have accessory structures, height restrictions, and the maximum size is 900 square feet. Another issue is that a garage is an accessory, so it is supposed to be subordinate to a house, which means a garage can’t be bigger than the house. Council Member Gartin inquired what other communities were doing regarding rebuilding. Mr. Campbell stated he did not research that particular criteria, but could go back and get more information if the Council wanted. Mr. Gartin said to look at Iowa City as they have a similar housing development to Ames, but doesn’t know if that would be a worthwhile thing to pursue. He asked staff to explain the difference between Options 1A and 1B. Director Diekmann explained that Option 1A would legitimize a three-foot setback for any structure whether it is behind the primary structure or not; Option 1B would give relief to the side setback. Mr. Gartin asked if Option 1B would help more people. Mr. Diekmann stated that Option 1B would help the narrower lots that are trying to get the garage to work to maneuver around the house while trying to get a straight alignment. Council Member Junck asked if they could move to approve Option 1A, Option 1B, and Option 2. It was confirmed that could be done. The Mayor wanted to clarify that the recommended changes would apply to the entire City, not just Old Town, Campustown, and overlay areas. Mr. Diekmann stated that under Option 1A and 1B, it would be universal across the City. Council Member Gartin commented that he doesn’t believe there would be those types of accessory buildings in newer developments as the developer wouldn’t have been able to get a building permit. Council Member Beatty-Hansen agreed and noted that some areas aren’t in bad shape yet. Mayor Haila said he was trying to weed out any possible challenges. Council Member Martin mentioned that this topic was interesting as there would be a trade-off; there might be more configurations available if the Council chose Option 1A and 1B. He was leaning towards asking for Option 1A and Option 2. He felt that finding middle ground would be the way to go. Council Member Gartin noted that Option 1A would create some limitations, so if someone says, “I don’t like my neighbor so I am going to put my gazebo as close to the lot line as possible,” and Option 1A would create some spacing as opposed to going with Option 1B. Council Member Betcher mentioned that the Council will be discussing Accessory Dwelling Units with the Ames 2040 Plan and wanted to know how this change would affect the Plan. Director Diekmann explained that there will be a whole set of new standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. He commented that whatever the Council decides will be brought before the Planning & Zoning Commission and public input will be asked for at that time, and then a Hearing will be held with the City Council. Mayor Haila opened public comment. Grant Thompson, 407 Pearson Avenue, Ames, stated that in staff’s visual survey they had identified more than 50% of the properties would apply to the issue of setbacks. He mentioned that the perimeters could be expanded, but felt that one way or another something needed to be done. Mr. Thompson explained that with the modern aesthetic of homes, there is typically an attached garage in the forefront, while in the past there would have been a house and a detached garage in the back of the house. He noted that garages aren’t built in the back of the home anymore. He explained that when discussing 9 options, Option 1A would be more beneficial to him. Option 1B would only allow his garage to be the width of his driveway and he would still have to move his garage to make the side-yard setback. This would not work for the turn radius of modern vehicles. Mr. Thompson pointed out that if the idea is to compact communities, reuse, and reinvest in the current building stock, the ability to put back what was there holds value. Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if Option 2 would be helpful to Mr. Thompson. He commented that Option 2 would allow him to rebuild with the same footprint. Mr. Campbell noted that if the owner was to take down the garage and rebuild exactly as is, it would still be a small garage that doesn’t fit current standard size vehicles. Shari Reilly, 53273-110th Street, Story City, stated that she wanted to speak on the effect some of these garages have on neighbors. She explained that people buy homes based on what they see when they buy it and if the accessory buildings are already there, she doesn’t see why it would be a problem if the structure was rebuilt with a similar footprint. Ms. Reilly didn’t feel that the neighbor issue was significant. Public comment was closed by the Mayor when no one else came forward. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Martin, to approve Option 1A and Option 2: Modify Setbacks for all Accessory Structures (New and Existing) to adjust the rear yard exception to apply across the rear yard (from side lot line to side lot lint, behind the primary structure) regardless of whether it is partially in a side yard. This would allow for a rear three-foot setback for any structure located behind the home, but still require a 6-or 8-foot side yard setback that applies across the City; Create Reconstruction Standards for Nonconforming Accessory Structures. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Director Diekmann mentioned that this item will go before the Planning & Zoning Commission in November and then come back to the Council. DISCUSSION OF HOME - AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer noted that a Grant Agreement came in the mail prior for the Home American Rescue Plan Funds (HOME-ARP). On April 8, 2021, the City of Ames was notified that it would be receiving $1,269,248 of the HOME-ARP funding; this is in addition to the City’s regular 2021/22 HOME funding of $350,543. The HOME-ARP Grant Agreement allows jurisdictions more resources to address homeless assistance needs by creating affordable housing, non-congregate housing, providing tenant- based rental assistance, and supportive services for qualifying populations. HOME-ARP funds must be used for individual or families from the following qualifying populations: homeless; at-risk of homelessness; fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking; other populations where providing assistance would prevent the family’s homelessness or would serve those with the greatest risk of housing instability; and veterans and families that include a veteran family members that meet the criteria. HOME-ARP funds can be used for four eligible activities: 1) production or preservation of affordable housing; 2) tenant-based rental assistance; 3) homeless prevention; and, 4) development of non-congregate shelter for individuals and families. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that this was an interesting Grant Agreement as there are some guidelines that she had never seen before. The Program will provide for up to 15 percent of the allocation for administrative 10 and planning costs of the participating jurisdiction (PJ) and for subrecipients administering all or a portion of the Grant. She explained that the City may use up to five percent of its total award, approximately $63,462, for administrative and planning costs once the Grant Agreement has been signed and returned to the designated field office. One of the greatest issues for this Grant is that the City would need to develop a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan that would need to be approved by HUD. She noted that she is currently in training to find out what can and can’t be included in the Allocation Plan. The current 2021/22 CDBG/HOME Annual Action Plan would also need to be amended. Ms. Baker-Latimer stated that there will be time for public feedback during the process. Over the next several weeks staff will be meeting with Legal, Finance, Purchasing, Inspections, Public Works, and other Departments for their support and assistance with the possible implementation of this Program. She noted that the City will have until September 3, 2030, to access the funds, and any remaining funds will be returned to the US Treasury. Council Member Gartin asked if there was a possibility of there being any “strings attached” that staff was not aware of. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that there was some language in the letter that she had never seen before that referenced that the Agreement would be a legally binding contract, that the City would be responsible for the entire administration of the Program, and if funds were not correctly spent, they would have to be paid back with non-federal funds. She noted that because it is HOME funding it will be a lot more complicated. Ms. Baker-Latimer will be going back to make sure that she fully understands all the idiosyncrasies and complexities of this Grant. Council Member Gartin wanted to know if there were any requirements for a City match. Ms. Baker- Latimer noted that there is not any for the HOME-ARP funds. Mr. Gartin wanted to confirm that the City received the full Agreement, but just hadn’t received all the rules. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that the Agreement is separate from the rules as there are over 200 pages of rules. She mentioned that she is going through the training, but has not gone to Legal at this time. Mr. Gartin felt this was different from what the City has received before as they are asking for an Agreement to be signed when the City doesn’t fully know all the rules yet. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that there are basic rules and will be more stipulatory because of the categories. City Manager Steve Schainker mentioned that times are different and gave an example of the CARES funds that the City had received. Director Diekmann noted that the City is not going to spend the money before knowing what the City can and can’t do with the funding. Council Member Betcher wanted to know about the last bulleted item, “the purchase or development of non-congregate shelter for individuals and families experiencing homelessness,” specifically asking if this was a brick and mortar item. It was confirmed that it would be a brick and mortar. Ms. Baker- Latimer noted that this Grant does not help anyone with buying a home or building a home. City Manager Schainker inquired if this Grant would provide assistance with daycare. Ms. Baker- Latimer didn’t think this one would cover daycare, but there is another grant that is coming from the State that may be able to help with daycare. The Mayor stated that an email was received from Lauris Olson, and since she was unable to attend, he wanted to make sure Ms. Olson’s questions were answered. The first question was if the City set the framework in terms of who the funds could be allocated to. Ms. Baker-Latimer stated she is not sure as 11 that is yet to be determined. There will be plenty of time for public feedback. Mayor Haila mentioned that he will reply to Ms. Olson letting her know that the City would only be approving receiving the funds, and the rules/criteria would be determined later. Mayor Haila opened public input Richard Deyoe, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, Iowa, asked if any other towns had received this type of funding. Ms. Baker said that all the entitlements in Iowa received their own specific funding. The State of Iowa received $29 million that will be distributed to cities that are under 50,000. The Mayor closed public input when no one else came forward to speak. Moved by Junck, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-542 authorizing the Mayor to sign the 2021 HOME Investment Partnerships- American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) Grant Agreement in the amount of $1,269,248. Roll Call Vote: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay: Gartin. Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to direct staff to proceed with the next steps to create a HOME Allocation Plan and an Amendment to the City’s 2021/22 CDBG/HOME Annual Action Plan. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay: Gartin. Motion declared carried. AWARDING CONTRACT TO A & B CONSTRUCTION LTD OF HARPER, IOWA, TO MOVE THE EXISTING HOOP FRAMING FROM 700 E. 5TH STREET TO 309 CARNEGIE AVENUE AND ERECT A 50' X 200' HOOP BUILDING FOR COLD MATERIAL STORAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,662: Mayor Haila declared the public hearing open. He closed the hearing after no one came forward to speak on this issue. Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-543 awarding a contract to A & B Construction LTD of Harper, Iowa, to move the existing hoop framing from 700 E. 5th Street to 309 Carnegie Avenue and erect a 50' x 200' hoop building for cold material storage in the amount of $63,662. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION WITH NON-CONSENTING PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED NORTH OF LINCOLN HIGHWAY AND WEST OF AMES CORPORATE LIMITS TO BOONE COUNTY ALONG N. 500TH: Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann mentioned that the initial petition was for one property, and the City Council voted to initiate the annexation of four parcels. State law permits a voluntary annexation to include up to 20% of the territory with non-consenting abutting property owners for the purpose of eliminating islands or creating more uniform boundaries. There are three parcels considered non-consenting as part of the annexation that are included in order to make uniform boundaries along North 500th Avenue. Staff is recommending approval to move forward; if City Council approves the annexation, the request will go 12 before the City Development Board due to the 80/20 annexation process of including non-consenting property owners. Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked why the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to not approve the 80/20 annexation. Director Diekmann stated that he was at the meeting and didn’t recall a discussion before the motion and when reviewing the minutes again, there were not any statements from the Commission as to why they voted “Nay.” The public hearing was opened by Mayor Haila. No one came forward to speak on this topic, and the hearing was closed. Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-544 approving the 80/20 annexation of four parcels and abutting rights-of-way, totaling 33.36 acres (rights-of-way acreage included in calculation), for the properties located immediately west of the Ames corporate limits and extending westward to the Boone County line along North 500th Avenue, in Washington Township, Story County, Iowa by finding that the proposed annexation is consistent with the Land Use Policy Plan and Urban Fringe Plan, and that the proposed annexation territory creates more uniform boundaries. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. ORDINANCE REMOVING ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR AUDITORIUMS, THEATERS, STADIUMS, AND ARENAS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SERVICE CENTER AND CAMPUSTOWN SERVICE CENTER ZONING DISTRICTS: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE No. 4449 removing all parking requirements for auditoriums, theaters, stadiums, and arenas within the Downtown Service Center and Campustown Service Center Zoning Districts. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. ORDINANCE, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, CREATING THE RESIDENT POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Moved by Junck, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE No. 4450, as previously amended, creating the Resident Police Advisory Committee. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATION TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila explained that there was one item for discussion, but also an email from Lorna Carroll about bike infrastructure. Council Member Gartin stated he had replied to Ms. Carrol letting her know about the Workshop on October 19, 2021. A Memo from City Manager Steve Schainker was in response to an email that the Council received from Susie Petra on September 14, 2021, requesting that the City Council consider altering how waste collection services are provided in the City of Ames. City Manager Schainker noted that the City currently has an “open garbage” collection system. This is where citizens can pick their own garbage company, which can cause a lot of extra traffic, noise, and 13 wear and tear on the streets. Ms. Petra had recommended going to an organized collection system; where the City of Ames would try to coordinate the hauling of garbage through a franchise or bidding the services out. City staff were intrigued by the idea and the possible benefits, but the team Mr. Schainker would have asked to study this concept is currently engaged in the Solid Waste Recovery System Study. He would like to pursue the idea, but would like to complete the other study first. Staff will need to determine the legal authority to regulate garbage companies in the State of Iowa and check with other cities that have gone to an organized system. Mr. Schainker mentioned that a discussion will also need to be had with the garbage haulers in the area. Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to direct staff to proceed with the study at the timing that the City Manager recommended, but in the meantime broach this topic with the City’s current consultant on the Waste-to-Energy audit so that they can give feedback. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Martin noted that a public comment from the Ames 2040 Plan had caught his eye about lack of sidewalks on either side of SE 16th Street. He explained that the person who wrote the comments did not leave any contact information, but thought it would be helpful to see what the situation was in this neighborhood. Mr. Martin also recommended looking at the City’s current Policy to see what needs to be done. Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to ask the City Manager to provide a memo addressing the issue of sidewalks raised in the comments on SE 16th Street. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Council Member Gartin reminded everyone that next Tuesday, October 19, 2021, is the Workshop on Bike Infrastructure and he encouraged the public to attend and provide feedback. Council Member Betcher noted that tomorrow is the first day to do early voting at the Story County Auditor’s Office. The Mayor asked for more information on the ISU Homecoming. Ex officio Poundstone mentioned that on Sunday, October 17, 2021, at 2 p.m. in Downtown Ames the ISU Homecoming parade will be held. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Betcher to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________ Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor __________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk 14 REPORT OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS Department General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact Public Works 2020/21 Asphalt Street Pavement Improvements (McKinley Dr, Jensen Ave, Pavement Improvements (Bloomington Rd) Pavement Improvements (8th Street) Period: Smart Choice 515.239.5133 non-emergency Administration fax To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department Date: September 27, 2021 Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda The Council agenda for October 26th, 2021, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals for: •London Underground (212 Main St) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales A review of police records for the past 12 months found one liquor law violation for the above business. During a compliance check on April 16th, 2021 an employee sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was completed, and no violations were recorded. The Police Department will continue to monitor the above business for compliance and would recommends renewal of the license. Item No. 5 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 City Treasurer Date: October 7, 2021 Subject: Investment Report for Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 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, 2021. Discussion This report covers the period ending September 30, 2021 and presents a summary of the investments on hand at the end of September 2021. 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 maintained the federal fund rate at 0-0.25 percent in the last quarter. The yield curve is normal, making shorter maturities pay at a less rates than longer maturities. Future investments will be made at the lower interest rates and future interest income will decrease. W e will continue to evaluate our current investment strategy, remaining flexible to future investments while the Federal Reserve evaluates the target rate. Item No. 6 BOOK MARKET UN-REALIZED DESCRIPTION VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS) CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT 19,500,000 19,500,000 0 FEDERAL AGENCY DISCOUNTS 0 FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 62,853,789 62,797,951 (55,838) INVESTMENT POOLS 0 COMMERCIAL PAPER 7,496,392 7,495,740 (652) MISC COUPON SECURITIES 0 PASS THRU SECURITIES PAC/CMO 0 MONEY FUND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 425,653 425,653 0 CORPORATE BONDS 0 US TREASURY SECURITIES 75,825,934 76,094,931 268,997 INVESTMENTS 166,101,768 166,314,275 212,507 CASH ACCOUNTS 35,005,782 35,005,782 ACCRUAL BASIS INVESTMENT EARNINGS YR-TO-DATE GROSS EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS:347,549 INTEREST EARNED ON CASH:31,900 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, 2021 YTM 365 Page 1 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value September 30, 2021 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificates of Deposit 1.690First National Bank50942 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 12/15/20211.69010/16/2019 1,500,000.00 1.66750942 75 2.660Great Western Bank144303455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 06/01/20222.66004/16/2019 4,000,000.00 2.624144303455 243 2.990US Bank433071659 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 06/01/20222.99005/24/2018 6,000,000.00 2.949433071659 243 1.710US Bank795014295 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/01/20221.71010/16/2019 3,000,000.00 1.687795014295 243 1.780US Bank795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/01/20231.78010/16/2019 5,000,000.00 1.756795014296 608 19,500,000.00 2.28319,500,000.0019,500,000.0019,500,000.00Subtotal and Average 2.315 324 Money Market 0.300Great Western Bank4531558874 292,544.62 292,544.62 0.300292,544.62 0.296SYS4531558874B 1 292,544.62 0.296292,544.62292,544.62292,543.93Subtotal and Average 0.300 1 Passbook/Checking Accounts 0.150Wells Fargo6952311634B 133,108.42 133,108.42 0.150133,108.42 0.148SYS6952311634B 1 133,108.42 0.148133,108.42133,108.42133,108.12Subtotal and Average 0.150 1 Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing 0.166Chessman Bank0987-21A 1,000,000.00 999,666.67 12/15/20210.16005/24/2021 999,620.00 0.16316537LZF1 75 0.166Chessman Bank0987-21B 1,000,000.00 999,666.67 12/15/20210.16005/24/2021 999,620.00 0.16316537LZF1 75 0.166Chessman Bank0987-21C 1,000,000.00 999,666.67 12/15/20210.16005/24/2021 999,620.00 0.16316537LZF1 75 0.093Credit Agricole0993-21 1,000,000.00 999,440.28 05/12/20220.09009/03/2021 999,440.00 0.09122533UED1 223 0.206Cheshman Commercial Paper0981-21 2,000,000.00 1,999,166.66 12/15/20210.20004/15/2021 1,999,450.00 0.20316536HZF1 75 0.123Bank of Canada0995-21 1,500,000.00 1,498,785.01 06/01/20220.12009/09/2021 1,497,990.00 0.12163307MF12 243 7,496,391.96 0.1567,495,740.007,500,000.007,029,662.03Subtotal and Average 0.158 128 Federal Agency Coupon Securities 0.600Farmer Mac0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 11/20/20250.60011/20/2020 988,675.00 0.59231422B3F5 1,511 1.455Federal Farm Credit0913-20 1,000,000.00 1,001,917.18 11/15/20213.05002/20/2020 1,003,666.00 1.4353133EJT74 45 1.470Federal Farm Credit0914-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,458.79 11/29/20211.76002/20/2020 1,002,754.00 1.4503133EGL60 59 1.458Federal Farm Credit0916-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,391.96 12/27/20211.62502/20/2020 1,003,737.00 1.4383133ELFR0 87 0.360Federal Farm Credit0930-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,757.11 01/18/20220.53004/15/2020 1,502,056.50 0.3553133ELTN4 109 0.154Federal Farm Credit0952-20A 2,000,000.00 1,999,859.66 04/08/20220.14010/15/2020 2,000,020.00 0.1513133EMCJ9 189 0.154Federal Farm Credit0952-20B 3,000,000.00 2,999,789.49 04/08/20220.14010/15/2020 3,000,030.00 0.1513133EMCJ9 189 0.092Federal Farm Credit0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,501,049.15 10/13/20220.16002/12/2021 1,500,166.50 0.0913133EMDA7 377 0.341Federal Farm Credit0977-21A 1,000,000.00 998,735.71 11/12/20240.30003/02/2021 990,486.00 0.3363133EMQQ8 1,138 0.341Federal Farm Credit0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,103.57 11/12/20240.30003/02/2021 1,485,729.00 0.3363133EMQQ8 1,138 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 YTM 365 Page 2 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value September 30, 2021 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Federal Agency Coupon Securities 0.180Federal Farm Credit0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,820.64 06/26/20230.20009/09/2021 2,000,844.44 0.1783133EM3S9 633 1.856Federal Home Loan Bank0791-17 1,135,000.00 1,135,033.23 11/29/20211.87510/13/2017 1,138,335.76 1.8303130AABG2 59 1.601Federal Home Loan Bank0905-19 1,500,000.00 1,502,883.71 12/10/20212.62511/21/2019 1,507,372.50 1.579313376C94 70 1.475Federal Home Loan Bank0915-20 1,000,000.00 1,002,165.98 12/10/20212.62502/20/2020 1,004,915.00 1.455313376C94 70 0.402Federal Home Loan Bank0931-20A 1,500,000.00 1,509,889.66 02/08/20222.28004/15/2020 1,511,644.50 0.397313376Y74 130 0.402Federal Home Loan Bank0931-20B 1,000,000.00 1,006,593.11 02/08/20222.28004/15/2020 1,007,763.00 0.397313376Y74 130 0.204Federal Home Loan Bank0935-20A 1,000,000.00 1,009,073.17 03/11/20222.25005/15/2020 1,009,611.00 0.201313378CR0 161 0.204Federal Home Loan Bank0935-20B 1,500,000.00 1,513,609.76 03/11/20222.25005/15/2020 1,514,416.50 0.201313378CR0 161 0.134Federal Home Loan Bank0947-20 1,500,000.00 1,527,098.23 06/10/20222.75009/17/2020 1,527,301.50 0.1323130AEBM1 252 0.130Federal Home Loan Bank0949-20A 1,000,000.00 999,998.33 10/13/20210.12510/13/2020 1,000,028.00 0.1283130AKCB0 12 0.130Federal Home Loan Bank0949-20B 2,000,000.00 1,999,996.67 10/13/20210.12510/13/2020 2,000,056.00 0.1283130AKCB0 12 0.125Federal Home Loan Bank0956-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 10/19/20210.12510/20/2020 1,500,063.00 0.1233130AKD86 18 0.581Federal Home Loan Bank0975-21 1,000,000.00 996,927.02 02/17/20260.30002/22/2021 981,062.00 0.5733130AL4V3 1,600 0.841Federal Home Loan Bank0978-21 1,000,000.00 988,887.32 02/11/20260.58003/15/2021 984,700.00 0.8293130AKXB7 1,594 0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,630.98 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 1,497,688.50 0.3803130ALKS2 896 0.385Federal Home Loan Bank0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,753.99 03/15/20240.37503/17/2021 998,459.00 0.3803130ALKS2 896 1.116Federal Home Loan Bank0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,355.45 04/14/20260.50004/14/2021 2,650,307.40 1.1013130ALVT8 1,656 0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 1,496,499.00 0.4443130ALTV6 1,018 0.450Federal Home Loan Bank0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/15/20240.45004/20/2021 997,666.00 0.4443130ALTV6 1,018 0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,748.56 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 1,496,556.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 1,029 0.458Federal Home Loan Bank0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,832.38 07/26/20240.45004/30/2021 997,704.00 0.4523130ALVQ4 1,029 0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,495,917.29 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 1,492,821.75 0.4253130AMV66 1,001 0.431Federal Home Loan Bank0991-21B 1,000,000.00 997,278.20 06/28/20240.33007/01/2021 995,214.50 0.4253130AMV66 1,001 0.510Federal Home Loan Bank0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,021.25 08/30/20240.51007/01/2021 1,498,054.75 0.5033130AMZQ8 1,064 0.600Federal Home Loan Bank0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,100.00 05/28/20250.60009/03/2021 2,000,100.00 0.5923130ANKM1 1,335 0.202Federal Home Loan Bank1001-21 1,000,000.00 998,548.72 08/28/20230.12509/13/2021 998,510.42 0.1993130ANYM6 696 0.409Federal Home Loan Bank1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,277.09 09/13/20240.37509/13/2021 999,260.42 0.4033130ANR28 1,078 1.440Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0917-20 1,000,000.00 1,002,603.03 01/13/20222.37502/20/2020 1,006,533.00 1.4203137EADB2 104 0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0929-20A 1,500,000.00 1,508,527.07 01/13/20222.37504/15/2020 1,509,799.50 0.3553137EADB2 104 0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0929-20B 1,000,000.00 1,005,684.71 01/13/20222.37504/15/2020 1,006,533.00 0.3553137EADB2 104 0.091Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0955-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,413.44 07/25/20220.12510/15/2020 1,499,980.50 0.0903137EAET2 297 0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 05/15/20240.36011/20/2020 996,679.00 0.3553134GXBD5 957 0.350Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 03/29/20240.35011/20/2020 997,489.00 0.3453134GWXC5 910 0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,501,800.00 05/15/20240.36009/15/2021 1,496,818.50 0.3553134GXBD5 957 0.254Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,502,994.15 11/13/20230.30009/15/2021 1,499,510.50 0.2503134GXAY0 773 0.319Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0928-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,263.23 10/07/20211.37504/15/2020 1,500,333.00 0.3143135G0Q89 6 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 YTM 365 Page 3 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value September 30, 2021 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date 62,853,788.99 0.49962,797,950.9462,785,000.0061,041,719.74Subtotal and Average 0.506 599 Treasury Coupon Securities 2.963U.S. Treasury0835-18 2,500,000.00 2,483,019.79 05/31/20221.87510/15/2018 2,529,687.50 2.923912828XD7 242 2.964U.S. Treasury0836-18 2,500,000.00 2,481,057.13 05/31/20221.75010/15/2018 2,527,735.00 2.923912828XR6 242 2.459U.S. Treasury0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,960,704.12 05/31/20231.62503/08/2019 3,069,843.00 2.426912828R69 607 1.540U.S. Treasury0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,116,940.60 05/31/20232.75011/04/2019 6,252,186.00 1.5199128284S6 607 1.600U.S. Treasury0903-19 1,000,000.00 1,000,479.11 10/15/20212.87511/21/2019 1,000,938.00 1.5789128285F3 14 1.586U.S. Treasury0904-19 1,500,000.00 1,502,334.86 11/15/20212.87511/21/2019 1,505,157.00 1.5649128285L0 45 1.441U.S. Treasury0918-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,540.96 10/15/20212.87502/20/2020 1,000,938.00 1.4219128285F3 14 0.160U.S. Treasury0934-20A 1,000,000.00 1,007,042.00 02/28/20221.87505/15/2020 1,007,500.00 0.158912828W55 150 0.160U.S. Treasury0934-20B 1,500,000.00 1,510,563.00 02/28/20221.87505/15/2020 1,511,250.00 0.158912828W55 150 0.175U.S. Treasury0937-20A 1,000,000.00 1,000,988.72 03/31/20220.37505/19/2020 1,001,563.00 0.173912828ZG8 181 0.175U.S. Treasury0937-20B 1,500,000.00 1,501,483.08 03/31/20220.37505/19/2020 1,502,344.50 0.173912828ZG8 181 0.133U.S. Treasury0946-20 1,500,000.00 1,501,799.14 03/31/20220.37509/17/2020 1,502,344.50 0.131912828ZG8 181 0.134U.S. Treasury0953-20 1,000,000.00 1,010,075.42 04/30/20221.87510/15/2020 1,010,469.00 0.132912828X47 211 0.134U.S. Treasury0954-20 1,500,000.00 1,519,056.84 07/15/20221.75010/15/2020 1,519,687.50 0.1329128287C8 287 0.146U.S. Treasury0957-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,813.38 04/30/20220.12511/16/2020 1,500,469.50 0.144912828ZM5 211 0.150U.S. Treasury0958-20 1,500,000.00 1,516,879.01 06/15/20221.75011/16/2020 1,517,578.50 0.1489128286Y1 257 0.156U.S. Treasury0959-20 1,500,000.00 1,517,550.53 08/15/20221.50011/16/2020 1,518,516.00 0.154912828YA2 318 0.105U.S. Treasury0963-20 1,000,000.00 1,010,242.64 04/30/20221.87512/08/2020 1,010,469.00 0.104912828X47 211 0.117U.S. Treasury0964-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,053.88 05/31/20220.12512/08/2020 1,000,313.00 0.115912828ZR4 242 0.120U.S. Treasury0965-20 1,000,000.00 1,011,472.22 06/15/20221.75012/08/2020 1,011,719.00 0.1189128286Y1 257 0.121U.S. Treasury0966-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,033.46 06/30/20220.12512/08/2020 1,000,313.00 0.119912828ZX1 272 0.091U.S. Treasury0967-20 1,000,000.00 1,013,056.76 07/15/20221.75012/15/2020 1,013,125.00 0.0909128287C8 287 0.100U.S. Treasury0968-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,204.38 07/31/20220.12512/15/2020 1,000,313.00 0.09991282CAC5 303 0.107U.S. Treasury0969-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,250.90 08/31/20220.12512/15/2020 1,500,469.50 0.10591282CAG6 334 0.104U.S. Treasury0970-20 1,500,000.00 1,519,969.19 09/15/20221.50012/15/2020 1,520,157.00 0.103912828YF1 349 0.080U.S. Treasury0971-21 1,000,000.00 1,013,484.59 08/15/20221.62502/12/2021 1,013,281.00 0.079912828TJ9 318 0.091U.S. Treasury0972-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,313.31 08/31/20220.12502/12/2021 1,000,313.00 0.08991282CAG6 334 0.091U.S. Treasury0973-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,504.71 09/30/20220.12502/12/2021 1,500,469.50 0.09091282CAN1 364 0.384U.S. Treasury0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,256,402.97 05/31/20242.00004/15/2021 6,246,564.00 0.379912828XT2 973 0.663U.S. Treasury0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,910,520.70 05/31/20250.25004/15/2021 5,899,686.00 0.654912828ZT0 1,338 0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,586,257.97 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 1,580,625.00 0.355912828D56 1,049 0.360U.S. Treasury0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,057,505.32 08/15/20242.37505/14/2021 1,053,750.00 0.355912828D56 1,049 0.515U.S. Treasury0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,961,913.79 05/31/20250.25006/11/2021 3,933,424.55 0.508912828ZT0 1,338 0.275U.S. Treasury0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,138,955.93 05/31/20242.00006/11/2021 3,125,085.28 0.271912828XT2 973 0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,546,345.87 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 1,544,062.50 0.454912828YH7 1,095 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 YTM 365 Page 4 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value September 30, 2021 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Investments FY 2021-2022 Days to Maturity YTM 360CUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Treasury Coupon Securities 0.460U.S. Treasury0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,030,897.25 09/30/20241.50006/18/2021 1,029,375.00 0.454912828YH7 1,095 0.079U.S. Treasury0996-21A 1,500,000.00 1,524,974.91 09/30/20221.75009/09/2021 1,524,609.00 0.078912828L57 364 0.079U.S. Treasury0996-21B 2,000,000.00 2,033,299.88 09/30/20221.75009/09/2021 2,032,812.00 0.078912828L57 364 0.116U.S. Treasury0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,352.97 12/31/20220.12509/09/2021 1,000,085.17 0.11491282CBD2 456 0.150U.S. Treasury0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,436.75 03/31/20230.12509/09/2021 1,498,594.50 0.14891282CBU4 546 0.225U.S. Treasury1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,579,155.97 09/30/20232.87509/09/2021 1,577,109.00 0.2229128285D8 729 75,825,934.01 0.68376,094,931.0075,000,000.0074,816,599.50Subtotal and Average 0.693 597 0.776162,813,633.31 165,210,653.04 0.787 543166,314,274.98 166,101,768.00Total and Average Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Page 1 Par Value Stated Rate September 30, 2021 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment #Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Certificates of Deposit FN50942 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.001.690 12/15/202150942 12/15 - At Maturity10/16/2019 1,500,000.001.6901.667 GWB144303455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.002.660 06/01/2022144303455 06/01 - At Maturity04/16/2019 4,000,000.002.6602.624 USB433071659 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.002.990 06/01/2022433071659 06/01 - 12/0105/24/2018 6,000,000.002.9902.949 USB795014295 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.710 06/01/2022795014295 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 3,000,000.001.7101.687 USB795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.001.780 06/01/2023795014296 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 5,000,000.001.7801.756 19,500,000.00Certificates of Deposit Totals 19,500,000.000.002.28319,500,000.00 2.315 Money Market GWB4531558874 292,544.62 292,544.620.300SYS4531558874B 08/01 - Monthly 292,544.620.3000.296 292,544.62Money Market Totals 292,544.620.000.296292,544.62 0.300 Passbook/Checking Accounts WF6952311634B 133,108.42 133,108.420.150SYS6952311634B 08/01 - Monthly 133,108.420.1500.148 133,108.42Passbook/Checking Accounts Totals 133,108.420.000.148133,108.42 0.150 Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing BSNCHB0987-21A 1,000,000.00 999,666.670.160 12/15/202116537LZF1 12/15 - At Maturity05/24/2021 999,088.890.1660.163 BSNCHB0987-21B 1,000,000.00 999,666.670.160 12/15/202116537LZF1 12/15 - At Maturity05/24/2021 999,088.890.1660.163 BSNCHB0987-21C 1,000,000.00 999,666.670.160 12/15/202116537LZF1 12/15 - At Maturity05/24/2021 999,088.890.1660.163 CACPNY0993-21 1,000,000.00 999,440.280.090 05/12/202222533UED1 05/12 - At Maturity09/03/2021 999,370.000.0930.091 CHESHM0981-21 2,000,000.00 1,999,166.660.200 12/15/202116536HZF1 12/15 - At Maturity04/15/2021 1,997,288.880.2060.203 NABKCN0995-21 1,500,000.00 1,498,785.010.120 06/01/202263307MF12 06/01 - At Maturity09/09/2021 1,498,675.010.1230.121 7,496,391.96Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing Totals 7,492,600.560.000.1567,500,000.00 0.158 Federal Agency Coupon Securities FAMCA0962-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.600 11/20/202531422B3F5 05/20 - 11/2011/20/2020 1,000,000.000.6000.592 FFCB0913-20 1,000,000.00 1,001,917.183.050 11/15/20213133EJT74 05/15 - 11/15 Received02/20/2020 1,027,232.641.4551.435 FFCB0914-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,458.791.760 11/29/20213133EGL60 05/29 - 11/29 Received02/20/2020 1,005,054.611.4701.450 FFCB0916-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,391.961.625 12/27/20213133ELFR0 06/27 - 12/27 Received02/20/2020 1,003,040.001.4581.438 FFCB0930-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,757.110.530 01/18/20223133ELTN4 07/18 - 01/18 Received04/15/2020 1,504,479.000.3600.355 FFCB0952-20A 2,000,000.00 1,999,859.660.140 04/08/20223133EMCJ9 04/08 - 10/08 Received10/15/2020 1,999,600.000.1540.151 FFCB0952-20B 3,000,000.00 2,999,789.490.140 04/08/20223133EMCJ9 04/08 - 10/08 Received10/15/2020 2,999,400.000.1540.151 FFCB0974-21 1,500,000.00 1,501,049.150.160 10/13/20223133EMDA7 04/13 - 10/13 Received02/12/2021 1,501,695.000.0920.091 FFCB0977-21A 1,000,000.00 998,735.710.300 11/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 998,500.000.3410.336 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Page 2 Par Value Stated Rate September 30, 2021 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment #Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Federal Agency Coupon Securities FFCB0977-21B 1,500,000.00 1,498,103.570.300 11/12/20243133EMQQ8 05/12 - 11/12 Received03/02/2021 1,497,750.000.3410.336 FFCB0999-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,820.640.200 06/26/20233133EM3S9 12/26 - 06/26 144.4409/09/2021 2,000,700.000.1800.178 FHLB0791-17 1,135,000.00 1,135,033.231.875 11/29/20213130AABG2 11/29 - 05/29 Received10/13/2017 1,135,851.251.8561.830 FHLB0905-19 1,500,000.00 1,502,883.712.625 12/10/2021313376C94 12/10 - 06/10 Received11/21/2019 1,530,885.001.6011.579 FHLB0915-20 1,000,000.00 1,002,165.982.625 12/10/2021313376C94 06/10 - 12/10 Received02/20/2020 1,020,404.191.4751.455 FHLB0931-20A 1,500,000.00 1,509,889.662.280 02/08/2022313376Y74 08/08 - 02/08 Received04/15/2020 1,550,850.000.4020.397 FHLB0931-20B 1,000,000.00 1,006,593.112.280 02/08/2022313376Y74 08/08 - 02/08 Received04/15/2020 1,033,900.000.4020.397 FHLB0935-20A 1,000,000.00 1,009,073.172.250 03/11/2022313378CR0 09/11 - 03/11 Received05/15/2020 1,037,200.000.2040.201 FHLB0935-20B 1,500,000.00 1,513,609.762.250 03/11/2022313378CR0 09/11 - 03/11 Received05/15/2020 1,555,800.000.2040.201 FHLB0947-20 1,500,000.00 1,527,098.232.750 06/10/20223130AEBM1 12/10 - 06/10 Received09/17/2020 1,567,800.000.1340.132 FHLB0949-20A 1,000,000.00 999,998.330.125 10/13/20213130AKCB0 04/13 - 10/1310/13/2020 999,950.050.1300.128 FHLB0949-20B 2,000,000.00 1,999,996.670.125 10/13/20213130AKCB0 04/13 - 10/1310/13/2020 1,999,900.100.1300.128 FHLB0956-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.125 10/19/20213130AKD86 04/19 - 10/19 Received10/20/2020 1,500,000.000.1250.123 FHLB0975-21 1,000,000.00 996,927.020.300 02/17/20263130AL4V3 08/17 - 02/17 Received02/22/2021 996,500.000.5810.573 FHLB0978-21 1,000,000.00 988,887.320.580 02/11/20263130AKXB7 08/11 - 02/11 Received03/15/2021 987,500.000.8410.829 FHLB0979-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,630.980.375 03/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 1,499,550.000.3850.380 FHLB0979-21B 1,000,000.00 999,753.990.375 03/15/20243130ALKS2 09/15 - 03/15 Received03/17/2021 999,700.000.3850.380 FHLB0980-21 2,650,000.00 2,647,355.450.500 04/14/20263130ALVT8 10/14 - 04/1404/14/2021 2,647,085.001.1161.101 FHLB0984-21A 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.000.450 07/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,500,000.000.4500.444 FHLB0984-21B 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.450 07/15/20243130ALTV6 07/15 - 01/15 Received04/20/2021 1,000,000.000.4500.444 FHLB0985-21A 1,500,000.00 1,499,748.560.450 07/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 75.0004/30/2021 1,499,625.000.4580.452 FHLB0985-21B 1,000,000.00 999,832.380.450 07/26/20243130ALVQ4 10/26 - 04/26 50.0004/30/2021 999,750.000.4580.452 FHLB0991-21A 1,500,000.00 1,495,917.290.330 06/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 41.2507/01/2021 1,495,500.000.4310.425 FHLB0991-21B 1,000,000.00 997,278.200.330 06/28/20243130AMV66 12/28 - 06/28 27.5007/01/2021 997,000.000.4310.425 FHLB0992-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,021.250.510 08/30/20243130AMZQ8 12/30 - 06/30 21.2507/01/2021 1,500,000.000.5100.503 FHLB0994-21 2,000,000.00 2,000,100.000.600 05/28/20253130ANKM1 02/28 - 08/28 100.0009/03/2021 2,000,000.000.6000.592 FHLB1001-21 1,000,000.00 998,548.720.125 08/28/20233130ANYM6 02/28 - 08/28 10.4209/13/2021 998,500.000.2020.199 FHLB1002-21 1,000,000.00 999,277.090.375 09/13/20243130ANR28 03/13 - 09/13 260.4209/13/2021 999,000.000.4090.403 FHLMC0917-20 1,000,000.00 1,002,603.032.375 01/13/20223137EADB2 07/13 - 01/13 Received02/20/2020 1,017,430.111.4401.420 FHLMC0929-20A 1,500,000.00 1,508,527.072.375 01/13/20223137EADB2 07/13 - 01/13 Received04/15/2020 1,552,500.000.3600.355 FHLMC0929-20B 1,000,000.00 1,005,684.712.375 01/13/20223137EADB2 07/13 - 01/13 Received04/15/2020 1,035,000.000.3600.355 FHLMC0955-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,413.440.125 07/25/20223137EAET2 01/25 - 07/25 Received10/15/2020 1,500,900.000.0910.090 FHLMC0960-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.360 05/15/20243134GXBD5 05/15 - 11/15 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3600.355 FHLMC0961-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.350 03/29/20243134GWXC5 03/29 - 09/29 Received11/20/2020 1,000,000.000.3500.345 FHLMC1003-21 1,500,000.00 1,501,800.000.360 05/15/20243134GXBD5 11/15 - 05/15 1,800.0009/15/2021 1,500,000.000.3600.355 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0 Page 3 Par Value Stated Rate September 30, 2021 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment #Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Federal Agency Coupon Securities FHLMC1004-21 1,500,000.00 1,502,994.150.300 11/13/20233134GXAY0 11/13 - 05/13 1,525.0009/15/2021 1,501,500.000.2540.250 FNMA0928-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,263.231.375 10/07/20213135G0Q89 10/07 - 04/07 Received04/15/2020 1,523,340.000.3190.314 62,853,788.99Federal Agency Coupon Securities Totals 63,220,371.954,055.280.49962,785,000.00 0.506 Treasury Coupon Securities US TRE0835-18 2,500,000.00 2,483,019.791.875 05/31/2022912828XD7 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2018 2,407,100.002.9632.923 US TRE0836-18 2,500,000.00 2,481,057.131.750 05/31/2022912828XR6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2018 2,396,362.132.9642.923 US TRE0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,960,704.121.625 05/31/2023912828R69 05/31 - 11/30 Received03/08/2019 2,899,980.002.4592.426 US TRE0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,116,940.602.750 05/31/20239128284S6 11/30 - 05/31 Received11/04/2019 6,251,220.001.5401.519 US TRE0903-19 1,000,000.00 1,000,479.112.875 10/15/20219128285F3 04/15 - 10/15 Received11/21/2019 1,023,750.001.6001.578 US TRE0904-19 1,500,000.00 1,502,334.862.875 11/15/20219128285L0 05/15 - 11/15 Received11/21/2019 1,537,617.191.5861.564 US TRE0918-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,540.962.875 10/15/20219128285F3 04/15 - 10/15 Received02/20/2020 1,023,300.001.4411.421 US TRE0934-20A 1,000,000.00 1,007,042.001.875 02/28/2022912828W55 08/31 - 02/28 Received05/15/2020 1,030,703.120.1600.158 US TRE0934-20B 1,500,000.00 1,510,563.001.875 02/28/2022912828W55 08/31 - 02/28 Received05/15/2020 1,546,054.690.1600.158 US TRE0937-20A 1,000,000.00 1,000,988.720.375 03/31/2022912828ZG8 09/30 - 03/31 Received05/19/2020 1,003,720.000.1750.173 US TRE0937-20B 1,500,000.00 1,501,483.080.375 03/31/2022912828ZG8 09/30 - 03/31 Received05/19/2020 1,505,580.000.1750.173 US TRE0946-20 1,500,000.00 1,501,799.140.375 03/31/2022912828ZG8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/17/2020 1,505,566.410.1330.131 US TRE0953-20 1,000,000.00 1,010,075.421.875 04/30/2022912828X47 10/31 - 04/30 Received10/15/2020 1,026,835.940.1340.132 US TRE0954-20 1,500,000.00 1,519,056.841.750 07/15/20229128287C8 01/15 - 07/15 Received10/15/2020 1,542,363.280.1340.132 US TRE0957-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,813.380.125 04/30/2022912828ZM5 04/30 - 10/31 Received11/16/2020 1,499,531.250.1460.144 US TRE0958-20 1,500,000.00 1,516,879.011.750 06/15/20229128286Y1 12/15 - 06/15 Received11/16/2020 1,537,830.000.1500.148 US TRE0959-20 1,500,000.00 1,517,550.531.500 08/15/2022912828YA2 02/15 - 08/15 Received11/16/2020 1,535,156.250.1560.154 US TRE0963-20 1,000,000.00 1,010,242.641.875 04/30/2022912828X47 04/30 - 10/31 Received12/08/2020 1,024,660.000.1050.104 US TRE0964-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,053.880.125 05/31/2022912828ZR4 05/31 - 11/30 Received12/08/2020 1,000,120.000.1170.115 US TRE0965-20 1,000,000.00 1,011,472.221.750 06/15/20229128286Y1 12/15 - 06/15 Received12/08/2020 1,024,730.000.1200.118 US TRE0966-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,033.460.125 06/30/2022912828ZX1 12/31 - 06/30 Received12/08/2020 1,000,070.000.1210.119 US TRE0967-20 1,000,000.00 1,013,056.761.750 07/15/20229128287C8 01/15 - 07/15 Received12/15/2020 1,026,250.000.0910.090 US TRE0968-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,204.380.125 07/31/202291282CAC5 01/31 - 07/31 Received12/15/2020 1,000,400.000.1000.099 US TRE0969-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,250.900.125 08/31/202291282CAG6 02/28 - 08/31 Received12/15/2020 1,500,468.750.1070.105 US TRE0970-20 1,500,000.00 1,519,969.191.500 09/15/2022912828YF1 03/15 - 09/15 Received12/15/2020 1,536,562.500.1040.103 US TRE0971-21 1,000,000.00 1,013,484.591.625 08/15/2022912828TJ9 02/15 - 08/15 Received02/12/2021 1,023,280.000.0800.079 US TRE0972-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,313.310.125 08/31/202291282CAG6 02/28 - 08/31 Received02/12/2021 1,000,530.000.0910.089 US TRE0973-21 1,500,000.00 1,500,504.710.125 09/30/202291282CAN1 03/31 - 09/30 Received02/12/2021 1,500,825.000.0910.090 US TRE0982-21 6,000,000.00 6,256,402.972.000 05/31/2024912828XT2 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 6,300,937.500.3840.379 US TRE0983-21 6,000,000.00 5,910,520.700.250 05/31/2025912828ZT0 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/15/2021 5,899,218.750.6630.654 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0 Page 4 Par Value Stated Rate September 30, 2021 Investment Status Report - Investments Portfolio Management Book Value Maturity Date Current Principal Investments FY 2021-2022 YTM 365 YTM 360 Payment DatesCUSIPInvestment #Issuer Purchase Date Accrued Interest At Purchase Treasury Coupon Securities US TRE0986-21A 1,500,000.00 1,586,257.972.375 08/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,597,770.000.3600.355 US TRE0986-21B 1,000,000.00 1,057,505.322.375 08/15/2024912828D56 08/15 - 02/15 Received05/14/2021 1,065,180.000.3600.355 US TRE0988-21 4,000,000.00 3,961,913.790.250 05/31/2025912828ZT0 11/30 - 05/31 300.5506/11/2021 3,958,400.000.5150.508 US TRE0989-21 3,000,000.00 3,138,955.932.000 05/31/2024912828XT2 11/30 - 05/31 1,803.2806/11/2021 3,152,940.000.2750.271 US TRE0990-21A 1,500,000.00 1,546,345.871.500 09/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,550,790.000.4600.454 US TRE0990-21B 1,000,000.00 1,030,897.251.500 09/30/2024912828YH7 09/30 - 03/31 Received06/18/2021 1,033,860.000.4600.454 US TRE0996-21A 1,500,000.00 1,524,974.911.750 09/30/2022912828L57 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,526,484.380.0790.078 US TRE0996-21B 2,000,000.00 2,033,299.881.750 09/30/2022912828L57 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 2,035,312.510.0790.078 US TRE0997-21 1,000,000.00 1,000,352.970.125 12/31/202291282CBD2 12/31 - 06/30 241.1709/09/2021 1,000,117.190.1160.114 US TRE0998-21 1,500,000.00 1,499,436.750.125 03/31/202391282CBU4 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,499,414.060.1500.148 US TRE1000-21 1,500,000.00 1,579,155.972.875 09/30/20239128285D8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/09/2021 1,581,544.760.2250.222 75,825,934.01Treasury Coupon Securities Totals 76,112,535.662,345.000.68375,000,000.00 0.693 166,101,768.00Investment Totals 166,751,161.216,400.28165,210,653.04 0.776 0.787 Portfolio 2022 AC Run Date: 10/07/2021 - 15:15 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0 For Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 0.26% 44.88% 54.86% Portfolio by Asset Class Cash and Equivalents Long Term Short Term For Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 0.91% 3.03% 0.61%0.61% 9.38% 21.05% 6.05% 0.91% 0.91% 2.60% 45.40% 8.47% 0.08% Par Value by Issuer Graph BKCAN CHSSMN CRAGRI FAMCA FFCB FHLB FHLMC FNB FNMA GWB UST USB WF For Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 0.18%0.08% 11.74% 4.51% 37.84% 45.65% Book Value By Investment Type Money Market Passbook/Checking Accounts Certificate of Deposit Commercial Paper Federal Agency Coupon Securities Treasury Coupon Securities For Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Investment Yield by Type 1 ITEM#: 7 DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH PRIORITY DISPATCH FOR POLICE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES BACKGROUND: The Ames Police Department Communications Center provides Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD). EMD provides a critical lifeline support by using predetermined medical protocols to both dispatch correct resources to an emergency scene and to give instructions to victims and bystanders before the arrival of first responders. Dispatchers utilize ProQA to provide the EMD service. ProQA is a service from Priority Dispatch that uses adaptive software to provide the dispatcher a script that best assists the caller/patient. The script utilizes International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) protocols. Priority Dispatch also provides a quality assurance service. The City currently utilizes this service to perform quality assurance review on emergency medical and fire dispatch calls. This review ensures dispatchers are providing the highest quality service to the community. Originally, this quality assurance work was performed by a part-time Police Department employee. However, several years ago it was transitioned to a contracted service, which provides more consistent quality assurance at a lower cost. The quality assurance service is currently contracted six months at a time. A pre- determined number of calls are reviewed at a cost of $19 per call. Priority Dispatch determines the number of calls to review based on the agency size and the number of medical calls received each year. Under the six-month contracts, the cost-per-call has increased with each contract period. City staff is now proposing to enter into a multi-year subscription agreement which would lock in the cost-per-call review at $19 for the next five years. Either party may terminate the agreement with a 60-day notice. Although the cost-per-call would not increase during that five-year period, the number of calls to be reviewed would increase. The number of calls to be reviewed is established in the agreement each year and will not vary, even if the number of actual calls for service increases significantly. Therefore, the annual contract costs are as follows: Year Calls Reviewed Cost TOTAL 6,812 $ 129,428 2 Year 1 of the agreement begins upon approval of the agreement by the City. The Police Department budget includes $23,400 in funding for the current year. The $1,300 shortfall will be financed from salary savings from vacant police positions. The funds required for subsequent years will be included in the department budget. Because the Medical ProQA service used by dispatchers is proprietary, Priority Dispatch is the only company that is able to provide quality assurance review of the calls. Therefore, awarding a contract to Priority Dispatch for quality assurance must be done as a single-source purchase rather than through soliciting competitive bids. ALTERNATIVES: 1. A. Authorize a single-source procurement to Priority Dispatch for quality assurance review of emergency medical dispatch calls. B. Approve an agreement with Priority Dispatch for a five-year, fixed cost service in an amount not to exceed $129,428. 2. Do not authorize the Ames Police Department to enter into the 5-year agreement. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposed agreement provides a guaranteed cost over the next five years for the quality assurance services. This cost matches the current cost per call reviewed. Quality assurance is a key part to providing an efficient and effective Emergency Medical Dispatching program. The quality assurance service from Priority Dispatch is the only service available that matches the City’s EMD service and standards. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 A and B. 1 ITEM #: 8 DATE: 10/26/21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CERTIFICATE OF CONSISTENCY WITH 2019-2023 CDBG CONSOLIDATED PLAN ON BEHALF OF TWO LOCAL AGENCIES FOR FUNDING UNDER IOWA’S CONTINUUM OF CARE GRANT BACKGROUND: For the program year 2022, in order for Youth and Shelter Services (YSS) and The Bridge Home to apply for Rapid ReHousing (RRH) funding as part of the Iowa Balance of State Continuum of Care Application from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), these agencies must have concurrence from the City that their program applications match the goals of the City’s current 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan. YSS is applying for $189,225 to administer a new 10-unit RRH project that will cover the Two Rivers Service Area, but will be based and staffed in Story County. This new rapid rehousing program consists of scattered site apartments in which landlords own the units and the leases are in the youth’s name. The youth can stay in the RRH unit as long as they want. This new Rapid Rehousing program has six units for individual homeless youths and four units for parenting or pregnant youths (all under the age of 25). YSS anticipates that most of the youths in this program will reside in Story County, and their apartments will most likely be in Ames. The Bridge Home is seeking $270,000 to administer a RRH program that will cover the Two Rivers Service Area. The funds will be used to towards Permanent Supportive Housing to assist clients with rental assistance, client transportation, and case management plus program administration. The Bridge Home anticipates that half of the grant funds ($135,000) will be used in Ames/Story County. Staff has reviewed the applications for both YSS and The Bridge Home and finds they are consistent with goals and priorities outlined in the City’s CDBG 2019-2023 Five-year Consolidated Plan to, “Reduce the cost burden for LMI households to access or maintain rental housing citywide.” The Plan also addresses the importance for local non-profit organizations to seek additional funding opportunities from state and federal resources in order to have a greater impact on the needs of the homeless, chronic homeless, extremely low‐, very low‐ and low‐ and moderate‐income households. The Certificates of Consistency for both YSS and The Bridge Home are attached. 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a Certificate of Consistency for both YSS and The Bridge Home to submit applications to the Iowa Balance of State Continuum of Care Application for RRH funding. 2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign Certificates of Consistency for these applications. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applications for these agencies to receive grant funding have been reviewed by City staff. The applications are consistent with the City’s current 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan. The funds received would have a benefit for Ames and Story County residents. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1, as described above. 3 4 1 ITEM # 9 DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: LEGAL SERVICES FOR SERVICE TERRITORY DISPUTE WITH USDA BACKGROUND: The USDA’s National Center for Animal Health occupies 523 acres on the northeast side of Ames. The property straddles the service territory boundary between Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL) and Ames Municipal Electric System (AMES), such that 153.85 acres of this property is in AMES’ service territory. AMES serves several buildings in this area, including one identified by USDA as Building 21. USDA would prefer that Building 21 be served by IPL. The Iowa Legislature enacted exclusive service territories for electric utilities in order to “encourage the development of coordinated statewide electric service at retail, to eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of electric utility facilities, and to promote economical, efficient, and adequate electric service to the public.” Pursuant to that, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) established exclusive service territories throughout Iowa and electric utilities have designed their systems based upon those established boundaries. While the Board has the authority to modify the boundaries based upon considerations such as preventing unnecessary duplication of facilities or natural or physical barriers that prevent economic service arrangements, the boundaries may only be modified if the Board finds the change is in the public interest. AMES began providing service to Building 21 in 2004. In recent years, Building 21 has averaged a peak load of 350 kW and represents annual electric sales of about 2,533,656 kWh, for annual revenues to AMES of close to $200,000 per year. This makes Building 21 one of AMES’ 15 largest customers in terms of usage and revenue. The USDA has also made it known that they are planning a building expansion and consolidating additional labs into Building 21; the potential revenue could grow to nearly $500,000/year. The USDA asked the IUB to modify the service area boundaries around Building 21 to assign the building to IPL’s service territory or to “simply declare that it will not be deemed a territorial violation by [IPL] if the USDA disconnects Building 21 from [AMES].” It should be emphasized that losing this customer would have an adverse impact on the remaining retail customers of AMES. USDA says it has upgraded its electrical systems served by IPL to provide redundancy and reliable power to certain laboratory facilities. IPL delivers service to USDA’s facilities at a location known as Building 153, which has two feeders, backup generators, and full-time monitoring. USDA would like to connect Building 21 to Building 153. AMES has suggested a number of alternative solutions that would provide redundant, reliable service to Building 21 with full-time monitoring, but USDA has 2 rejected those suggestions without explanation. Due to USDA’s complaint at the IUB, specialized outside legal services were needed. On September 26, 2018, the City Attorney signed an Engagement Letter for legal services with the BrownWinick law firm of Des Moines. An initial Purchase Order was created in an amount of $24,900 to begin the work, with hopes of an agreeable settlement without a hearing. As negotiations stalled, it was clear the City was going to hearing at the IUB, so Change Order #1 for $24,900 was approved on August 15, 2019 to prepare and defend the initial complaint. The hearing was held on August 27, 2019. A draft order was issued by the IUB, stating that the entire IUB campus be consolidated under the IPL territory, not simply Building 21. This means that if the transfer takes place, the City will lose its eighth largest customer with a yearly revenue of close to $500,000. Since the hearing, the IUB has reopened the hearing to request additional data from AMES, IPL and the USDA. Outside legal counsel has been performing additional work to respond to these data requests and to review and respond to the responses made by the other parties. Change Order #2 was approved on November 26, 2019 in the amount of $50,000 to complete this work. A third change order was approved on July 16, 2020 in the amount of $24,900, bringing the total contract amount to $124,700. On June 23, 2021, the IUB issued the “Order Setting Procedural Schedule.” The parties, including AMES, filed direct testimony on August, 19, rebuttal testimony on September 19, and reply testimony on September 30, 2021. The parties will be participating in a hearing at the IUB on October 29, 2021. At this time, the funds in the current Purchase Order have nearly been exhausted. Staff is requesting that the City Council approve Change Order #4 in an amount of $50,000. That action will increase the overall authorized amount to $174,700. This increase is needed to cover the cost of the hearing, the filing of post-hearing briefs, and possible settlement negotiations. Following the filing of post-hearing briefs and the possible outcome, the City may need to be prepared to appeal the ruling to District Court. The FY 2021/22 Purchased Power budget includes $74,250 for outside legal services, which can be used to cover this additional $50,000 expense. 3 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Change Order #4 in an amount of $50,000 to the professional services agreement with BrownWinick of Des Moines, Iowa, increasing the amount of the purchase order to $174,700. The City will continue to be billed on an hourly basis for services incurred in accordance with the agreement. 2. Do not approve the proposed change order and ask staff for further information. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: USDA, a retail electric customer, does not have the statutory authority to seek a modification of electric service territory boundaries pursuant to Iowa Code § 476.25. Electric service territory boundaries were established to preserve existing relationships between utilities and their customers, to prevent unnecessary duplication of facilities, to take account of natural barriers to service, and to recognize any contracts between electric utilities. Those boundaries have been an important factor in distribution system design since they were established, as utilities rely on the established boundaries to determine where they can, and where they cannot, provide retail electric service. It is critical that the City challenge this complaint at the IUB; loss of this load would cause shift costs to the remaining electric customers of the City if not properly compensated. BrownWinick has provided excellent service to the Electric Utility throughout this process; seeking other legal counsel at this point, or discontinuing the process altogether, could seriously impair the results. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # __ 10_____ DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: UNIT 8 TURBINE-GENERATOR OVERHAUL PROJECT – CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2020, the City Council approved plans and specifications for the Unit 8 Turbine- Generator Overhaul Project. The Unit 8 Turbine-Generator is disassembled at regular intervals to inspect the turbine and the generator for repairs and to install replacement parts that may be needed to prevent unplanned turbine-generator outages, prevent costly turbine- generator damage, and increase turbine-generator efficiency and reliability. Repairs and replacement of worn parts in an overhaul of this nature are completed as the inspection progresses. Experience has shown that certain parts require replacement every major overhaul and some parts become unusable during the disassembly process. This overhaul to repair and replace parts is required and recommended by boiler and machinery insurance carriers and follows accepted industry standards. This contract is for labor and materials for the inspection and repairs to Unit 8 turbine-generator. Spare parts are made available to the contractor for repair and replacement and are bid under a separate contract. Award of contract was made October 13, 2020, to Blade Runner Turbomachinery Services, LLC of Navasota, Texas, for the base bid and alternate #10 (Turbine Lube Oil System High Speed Flush) in the amount of $699,800. This vendor is not licensed to collect taxes for the State of Iowa. Therefore, the City of Ames will pay applicable sales tax ($48,986) directly to the State of Iowa. Change Order #1 was approved by the City Council on September 28, 2021 in the amount of $607,678.37 (plus $42,537.49 in sales taxes to be paid by the City). This change order was for the purpose of shipping the Unit 8 rotor to a facility to be disassembled, rewound, tested, and balanced. Funding was added from the Unit 7 Boiler Tube CIP project to finance this change order. Change Order #2 authorized the contractor to disassemble the Turbine Stop Valve, clean the main valve and seat, transport the pilot valve and seat to a shop in Chicago where parts were machined to correct tolerances, and then re-installed the parts into the Turbine Stop Valve. The cost for Change Order No. 2 was $26,993.86 (plus $1,889.57 in sales taxes to be paid by the City) and approved by the City Manager. THIS ACTION: The action now being requested is to approve Change Order No. 3 to the Unit 8 Turbine-Generator Overhaul Project. This change order work, for $181,357.44, includes four major items: low speed balance test, major repairs to the diaphragms (stationary blades), machine work on the casing, and bearing repairs. This change 2 order requires an additional $12,695.02 to be paid in sales taxes by the City to the state of Iowa. The low speed balance test will be performed once replacement blading and repairs are completed on the rotor in the repair shop. The rotor will be turned at 300 revolutions per minute and tested to determine if/where weights are needed to provide a balanced rotor. A properly balanced rotor operates more efficiently and prolongs the life of the bearings and shaft. The diaphragm repairs include welding additional material and machining to the blades to restore the original contour and shape. The welding work will be done on site. Casing repairs include machining and welding material onto the casing faces to restore original shape. A number of areas on the casing showed excessive wear due to steam erosion. The tolerances between the casing and turbine blades will be corrected and produce a more efficient steam path and prolong the life of the turbine casing. The casing work will be done on site. The bearing repairs will involve machining the bearings to the correct size in order to maintain the OEM required tolerances between the shaft and bearing. The City had one spare bearing. Both the spare bearing and the bearing installed were found to be out of spec. Both bearings will be sent offsite to a machine shop to be corrected. This Change Order increases the total contract amount to $1,621,937.75. The extent of repairs to the turbine generator were not known until the equipment was disassembled. The repairs are important to keep the equipment operating efficiently and prevent further damage. Contracts awarded to date on this project are: Argo (Parts) $1,077,109.00 (City to pay sales tax) 74,711.63 MD&A (Parts- sales tax included) 191,461.85 Power Plant Services (Parts- sales tax included) 147,224.65 Burns & McDonnell (Engineering) 39,176.89 General Electric (Technical Support) 242,800.00 Blade Runner Base Bid (Contractor) 699,800.00 (City to pay sales tax) 48,986.00 Blade Runner CO #1 607,678.37 (City to pay sales tax) 42,537.49 Blade Runner CO #2 26,993.86 (City to pay sales tax) 1,889.57 Blade Runner CO #3 (this Council Action) 181,357.44 (City to pay sales tax) 12,695.02 TOTAL $3,394,421.77 The Engineer’s estimate for the cost of the total project was $2,488,000, although it is very difficult to determine the repair cost before the unit is completely disassembled and 3 measured/tested. Funding for the Unit 8 Turbine-Generator Overhaul Project was originally budgeted in the 2019/20 CIP in the amount of $3,000,000 total. Funds to finance expenses exceeding that amount will be taken from the Unit 7 Boiler Tube CIP and Unit 7 Turbine/Generator Overhaul CIP. In total, funds are available for this project as follows: 2019/20 Materials/Parts $1,000,000.00 2019/20 Construction 1,650,000.00 2019/20 GE Tech Support 350,000.00 Unit 7 Boiler Tube CIP 311,623.00 Unit 7 Overhaul CIP 288,924.12 TOTAL $3,600,547.12 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Change Order No. 3 to Blade Runner Turbomachinery Services, LLC of Navasota, Texas, in the amount of $181,357.44 for the Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul Project. 2. Do not approve the change order and direct staff to seek other options available to complete this work. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approving this change order will restore the Unit 8 generator rotor to near like-new condition, providing reliable generator availability and performance for the future. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1 as stated above. ITEM # __ 11__ DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CAMPUSTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (WELCH AVENUE) BACKGROUND: The 100 block of Welch Avenue, between Lincoln Way and Chamberlain Avenue, is one of the oldest utility corridors in Ames. Reconstruction of this block provided the opportunity to enhance traffic flow, upgrade utilities, add amenities, and provide a new streetscape. On March 24, 2020, City Council awarded a construction contract to Con-Struct Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount of $2,150,067. Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $9,231, was to remove and replace storm sewer pipe and to cap existing 6” water main. Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $6,094.76, was for additional water main work. Change Order No.3 (with this action) is the balancing change order for the project and is a deduction in the amount of ($91,687.18). Construction was completed in the amount of $2,073,705.58. Revenues and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follow: Available Revenue Estimated Expenses Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds Electric Utility Funds Road Use Tax IDALS (Grant) Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (Sewer Utility Funds) Storm Water Improvements (Storm Sewer Funds) $ 425,000 $ 125,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 156,000 $ 70,000 Construction (this contract) $ 2,073,705.58 Remaining funds from this project will be used for future projects. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Approve Change Order No. 3, a deduction in the amount of $91,687.18. b. Accept the Campustown Public Improvements (Welch Avenue) project as completed by Con-Struct Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount $2,073,705.58. 2. Direct staff to pursue changes to the project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Approval of the balancing change order and acceptance of the project are the final steps remaining to close the project out. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. 1 ITEM #__ 12__ DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CONTRACT COMPLETION FOR TAHIRA AND LABH HIRA PARK CONCRETE PROJECT BACKGROUND: This project included completing approximately 9,850 square feet of concrete work at Tahira and Labh Hira Park, 3622 Woodland St. The work included constructing concrete sidewalks, basketball pad, trash enclosure pad, grill slab, and water fountain slab. The land for the park, at the former site of Edwards Elementary School, was deeded to the City by the Ames Community School District to be used for a neighborhood park. City Council appropriated $80,000 in the FY 2019/20 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to develop the park. Tahira and Labh Hira donated $50,000 to complete the development of the park in one phase. The neighborhood association received a $4,800 grant from the OPUS Foundation to assist with completing the development. Total funding available for the project is $134,800. Howrey Construction, Rockwell City, Iowa, was awarded a contract in the amount of $60,414.25 to complete the work. Due to modifications to the design once the crew was on site, the final quantities were adjusted and the actual cost was $55,799.25. Items remaining to complete the development of the park include electrical hook ups in the shelter, construction of the trash enclosure, installation of benches and grills, final grading, and seeding. Total project costs are estimated to be $126,000. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept completion of the Tahira and Labh Hira Park Concrete Project with Howrey Construction, Rockwell City, Iowa in the amount of $55,799.25. 2. Do not accept the completion of the Tahira and Labh Hira Park Concrete Work Project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This concrete work is integral in completing the development of Tahira and Labh Hira Park. The finished park will include a 20’x24 shelter, sidewalks, grills, water fountain, concrete playground border, and a basketball pad with hoops. The park is expected to be completed in early November and will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1 as stated above. Smart Choice 515.239.5133 non-emergency Administration fax To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department Date: September 27, 2021 Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda The Council agenda for October 26th, 2021, includes beer permits and liquor license renewals for: •North Grand Cinema (2801 Grand Ave) - Class C Liquor with Sunday Sales A review of police records for the past 12 months found two liquor law violations for the above business. During a compliance check on April 22nd, 2021, an employee sold alcohol to a minor and was cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was completed on June 9th, 2021 and another employee sold alcohol to a minor and a second citation was issued. So far, the Police Department has made recommendations to improve performance at this establishment, such as asking for customer identification and verifying customer age, as well as utilizing the Iowa ABD Age to Purchase mobile application to scan identifications to ensure validity. North Grand Cinema management requested additional training for staff from the Ames Police Department, which took place on July 16th, 2021. In addition, they now require staff working the bar area to be I-PACT certified (Iowa Program for Alcohol Compliance Training). They have also added software to their point-of-sale to scan a customer’s identification to verify age and expiration. At this time, the Police Department would not recommend a renewal of North Grand Cinema’s license for the next year. However, the Police Department would be in favor of the issuance of a 6-month license in order to give the business and the Police Department a shorter period of time to evaluate changes to ensure due diligence in keeping underage patrons from obtaining alcohol. The process to initiate this recommendation would be for the City Council to deny the requested 12-month license and adopt a motion indicating the City Council would accept a six-month license application. Item No. 13 During this 6-month period, The Police Department will continue to monitor the above location by conducting regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff through trainings and quarterly meetings. 1 ITEM # ___14__ DATE 10-24-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH XENIA RURAL WATER DISTRICT TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE AND FACILITATE TERRITORY TRANSFER BACKGROUND: The City of Ames is bordered by two rural water providers: areas to the east are served by Central Iowa Rural Water Association, and the areas to the north, west, and south of the Ames corporate limits are served by Xenia Rural Water District. Rural water providers have the right under law to be the exclusive provider of potable water to customers within their established territory. However, rural water providers are not obligated to provide water at the pressures and flows that would adequately serve future residents and businesses with fire protection. Since the early 1990s, Ames and Xenia have made several agreements to transfer water service territory from one entity to the other. Typically, these territory transactions involved property owners in the unincorporated fringe outside Ames who wished to receive water from Xenia. At the time the request was made, state law provided that the City could grant the territory to Xenia or commit to serving the property with City water within four years (the law changed later to a three-year timeframe to serve). Because requests for Xenia water service were often outside of the City Council’s planned growth areas reflected in the Land Use Policy Plan, the City’s response in these situations was frequently to release the service territory to Xenia. PRESENT CHALLENGES: There is little guidance in the law regarding how to arrive at a price to transfer water service territory. Therefore, it is up to the parties to determine a mutually agreeable purchase price. In situations where rural water providers adjacent Ames have been willing to transfer their territory, the purchase price for territory has typically been influenced by the potential lost future revenue and the value of abandoned infrastructure. Furthermore, there is no obligation for a rural water provider to transfer its water service territory if it is capable of serving that property and does not wish to release the property. In addition to areas that Ames and Xenia may disagree about whether to potentially transfer, there exists different perspectives about where the territory boundary actually lies. Several of the transfers of service territory from Ames to Xenia in the 1990s were requests for Xenia to serve certain homes (as opposed to acreages). In these instances, the request documentation to Ames and the approval documentation to Xenia was not as precise as it could have been, nor was it accompanied by legal descriptions or clear maps regarding what territory was to be transferred. Therefore, 2 there exist certain areas outside the Ames corporate limits that Xenia believes it has a right to serve, which Ames contends the City never released to Xenia. Finally, the City is in the process of determining its directions for future growth through the adoption of Ames Plan 2040. These future growth areas are divided into four Tiers, with Tier 1 being the areas with the least costly infrastructure investment (most readily developable areas) and Tier 4 being the highest cost infrastructure investment to develop. As the City expands through annexation, nearly all of the logical growth areas lie within territory already claimed by a rural water provider. The territory transactions that have occurred over time have resulted in approximately the territory boundaries depicted in Figure 1, below. Figure 1 also indicates the Ames Plan 2040 growth areas. Figure 1: Water Service Territory and Ames Plan 2040 Growth Tiers Therefore, if Ames intends to 1) grow in population as contemplated by Ames Plan 2040 and 2) ensure adequate fire protection to the whole community, there exist only a handful of potential alternatives: 1. Direct the City’s growth efforts into areas where Xenia will allow for territory buyouts, and require developers to buy out the water rights as a condition of development. 3 PROS: • Once bought out, customers are served by a single provider; Ames controls price and quality • Fire protection is provided • Overhead costs for the water utility are spread across more customers CONS: • Most areas Ames intends to grow into are those that Xenia is unwilling to sell • The buyout cost is uncontrolled; dependent on negotiations with Xenia 2. Avoid growth into rural water territory, and focus growth into areas where Xenia has no rights or where transfer rights have already been negotiated with CIWA. PROS: • No buyout costs and customers are served by a single provider; Ames controls price and quality • Fire protection is provided • Overhead costs for the water utility are spread across more customers CONS: • Most areas Ames intends to grow into are Xenia areas, therefore, the Ames Plan 2040 would need to be substantially revised to focus on infill/intensification 3. Grow into Xenia territory and allow Xenia to serve potable water needs within the Ames city limits. In this option, Ames would have to develop an alternative fire protection model for these areas. PROS: • No buyout costs • Fire protection is provided CONS: • Ames either develops a rural firefighting model (at urban densities) or installs parallel infrastructure (costly and less effective) • Ames would not control price or quality of drinking water • Xenia customers within the City of Ames would experience higher water costs than residents who are customers of the Ames water utility • Billing for sanitary sewer and storm sewer service would be difficult • Portions of Ames would likely experience a higher insurance rating • Potential for customer confusion between Ames and Xenia 4 • Limited growth potential for Ames water utility; diminishing ability to spread the utility’s overhead costs to new customers 4. Negotiate with Xenia to require installation/maintenance of infrastructure at Ames standards and provide a guaranteed buyout cost to developers for those areas that Xenia agrees to transfer to Ames PROS: • Growth into Ames Plan 2040 growth areas would not be impeded by water territories • No buyout costs • Fire protection is provided • Uniform insurance rating across all of Ames • A mechanism would exist to bill for sewer and storm sewer costs CONS: • Ames would not control price or quality of drinking water • Xenia customers within the City of Ames would experience higher water costs than residents who are customers of the Ames water utility • Potential for customer confusion between Ames and Xenia • Limited growth potential for Ames water utility; diminishing ability to spread the utility’s overhead costs to new customers COST COMPARISON OF AMES AND XENIA RETAIL WATER RATES: Several of the alternatives indicated above reference higher water costs to customers under Xenia’s water rates. Xenia’s rate structure differs from Ames. Xenia provides a fixed minimum charge and a block of 2,000 gallons per month to each customer. Consumption in excess of the first 2,000-gallon block is charged at a fixed fee for each subsequent 1,000-gallon increment. In contrast, Ames water customers are charged a minimum charge to cover fixed costs (meter reading, bill preparation, meter equipment, etc.), and then consumption is billed on a per-cubic foot basis. The table on the following page compares the billing experiences of residential and commercial water users at different consumption levels under Ames and Xenia’s rate structures (Note: these figures exclude taxes, sewer, or other charges). 5 Comparison of Selected Typical Water Customers Using Ames and Xenia Rates and Fees AMES XENIA Min. Charge plus Winter Rates Min. Charge plus Summer Rates Year-Round Rates Residential Examples <1,000 cf = $13.15, OR >1,000 cf = $26.29 Plus $0.0257/cf <1,000 cf = $13.15, OR >1,000 cf = $26.29 Plus $0.0257/cf (1st 1,000 cf) $0.0454/cf (Next 1,500 cf) $0.0682/cf (all cf over 2,500) Plus $13/1,000 gal. (Gals. 2,001 – 10,000) Plus Small Res. 100 cf (748 gal) $13.15 + $2.57 = $15.72 $13.15 + $2.57 = $15.72 $65.20 Median Res. 600 cf (4,488 gal) $13.15 + $15.42 = $28.57 $13.15 + $15.42 = $28.57 $65.20 + $39.00 = $104.20 Large Res. 1,000 cf (7,480 gal) $13.15 + $25.70 = $38.85 $13.15 + $25.70 = $38.85 $65.20 + $78.00 = $143.20 Commercial Examples <1,000 cf = $13.15, OR >1,000 cf = $26.29 Plus >1,000 cf = $26.29 Plus Same as residential, above Small Com. 600 cf (4,488 gal) $13.15 + $15.42 = $28.57 $13.15 + $20.22 = $33.37 $65.20 + $39.00 = $104.20 Median Com. 1,000 cf (7,480 gal) $13.15 + $25.70 = $38.85 $13.15 + $33.70 = $46.85 $65.20 + $78.00 = $143.20 Large Com. 3,000 cf (22,440 gal) $26.29 + $77.10 = $103.39 $26.29 + $101.10 = $127.39 $65.20 + $104.00 +$71.50 = $240.70 cf = cubic foot gal = gallon 7.48 gallons = 1 cubic foot Xenia’s industrial rates are a fixed cost with a minimum usage depending on the user, plus a charge of $1.92 to $3.40 for each 1,000 gallons exceeding the minimum. In 2019, Xenia had four industrial customers with fixed charges varying from $14,631 to $67,228. 6 PROPOSED AGREEMENT TO RESOLVE TERRITORY AND SERVICE: Based upon the pros and cons evaluated above, City staff determined that if the City hoped to grow as outlined in the Ames Plan 2040 growth scenarios, the most feasible path would be to pursue Alternative #4, and develop an agreement with Xenia to allow it to serve residents within newly annexed portions of Ames. In November 2020, staff presented the first outline of the agreement to Xenia. After a series of discussions and iterations, both Xenia staff and Ames staff have arrived at an agreement that is ready to be presented to our respective governing bodies for consideration. The agreement largely follows the model described by Alternative #4, above (with some modifications), that allows Xenia to operate a water distribution system within the corporate limits of Ames. Standards would be in place to assure acceptable fire protection using Xenia’s infrastructure is provided. The proposed agreement is divided into two key sections: INFRASTRUCTURE AND FIREFIGHTING The first key section (Article II) outlines the standards for Xenia’s infrastructure within the City of Ames. Xenia would agree to install new infrastructure within Ames to meet the Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) standards, including Ames’ local amendments pertaining to crossings of water mains and sewer mains, and fire hydrants. Additionally, the agreement indicates that Xenia would operate the system within Ames to meet Ames’ fire protection needs. The Fire Department would be permitted to use Xenia’s hydrants for firefighting purposes. Infrastructure that Xenia designs and installs in Ames urban fringe must also be designed and installed for firefighting if it is installed in an area designated as intended for future Ames annexation. However, Xenia may serve single dwellings in the fringe area without meeting firefighting standards if it is a dwelling on a parcel that has not been subdivided. Just as Ames charges developers for the cost to install water infrastructure, it is expected that Xenia will charge developers for the cost to install infrastructure to meet both drinking water and firefighting requirements as outlined in the agreement. The agreement places expectations on Xenia to maintain and repair its infrastructure in Ames to a similar level as the City of Ames manages its infrastructure. Xenia would be responsible to address water main breaks in a timely manner, and would notify Ames of breaks so the City could address any inquiries that are received. CUSTOMER BILLING Because sewer bills are based on water consumption, Xenia will be responsible to bill their water customers within Ames for the City’s sanitary and storm sewer fees in accordance with Ames’ rates and rebate this revenue to the City each month. 7 Xenia would be allowed to collect a per customer, per month charge to administer Ames’ billings ($1.50 to start; may increase along with the actual cost to administer billings). If Ames ever required additional fees or services to be billed by Xenia, no additional charges would be assessed for Xenia to do so. Xenia customers in Ames would be subject to Xenia’s adopted rates and fees. However, Xenia would not be able to charge Ames customers more than customers in the same customer class in other parts of its service territory. A customer who experiences a water leak that did not enter the City’s sanitary sewer would be referred to the City to consider authorizing Xenia to issue a credit in accordance with City policies (Xenia would not be empowered to credit customers’ sanitary sewer bills without City direction). Customers would be subject to Xenia’s policies regarding late payments and non- payments. Xenia’s policies for delinquent payments provide for late fees and finance charges (which this agreement allows Xenia to charge against the entire customer bill— sanitary sewer and storm sewer included—and retain). Xenia policies allow for one late fee to be written off per customer, per 12-month period. Xenia’s policies also provide for water disconnection if payment for the entire bill (includes sanitary sewer and storm sewer) is not received within 21 days of the bill due date (contrasted with Ames, where disconnections take place approximately 29 days after a bill due date has passed, following multiple written and phone call communications). Xenia will transfer to Ames the amount billed for Ames services. Therefore, in the event Xenia is ultimately unable to collect all or part of a customer bill, Xenia will deduct Ames’ portion of that uncollected amount from a future transfer. WATER SERVICE TERRITORY The second key section of the agreement (Article III) settles which areas surrounding and within Ames are Ames’ territory, which are Xenia’s territory, and which could potentially be transferred from Ames to Xenia through this agreement. The maps included in this agreement supersede all other maps and prior grants of service rights between Ames and Xenia, thereby putting to rest any differing interpretations regarding some of the prior territory transfers between the two parties. A core piece of the water service territory section of the agreement is the establishment of a defined buyout cost for any transfer of Xenia territory to Ames. That formula is $3,000 per net acre (net acreage is gross acreage less any right- of-way easements). The $3,000 is the price per net acre for the first 60 months of the agreement. It then adjusts based on the difference in Consumer Price Index (CPI) in month 60 compared to month 1, and that adjusted amount becomes the buyout price for months 61 through 120 (and so forth for each subsequent 60- month period). 8 There are ten individual properties that are listed in the agreement. Xenia would acknowledge in the agreement that the right to serve the homes on these properties was granted to Xenia, but that the right to serve the adjacent land was not given to Xenia. Therefore, if the customers on these properties wish to cancel their contracts with Xenia and become Ames customers, they may do so upon paying the $3,000 per net acre buyout cost indicated in the agreement. These ten customers would not be required to pay for a buyout exceeding three acres (e.g., if their parcel is 2.25 acres in size, the buyout is $3,000 x 2.25 = $6,750; if their parcel is 40 acres, the buyout is $3,000 x 3 = $9,000). These ten customers, depicted in Figure 2, are: • 1264 N 500th Ave • 1120 N 500th Ave • 800 N 500th Ave • 798 N 500th Ave • 5318 240th St • 5500 240th St • 2042 S 500th Ave • 2060 S 500th Ave • 5600 240th St • 56389 265th Street Figure 2: Customers Xenia would grant release at buyout of no more than 3 acres each. The agreement acknowledges that there are certain areas adjacent Ames that Xenia does not have infrastructure readily available to serve, and it would be more desirable for the parties to allow developers to buy out that territory and be served by Ames. This arrangement has the advantage of allowing the Ames Water utility to gradually slow its expansion and plan for a transition to a finite service area, rather than abruptly reach the limits of Ames’ water service territory. 9 To address these areas, the agreement establishes two sets of areas that could potentially be transferred to Ames. Xenia would not reject a buyout request from Ames for properties within these areas. Both areas would be subject to the same buyout price ($3,000 per net acre, as outlined above), but one area would be guaranteed to be granted a buyout for ten years (Figure 3), and the other would be guaranteed to be granted a buyout for five years (Figure 4). Figure 3: Xenia territory eligible for buyout for 10 years (renewable thereafter) 10 Figure 4: Xenia territory eligible for buyout for 5 years (renewable thereafter) One year prior to the conclusion of the 5- and 10-year periods, if neither party objects, the guarantee from Xenia to allow the property to be bought out would extend for another five years. These areas could continue to be eligible for an unopposed buyout and inclusion into Ames territory for a maximum of 35 years. If an upcoming renewal is canceled (or if 35 years is reached), Xenia and Ames would be required to confer about the possibility of Ames selling water to Xenia for the purpose of serving those areas that would remain in Xenia’s control. However, there would be no obligation to agree to a proposal for water sales. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The ten-year and five-year buyout areas are limited to a maximum term of 35 years, assuming each of the automatic renewals takes place. The remainder of the agreement pertaining to infrastructure installation standards, maintenance, billing, and the buyout formula for any transferred land are in effect in perpetuity. APPROVAL STEPS: If the City Council approves the proposed agreement, Xenia’s Board of Directors will consider the approval of the agreement. Xenia is also obligated to obtain the consent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prior to the agreement becoming effective. 11 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the attached agreement for water service operations and territory transfer with Xenia Rural Water District. 2. Refer this proposed agreement to staff for further negotiations with Xenia. 3. Do not approve the attached agreement. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Ames’ growth continues to be challenged by the ability to secure water service rights at a reasonable cost to developers. Without water service rights, the City cannot install infrastructure that meets the standards for both drinking water and fire protection needs. Meeting the community’s needs for adequate fire protection services is exceedingly challenging if the City does not have access to an adequate firefighting water supply, which Xenia is not obligated to provide. As the City completes Ames Plan 2040 and begins its implementation, many of the desirable areas to grow are within Xenia’s water service territory. Additionally, the records that exist outlining Xenia’s and Ames’ territories result in differing interpretations regarding where each currently has the right to serve. City staff has worked cooperatively with Xenia staff to determine acceptable terms for these issues to be resolved. City staff did not achieve in this agreement everything that was desired; however, the proposed agreement settles disputed territory, provides for substantial Xenia territory to be available for potential transfer at developer expense, and establishes an orderly approach for Xenia to provide water service that meets drinking water and firefighting needs for customers within the City of Ames. City staff has extensively evaluated each of the components outlined in the agreement and believes the needs of future Ames residents and businesses will be met with an acceptable level of service with the approval of this agreement. City staff will continue to work with Xenia cooperatively to ensure this remains the case. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. Page 1 of 18 DO NOT WRITE IN THE SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE; RESERVED FOR RECORDER Prepared By: City of Ames, City Manager’s Office, 515 Clark Ave., Ames, IA 50010; 515-239-5101 Return Recorded Document To: Ames City Clerk, Ames City Hall, 515 Clark Ave., PO Box 811, Ames, IA 50010 AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE OPERATIONS AND TERRITORY TRANSFER ARTICLE I: PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 1.1 PURPOSE A. This Agreement is made and entered into, effective this ____ day of _________, 2021, between the Xenia Rural Water District (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “XENIA”) and the City of Ames, Iowa (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “AMES”), (collectively hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Parties”), pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa. B. The purpose of this Agreement is to: i. Establish the process for the delivery of Public Water Supply Service to new and existing Customers located within service territory served by XENIA that is also within the corporate limits of AMES as those corporate limits may change over time, and; ii. Establish the procedures and purchase price for XENIA to transfer a portion of its water service territory to AMES. 1.2 DEFINITIONS A. Customer: A connection from XENIA’s Distribution System to an end user. Such end user may be a person, firm, corporate body, or other legal entity. B. Distribution System: The collection of water mains, hydrants, fittings, and other appurtenances that facilitate the delivery of finished (treated) drinking water to a Customer’s connection. Page 2 of 18 C. Effective Date: The date this Agreement has been recorded in the Office of the Story County Recorder. D. Emergency: A situation requiring immediate attention and remedial action; an event that interferes with normal utility operations. This does not include growth in customer demand or other existing or continuing conditions. A water main break shall be considered an emergency. E. Infrastructure Design Standards: The collective body of standards for infrastructure design adopted by AMES, including the Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) and AMES’ local amendments thereto specifically pertaining to fire hydrants and critical crossings of water/sewer mains, as those standards may be amended from time to time. F. Property: All land, or a portion of any parcel of land, to be served by either AMES or XENIA as generally depicted on Exhibit B. G. Public Water Supply Service: Construction of infrastructure consistent with standards for delivery of potable water for human consumption and beneficial use, including fire protection. H. Purchase Price: The total amount to be paid to XENIA in return for XENIA’s relinquishment of its right to provide public water supply services to that property. I. Transfer Date: The date XENIA conveys, assigns, and transfers to AMES all of XENIA’s right, title, and interest to provide public water supply services to a designated property or territory. 1.3 GEOGRAPHIC AREA CONCERNED A. Except where this Agreement indicates otherwise, it is understood that the obligations upon the Parties set forth in this Agreement extend only to activities and operations within the corporate limits of AMES, as those limits may change from time to time. Page 3 of 18 ARTICLE II: INFRASTRUCTURE AND BILLING 2.1 INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS, DESIGN, AND INSTALLATION A. For all XENIA Distribution System infrastructure installed within the corporate limits of AMES after the Effective Date of this Agreement: i. Such Distribution System infrastructure shall be installed according to the Infrastructure Design Standards as that term is defined in this Agreement. This infrastructure is to be installed and operated to provide fire protection in addition to other beneficial uses of water. ii. XENIA will inspect and collect GPS data for new Distribution System infrastructure, and provide that data to AMES. AMES may inspect installations of new infrastructure at its own cost, and nothing shall prevent AMES from seeking reimbursement of those inspection costs from others not a Party to this Agreement. iii. XENIA shall work with Property owners to develop mutually agreeable timeframes to provide water service to Customers in new developments. B. For all XENIA Distribution System infrastructure present within the corporate limits of AMES, whether existing prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement or after it: i. Although XENIA shall install all new Distribution System infrastructure in accordance with the fire protection standards as described in Article II, Section 2.1(A) above, it is acknowledged that XENIA is not obligated to upgrade any infrastructure serving existing XENIA Customers which was in existence prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement to meet those standards. ii. XENIA shall install, operate, and maintain the Distribution System so as to prevent significant deterioration of water quality within the Distribution System. iii. To the extent such information is available, XENIA shall provide to AMES information regarding the characteristics of its Distribution System infrastructure related to the service of Properties within the corporate limits of AMES. Information to be provided from XENIA to AMES will include a map showing the location of water mains (with diameters, construction material, and dates of installation), valves, and fire hydrants (with manufacturer, model, and flow rate). XENIA shall provide updated information upon request from AMES, Page 4 of 18 provided that AMES does not request data regarding the entire Distribution System more than once per year. iv. AMES shall be notified when XENIA plans to conduct its periodic operating (flushing) of hydrants, and AMES shall be permitted to send representatives to attend the operating (flushing) to collect hydrant flow data using AMES’ equipment for the purpose of planning firefighting response. AMES shall share any data collected with XENIA. C. XENIA shall be subject to all AMES right-of-way user policies for construction, maintenance, and site restoration. 2.2 FIRE PROTECTION A. In order to assure AMES is able to provide adequate fire protection for certain areas within the XENIA water service territory, XENIA agrees to: i. Ensure any infrastructure designed and installed after the Effective Date of this Agreement is designed and installed in a manner to facilitate firefighting needs when installed either: 1. Within the corporate limits of AMES, as those boundaries may change from time to time, or 2. Within areas designated by AMES in AMES’ Urban Fringe Map and/or Comprehensive Plan as intended for future annexation to AMES. However, XENIA service installed in AMES’ two-mile fringe area to a single dwelling on a parcel in existence as of the Effective Date of this Agreement is not subject to the requirement to be designed and installed in a manner to facilitate firefighting needs. ii. The standard for such shall meet the Infrastructure Design Standards defined in this Agreement. iii. Allow AMES to operate XENIA’s hydrants and use XENIA’s water to provide fire protection and other emergency services. XENIA shall not charge AMES for water used for fire protection or other emergency services purposes, training excepted. This provision includes the use of XENIA hydrants within the corporate limits of AMES, and if necessary, hydrants located outside the corporate limits of AMES that are used to provide fire protection to facilities AMES serves (Exhibit A). AMES understands that XENIA hydrants located outside the AMES corporate limits generally do not support Page 5 of 18 urban firefighting flows. Any XENIA hydrants used by AMES for fire protection outside of the AMES corporate limits will therefore only be used to create a water supply for drafting from a tank or pool. iv. Perform hydrant maintenance and repairs so as to meet the recommendations of the hydrant manufacturer. v. Operate and inspect all fire hydrants annually to ensure that hydrants do not freeze and break. It is understood that “operating” a hydrant includes opening the valve to expel water until any sediment accumulated in the main has been flushed out. vi. Tag any out-of-service hydrants, report such hydrants via email or telephone to contact person(s) whom AMES shall designate and complete repairs at the earliest opportunity. B. AMES agrees to: i. Notify XENIA whenever XENIA’s hydrants are being utilized and the purpose of the use. Any use of hydrants for purposes other than fire protection or other emergencies shall only take place with advance approval by XENIA. ii. Operate XENIA’s hydrants in a manner intended to prevent the incidence of water hammer in the Distribution System and possible main breaks due to water hammer. iii. Calculate the amount of water used from XENIA’s hydrants and send notice of the amount of water used to XENIA so XENIA can properly monitor water lost for this service area. 2.3 WATER MAIN BREAK RESPONSE A. XENIA shall have sufficient staffing available to respond to water main breaks at all days and times and shall respond to water line breaks in AMES. XENIA shall arrive on site as soon as reasonably possible after being notified of a potential break. B. XENIA shall notify residents who will be affected by the main break either by going door-to-door or utilizing customer service records to notify these Customers. C. Should a water main break or other Emergency occur in XENIA’s Distribution System in a manner to necessitate a boil water advisory for Page 6 of 18 XENIA Customers within AMES, XENIA shall promptly notify contact person(s) whom AMES shall designate regarding the affected area and anticipated duration of the boil order, so AMES may respond to inquiries from residents should they be received by AMES. However, XENIA shall have the primary responsibility to notify and communicate with Customers regarding water main breaks and boil advisories. 2.4 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE A. XENIA shall: i. Operate and maintain water Distribution System infrastructure in accordance with water industry standards and the rules and regulations of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ii. Complete timely locates of underground facilities as required by Iowa Code Chapter 480 (“Iowa One Call” program). 2.5 CUSTOMER BILLING A. XENIA shall be responsible for metering and billing to its individual Customers for water service. The rates to be charged by XENIA to individual Customers for water provided under this Agreement shall be the same rates XENIA charges Customers in similar classes (residential, commercial, industrial) in other XENIA service areas throughout the state of Iowa. B. On behalf of AMES, XENIA shall bill to and collect from each Customer within AMES that Customer’s sanitary sewer fees and storm water utility charges on a monthly basis. i. XENIA shall be responsible for processing Customer requests to start or stop service for its water service and for sanitary sewer and storm water utility services provided by AMES. ii. Upon receipt of a request from a Customer to start or stop service, XENIA shall provide the Customer name, address, date of start/stop, and other pertinent service details to the contact person(s) whom AMES shall designate. These service details shall be provided to AMES from XENIA no more than one business day after request for start or stop of service. When AMES receives a notice to start or stop service from XENIA, AMES shall respond to XENIA with the rates and fees to charge the new Customer, including amount of impervious area related to storm water charges. Page 7 of 18 iii. AMES shall inform XENIA of changes to rates and fees, as those may change from time to time. iv. XENIA shall remit to AMES monthly the fees and charges collected by XENIA on behalf of AMES, and shall provide AMES accompanying records of AMES’ charges billed to each Customer. The records shall include water consumption, sanitary sewer billed amount and the storm sewer billed amount as well as totals for each category. 1. XENIA may estimate consumption or allow for Customer- reported consumption at a given address as a means to calculate monthly bills, provided that XENIA completes a reading obtained by its staff at the same address no less than once every three months. 2. If XENIA provides a Customer with a second water meter for purposes of metering water that does not reach the sanitary sewer (i.e., water consumed for outdoor irrigation, filling swimming pools, or used as a medium for chillers or evaporative condensers), XENIA may exempt water measured through that second meter from sanitary sewer charges. 3. XENIA may not exempt a Customer from AMES sanitary sewer charges in the event of a leak or malfunction of a Customer’s plumbing. In the event that a Customer experiences a leak, XENIA may refer that Customer to AMES for AMES to consider authorizing XENIA to issue a billing credit in accordance with AMES’ ordinances and policies. AMES will notify XENIA within two business days of its decision regarding a sewer charge credit for billing purposes. v. XENIA will reimburse AMES the amount billed for AMES’ services. Any adjustments to the reimbursement amount will be done when the adjustments are made. Adjustments would include items such as a deduct for a leak that did not go into the sanitary sewer or a deduct for the amount of AMES’ services that were a part of a bill that was ultimately not collected, even after using all measures to collect a bill (disconnecting water service, utilizing a collection agency, etc.). Any adjustment will be made in the quarter that it occurs. vi. XENIA may assess, collect, and retain late fees and finance charges calculated against a Customer’s entire delinquent balance, and Page 8 of 18 XENIA may assess, collect, and retain fees for disconnecting and reconnecting service to a delinquent Customer, provided that those fees and/or charges do not exceed the same fees and charges charged to Customers in similar classes (residential, commercial, industrial) in other XENIA service areas throughout the state of Iowa. vii. To recover the cost of administering billing on behalf of AMES, XENIA may assess, collect, and retain a fee from each Customer in an amount not to exceed $1.50 per month per Customer. This amount may change from time to time and shall be the same amount charged by XENIA for Customer billing services in other communities, provided the amount charged reflects the actual cost to XENIA to administer billing. viii. AMES reserves the right to require XENIA to administer billing for additional services based on water meter readings, or fixed fees determined by AMES, if such services or fees are adopted by AMES for Customers or properties in the future (e.g., if AMES offered City- operated recycling collection in the future, XENIA agrees to conduct billing for that service without an amendment to this Agreement). Page 9 of 18 ARTICLE III: WATER SERVICE TERRITORY AND TRANSFER 3.1 WATER SERVICE TERRITORY AND EXISTING CUSTOMERS A. In regards to that area shown on Exhibit B, it is acknowledged by the parties that: i. The area shown in blue on Exhibit B is within the water service territory of AMES. ii. The area shown in orange on Exhibit B is within the water service territory of XENIA. Except for the properties in the area shown in orange that are also in the areas of black hatching or blue cross- hatching, XENIA has the desire to provide potable water service to these properties as they are annexed to AMES. iii. The areas shown in black hatching and labeled as “5 Years” and the areas shown in blue cross-hatching and labeled as “10 Years” on Exhibit B are within the water service territory of XENIA, and XENIA is willing to transfer the exclusive territory rights to these properties to AMES in accordance with Article III Section 3.2 of this Agreement. iv. The star symbols on Exhibit C are individual Customers that were transferred over time to XENIA for water service. In these circumstances, AMES ceded only the service for an individual Customer’s parcel (up to a maximum of three acres) and not the adjacent land. The Property owner is responsible for satisfying the terms of their contract with XENIA as an individual Customer and to provide for buyout or cancellation of their contract per XENIA’s terms; however, the buyout of that adjacent land, not having been ceded to XENIA originally, is not required. XENIA agrees to allow for buyout or cancellation of these contracts in order to remove individual Customers from XENIA service and to then become a customer of AMES. If a Customer refuses to buy out or cancel their contract with XENIA, the Customer may continue to be a XENIA Customer for domestic water service. A detailed list of these Customers is included as Exhibit C. B. Upon approval of this Agreement, Exhibit B shall be the agreed upon definition of AMES and XENIA territory boundaries adjacent to AMES. All other maps and descriptions of territories from prior grants of service territory between AMES and XENIA shall be deemed null and void. Page 10 of 18 3.2 PURCHASE OF WATER SERVICE TERRITORY FOR THE PROPERTY REFLECTED IN EXHIBIT B A. The Properties indicated in blue cross-hatching on Exhibit B are those that are well-situated to be served by AMES based upon AMES’s existing infrastructure as compared to XENIA’s existing infrastructure. Therefore, XENIA and AMES agree that with respect only to those Properties indicated in blue cross-hatching on Exhibit B: i. The provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 of this Agreement shall be in effect for an initial term of 120 months (10 years) from the Effective Date of this Agreement. ii. At the conclusion of that initial 120-month term, the provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 shall automatically renew for up to five (5) 60- month renewal terms. iii. Either party to this Agreement may elect to cancel an approaching automatic renewal of Article III, Section 3.2 as it pertains to those Properties indicated in blue cross-hatching on Exhibit B by notifying the other party in writing no less than 12 months prior to the end of the initial term or any renewal term. Upon receipt of a timely cancellation notice, the provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 as they pertain to those Properties indicated in blue cross-hatching on Exhibit B shall be void and of no further legal force and effect at the conclusion of the current term. B. The Properties indicated in black hatching on Exhibit B are those that are potentially suitable to be served by AMES and are potentially suitable to be served by XENIA. Therefore, XENIA and AMES agree that with respect only to those Properties indicated in black hatching on Exhibit B: i. The provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 of this Agreement shall be in effect for an initial term of 60 months (5 years) from the Effective Date of this Agreement. ii. At the conclusion of that initial 60-month term, the provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 shall automatically renew for up to six (6) 60- month renewal terms. iii. Either party to this Agreement may elect to cancel an approaching automatic renewal of Article III, Section 3.2 as it pertains to those Properties indicated in black hatching on Exhibit B by notifying the other party in writing no less than 12 months prior to the end of the initial term or any renewal term. Upon receipt of a timely cancellation notice, the provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 as they pertain to Page 11 of 18 those Properties indicated in black hatching on Exhibit B shall be void and of no further legal force and effect at the conclusion of the current term. C. During the period of time Article III, Section 3.2 is in effect for a given Property shown in black hatching and labeled as “5 Years” or shown in blue cross-hatching and labeled as “10 Years” on Exhibit B (as provided in Article III, Section 3.2(A) or Article III, Section 3.2(B)), XENIA agrees to transfer the water territory rights for that Property at the time the request to transfer the territory rights is made, utilizing the process described below: i. Regardless whether the request to transfer service territory comes from a Property owner or from AMES, AMES shall initiate the transfer process by submitting to XENIA a written request consisting of a map and legal description of the specific Property proposed to be released from XENIA to AMES. ii. XENIA shall provide a written confirmation to AMES that shall release, waive, and transfer to AMES XENIA’s right, title, and interest to provide Public Water Supply Services to said Property. This written confirmation shall refer to the map and legal description provided in the initial request by AMES. iii. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by XENIA and AMES, such transfer shall be completed within sixty (60) days of XENIA’s receipt of payment of all sums due XENIA related to such transfer of water service territory rights. iv. By way of this Agreement AMES consents to accept any or all water service territory shown in black hatching and labeled as “5 Years” or shown in blue cross-hatching and labeled as “10 Years” on Exhibit B, provided that the provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 are still in effect for that Property, and subject to completing the appropriate steps for transfer defined in this Agreement and applicable state and federal law. D. XENIA and AMES agree that if any of the water service territory shown in black hatching and labeled as “5 Years” or shown in blue cross-hatching and labeled as “10 Years” on Exhibit B is set to be removed from eligibility for AMES service (i.e., by non-renewal of an approaching renewal term described in Article III, Section 3.2(A) or Article III, Section 3.2(B); or in the final 12-month period of the final renewal term of those Sections), XENIA and AMES will confer regarding the rates and terms for the potential sale of water from AMES to XENIA so XENIA may serve that territory. Nothing in this Agreement binds either AMES or XENIA to agree to a proposal regarding the sale of water. Page 12 of 18 E. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to prohibit Property owners from requesting buyouts of other properties outside of those shown in black hatching and labeled as “5 Years” or outside of those shown in blue cross- hatching and labeled as “10 Years” on Exhibit B. If such a request for a buyout and transfer is agreed upon by XENIA and AMES, no amendment to this Agreement is required. 3.3 PURCHASE PRICE CALCULATION FOR WATER TERRITORY RIGHTS BUYOUTS A. For the first sixty (60) months following the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Purchase Price for XENIA’s water territory rights to be transferred to AMES shall be $3,000 per net acre, and no greater amount shall be required. Net acreage shall be defined as gross acreage less any right-of- way easements. B. The Purchase Price for months 61 through 120 following the Effective Date of the Agreement shall be adjusted for inflation based on the difference in Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers, All Cities, All Items, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in month 60 compared to month 1. The same Purchase Price adjustment process shall be used for all subsequent 60-month time periods (months 121 through 180, months 181 through 240, etc., and continuing in 60-month increments). C. The Purchase Price for the water territory rights shall be rounded to the nearest dollar as shown in the example below. The following example illustrates the computation of the Purchase Price for months 61 through 120: Page 13 of 18 ARTICLE IV: TERM, REMEDIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 4.1 TERM OF AGREEMENT A. The provisions of Article III, Section 3.2 of this Agreement shall be in effect for thirty-five (35) years from the Effective Date, subject to the renewal provisions contained in Article III, Section 3.2(A) and Article III, Section 3.2(B) of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement, being necessary to provide orderly and efficient potable water service and fire protection to the public, shall remain in effect in perpetuity, unless terminated by mutual agreement of the Parties. 4.2 REMEDIES A. The Parties retain all rights accorded them by law and equity to enforce the terms hereof. In the event either Party obtains a court order to enforce any provision of this Agreement that is in dispute, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reimbursement from the other Party for reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs associated with bringing or defending the suit. 4.3 XENIA AUTHORITY A. XENIA warrants and represents that it has the legal right and authority to: (a) provide Public Water Supply Service for the Property reflected in Exhibit B, and (b) release, waive, and transfer its service territory rights as described in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to expand any water service territory rights that are not already XENIA’s rights to provide Public Water Supply Services to. 4.4 AMES AUTHORITY A. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the authority granted to AMES under Iowa law to review, approve, deny, or condition any use of land or division of land that is inconsistent with City standards. 4.5 INTENDED BENEFICIARIES A. This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties and nothing herein shall be construed as creating any benefits, rights, remedies, or claims in favor of any other entity or person. Page 14 of 18 4.6 AMENDMENTS A. No amendment, change, or modification of any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. It is acknowledged and agreed to by the parties that the United States Department of Agriculture’s approval of any amendment will be required before the amendment is effective. 4.7 GOVERNING LAW A. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa and in accordance with applicable federal law, including but not limited to 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). B. Effective as of the time of the release and waiver of its water service rights for any portion of the Property reflected in hatching or cross-hatching on Exhibit B or as star symbols on Exhibit C, XENIA waives and relinquishes all rights, privileges, and benefits it has or may have under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) relating to that portion of Property reflected in hatching or cross- hatching on Exhibit B or as star symbols on Exhibit C, but XENIA retains all rights, privileges, and benefits it has or may have under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) for the water service territory depicted in orange on Exhibit B that is not transferred to AMES and to which AMES subsequently and immediately upon transfer provides Public Water Supply Services to. 4.8 NOTICES A. Except where otherwise required to take place in a different format, all notices required by this Agreement shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed given as of the date of such certified mailing. i. Notices to AMES shall be to: City Manager’s Office City of Ames 515 Clark Avenue Ames, IA 50010 Page 15 of 18 ii. Notices to XENIA shall be to: Xenia CEO/General Manager Xenia Rural Water District 23998 141st Street P.O. Box 39 Bouton, IA 50039 4.9 CONSTRUCTION A. The Parties agree that this Agreement was prepared by the combined efforts of the Parties and their attorneys and to that end, the Agreement shall not be construed against any Party as the drafter of the Agreement. 4.10 BINDING EFFECT A. This contract and Agreement is binding on all successors and assigns to XENIA and AMES. 4.11 COMPLETE AGREEMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. This Agreement, including Exhibits, constitutes the entire, complete, and final agreement of the Parties to provide Municipal Water Service and to transfer certain service territory rights from XENIA to AMES, and supersedes all prior understandings, undertakings, negotiations, representations, statements, and agreements made by or on behalf of or between the Parties, with the exception of prior bulk water sale terms and agreements. It is further agreed that this Agreement shall not be effective until the fully executed original Agreement has been recorded in the Office of the Story County Recorder. In witness whereof, the parties, acting under authority of their respective governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in three (3) counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original. Page 16 of 18 CITY OF AMES, IOWA: By: _______________________________ John A. Haila, Mayor Attest: _______________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Executed _______________________, 2021 STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, ss: On this ___ day of _________________, 2021, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared John A. Haila and Diane R. Voss, to me personally known and who, by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Ames, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation; and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City council, as contained in Resolution No. _________ adopted by the City Council on the ___ day of _____________, 2021, and that John A. Haila and Diane R. Voss acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. ___________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Page 17 of 18 XENIA RURAL WATER DISTRICT: By: ______________________________ Chair, Board of Directors Attest: _______________________________ Secretary, Board of Directors Executed _______________________, 2021 STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________________, 2021, _______________ and _________________, as Chair, Board of Directors, and Secretary, Board of Directors, respectively, of Xenia Rural Water District. ___________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Page 18 of 18 CONSENT This Agreement is consented to by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development, as of the ____ day of _________________, 2021. USDA is not a party to this Agreement. USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT By ___________________________________ 2121 45454545 1111 99 35353636 55 88 2424 5151 1212 2222 66 29291515 3434 2626 2020 4646 4646 4646 77 39393030 5555 4141 1010 1313 2525 11 4444 1818 2828 2828 60W60W 3333 3838 1919 272733 44 3232 22 1616 5353 4949 5050 1717 42424343 5252 99993131 1414 4848 4848 4747 2323 54545858 5656 5757 4040 60E60E3737 6060 5959 Boone County Boone County Story County Story County 280th St 510TH AVE T Ave. U Ave. 230th St 250th St X Ave. 270th St V Ave. V Ave. X Ave. 220th St 210th St 215TH ST 212th St XL Ave. Y Ave. CAMERON SCHOOL RD NORTH DAKOTA AVE 230th St ONTARIO ST BLOOMINGTON RD GRANT AVE E RIVERSIDE RD 170TH ST 180TH ST 550TH AVE DAYTON AVE E 13TH ST E LINCOLN WAY SE 16TH ST S Duff Ave S RIVERSIDE DR 560TH AVE 265TH ST 260TH ST 520TH AVE ZUMWALT STATION RD (Y Ave) AIRPORT RD CEDAR LN TIMBER RD 280TH ST 550TH AVE £¤30 S DAYTON AVE W Ave. 240th St 240th St T Ave. U Ave. 510TH AVE Y Ave. UNIVERSITY BLVD £¤30 S DAKOTA AVE GW CARVER STATE AVE 530TH AVE GIDDINGS ST 500th Ave W RIVERSIDE RD 190th St X Ave. 180th St 260th St W Ave. W 190TH ST £¤69 £¤69 KEN MARIL RD "# Gilbert Ames KelleyFarm No.Grid IDFarm Name AddressCountyFire District1F9Accola Farm (Farmland)51013 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley2G8Ag 450 Farm (including residence)52097 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley3C6Ag Engineering/Agronomy Farm 1308 U AveBooneAmes/Boone4B6Ag Engineering/Agronomy Residence 1306 U AveBooneAmes/Boone5I10Animal Resource Station 27738 Hwy 69StoryAmes/Kelley6B6Bass Farm (Farmland)1305 U AveBooneAmes/Boone7J10Bates Farm (Farmland)27492 550th AveStoryAmes/Kelley8F4Beef Nutrition Farm (including residence)3405 North Dakota AveStoryAmes/Gilbert9G8Beef Teaching Farm 3725 S. 520th AveStoryAmes/Kelley10F8Been Farm (Farmland)50525 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley11F8Bennett Farm (including residence)3643 S. Dakota AveStoryAmes/Kelley12B6BioCentury Research Farm (BCRF)1327 U AveBooneAmes/Boone13F9Brooks Farm (Farmland)50544 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley14D7Bruner Farm 2237 240th StBooneAmes/Boone15B7Burkey Farm (Farmland)1949 240th StBooneAmes/Boone16G9College Shop 52099 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley17G9Compost Facility (ISU)52274 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley18H9East Dairy Farm (Farmland)26238 530th AveStoryAmes/Kelley19B7Field Extension Education Laboratory/ Boy d Farm1928 240th StBooneAmes/Boone20F4Finch Farm (Farmland)3750 N. 500th AveStoryAmes/Gilbert21I4Hinds Farm (Farmland)598 W. Riverside RdStoryAmes/Gilbert22J1Horticulture Station (including residence)55519 170th StStoryAmes/Gilbert23G9Dairy Farm 52470 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley24H8Johnson Farm 4441 530th AveStoryAmes/Kelley25E8Kitchen Farm (Farmland)2481 500th AveBooneAmes/Kelley26D5Kluver Farm (Farmland)2274 210th StBooneAmes/Boone27C6LEBRC facility 1333 V AveBooneAmes/Boone28D5Lippert Farm (Farmland)2166 210th StBooneAmes/Boone29B7Marsden Farm (Farmland)1965 240th StBooneAmes/Boone30F10Norman Farm (Farmland)50533 280th StStoryAmes/Kelley31F8North Woodruff Farm 3562 S. 500th AveStoryAmes/Kelley32G8Poultry Science Farm 3840 520th AveStoryAmes/Kelley33G8Sheep Teaching Farm 3640 S. 520th AveStoryAmes/Kelley34D7Sorensen Farm (Farmland)2171 240th StBooneAmes/Boone35G8South State Farm 3895 S. 520th AveStoryAmes/Kelley36F8South Woodruff Farm 3976 S. 500th AveStoryAmes/Kelley37E5Swine Nutrition Farm 1127 XL AveBooneAmes/Boone38F10Swine Teaching Farm & Rodeo Arena 3726 520th AveStoryAmes/Kelley39G9Tilton Farm (Farmland)1411 GiddingsStoryAmes/Kelley40F8West Dairy Farm (Farmland)26603 520th AveStoryAmes/Kelley41G8Worle Farm (Farmland)30485 S. 500th AveStoryAmes/Kelley42F8Zumwalt Station Farm 4006 Zumwalt Station RdStoryAmes/Kelley43G8Zumwalt Station Residence 4218 Zumwalt Station RdStoryAmes/Kelley99G8WOI Cell Tower 5418 Zumwalt Station RdStoryAmes/Kelley44E5Animal Science Teaching Center 3125 State AveStoryAmes45F7Animal Science Teaching Residence 3151 State AveStoryAmes46E6Applied Science Farm 1915 Scholl RdStoryAmes47F5CAD Seed Plant 2219 State AveStoryAmes48F5Curtiss Farm 2219 State AveStoryAmes49F6Equine Farm 2600 Mortensen RdStoryAmes50F6Equine Farm Residence 2602 Mortensen RdStoryAmes51F5Packer Farm (new house)2005 Ironwood CtStoryAmes52F5Packer Farm (old house and buildings)1815 University BlvdStoryAmes53F7Plant Introduction Station 1315 State AveStoryAmes54G8Plant Introduction Station Residence 3200 Mortensen RdStoryAmes55F7Ringgenberg Farm (Farmland)3799 Cedar LaneStoryAmes56F5Julius Farm (Farmland)26686 530th AveStoryAmes/Kelley57G8Kingsbury Farm (Farmland)51888 260th StStoryAmes/Kelley58F7LEAP Lab 3600 Mortensen RdStoryAmes59F5Pesek Farm60WE5Kelley Farm West 1127 XL AveBooneAmes/Boone 5 Mi. Limit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 4243 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 60W 57 56 58 46 99 36 31 38 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 Iowa State UniversityResearch FarmLocations EMap Created by City of AmesPublic Works DepartmentOctober 20, 2016 Legend Farm Land with Buildings 5 mile Limit beyondCity of Ames Farm Land with No Improvements Ames City Boundary Farm Entrances Farm No.Grid ID Farm Name Address County Fire District1F8Accola Farm (Farmland)51013 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley2G8Ag 450 Farm (including residence)52097 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley3B6Ag Engineering/Agronomy Farm 1308 U Ave Boone Ames/Boone4B6Ag Engineering/Agronomy Residence 1306 U Ave Boone Ames/Boone5I10Animal Resource Station 27738 Hwy 69 S tory Ames/Kelley6B6Bass Farm (Farmland)1305 U Ave Boone Ames/Boone7I10Bates Farm (Farmland)27492 550th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley8F4Beef Nutrition Farm (including residence)3405 North Dak ota Ave S tory Ames/Gilbert9G8Beef Teaching Farm 3725 S. 520th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley10F8Been Farm (Farmland)50525 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley11F8Bennett Farm (including residence)3643 S. Dakota Ave S tory Ames/Kelley12B6BioCentury Research Farm (BCRF)1327 U Ave Boone Ames/Boone13F8Brooks Farm (Farmland)50544 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley14D7Bruner Farm 2237 240th St Boone Ames/Boone15B7Burkey Farm (Farmland)1949 240th St Boone Ames/Boone16G8College Shop 52099 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley17G8Compost Facility (ISU)52274 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley18H9East Dairy Farm (Farmland)26238 530th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley19B7Field Extension Education Lab/ Boyd Farm1928 240th St Boone Ames/Boone20E4Finch Farm (Farmland)4164 N. 500th Ave S tory Ames/Gilbert21H4Hinds Farm (Farmland)598 W. Riverside Rd S tory Ames/Gilbert22J1Horticulture Station (including residence)55519 170th St S tory Ames/Gilbert23G8Dairy Farm 52470 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley24G8Johnson Farm 4441 530th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley25E7Kitchen Farm (Farmland)2481 500th Ave Boone Ames/Kelley26D5Kluver Farm (Farmland)2274 210th St Boone Ames/Boone27C6LEBRC facility 1333 V Ave Boone Ames/Boone28D5Lippert Farm (Farmland)2166 210th St Boone Ames/Boone29B7Marsden Farm (Farmland)1965 240th St Boone Ames/Boone30F10Norman Farm (Farmland)50533 280th St S tory Ames/Kelley31E8North Woodruff Farm 3562 S. 500th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley32G8Poultry Science Farm 3840 520th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley33G8Sheep Teaching Farm 3640 S. 520th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley34C7Sorensen Farm (Farmland)2171 240th St Boone Ames/Boone35G8South S tate Farm 3895 S. 520th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley36E8South Woodruff Farm 3976 S. 500th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley37E5Swine N utrition Farm 1127 XL Ave Boone Ames/Boone38G8Swine Teaching Farm & Rodeo Arena 3726 520th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley39F10Tilton F arm (Farmland)1411 Giddings S tory Ames/Kelley40G9West Dairy Farm (Farmland)26603 520th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley41E7Worle Farm (Farmland)30485 S. 500th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley42F8Zumwalt Station Farm 4006 Zumwalt S tation Rd S tory Ames/Kelley43F8Zumwalt Station Residence 4218 Zumwalt S tation Rd S tory Ames/Kelley44G8Animal Science Teaching Center 3125 State Ave S tory Ames45G8Animal Science Teaching Residence 3151 State Ave S tory Ames46F5Applied Science Farm 1915 Scholl Rd S tory Ames47G7CAD Seed Plant 2219 State Ave S tory Ames48G7Curtiss Farm 2219 State Ave S tory Ames49G7Equine Farm 2600 Mortensen Rd S tory Ames50G7Equine Farm Residence 2602 Mortensen Rd S tory Ames51G7Packer Farm (new house)2005 Ironwood Ct S tory Ames52G7Packer Farm (old house and buildings)1815 University Blvd S tory Ames53G7Plant Introduction Station 1315 State Ave S tory Ames54G7Plant Introduction Station Residence 3200 Mortensen Rd S tory Ames55G8Ringgenberg Farm (Farmland)3799 Cedar Lane S tory Ames56H9Julius Farm (Farmland)26686 530th Ave S tory Ames/Kelley57G8Kingsbury Farm (Farmland)51888 260th St S tory Ames/Kelley58F7LEAP Lab 3600 Mortensen Rd S tory Ames59E5Pesek F arm Boone Ames/Boone60WE5Kelley F arm West 1127 XL Ave Boone Ames/Boone60EE5Kelley F arm East Boone Ames/Boone99E8WOI Radio Tower 5418 Zumwalt S tation Rd S tory Ames/Kelley Document Path: G:\Ames\Departmental\Ames_Fire\GIS_PROJECTS\ISU_Farms_ForPaulSandoval\ISU_Farm_Map_Updated10_20_2016.mxd 260TH ST 210TH ST 220TH ST 200TH ST 590TH AVE 600TH AVE 265TH ST 250TH ST 595TH AVE 500TH AVE E 190TH ST 250TH ST 265TH ST 265TH ST 200TH ST 595TH AVE 600TH AVE 600TH AVE 600TH AVE 250TH ST 220TH ST 600TH AVE 590TH AVE 265TH ST N 500TH AVE 190TH ST 260TH ST E 190TH ST 510TH AVE LINCOLN HIGHWAY N 500TH AVE N 500TH AVE 190TH ST 190TH ST 190TH ST 260TH ST 190TH ST §¨¦35 §¨¦35 §¨¦35 £¤69 £¤69 £¤69 £¤69 £¤69 £¤69 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IG N, and the GIS Us er Community ´Legen d Am es Incorporated Limits Negotiable 5 Years 10 Years Am es Service Area/Prior Neg. Xenia Service Area ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ 1 23 4 7 8 5 6 10 9 §¨¦35 £¤69 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ^_Xenia Customers Ames Incorporated Limits Negotiable Ames Service Area/Prior Neg. Xenia Service Area ´ Exhibit C: Customers of XENIA Whose Adjacent Land Remains AMES Territory Map #Parcel ID Address Owner Name 1 0531300305 1264 N 500th Ave Michael W. Stueckradt 1264 N 500th Ave Ames IA 50010 2 0531300360 1120 N 500th Ave Philip L & Patricia L Edwards 1120 N 500th Ave Ames IA 50010 3 0906300105 800 N 500th Ave Richard C Jr & Rena S Hall 800 N 500th Ave Ames IA 50010 4 0906300180 798 N 500th Ave David Junk 768 N 500th Ave Ames IA 50010 5 0918100240 5318 240th St John R Moore 5318 240th St Ames IA 50010 6 0918100215 5500 240th St Wanda Chaffin McCay Trust 3016 Burnham Dr Ames IA 50010 7 0918100150 2042 S 500th Ave Mark H & Elizabeth A Harmison 2042 S 500th Ave Ames IA 50010 8 0918100160 2060 S 500th Ave Mark H & Elizabeth A Harmison 2042 S 500th Ave Ames IA 50010 9 0918100380 5600 240th St Palensky 1998 Trust 317 6th Ave. Ste 900 Des Moines IA 50309 10 1030100105 56389 265th Street Jerald & Carol Ryerson 56389 265th Street Ames IA 50010 Mailing Address ITEM # 15 DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AWARD OF DOWNTOWN FAÇADE GRANTS BACKGROUND: The Downtown Façade Grant Program was introduced in 2000 to facilitate private improvements to downtown retail and other commercial storefronts. The City Council annually budgets $50,000 as matching funds for eligible projects. The program allows for up to $15,000 of dollar-for-dollar matching funds per front façade and up to $1,000 for additional architectural services. This program is available to property owners within the area generally described as from 6th Street to the railroad tracks, Duff Avenue to Northwestern Avenue, and along Kellogg Avenue to Lincoln Way (Attachment 1). The program requires compliance with specified Design Guidelines that can be found on the Planning Division website at this link. The program requirements include a prerequisite of a ground floor use of office or retail trade. Additionally, grant eligibility includes a requirement for proposed improvements to retain the historic façade or for the removal of non-compliant elements consistent with the guidelines or pursue eligibility under the other façade guidelines. The program does not allow for maintenance activities or replacement of compliant elements with new in-kind elements as eligible activities on their own. Proposed improvements are intended to have a significant positive visual impact on the building and the overall district. If grant requests exceed the available funding, the program criteria for front façades includes preference for façades that have not received funding in previous rounds. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the intent and process for the façade grant program, and Attachment 3 outlines the scoring criteria. The program is designed to operate with two application cycles. The first cycle is typically in the summer and if there are funds remaining after awards are granted in the first round, then a second application round occurs in the winter. The summer grant round is intended to provide funding for new projects with one grant per building. The second round is intended to fund new projects and potentially second façades for properties that have already received a grant. GRANT APPLICATION RECEIVED: The City solicited applications for this the first round of FY 2021/22 funding in September 2021. One eligible grant request was received for one property. A project summary, location map, and project design illustrations are attached. All funding from prior years was committed to projects in FY 2020/21, therefore the available funding for this first round of FY 2021/22 is $50,000. The total requested grant funding is $16,000. Address Business or Building Name Requested Project 317 Main Street PhotoSynthesis $16,000 $52,500 317 Main Street This application is for a two-story building at 317 Main Street. The applicant proposes work mostly at the ground level. The most significant visual impact will be to remove the non- compliant vertical plywood covering the transom window openings and restore the windows with new, replacement glass and restoration of the remaining original, lead-glass window above the door to the stairway (east end). Most of the original, leaded-glass transoms were removed when the plywood was installed. Other improvements (not all of which are eligible for matching funding) include restoring the canopy, replacing the existing doors with ones more historically appropriate, replacing the plywood kickplates with brick, replacing the display windows, tuckpointing of the brick, and new signage (Attachment 4). The interior of the storefront has a drop ceiling that prevents light from coming in through the transom windows, as intended. The applicant is therefore proposing to install frosted glass to mask the drop ceiling. The property is owned by Dijon21 Properties LLC (Lisa Hovis). Ms. Hovis owns and operates PhotoSynthesis. The second floor is residential. The building was constructed in 1921 and likely has its original façade (notwithstanding the plywood addition). The modifications to the façade were likely made in the 1970s or 1980s. The building is a contributing structure to the National Register Ames Main Street Historic District. The total estimated cost for 317 Main Street is $52,500, including design work. Of that amount, $33,150 is estimated to be grant-eligible work (including design). The project is eligible for a maximum funding of $15,000 plus $1,000 for design work. At the time of reimbursement, the applicant will need to provide cost breakdowns to ensure only eligible activities are funded with the façade grant. WORK ELIGIBLE COST ESTIMATES TOTAL COST ESTIMATES Total Project Cost $ 33,150 $ 52,500 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a Downtown Façade Improvement Grant for 317 Main Street for up to $16,000 of the $33,150 in estimated eligible costs for removal of noncompliant elements, transom restoration, and other façade improvements. 2. Approve a grant award for a lesser amount. 3. Do not approve a façade grant award. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This round of grant application solicitation resulted in one request involving one building in the amount of $16,000. The building is located at 317 Main Street. City staff has determined that the proposed Downtown Façade Improvement project for the building at 317 Main Street complies with the design requirements of the program. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1, as described above. Attachment 1: Eligibility Map Attachment 2: Downtown Façade Grant Review Requirements for all Façade Grants  The building must be located downtown within boundaries established by City Council.  The ground floor must be Office Uses or Trade Uses as defined by the Ames zoning ordinance.  The façade design must comply with Downtown Design Guidelines.  Improvements to historic façades shall include replacing non-compliant elements with compliant elements.  Residential structures and buildings owned by the government, churches and other religious institutions are not eligible.  No façade grant shall exceed $15,000. Program Logistics The following process for review of applications for façade grants provides time to inform all potential applicants of the opportunity, to work with applicants, applicants to prepare submittals and for staff to review applications and report to City Council. Two grant periods will be planned for each fiscal year. First Grant Period For this first grant period, preference for grant awards will be given to: - façades that have not received any previous grant funding - front façades Action Steps:  Staff will inform all property and business owners of grant availability, process, and deadlines.  Staff will work with applicants to define the project, ensure that it meets the guidelines, and assure that it is feasible and can be completed within the time frame.  Applications will be accepted in May and June.  Staff will review and score applications and report to City Council in July or August for awarding grants.  Projects may then start in the fall and be potentially completed before the holiday shopping season. Second Grant Period If the entire budget is not committed in the first grant period in each year, a second grant period will begin in October for projects to be implemented the following spring. While façades on Main Street and façades for which no previous grants have been awarded will still receive first preference in this second grant period, all downtown grant requests will be considered and potentially approved if funds remain after all first-preference proposals are awarded. Conditions of Grant Approval  Grant projects must be completed within one year from award of grant.  Any required building code and/or safety improvements to a structure must be completed before grant work proceeds or before grant funds are paid. Attachment 3: Scoring Criteria For each category, the following criteria shall be used to award points: VISUAL IMPACT Maximum Score 30 Points  Improvements apply to more than one story on one façade  Improvements apply to more than one 25-foot wide bay on one façade  Improvements will create more visual significance because: - key, highly visual elements of the building are being improved - the building is prominently visible due to its location (E.g., it serves as a focal point from a street, is at a prominent intersection, or is larger than other buildings around it) FINANCIAL IMPACT Maximum Score 30 Points  Matching funds exceed the minimum dollar-for-dollar match  The project includes improvements being made to - ensure public safety, - establish or preserve the building’s structural integrity - resist water and moisture penetration - correct other serious safety issues  The façade project is part of a larger project that improves other exterior or interior parts of the building  The project helps to make use of space that has been unoccupied or used only for storage EXTENT OF IMPROVEMENTS Maximum Score 20 Points The number points granted in this category shall be based upon the number of elements from the Downtown Design Guidelines being improved. More improved elements deserve more points.         HISTORIC DESIGN Maximum Score 20 Points  Project includes historically appropriate materials and restoration techniques  Project goes beyond basic rehabilitation and re-establishes a more historically accurate appearance than other projects Attachment 4: 317 Main Street Existing & Proposed Façade for 317 Main Street ITEM: 16 DATE: 10/26/21 STAFF REPORT REQUEST BY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DEFINE “TEMPORARY” IN ZONING ORDINANCE October 26, 2021 BACKGROUND: On June 15, 2021, the City Council referred to staff a request from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to define the term “temporary” in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment A – Letter from the ZBA Requesting a Definition of “Temporary” be added to the Zoning Ordinance.) City staff prepared a memo in response to the referral from the City Council. On July 30, 2021, the City Council reviewed the memo and directed that the issue of defining “temporary” in the Zoning Ordinance be brought back in the late fall as a staff report for further consideration. Ms. Amelia Schoeneman, Chairperson of the ZBA, explained in her letter to the City Council that the ZBA has recently encountered what they believe is an omission in the Zoning Ordinance that needs to be addressed regarding “temporary” uses, which may better be understood as limited duration uses as well. In practice, the application of the Zoning Ordinance definitions and standards is that conformance is required in all situations, regardless of duration, unless specified otherwise in the Zoning Ordinance. One example of “stated otherwise” includes a Special Use Permit for “Temporary Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plants.” The ZBA believes it would be helpful if a definition of the term “temporary” were added to the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance, which in turn is thought to offer relief from standards in some situations. The issue of “temporary” was identified during the review of a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP), received on January 14, 2021, to allow a yard waste collection and transfer facility at 220 and 400 Freel Drive. The SUP for this site was originally approved in April 2017 through May 1, 2018. Approval was extended by the ZBA in September 2017 through December 31, 2018. A new SUP was approved in February 2019, and approval was extended through December 31, 2020. During the three-year period in which the SUP was approved, extended, and approved again, the applicant was not required to pave a parking area and a driveway leading to the parking area since the Special Use Permits were thought to be of a limited duration and scope. The circumstances at the time were such that the applicant was in the middle of a contract with the City for yard waste disposal and needed a site on a short-term basis while the applicant sought a more permanent location in Story County. Upon review of the new SUP application in 2021, the Planning Director determined that without a definition of “temporary” in the Zoning Ordinance, there is no basis to consider three prior years of the use with the proposed continued use of the site for three additional years as temporary. Therefore, the use needed to comply with all zoning standards, including paving of the driveway and limited amount of parking area, as well as corresponding landscaping requirements. The applicant was presented with the alternatives of: 1) complying with the requirements for paving and landscaping improvements with the Special Use Permit, 2) appealing the Planning Director’s decision to the ZBA, or 3) pursuing a zoning text amendment with the City Council to address the specific issue of “temporary special uses.” The applicant chose to appeal the Planning Director’s decision rather than pursue a text amendment or comply with the requirements for paving and landscaping improvements. The appeal was granted by the ZBA concerning requirements for site improvements and the SUP was approved for one year as a yard waste facility. At that time the Board prepared the letter for City Council consideration. OPTIONS: Option #1: Create a Defined Special Use Permit (SUP) for “Temporary Waste Processing” This option would be a similar approach to the zoning text amendment in 2011 for “Temporary Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plants” in certain zoning districts. The text amendment included adding Section 29.1311 (Temporary Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plants) to accommodate such a use on a temporary basis (six months, plus extension) and in a manner that would reduce the expected impacts on surrounding properties. Section 29.1311(3) specifies the instances in which a SUP shall not be granted. The ZBA has authority to specify what improvements are necessary to support the use. This option would establish similar text amendments in Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to address sites to be used on a temporary basis for yard waste collection and disposal. A definition of “temporary” would not be written as the use would have a defined duration and parameters like the zoning text amendment for “Temporary Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plants.” Option #2: Create a Defined Special Use Permit (SUP) for “General Temporary Uses” in non-residential zones This option would establish a new Section in Chapter 29, Article 13 of the Municipal Code for “Temporary Uses” including yard waste collection and disposal and other types of “temporary uses.” The Zone Use Tables for the applicable zones would also be amended to include “Temporary Uses” that would be permitted with the granting of a SUP by the ZBA. Standards for the use would be as established by the ZBA approval of a Special Use Permit, much like Option 1. This option is distinguished from Option 1 primarily by having no limitations on to potential range of uses proposed as temporary. Option #3: Define the Term “Temporary” and Applicable Exclusions to Development Standards as Suggested by ZBA This option is the suggestion of the ZBA, as described in its letter to the City Council dated May 26, 2021. The Board suggests that “temporary” should be defined in Chapter 29 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code as “No more than one year from the date of approval, unless defined otherwise.” According to the ZBA, this would, by default, create a one- year duration for any SUP, with the option by the ZBA to assign a shorter or longer term as the circumstances require. The Board also states that it would also clearly put an applicant on notice as to the nature and duration of their SUP and any future obligation that will be required upon extension of said SUP. This option is distinguishable from Option 2 in that as proposed it would apply to any use that is already listed as a Special Use in a base zoning district and it would not create a new classification of temporary uses. Option #4: Decline the ZBA Request This option would retain the status quo. It would not define “temporary” or change the categorization of yard waste and collection facilities. The expectation would be for an applicant to meet all applicable zoning standards. STAFF COMMENTS: The issue of the “temporary use” without expectations to meet standards similar to uses that are of a longer duration could be problematic depending on the circumstances. There are potentially more uses that could be considered “temporary” than the Yard Waste Facility, but it is a good example of the issue that concerns the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). Connecting a “temporary” approval process to a Special Use Permit (SUP) process presents an opportunity for public notification and input. It is this input that will allow the ZBA to apply any conditions that it believes will mitigate identified adverse impacts. While staff does not believe this is a significant issue, if Council wishes to proceed with a text amendment in response to the ZBA request, Option #1 would be the preferred to deal with the project that raised the issue. However, should the City Council want to satisfy the ZBA’s request for a more generic solution, direction should be given to the staff regarding your preferred option. Attachment A – Page 1 Letter from ZBA Requesting a Definition of “Temporary” Attachment A – Page 2 Letter from ZBA Requesting a Definition of “Temporary” 1 ITEM: 17 Staff Report AMES PLAN 2040 October 26, 2021 BACKGROUND: On August 24th, City Council directed staff to finalize the public draft of Ames Plan 2040 and seek public feedback during the month of September. The Plan was made available online at www.cityofames.org/amesplan2040 and promoted through social media channels, press releases, City newsletter, and email notification to the interested parties list of approximately 335 emails addresses. The staff report on October 12th provided City Council with the collected comments and the summary of discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The prior report with public comments received through October 12th can be found at this link. Staff has received no other written comments through October 21st. Some of the issues that came up more than once during the comment period included: • Property owners in the southwest area south of Highway 30 concerned about how the area is represented in the Fringe Map as Urban Reserve. • Statements concerning the need to conserve natural resource areas and the labeling/mapping of these designations. • The amount of projected growth, patterns of growth • Balance of housing types, lack of areas for future multi-family • Infill housing and compatibility policies, applicability of the compatibility matrix • Relationship of the Plan to the Climate Action Plan On October 12th City Council made one motion to modify the references to the RN-3, RN- 4, and RN-5 to include Manufactured Home Park Zoning as a zoning district option applicable to these designations. City Council stated that additional time was needed to review the other comments in order to determine if other changes to the final draft of the Plan were needed. Staff also indicated to City Council that issues related to map designations would be discussed on the October 26th agenda. Text Changes With City Council’s receipt of the comments, staff is asking for direction on any specific policy adjustments or clarifications regarding the previously distributed public draft plan that should be considered at this time. Note that Staff will be incorporating edits to the draft plan related to known typographical errors, formatting, and adjustments for clarity back to RDG as well. Staff proposes one adjustment to the Plan. Staff suggests the Project Review Process Mixed Use/Matrix (pages 68-74) be considered as advisory guidelines for future land use/zoning changes and that they are not to be viewed as project specific requirements with approval of the Plan. This clarification will require wording changes in the final plan. The intent of the matrix was to prepare City Council for issues concerning integration of additional uses as we move forward on infill options and redirection areas. Staff believes that the information is best applied at the zoning level through updates to development codes, rather than referring back to the matrix for project-by-project review. If City Council intends for it to be applied on project-by-project basis we would need to add information to the Implementation Chapter on how to apply it to project reviews. Map Amendments and Land Use Designations Public Comments pertaining to specific areas of the Maps are included as Attachment A. Staff comments are also added to these maps. In addition to the map markups, the following locations were identified in written comments. 1. Former “Champlin Property” southwest Ames adjacent to Dartmoor Road and Zumwalt Station Road comments requesting it designated as Open Space rather than RN-3 (Residential Expansion).(also noted on map) Staff recommends the area should be retained as RN-3 due to its potential for future residential development while preserving existing natural area corridors. 2. Haverkamp Properties West Towne Apartments at 4820 Mortenson requesting RN-5 designation rather than Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NC-MU). The site was previously developed as mixed use with a mix of commercial uses and apartments under CCR zoning. Applicant would prefer to keep existing developed commercial spaces, but to have residential zoning to use the remainder of the space residentially. Abutting areas are residential high density and commercial. NC-MU does not identify residential zoning as a corresponding zoning district, nor does it identify CCR zoning as is currently in place on the property. Staff recommends the area in general be adjusted from NC-MU to Community Commercial-Retail to reflect developed conditions, but this property could be either CCR or RN-5 as a transition from the commercial areas to the east. Site level details brought up by the owner would be addressed with any rezoning request subsequent to Plan adoption. 3. Designation of Natural Areas for existing wetlands southeast of Ames at 580th/260th. (also noted on map) See the discussion about natural areas in general below. The owner indicates the land has established wetlands and they should be acknowledged. However, not all wetlands are noted on the Plan maps as natural areas due to the level of detail available for mapping at this scale. Staff can support the change to Natural Areas as requested depending on the outcome of the topic discussion in general. A general concern regarding the natural area designation intent has been expressed about the Land Use Map and Fringe Map. Some comments asked for additional areas to be identified as natural and others were concerned about the accuracy and meaning of the designation. The issue of Natural Area is also represented in a composite map as part of the Environment Chapter where it is intended to show a range of potential development constraints ranging from soil types to flood plain. Natural Area has been used within the current LUPP and Fringe Plan to represent both areas known to be “natural” in character as well as areas that are not desirable for development and intensification due to a desire to buffer the surroundings from potential negative impacts. These types of map layers are created based upon generalized data. Typically, the City or County would require additional a site-specific survey to assess specific conditions of a property. This question could be resolved by keeping the mapping system as is the public draft plan and adding other additional known specific natural areas to the map as suggested for the areas southeast of Ames near 580th Avenue and 260th Street. An alternative change would be to clearly state that the natural area label is meant as an informational tool overlaid upon other land use designations. Additionally, it would need to be noted that the natural area layer is not definitive of all potential natural resources that could impact future use of a property. To make the change as an overlay, the maps would need to be adjusted for an underlying land use designation to be shown on the Land Use Map and the Fringe Map with the addition of a transparent overlay layer for known natural area constraints. This could be done with the adoption of Plan 2040 at this time or the issue could be addressed as part of the upcoming Fringe Plan update with the County, as the natural area designation is a significant issue in the Fringe areas more so than within the City. Staff proposed changes to the Land Use Designation Map are shown on Attachment B. Comments are included on the Map for City Council Review. Staff also proposes adding a note on the map that the boundaries of designation are not necessarily parcel specific. This allows for minor interpretations of boundaries as part of a rezoning request. In light of recent review of the land use map, staff believes the Community Commercial/Retail designation needs to be modified regarding mixed use residential options. Page 70 describes the designation and includes CCR zoning, which allows for mixed use. Staff recommends removing CCR from the list of corresponding zoning districts due to the preference for these areas as commercial development. If CCR remains as a corresponding district, the development guidelines column needs to have a bullet added that explains appropriate locations for CCR when planned in advance and connected to other residential areas. Isolated mixed-use developments would likely not meet the objectives for commercial uses in the designation and would have limited value as residential neighborhoods. Implementation Chapter The Implementation Chapter is intended to help guide administration of the Plan. This chapter would include information providing context to the Policies and Actions as they related to future decision making. Staff recommends addressing clearly the Land Use Designation relationship to rezoning, Comprehensive Plan amendment procedures, and implementation project priorities. Attachment C is an outline of projects that staff believes embody the intent and priorities of the Plan. Implementation of the Plan will require action by the City as the current project planning and zoning rules do not fully meet the described vision for 2040. Additionally, some of the topics are multi-disciplinary and are headed up by different departments within the City Staff has categorized the priorities as: i. Infrastructure a. Major Roads b. Parks c. Trails d. Water e. Sanitary Sewer f. Storm Water ii. Development and Zoning Standards a. Zoning Ordinance b. Subdivision Ordinance iii. Plans and Sub-Areas. The original scenarios evaluation exercise and subsequent selection of tiers for immediately needed growth areas includes a number of broad improvements needed to serve these areas. Not all of these projects can be completed at one time. This does not mean that other projects in the core of the City are not needed as well, but they are addressed through our traditional Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Planning and do not needed to be identified within this process. The proposed infrastructure priority list addresses each growth area with 1-5 year and 5- 10 year planning priorities. This plan would accompany the Comprehensive Plan, but it would not be inserted into the document itself. The City’s CIP will then include a separate project page addressing various infrastructure needs related to Plan 2040. Staff is currently assessing these needs as part of its preparation of the 2022/2023 CIP budget proposal. Development and Zoning standards will need updates to reflect the intent of the Plan. Staff does not propose creating a whole new zoning ordinance. However, substantial adjustments will be needed to align many of the standards with the Plan. The first priority will be to incorporate the Complete Streets terminology and improvement standards into the Subdivision Code. Corresponding adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance will also be needed then to reflect the terminology and goals for context sensitive design within the zoning districts. Additional changes related to other issues, including housing options, are included within the list. Staff believes that these priorities should be viewed as the near term (1-5 year) needs. Due to the evolving nature of the City and its needs, there are no project priorities listed for later years as they will be decided by future City Councils. Plans and Sub-Areas address detailed planning efforts for broader areas of the City. The update of the Ames Urban Fringe Plan is the highest priority due to our new Comprehensive Plan and the expiration of our 28E agreement with Story County in July 2022. Story County has already requested city participation in an update and the County concurred to do so with the extension of the 28E to July 2022. Staff would also approach Boone County with the Fringe Plan update. This section also includes work that will be headed up by Parks and Recreation Department for a Parks Master Plan Update and work by the Transportation Division on completing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff needs direction at this time on making changes to the Draft Plan text and maps as identified by staff, as well as any other adjustments desired by City Council. Any approved changes will then be incorporated into the final draft for the public hearing and approval process. The Implementation Chapter will be added to the final draft of the Plan for the public hearing and adoption process. Staff believes including a list of identified priorities will help provide focus to our implementation efforts. Staff recommends that the City Council approve an individual motion endorsing the proposed priority list (Attachment C) or providing specific direction on how to address priorities within an Implementation Chapter so that RDG and staff can finalize this chapter. City Council would still prioritize projects on an annual basis with the CIP and the Planning and Housing Department Work Plan. City Council will have an opportunity to provide more definition to the scope and approach to the suggested implementation projects at the time they are initiated. Attachment C Open House Maps Comments earlier scenario shown on Map, South growth focuses Commented [DK1]: Attachment C Open House Maps Comments on separate page DUFF AVE US HIGHWAY 30 US HIGHWAY 30 GR A N D A V E LINCOLN WAY GR A N D A V E IN T E R S T A T E 3 5 IN T E R S T A T E 3 5 IN T E R S T A T E 3 5 DU F F A V E UNIVERSITY BLVD LINCOLN WAY ST A T E A V E ONTARIO ST NO R T H D A K O T A A V E DA Y T O N A V E SO U T H D A K O T A A V E ST A N G E R D 13TH ST 13TH ST 6TH ST 16TH ST BLOOMINGTON RD DA Y T O N P L 24TH ST ST A N G E R D 4TH ST MORTENSEN RD AIRPORT RD 3RD ST HY L A N D A V E OAKWOOD RD US H I G H W A Y 6 9 13TH ST US HIGHWAY 69 US HIGHWAY 30 Airport Public Public Core Core Core Redir RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 RN-3 Emp Emp EmpEmp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp Emp RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 RN-2 GC GC GC GC GC GC Com CR Com CR Com CRCom CR Com CR Com CR Com CR Com CR RN-5RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 RN-5 NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC MU NC NC NC Com-CR NC NC NC Quarry Redir Redir RN-1 RN-1 RN-1 UCUC Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ Univ RN-4 RN-4 RN-4 Emp Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Future Land Use Residential Neighborhood 1 - Traditional (RN-1) Residential Neighborhood 2 - Established (RN-2) Residential Neighborhood 3 - Expansion (RN-3) Residential Neighborhood 4 - Village (RN-4) Residential Neighborhood 5 - Multi-family (RN-5) Neighborhood Core (NC) Neighborhood Core - Mixed Use (NC MU) Community Commercial/Retail (Com-CR) General Commercial (GC) Core (Core) Redirection (Redir) Urban Corridor Employment (Emp) Park Open Space Civic Civic - University Airport Public Hospital/Medical Special Area Near Campus Overlay City Limits Future Land Use Map City of Ames, Iowa Prepared: August 27, 2021 0 0.5 10.25 Miles North Attachment C-Proposed Project Priorities for Implementation Chapter With the approval of Plan 2040 there will be much work to be done as we build towards the Vision. The Plan’s Policies and Actions generally describe conditions that influenced the initial creation of the Plan as well as considerations applicable to future decisions throughout the life of the Plan. This means that many of these statements are to be applied at the time we are changing or considering making changes to City Plans and standards in the future, versus having a defined step to move ahead with the Plan. Although there is significant latitude for timing and location priorities in the Plan, the following component of the Implementation Plan prioritize policy decisions and infrastructure investments that focus the efforts of the City over the next ten years. The City may choose to take on initiatives in addition to those listed below. These efforts fall into three categories and are applicable to multiple departments, not just the Planning and Housing Department. Note that the planning efforts and projects described below do not include financing strategies. Specific financing strategies coordinated with property owners or developers are subject to City Council approval. Infrastructure Plans o Use the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to include Growth Area investment strategies for major roadways, trails, water, parks ,and sanitary sewer. o Develop a Project Planning guide for 1-5 year and 5-10 year infrastructure needs. o Include Ames Plan 2040 Project Page in the CIP o Continue to address future water service needs within growth areas through agreements with Xenia Rural Water and Iowa Regional Utility Association (formerly Central Iowa Water). Development Standards for Zoning and Subdivision o Update Subdivision Code to include Complete Streets typologies and standards for public improvements. o Update Zoning Ordinance to include references to new design requirements/guidelines and relationships to street typologies of the Complete Streets Plan. o Prepare and ordinance for parkland dedication requirements with subdivisions. o Amend FS-RL and FS-RM zoning to address broader housing options, such as mix of housing types, allowances for two-family dwellings and density ranges matching intended uses for growth area land use patterns. o City-wide assessment of potentially allowing for Accessory Dwelling Units, including review of issues related to lot sizes, occupancy limitations, covenant restrictions, design standards, size limitations, parking requirements. o Analyze University Impact Area Overlay parking and design standards in order to reduce parking and update design requirements. o Review zoning districts and general standards for conformity with new land use designations and described uses, including but not limited to: - F-VR zoning to address neighborhood and village land use descriptions for future growth areas -Update of commercial zoning districts along with creation of new general commercial zoning district. Plans and Sub-areas o Coordinate an Ames Urban Fringe Plan update with Boone County and Story County. o Prepare a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Transportation Division) o Prepare a Parks Master Plan Update (Parks and Recreation Department) o Create City gateway and beautification plan for rights-of-way and entryways o Evaluate redirection areas and needs for sub-area plans -Initiate new South Lincoln Mixed Use Sub-Area Plan from Cherry Street to Walnut Avenue. -Initiate redirection area planning and zoning changes for University Overlay areas along Hunt Avenue and Sheldon Avenue -On a biannual basis identify redirection and sub-area planning priorities 1 ITEM #__ 18__ DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: CARR PARK AGILITY COURSE BACKGROUND: As part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Parks and Recreation replaces several pieces of playground equipment each year. Staff has been working on diversifying the types of equipment to be installed in the parks in order to provide a variety of offerings. Playground equipment in Inis Grove Park was up for replacement (Shagbark Shelter) and a new installation (Red Oak Shelter) and during this past CIP budget cycle, staff shared the idea of an agility course which an example is shown below: These pieces of equipment along with a concrete base and rubberized surface costs approximately $265,000. Total funding available for this project is $277,500 ($77,500 for Inis Grove playground replacement and $200,000 of General Fund Carryover). Additionally, there is funding in FY 2022/23 for putting a new piece of playground equipment in Carr Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission did not want to place any more destination amenities in Inis Grove Park due to the popularity of the Barnes Family Inclusive Playground and the Rotary Club of Ames Miracle Field. The Commission asked staff to look for a different location. By placing the agility course in Carr Park, the funding for the new equipment in Carr Park can be used for playground equipment in Inis Grove. 2 At the May 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, staff presented evaluation criteria for selecting a location of the equipment and the Commissioners approved the criteria. At the September Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff presented a report outlining potential sites for the equipment, the evaluation criteria used to review each potential site, feedback from two public input sessions, emails from neighbors, and how staff plans to address some of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood. Also, two neighbors of the park attended the meeting and presented feedback as to their desire to keep the park in its current state and add educational programming for youth that utilizes the current amenities of the park like the river and other natural areas to educate youth about the benefits of nature. At the October Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, Commissioners recommended to City Council approval of the Agility Course Equipment to be added to Carr Park. LOCATION SELECTION CRITERIA: When developing criteria, staff looked at what could be measurable and thus compared as objectively as possible. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed these criteria at its May 2021 meeting and agreed it should be used for evaluating the potential locations. The following criteria, not in any order, was used to review potential sites: • Out of flood plain • Fits with park philosophy • Space available • Relatively flat space • Parking available • Visible from road • Safety • Community/Park equity • Accessibility LOCATION OPTIONS: The City manages 38 parks and all of them were reviewed at a high level as possible locations for the agility course. The aforementioned criteria were used to narrow down the locations for the agility course. The parks listed below best fit the criteria: • Brookside Park (east of Ioway Creek) • Moore Memorial Park • Carr Park • Northridge Heights Park • Emma McCarthy Lee Park • Tahira and Labh Hira Park EVALUATION OF LOCATION OPTIONS: 3 Staff reviewed each site against the determined criteria and listed a “yes” if it met the criteria and a “no” if it did not. The table below compares the potential locations for the agility course with the identified criteria. Pa r k Pl a i n Sa f e t y Sp a c e Ro a d Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No/ No No Carr Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes/ No Moore Memorial Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No/ No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes PUBLIC INPUT: Any time something is proposed for a space, staff does public outreach to inform people of the proposal and to gather feedback on the potential project. There were four opportunities for individuals to express their opinions regarding the proposed location of the project. August 11, 2021: A public input session regarding the project was held virtually. A postcard was sent out to approximately 150 households in the Emma McCarthy Lee Park neighborhood and 180 to Carr Park neighbors notifying them of the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed agility course location. An overview of the proposed project and location were presented to approximately eight people in attendance. Feedback received from that meeting is included in Attachment A. August 26, 2021: A second public input session was held in the Community Room at Homewood Golf Course after staff received comments from neighbors of Carr Park that didn’t attend the first meeting and wanted to have an opportunity to discuss their concerns with the project. A letter (Attachment B) was sent to approximately 400 households regarding the meeting, as well as, providing more information about the project. Comments from the second meeting are included in Attachment C. A petition from Carr Park neighbors was also submitted at this meeting and is shown in Attachment D. September 16, 2021, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: The staff report was emailed to all individuals who provided feedback on the proposed location along with the additional correspondence staff received after the two public input meetings, shown in Attachment E. The Commissioners were in favor of placing the Agility Course Equipment at Carr Park. Staff stated that a recommendation to the Commission would be presented at the October Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. October 21, 2021, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: The Commission Action Form was sent to all individuals who provided feedback on the proposed location. Staff received one additional correspondence from a neighbor of the park requesting again the park be kept in its current state and provided an alternative idea for the park, shown in Attachment F. The Parks and Recreation Commission approved recommending to City Council the placement of Agility Course Equipment in Carr Park. NEIGHBOR’S CONCERNS: Safety: Carr Park neighbors expressed concerns in the meetings as well as in emails sent to staff regarding safety of the proposed equipment. Comments included the following: • Increased liability for the City of Ames o City staff confirmed with the City’s insurance carrier regarding increased liability with this equipment. A representative from the insurance company stated the following, “I don’t see a problem with this, and would see it as play equipment; therefore, no additional liability charge.” • This type of equipment is for thrill seekers and has a high degree of injury potential o This equipment is manufactured by the same company that supplied and installed the equipment at the Miracle Park in Inis Grove Park. All playground manufacturers are required to develop equipment that meets or exceeds safety standards set by many entities including Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), American System of Testing Materials (ASTM), and International Playground Manufacturers Association (IPEMA). Injuries can take place at any playground due to accidents or if individuals are using equipment improperly, however, there have been very few injuries reported from individuals using playground equipment in Ames parks. Since this equipment will be new to the park system, signs will be posted to ensure all individuals are aware of how to properly use the equipment. • Increased traffic (number of people) to the park o The number of people coming to the park when the Agility Course is installed will most likely increase. However, that number will be less than when Carr Pool was open. • High rate of speed of cars traveling along Meadowlane Ave., and not stopping at the stop sign located at Carr Dr. and Meadowlane Ave. o Staff has communicated these concerns to the Police Department and is continuing dialogue for potential solutions. • Delinquents hanging out in the park after hours o Park hours are 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., however, most playground equipment does not get played on after dark. When we have had issues in the past regarding bad behavior in the park, staff has asked Police to increase patrol of the area. Staff also encourages all residents to call the police if they witness behavior that is against the law. There have been other times when Parks and Recreation staff will go to a site and talk to individuals about appropriate behavior. Annual Maintenance: Staff explained during the meetings that each piece of playground equipment is inspected on an annual basis. All inspections are completed by a staff member that is licensed by the National Recreation and Park Association as a Certified Playground Safety Inspector. If deficiencies are identified, the equipment is repaired immediately or the play piece is closed until repairs can be made. Additionally, funds are budgeted in the operational budget to replace/repair equipment as needed. For more expensive items (i.e., replace surfacing), these would be programmed into the Department’s Capital Improvement Plan. Carr Pool Bathhouse: Comments included issues with homeless individuals, graffiti on the exterior of the building, the building becoming dilapidated, and why it hasn’t been repurposed or demolished. Staff explained that repurposing the building was cost prohibitive due to the way the building was constructed. After hearing these comments and concerns, staff estimates the cost to demolish the building to be approximately $12,500 and hopes to proceed with demolishing the building this winter. Future Plans for Carr Park: Future plans for the park include adding fourteen raised garden beds and a water source for gardens in FY 2021-22. Additionally, a shelter and restroom building will be constructed in FY 2023-24. Aesthetics: Staff received comments that the proposed agility course equipment displayed in the presentation pictures was not attractive (bright colors) and neighbors didn’t want to look out the windows of their home and see the structure. During the second meeting, staff stated there are multiple color schemes of what the equipment and safety surfacing could look like and if this equipment does go into Carr Park, staff would work with the neighbors to get their feedback on a color scheme. Lighting: Additional lighting to compliment the agility course will not be added to this project. When the shelter and restroom are constructed, security lighting will be included in the structure. Parking: Staff received comments that adding this piece of equipment would increase parking pressure on the park and individuals would have to park in the street. The parking lot has approximately 30 spaces as well as two accessible parking spaces. Based on observations over the years during the various seasons, the park is able to accommodate this amenity with the current size of parking lot. Staff will also look at the parking lot design to ensure the parking lot lines are painted to maximize parking. Also, there was a comment that the parking lot needs resurfaced. Staff reviewed the condition of the asphalt and determined resurfacing is not warranted at this time but will be continually evaluated. Lack of Sidewalk in Carr Park: The sidewalk along Meadowlane Ave. is not continuous and has resulted in a mid-block crossing and ped-ramp in front of a house which has eliminated some on-street parking. As part of this project, staff will install a portion of sidewalk making the sidewalk continuous and eliminate the mid-block crossing and ped-ramp. Neighborhood vs. Community Park: City of Ames defines the service area of Neighborhood parks to be within ½ mile of the park. Community Parks serve residents within a two-mile radius and include amenities that may serve the entire community. Amenities commonly found in Community Parks include baseball/softball fields, tennis courts, park shelters, playground structures, and a restroom. Amenities in Neighborhood parks typically include a shelter, water fountain, playground structure, and a basketball court. Carr Park is already a gateway to several community parks as you can access North River Valley Park, East River Valley Park, and Inis Grove Park. Because of this fact, Carr Park is already attracting people from across the community making Carr Park more of a hybrid park based on current use. Disruptive to Nature: Staff received emails and comments on how adding this amenity would disrupt animal habitat. The space proposed for this equipment is an open turf area that once was the location of a swimming pool. No designated wildlife areas or refuges will be disrupted by adding this amenity. Also, wildlife adapts to their surroundings. An individual can go to almost any park in Ames and see wildlife and our hope is that individuals will be able to do the same at Carr Park if the agility equipment is constructed. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve placement of Agility Course Equipment in Carr Park. 2. Do not approve placement of Agility Course Equipment in Carr Park and direct staff to determine a different park location for the equipment. 3. Refer back to staff for analysis. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has been working on diversifying the types of equipment to be installed in the parks to provide a variety of offerings. Installing the Agility Course equipment will provide youth and adults the opportunity to enjoy the equipment. Carr Park is a great location to install the equipment because it meets all the evaluation criteria as well as offers the opportunity to add play equipment to an area of town that is underserved as far as playground amenities. In response to the aforementioned concerns raised by the neighbors of Carr Park, staff will work towards demolishing the bathhouse with the possibly of that occurring yet this winter; add sidewalk in order to make a continuous walkway along Meadowlane Ave; complete maintenance on the agility equipment on a regular basis; review the parking lot to ensure efficient use of the lot; and work with the neighborhood in providing equipment with colors that fit into the existing landscape of the park. The Parks and Recreation Commission at its October meeting approved to recommend to City Council the placement of the Agility Course Equipment in Carr Park. Therefore, the City Manager recommends approving Alternative #1, as stated above. The Ames Parks and Recreation public information session regarding the addition of an agility course to the park system began at 7:01 PM. Participating Staff: Keith Abraham & Joshua Thompson Thompson opened the session with a slide presentation which explained what an agility course is and the department’s criteria for the location of this project. He also reminded the participants of the department’s goals to diversify our park offerings and offer new programming opportunities. He explained how this amenity would meet both goals. Thompson also explained the philosophy of community equity and accessibility. Thompson showed slides of the possible locations for an agility course and how each potential location fit the within the criteria for determining the best location. He informed the audience that Carr Park checked all the boxes for these criteria. Audience Participation: Tracy & John stated that they live across from the proposed site and lost some on- street parking in front of their property during street improvements and the addition of ADA compliant curb cuts for the path. They want to know what the department can do to guarantee on-street parking will be open for their own use instead of being used by park users. They also stated there is a consistent use of the existing building by the homeless. Thompson informed them of the plan to replace the former bath house with a new shelter house and restroom facility. The restrooms will be fitted with access control and sensors so they automatically lock when the park closed and will remain lighted if someone is in the facility. When a police officer drives by they will instantly know someone is in the facility and can stop and ask them to leave. The shelter will be an open shelter instead of the enclosed bath house. Tracy & John asked why is one of the criteria listed “visible from the road”? Thompson replied that the department wants people who use this amenity to feel safe. Needs to be visible. Tracy & John informed Thompson they purchased this property because the pool was no longer across the street, and it would be quiet. Tracy does not want to see this structure from her window. Thompson informed them that when the pool was demolished, the goal was to replace with a shelter, restroom facility and playground structure in this area. That has not changed. Tracy & John complained that people run the stop sign all the time and that the street is supposed to be a 25-mph speed limit. They want the department to consider kids and traffic. Thompson informed them that they can call the police regarding traffic control. An unidentified person said they have seen this area under water and challenged how the department can call this area out of the flood plain. Thompson informed the caller that the area proposed for the amenity is on the north or high side. Thompson stated that the parking area and the garden plot area has flooded, however the higher ground has not Wolfgang, who stated he lives on Ross Road, asked where the splash pad was going to be located. Thompson informed him that it was to be built in Daley Park. Wolfgang said the pickleball area is good. He saw in this presentation where the agility course would go if McCarthy Lee was chosen. He does not want to disturb the green space where people pay pick up soccer in McCarthy Lee Park. If McCarthy Lee was chosen for an agility course, there would need to be a new place for people to play soccer. Thompson informed him that there was room for both in that area. An unidentified participant wanted to know the target age group of the agility course and would it be ADA compliant. Thompson answered that the course would be mostly targeted to age 12 through adult. Some of the components can be ADA compliant. There could also be some additional amenities for younger individuals. Abraham stated no other hands have been raised. Thompson gave his contact information. The meeting concluded at 7:26 PM. Smart Choice Parks & Recreation 515.239.5350 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811 Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org Dear Neighbor of Carr Park You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed Agility Course to be placed in Carr Park, 1704 Meadowlane Ave. The meeting is Thursday, August 26 at 5:30 PM in the greenspace on the west side of the former pool bathhouse. There will be a short presentation to discuss the project followed with an opportunity to present questions, comments, and concerns regarding the project. In case of inclement weather, the meeting will take place at the Homewood Golf Course Clubhouse. Contact the Parks and Recreation Hotline, 515-239-5434, after 4:00 PM, August 26 to confirm the location of the meeting. One of the goals relating to the department is to diversify the types of playground equipment in the park system. As part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), funds were approved to help achieve this goal by adding an agility course to one of the City’s parks. An agility course has multiple play pieces that allows individuals (kids, teens, &, adults) to utilize their upper and lower body strength to complete multiple activities which may include cargo nets, over-head ladders, balance beams, ledge hanger, spider walk, and others. Examples of Agility Course equipment is included with this letter and you can also find at the following links: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEsaJJEtys • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGNOh5wdhpk. These play components would have a rubber safety surfacing, similar to what is at the Inclusive Playground at Inis Grove Park, 2500 Duff Ave. This equipment is manufactured by reputable and established playground equipment manufacturers, the same manufacturers of the playground equipment you see in the parks in Ames. Carr Park was chosen using the following criteria: • Out of the flood plain • Flat park space available • Parking availability • Visible from the road • Safety • Community/Park Equity • Accessibility Other improvements that will be taking place in the next couple of years at Carr Park include the demolition of the bathhouse and constructing a shelter with a restroom. Those improvements are included the FY 2023/24 CIP. Please feel free to bring lawn chairs if you would like seating and I look forward to meeting with you to discuss the proposed addition of an Agility Course to the greenspace of Carr Park. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 515-239-5364 or joshua.thompson@cityofames.org. Sincerely, Joshua Thompson, Parks & Facilities Superintendent City of Ames Agility Course Layout Example: Quintuple Steps: Spiderwalk: Vertical Cargo Net: Angled Overhead Ladder: Ledge Hanger: Carr Park Neighborhood Meeting August 26, 2021 5:30 PM Homewood Golf Course Comments Regarding the Proposed Agility Course: Would like to see the money spent on taking care of what we already have in the park system. I think this idea is good because it is not just for kids but also adults and older adults can use it. I don’t think the traffic from the agility course is going to be comparable to what traffic was like for when the pool was at the location and feel this would be a great addition to the park. If the agility course is really popular is there available space at the current site for it to be expanded? Are the components interchangeable, meaning can they be switched out and replaced at some point? Why didn’t the City take care of the bathhouse by repurposing the building when the pool closed? That building was constructed to be a 100 year old building. Does this playground increase the City’s liability? Is the City receiving requests for this type of equipment to be installed in the City? I have been stuck in the middle of folks need help from drowning in the Skunk River to drunk college students arguing in the parking lot as well as encountering homeless individuals camping out in the bathhouse. I am going to be a good citizen and help when necessary, but this type of equipment is going to increase activity that me and my neighbors may have to respond to. Individuals speed up and down Meadowlane Ave and this type of equipment is only going to add to the traffic issues on Meadowlane. Our family thinks this agility course is a great addition to park as it allows older kids to play as well. There are not many playgrounds in Ames where older kids can play. We loved when Carr Pool was there because we were able to hear all of the joyous sounds of the individuals utilizing the pool, and we miss having that, so we would like to see the park revitalized again. Why wasn’t the pool bathhouse taken down prior to now? I have two children and they love to play on playgrounds but adding this agility equipment in Carr Park is going to negatively affect nature. I remember during one of the floods, me and a friend pulled a picnic table off the bank of the river because the bank was about to collapse. Are you worried about the west bank of the river being damaged by floodwaters that could directly affect the area where the playground will be built? We have had construction in this area of town for so many years, can’t we just let the area heal from all of the work that has been completed? Is there a possibility of the parking lot being expanded if this becomes really popular? When will the parking lot be resurfaced? With the equipment you are proposing would it require more maintenance as it may be used by adults which would cause more stress to the equipment versus equipment used by mainly children? I am in favor of anything that gets people outside and active. Could the shelter and restroom be closer to the road and equipment be closer to the river? Our family thinks it is a great idea and can’t wait for it to be installed. We love the idea and know our grand kids will love it! Hi Keith, I recently got the postcard about the Agility Course being considered for Emma ML Park. I wanted to give some feedback. In general, I would oppose installing an Agility Course anywhere. When I travel around Ames I frequently notice play areas not being used. I am curious if people requested this and if so, what percentage of the population. It seems to me we don't need another play area, or at least a play area made of unnatural materials. This summer I have been saddened to see so many natural areas of Ames being turned into roads or just getting wiped out (the purpose of which is unknown to me, for example the areas off of Duff Ave). It at least feels like, to me, we are wiping out so many trees and natural areas for our own convenience; to save a couple of minutes drive. I recognize some of these are not Parks and Rec areas but I would hope that Parks and Rec would work to preserve natural areas. What I would LOVE to see done with the money for an Agility Course would be to use those funds to create programs that get kids out of the school during the day and into nature. For example, paying naturalists to provide outdoor programs for kids that they are able to get credit for and can be integrated into the curriculum. Or perhaps create more natural, unpaved trails in the forested areas we have so that people have more places to walk, hike or trail run. Or perhaps we could use that money to get rid of the garlic mustard that is taking over Munn Woods. We have spent hours and hours pulling this weed and we are definitely losing the battle. If the AC is a done deal, I would vote for it to not be in EML Park as it will create more noise pollution for the houses and animals in the area and I'm assuming it will disrupt more of the natural areas of that park. I also think it will not be used very much. I suppose the same is true for Carr Park, but I feel that area has less residents surrounding it. What about somewhere closer to the Rec fields over by Carr Park off of 13th? And if EML is chosen does that mean there will be that and Pickle Ball? Are there any areas in Ames that can be turned back into nature which have been developed? That would be amazing! Thanks for asking for feedback and sending out those postcards. It's helpful to be informed. I appreciate you listening and I know from our walk several months ago near the new bridge that you care very much for nature. Best, Elizabeth Wade . Hi Joshua, I might not be able to attend Thursday night’s meeting but LOVE the idea of the agility course at Carr Pool. We live in the area and think it would be very beneficial to the neighborhood and the rest of Ames. I have seen these in other cities and they are really cool and usually busy. Hopefully we can get this done and enjoy one for our city! Thanks, Kenny Carey Hello Joshua!! Hope this email finds you well! I wanted to write in an express my EXTREME excitement for the agility course coming to Carr Park! I live at 619 E 13th St , on the corner of E 13th and Meadowlane. This will bring so much excitement to our neighborhood and give the kids another outlet to get alllll the energy out (and adults alike!) Just like the addition of Miracle Park, this will be a super place to bing kiddos! I am ONE HUNDRED percent in support of this addition to our neighborhood! Please let me if there is anything I can do to move this project forward! Erin Carey Hi Josh, I just got your letter about the presentation at Carr Park with discussion about the Agility Course. I probably will not be home in time to make the meeting, so if that happens, I want you to know I think the Agility Course is a fantastic idea and I would love to see it built at Carr Park! I hope the other neighbors feel the same way! Becki Christensen Hello Josh and Keith, I wanted to address a few concerns I have about the proposal to build an Agility Course in Carr Park. • My first big concern is safety. Living across the street from Carr Park I have been stuck in the middle of folks needing help with anything from a drowning in the Skunk River to less serious injuries to having to listen to drunken college students finish an all night argument on the bridge crossing the river when I am trying to get my 3 miles in every morning. I enjoy the opportunity to be a good citizen when these things happen, but there are far too many “opportunities” already and I feel that an Agility Course will increase that number to an undue burden. When I heard your presentation I heard about the bathrooms having limited access after a certain hour of the day, but did not hear about the Agility Course itself having any required supervision or time based restricted access. Also I address the homeless population that inhabits the park with some regularity below. • Concern #2 is largely based around maintenance and a maintenance budget. I moved to this location almost 10 years ago, the pool was just being torn out and the pool building was either going to be torn down or rented out as a pavilion, neither of which happened. The pool house has simply gone into a greater and greater state of decay with every storm and freeze/thaw cycle. Paint peels, mildew/algae grows seasonally and the homeless kick the door in and camp there until either me or my neighbors need to call and inform the Police Department that people are camping out there. Someone usually comes out and screws a highly attractive piece of plywood on to the door somewhere, it gets the job done but is unsightly at best. I can’t say nothing has gone right here, the North side of the paved trail and the area around the low water dam both look great right now although it was a long and tedious journey to get there. Back to the budget, I heard you talk about a couple of hundred thousand dollars to build this project, but never once heard you mention any kind of operating budget to take care of maintenance or keeping the course renewed to keep interest up on the Agility Course. this seems like it did not make afterthought status. • Neighborhood culture — We have a quiet neighborhood where people enjoy the ability to obtain some silence and enjoy a walk through the trees, or garden, or run, walk, ride their bikes or just enjoy the new benches at the low water dam and take in the sounds of roaring water. It is a pretty nice place. The proposal of an agility course does not sound like it fits with the neighborhood culture very well. I am not able to find out much about a course like this online other than the ones for dogs, but I suspect it will be America Ninja-Lite-like, the need for more lighting and having more than a few injuries take place is not out of the question. One can only look forward and guess how the Agility Course may increase traffic levels and pose parking difficulty on the area. Parking can currently be somewhat limited depending on what is going on at the park on any given day, will parking spill over into the street? Will people take my only parking space in front of my house after the new ADA ramp went in? The additional traffic is worrisome as the neighborhood seems to have high populations of kids in multiple different areas. The field directly in front of the pool house is currently a great area for people with dogs to play fetch and to do some dog training and would be even better without a pool house there. One additional comment on lighting: I walk every morning around 5AM-ish usually around 3 miles or so, did you know there is so much ambient light in Ames that on a cloudy night I do not need a headlamp to walk on the trail? That is no sun coming up on the horizon, no moon, lots of clouds and no stars out and there is enough reflective light from the city to walk through the woods! We don’t need more artificial lighting. • A good alternative location would be in Homewood Park to the West of the badminton courts(extremely unlikely to flood), it is quiet, lights would be less likely to bother folks later in the evening and it could even be accessed by a beautiful 1 mile walk from Carr Park if access between Carr Park and the Agility Course were absolutely necessary. I understand that projects are always a priority, but honestly if someone told me they had $250K burning a hole in their pockets and asked me what to do with it my suggestion would be to spruce what you already have. Buildings and structures need paint, some park bathrooms are still “closed for the season” and the new items still look new, but the old items look old. A great alternative instead of an Agility Course would be for programs to get kids out of the house and into the woods and parks to discover the joys of nature. Ames is a wonder to me and I feel privileged to live here, every morning I see an endless amount of wildlife, I feel the kids would get more out of making lifetime memories learning about the plants, animals and insects of Carr Park than they would in an Agility Course that would likely get boring after a short duration of time. If there is some opportunity for a face to face at a Pavilion somewhere please let me know. I am not against an agility course altogether, I just don’t feel it fits the neighborhood well and there are likely other locations better suited for it. Again please let me know if there will be a public venue and date/time to discuss this further Best regards, John Sogandares Hello Joshua and Keith, It has recently come to light that there is a proposed project for Carr Park. The more and more I hear about this, the more and more questions I have. Much of the information I currently have came from friends and neighbors and what they have learned. I will say I do not know of or have been able to find a single thing about this searching online, nor did we receive any notification regarding a meeting that has apparently already occurred. I was informed a postcard mailer had gone out, I work at home and collect the mail. I usually greet the mailman, but we have not seen any such notification. If you Google "agility course" it is all related to dogs...I don't even think this is being properly represented for people to consider it in the correct context. I have many many concerns, I will list many of them here: 1. Safety. This sounds like it will be an adult agility course, I imagine an "American Ninja Warrior" course. These are inherently risky. Others I have seen in other cities have a high degree of injury potential. How would entry be controlled, how will younger and smaller kids be prevented from something meant for bigger or more advanced users. 2. Sport usage By all measures, these types of courses tend to fall into the category of "Extreme Sports" or "Thrill Sports". Any of these that I have seen that are challenging and interesting are also reconfigured regularly. This is needed to keep people coming back. The ones that succeed are the ones that constantly challenge...anything less becomes a waste of money spent. People in this sport are thrill seekers...once they master this, they won't return unless new challenges are often created. If this is outdoors, weather conditions could impact the grip of all surfaces and when people are pushing themselves and the limits of the course...a greater risk appears...the best ones I have seen are all indoors. Also I hear ropes will be used...in the outdoor environment ropes are a great risk factor. They can fray, they can wear, and they can degrade...even high quality ropes designed for this use have a life cycle...exposure to UV rays will accelerate the deterioration. I used to climb and we would regularly commit used ropes to home use for tying a Christmas tree to the hood, not used again for safety or climbing...constant rope replacement and regular diligent inspection would be needed. 3. Demographic user considerations. This is a sport for many ages, but predominantly it is high school to late twenties where Thrill Sports thrive. Typically extreme/thrill sports are done with a buddy system approach and as such they will root each other on (or a larger group), yelling to go further, reach for it, go go go YOU CAN DO IT! This is typical behavior of the sport, but not part of this neighborhood. Loud extreme sport activity isn't well suited to be as close as this would be to the multiple home dwellings in such close proximity surrounding it. Many less than100 feet away. That alone makes this inappropriate for this park/location. 4. Location & noise, fitment into a neighborhood. I can't recall anyone in our neighborhood or community at large waiting for a facility like this to be built. I haven't spoken to a neighbor or acquaintance yet who would use it, but they all seem to think that locations closer to campus or the high school would be better suited. Again this being a younger persons sport, Brookside, near Furman Pool, a park on a bus route for college students to gain access or for bus riders to be made aware that the park even exists with an actual bus stop location near it, all would be better locations. Many of those locations have a much greater distance to homes...an easy way to curb an issue before it becomes one...before noise complaints would be regularly raised. I've added a picture of a space near Furman Pool that has much more to offer as a location that Carr park for many of the reasons already outlined, with the added benefit to expand this in the future. Just in the area I mapped out, there is over 48,000 SQ FT available to expand onto. Parking is available in mass, and would allow ample room for attendees of a competition if one was to occur. We have lifeguards nearby should any injury occur. If lifeguards wouldn't be the first responder, we at least have people nearby that can call in the case of an emergency. Since controlled access may be a concern or determined later to be required...it could be integrated into the existing controlled access arrangement at the pool quite easily. 5. Also, I would assume lighting would be installed. Anyone doing these activities with any level of intensity will want to have a well lit structure so they don't miss their target. The amount of light and intensity needed would then not illuminate a neighborhood as it would at Carr. I am not opposed to the idea of this, but I am very concerned about its location. It really seems to miss the mark, and there are so many more better options location wise. I think we may have missed the target demographic that would use it, and also are limiting access to those who would use it because it is not on a bus route (kids without drivers license or ISU students). I'd also like to add an alternative, many folks may just say no and offer no alternative. I would like to see Carr park used again...it needs purpose again. I don't think an agility course would coincide with the history of the park and its former use, intent, or historical context here in Ames. Let us remember that it was in this location so many folks in Ames learned to swim. Prior to that the parks name was Riverside Park. I think if any future use should reflect the name and purpose of something to do with water, or being adjacent to the river...having some type of riverside activity or scenic viewing platform to look out and enjoy the serene nature of the area. If the pool house went away and some trees along the edge of the river were trimmed back, it would be a lovely location to just watch the river roll by. Maybe a newly revitalized "Carr Landing" could be created. The portage location in North River Valley park above the old dam is starting to really show signs of needed repair. And is difficult for paddlers to get too and climb up the steep incline. The new "Carr Landing" would allow much easier access into or out of the water and the parking lot would be easily configured for long trailer parking stalls. As far as the agility course...if a meeting could be had, the new meeting area at the Homewood Clubhouse was built for just such a meeting and couldn't be a better location for a meeting about this neighborhood as it is in this neighborhood. I think the number of attendees could space out quite easily and we could take advantage of all the new location has to offer. I would really like to be able to hear much more about the plans before any thing is finalized. Thanks for your time, Jim & Jaime Johnson Agility Course proposal and its impact on Carr Park; thoughts. When I received the small postcard recently from the Ames Parks and Recreation Department informing me of the proposed agility course Zoom meeting on August 11, I had to look up the definition of “agility courses”. What I found were descriptions of such courses for dogs. Then I went to the City of Ames website to find more information. Nothing there that I could find. Then I forgot to attend the Zoom meeting on August 11. On August 12, my neighbor Tracy Stajcar came to my door with a letter she had written regarding the course (she attended the meeting), and a clip board where I could sign my name to a list of people opposing the placement of the course at the old Carr Pool site. I just don’t think we need another special interest amenity to our parks system currently. Of late we funded and built the Ames Miracle League Field and the All Inclusive Playground, and the North River Valley Low Head Dam Improvement. There are two facilities at Carr Park/River Valley Park that very rarely get used. One is the sand volleyball court (with an ugly orange plastic fence placed to stop balls – which is not maintained) and the other is the Horseshoes Site near the Hawthorn Shelter. The only time I have seen the horseshoes site used in the past 5 years is by people who are letting their dogs play in the gated area. I have only once seen the sand volleyball court used. I have lived in this neighborhood for 25 years and visit these parks at least once a day. These two facilities are uncared for by the city. They are eye sores. What I have seen at Carr/River Valley parks every day are families riding bikes, running or walking on the paths with or without their dogs, picnicking, sitting on the sandy shore of the river, x-country skiing, and gardening at the raised beds. An open space is more invigorating to the imagination than a prepared site! And is more useful to more members of the community. Are the community members who are advocating for this park from this neighborhood? Do they know there is such a course on the ISU campus that rarely gets used? Are you prepared to maintain it if it does get built? Infrastructure maintenance is costly. Our neighborhood has been the site of major City of Ames sponsored construction for the past 5 years. The path on the west side on the river was totally unusable as the Sunk Riverbank was redirected and the Homewood Golf Course hill regraded; I know this was essential work. Still, it was very disruptive to the people and animals who live here. The paved path in River Valley Park was blocked for use during the several years that the North River Valley Low Head Dam Park was built. We need a break from construction. Let the earth heal. Please do call or email me in you have concerns or additional information that may impact my opposition to this new construction. Thank you. Peggy Earnshaw Dear Mr. Thompson, We just learned last week that an agility course is proposed to be built in the Carr Park. The city plans on tearing down the pool house and building a shelter with restrooms to put a highly structured sports course between the shelter and the street. This new city plan raises our very serious concerns: 1) A quiet and safe neighborhood will be detoriated by extra traffic on an already busy residential street, particularly children safety. 2)The new facility will cause a number of problems; increased noise, safety of structure, and crime of delinquents, etc. 3)The quiet neighborhood with a highly natural environment will be devalued by a highly structured outdoor sports facility. Already lived in Meadowlane Ave over the past 40 years, we would like to see the Carr Park remains in more natural state. We are strongly opposite to the agility course being located in Carr Park. There are other locations in the city of Ames that would work for this project. Sincerely, Tsing-Chang (Mike) and Sumei Chen Good Morning Joshua and Keith, I wanted to let you know that I spoke with 13 homeowners on Meadowlane yesterday and NONE of them are in support of the agility course. So you don’t have to take my word for it they all signed a paper stating so. Most of them didn’t know about it and one thought it was for dogs. Many had ideas for what they would like to see there. I plan on asking more neighbors their thoughts on the project and I will share those results with you as well. Thank you for your time, Tracy Hello Joshua and Keith, My family and I live at 1711 Meadowlane right across the road from Carr Park. I was not able to attend the meeting as it was my daughters 6th birthday party, but our family does NOT support having an agility park at the old Carr Pool site. I do agree with tearing down the old pool buildings as I have called or emailed a hand full of times about people breaking doors to gain access or for vandalism of that building. Some of our biggest concerns with having an agility park. - Traffic: Meadowlane is a highly traveled road. People use Meadowlane Ave to bypass the intersection of 13th and Duff when traveling from I-35, and it has gotten worse since the bike lane has been added from 16th going North. I understand the bike trail but at certain times of the day the intersection (16th and Duff) to go North on Duff is quite long, people can go up Meadowlane to avoid those lines. A lot of people that travel on Meadowlane do not travel the speed limit or close to the limit. There are people that seem to fly up and down the hill without consideration, I have seen countless people drive right through the stop sign at Carr Drive. - Safety: Seems like a lot of agility courses that I have seen don't seem to be the safest place for people. Especially if kids are allowed to roam over there freely without supervision. I would always be there if my kids were over there, but I do not want to be a look out for other peoples kids. - Location: The location might fit some criteria you had, but the location is kind of out a ways from the main population that would use the park. You are probably looking for HS, college age, and young professionals to use it. - I would hope this park would not have lights for night playing around? There are a lot of things that I would support over there, new building for get togethers, bathrooms, standard playground, but I do not support the agility park. Thanks for the time as always. Karl McKeeman I understand Carr Park is being considered for an adult agility facility. As a homeowner on Meadowlane Avenue let me express my concerns and my no vote for such a move. Meadowlane already has a traffic issue with cars using it as a pass through to avoid Duff and 13th. So many of those drivers do not observe the speed limit and choose to ignore the stop signs at Carr. This becomes more concerning by the day as homes in the neighborhood turn over to younger families with children. Adding this proposed facility will only exacerbate the problem. A more central location for this facility would also benefit those who chose to use this facility and prevent the added traffic. I also have some concern about unsupervised use. As it is more and more bicycles and motorized vehicles are being used on the riverside trails . In spite of prohibitions being posted these activities increase including fires and fireworks being used along the river bank. Please consider the impact on the homeowners in the area and locate the facility in an area that is not so residential and home to so many small children. We were told several years ago that a picnic pavillion and a playground would be installed in this space, a much more suitable option. Lauren Worrel Good Afternoon Joshua, Thank you for the meeting that you hosted last night about the location of the proposed agility course. I appreciate the time you took to answer questions. I appreciate all of the work that you have done especially on the north end of the paved trail. It seemed problematic. I know how much planning needs to happen to make a big project like that successful. The low water dam project has also been an improvement to the area and is beautiful We love having those areas of nature so close to our home to enjoy. I have spoken to many neighbors this morning who did not know about the meeting or even the idea of the agility course in Carr Park. (We received a postcard in the mail about it that didn’t look very important.) So far none of them have been in support of the agility course. If there is interest from the neighbors about having an in person meeting would you be willing to come and listen to the concerns and answer questions? (We could do it at the park.) In the short time that they have learned about this some of the concerns and observations from us and a few of the neighbors are: * Extra traffic pressure on an already busy residential street with children. * Having a “sports facility” in our neighborhood. People use the trail in our neighborhood to experience nature. A highly structured sports facility would devalue that experience. * Noise concerns that would detract from the peacefulness of the river * Parking pressure in the neighborhood. At times the parking lot from the trail is full and people often park on Meadowlane even though there is a parking lot available. * Increase in crime. The facility will attract delinquents after hours looking for adventure. (And who could blame them??!! • How safe will this course be? Living directly across the street will we be the one being asked to call the ambulance when one of the kids has a wreck? * Will parental supervision be required below a certain age and who will enforce that if so? • Additional excess Ambient light with any potential night time lighting Some neighbors without knowing that Emma McCarthy Lee Park was an option, mentioned putting it there. One neighbor stated that they had asked to be on a committee if changes were made to Carr Park and no one ever responded to them. Thank you for taking the time to read the concerns I have so far from neighbors. Regards, Tracy Stajcar Hi Joshua, We won't be able to attend the interest meeting tonight at Carr Park but I still wanted to share some feedback regarding the possibility of an agility park. I first heard about the possibility of an agility park one week ago, and my first thought was, "Gosh. We are so lucky to live in Ames." We have an excellent aquatic center, many wonderful parks, great trails, and so many other outdoor spaces that allow our family the space and time to play. From what I've seen, the equipment at the agility parks looks as though it would be safe and adventurous for all ages. I know my children (um and me too) :-) would be absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to play there. Thank you so much for the time and energy you've spent developing this plan and researching its value to the city. I sincerely hope we are able to move forward with an agility park in Ames. I believe it will be helpful for families to play together there and it will give children one more space outside to exercise, play and be outdoors. We love standard playground equipment but an agility park would add unique variety to the parks that are already present in Ames. Side note- I worked for a summer at Carr pool and since it closed, I've hoped for that space to be transformed into something that will fully utilize all it has to offer. The agility park is such a great idea. Thanks for working so hard on this. Take care, Sarah Bradley Joshua, I think the agility course is a great idea! Was hoping something might be added there. And a shelter with a restroom is a good idea also. I whole-heartedly support this proposal. Larry My name is Eric Smidt and I live at 620 E. 14th Street. I am writing to express my support for the agility course project on Meadowlane on the old Carr Pool. Please make this happen. :) Eric Joshua, I was thrilled to learn about the proposed agility course for Carr Park in my mail today. It will be a great addition. I hope there will be a variety of elements so all ages and abilities can use the course. Also, I’ve noticed the north bridge in Stewart Park needs some care. Deck boards need to be replaced and bridge connection with the trail on both ends needs asphalt added to reduce the big gap between the trail and the bridge. This would make the area safer and more accessible. I’m thrilled to have the trail along the Skunk River below the golf course open! Many thanks and I hope summer is wrapping up well for you, Nancy Hi Joshua, My name is Ryan Gustafson, a resident at 1308 Meadowlane Ave. I would like to voice that I am FOR the agility course planned for Carr Park. Thanks! Ryan G Hi Joshua, My name is Tyler Larsen, a resident at 1308 Meadowlane Ave. I would like to voice that I am FOR the agility course planned for Carr Park. Thanks! Tyler L Dear Mr. Thompson, My name is Elodie Biggs. I am a 12 years old, and I think an agility course in Ames would be so much fun to have. There aren't a lot of playgrounds for people my age and older and this would so much fun and perfect! I love doing parkour and such and there isn't a great spot to do it, and this would be so awesome to have! Thank you! Sincerely, Elodie Biggs Site Visitor Name: Steve Ward Site Visitor Email: Swards6@gmail.com Keith, I watched both YouTube videos. Awesome!! Wow! I think hopefully we as a city are more conscious of fitness as a way of life. We chose our location when we moved here almost 30 years—Carr’s Pool was where our kids practically lived. We live just 5 houses from the proposed location. I can only speak for myself, but I would love for my grandkids to experience this new park. Steve Ward Hi Josh, Thank you for conducting the meeting tonight about the proposed Agility Course. I thought you did a great job explaining everything and responding to questions. Anyway, here's my two cents. I think it's a great idea. The course that you showed on the slide, which resembles the 13+ course from the video sent out earlier today, looks great! It would serve people like my 12 year old daughter (who was so excited when I told her about it that she sent you an email earlier) and 15 year old son exceptionally well. It would also serve many adults. The sooner it could be built, the better! One point I didn't hear mentioned: since the agility course will be a unique attraction in Ames, it is likely to attract residents from all over town, perhaps making it a better fit for a community park, such as Brookside, rather than a neighborhood park, such as Carr. I understand that accessibility and parking speak in favor of Carr over Brookside (although I suspect that most people would park in the lot at Brookside and walk from there, making parking less of a problem, although not helping with accessibility). I just thought I'd mention this as a competing consideration--although I imagine you've already thought of this. To be clear, I don't live in the Carr Park neighborhood, and I don't much care where the park ends up so long as it gets built. Thanks for doing this! Cheers, Stephen Biggs Good evening, Steve has written to you and I wanted to add my 2 cents worth. I left the meeting tonight feeling more positive about the agility park. We've always felt that anything that gets kids outdoors is a positive thing. It's interesting to remember how much the skate park and Miracle Park were concerning to many of the surrounding residents. And now to see how both benefit so many people!! I look forward to the agility park in our neighborhood. Thanks for your work! Also I look forward to one day riding my bike all the way to Ada Hayden once the trail is completed!! :) Sandi Ward Please read this article if you have not addressed this issue in your previous research or dialogues with other recreation specialists. The meeting at Homewood Clubhouse last night appreciated. I still believe that this project is ill- advised and inappropriate for the site chosen. I plan to attend the September 16 meeting. Thank you. Peggy Earnshaw Thanks for the interesting meeting yesterday. I have less involvement in this than the more immediate neighbors, living at the other end of Carr Dr., up on the hill where Carr built his house (one block from the river, most floodproof place in Ames!), and obviously no control over what happens anyway, but a few observations and a question: First, a couple things I wouldn't have wanted to say in front of the neighbors: The old pool never fit into the landscape, and nobody cared. It was nice to hear comments on how quiet the neighborhood can and should be; when I first saw it a little over twenty years ago it was the noisiest neighborhood in Ames, and most people seemed to like it. (I turned down the house directly across from the pool; no yard, and too noisy.) The idea of an Agility park has been an education for me, as it has apparently been for others; until I received your mailing a few days ago, I too thought it was for dogs. Once corrected, looks to me like you've got a nice little anklebreaker there, or in my case more like a hip. Sounds like the guy who lives across from it and spends his time rescuing injured children should get a medal, or at least a deluxe First Aid kit. But I'm sure most people who used it wouldn't injure themselves, and my opinion is that it would be nice to see a little more activity in the area. The recent improvements to the park and river seem to have helped, once that section was finally reopened. A year and a half really was a long time. And one thing on which I can agree with the other neighbors: For a supposedly quiet neighborhood, in the last dozen years it certainly has seen more than its share of noisy, longlasting construction, and destruction, projects. The pool celebrated its last season the year I moved here, in the Summer of 2009. I was too busy then to go down, but planned to join the following year. Instead I had the next summer disrupted by the daily noise of a bulldozer pushing it into its own hole, as if a nationally important piece of American history (see Ames Historical Society) had never existed. Since then, it seems to have been something nearly every year, continuing into this year with the simultaneous work on 13th and Duff. Like others, I currently have to drive north to 20th in order to reach anyplace south of 13th. And I must agree with those who said they've considered the park, most of the time, an eyesore more than not. I was surprised to learn the mysteriously disappearing Burning bushes, which I thought were attractive, are now considered an invasive species. I was born in Ohio; I guess that makes me an invasive species. My take, sometimes you need invasive species to improve diversity. So the Agility Course is not very important to me, as I have no children and might be a little old to give it a try, although we'll see. My question, which I wanted to ask last night but didn't as it was slightly off-topic, although not too far, is, When are we going to see an Adult Outdoor Swimming Pool, or any Adult Swimming Pool, in Ames? I've heard a rumor there used to be one around. That multimillion dollar kiddie pool down the street is suitable for toddlers to subteens, but is four feet at its deepest, suitable for an adult to scrape chest or other tender parts, and they make you swim in lanes. I tried to swim in the only deep area, and was whistled out, told that was for diving only. That was during my one and only visit, in the Summer of 2015; I haven't been back since. I was upset enough to call the Superintendent of Parks and Rec. to complain. He was on vacation. I've always imagined him sitting next to a nice, cool pool.... I understand Story City, pop. 3400, has a nice one. So does Slater, pop. 1500. Maybe next year. So I guess you know what I'd like to see in that space. Be a little difficult, though, as you'd have to dig the other one out first. I will watch developments with interest. The park, at least, is better than it was last year. Thanks for reading, and for your work. Thank you! That looks pretty neat! I live on Meadowlane (1803) and I guess I just want to say for the record that I'm all for this. I heard some of the concerns last night, but for me they are all outweighed by making our neighborhood cooler, and more fun. Property values will increase, and it will make this area an even better place to live. More traffic just means this is a great place that people want to visit! I was here when Carr pool was here. It was awesome! Let's make it awesome again! Thanks! I hope this happens! I was unable to attend meeting last night because of a medical situation. I would like to express my desire not to have the agility course there for the following reasons . 1. It will discourage Wildlife, my grandchildren and I saw a fox not far from that area. I'm sure he will find a new home with that put there. 2. It is very peaceful and comforting to go there. 3. Meadow Lane Avenue already has a lot of traffic. 4. We already have the soccer fields with people who come over and park on Meadow Lane Avenue and walk between houses to go to the games. Thank you. Sandra Y Baker Keith & Josh, Thanks for taking the time to gather input from the neighborhood, Josh, I missed the change in location, but Keith kindly gave me the time to give him my feedback directly. In general, I think the agility course will be a nice addition to the Ames Parks system. Barb Wheelock Hi. I'm Devon Mortvedt. I'm 9 years old. I really hope you put the agility course at Carr Park, because right now it's just a field of weeds. A lot more kids would come if it was an agility course than just a normal playground. And lots more adults would come. I really like agility courses so it would be super fun in my opinion. Sincerely, Devon HI Josh, I wanted to again say thank you for setting up the meeting last week to allow the neighborhood to give our opinion about the proposed agility course at Carr Park. While I appreciate the effort I left this meeting feeling like not only was my voice not heard and understood, but most our voices were not heard and understood. After 20 years in technical sales I know when I am being glad-handed, and I was glad-handed. It is not my intent here to create an adversarial relationship here, in fact quite the opposite is true. I would enjoy the opportunity to be a partner in what happens in the future in this area. I enjoyed seeing the updated presentation where you added a couple of bullet points to at least convert our concerns from email in previous weeks into bullet points. What I did not enjoy is your constant deflection, of issues and concerns brought up by your customers, to being some other groups responsibility ( traffic, PD, streets, etc.). You stated you had many multiple requests for an agility course, who did these come from? Was it citizens in Ames, staff in Ames, vendors…I am just curious who out of the blue would suggest this? Here are a few clarifications/thoughts in no certain order: • Safety - • You did indicate that safety was important, however you seemed to be more concerned with the liability aspect of it than the actual safety aspect of it. • Parking in front of my house - • In the meeting you pretty much laughed at the idea that you somehow had any ownership in the city adding an ADA ramp in front of my house and my loss of most of the parking there because it is now a no parking zone( you indicated it was streets/traffic’s problem as I recall). I think I need to remind you that the reason the ADA ramp is there is to mate up with the ADA ramp that comes out of Carr Park, the one that was poured with the new sidewalk in the park a few years ago, prior to the street being finished. Why did this trail and ADA ramp not come down to mate up with the ADA ramp at the NW corner of Carr and Meadowlane? The guys from traffic could not figure out why this was not done?Your group does in fact own some responsibility here and the fact you laughed it off is indicative of most of the remainder of the meeting. • Increased Traffic - • On multiple occasions you indicated this was PD’s problem, not yours • You referenced the number of citations on Meadowlane • I get the impression you asked about violations, did you ask whether or not PD’s strategy was to be a deterrent rather than giving citations. Did you ask PD if people regularly called in complaints about speeding or other traffic violations? In 10 years of living here I have only seen one occasion where PD parked on a side street with the intention to catch violators, most of the time when they are here they park in the parking lot and serve to minimize violations by being a deterrent. I am good with this, but you cannot use this as background facts if they are not representative of the situation. • Parks and Rec will in fact own some responsibility here if you create a draw that increases traffic to the area.Traffic violations here are already an issue whether they are cited or not, increased traffic will likely not make this any better. • Neighborhood park vs community park - • I believe Carr Park is a neighborhood park( I believe you stated it was one as well) and also believe it should stay that way. Increasing traffic here will turn it into a community park, is this your intent? I still maintain that an agility course does not blend well with the feel of Carr Park. It brings a different culture than what the neighborhood is looking for. A Nature Center might be a better fit. • The fact that this park has a stop sign in front of it does not necessitate a correlation between other parks that also have a stop sign in front of them. We are talking about Carr Park specifically. Please let’s talk in causals and not corollaries. • It is apparent that most of the folks within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of this park do not want an agility course. • Maintenance - • You made it a bullet point and said if it was broken you would fix it, did not mention any kind of budget for this as you indicated that you did not know as this was new. Seems to be an oversight. • I have difficulty with the idea that rubber matting in the proposed course that needs to be replaced every 8-10 years at a cost of $165K (7500 ft/sq @$22 ea your figures) can get done when it is apparent that basic maintenance of the pool house and paint on structures in the park system cannot be maintained now. • Planning - • Seems odd to me that you can find the money to build a new agility course, but not tear down the eyesore pool house. • After many points that many folks brought up at the meeting ( people peeing in the bushes behind the chemical shed, parking lots needs to be resurfaced, pool house continually attracts homeless population and looks horrible, etc.) it seems that the planning here is to build these projects in the reverse order to their need. Would it not make sense to do this in another order? Take care of what you have first: 1. Tear down pool house 2. Build bathrooms 3. Resurface parking lot 4. Pavillion 5. Playground equipment To be honest when I left the meeting last week, I was a bit irritated. I am not irritated any more, in fact I am laughing about it because the way this is happening is so absurd. I don’t get the impression that multiple levels of management at the city are listening to any of its customers any longer, it is really disappointing. I don’t believe that you see me as one of your customers, that too is disappointing. I also don’t feel that you will accurately take my voice to the parks and rec commission when it meets later this month. It is very understandable that you have many large projects that each have many moving parts in front of you. We all do. All I am asking is that you do some real time planning, it does not seem like to you have done any in-depth research into this project. I did not hear about any studies on injuries per capita, maintenance budget/ cost over a longer time period for this project that has the potential to be the first of its kind in Iowa. All I really heard was that “you will take care of it”. Most of us are not against something being built in our park, but the idea of an agility course there is not favorable to me and many others in the area local to our neighborhood park. Best regards, John Sogandares Hi Josh! I’m a resident of meadowlane neighborhood and couldn’t make the meeting about the proposed agility park. I live at 613 E. 13th St. and wanted to let you know I am all in favor of the proposal. I know some of my neighbors are not happy about possible increase traffic and vandalism so here’s my voice that yes! It’s a great plan. Thanks! Kristin MacDonald Hi Joshua. Thanks for taking the time to present to the neighborhood a few weeks ago. I appreciate the information and the transparency in the process. I did not get my information recorded on the sheet that was being passed around, but I wanted to make sure that I sent you an email to officially have our support for this project noted. I grew up in this neighborhood, when Carr Pool was still there, and have since moved back to the same area with my own family. We use many of the area trails, and even sometimes the green space, but would love to have a park that my older kids could utilize. Thanks again. Blakely Mortvedt Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this concerning the proposed Agility Course in Carr Park. In late July the city sent out a postcard informing people of a zoom meeting that was poorly attended. After attending the initial zoom meeting I went door to door asking people in my neighborhood if they knew about the meeting and asked them their thoughts about the agility course being located in Carr Park. Most people didn’t know about the meeting and many of them that did thought it was a course for dogs. Considering homeowner resistance: I visited 45 houses and found 28 people home. Out of those 28 homes 24 of the homeowners were AGAINST the agility course and signed a petition stating so. I am including this petition. Two of the 28 home occupants thought it might be a good idea. Two were undecided. I heard many complaints about the idea from homeowners. They also spoke of their pride for the history of Carr Park and their disappointment about the removal of the pool, but none of the neighbors who signed wanted this course and many wanted the park to remain in a more natural state. Without going into too much detail here is a list of high level of concerns from the neighbors. • We live in a quiet neighborhood where people come to experience nature. A highly structured large outdoor sports facility would devalue the nature experience. (This was openly scoffed at by the representative that someone called it a sports facility and then said, “It’s a playground and once I put it in it’s pretty much going to stay.”) In my opinion It’s certainly not an art installation or a wildflower center, and an “agility course” sure seems to go hand in hand with sports like behavior. • Increased traffic pressure on an already too busy street with children (People use it to avoid the lights on Duff and speed through the stop sign on a regular basis.) • Increased noise (Shouting while using the structure etc.) • Safety issues as the structure wouldn’t be supervised or controlled • Increased crime. The facility will attract nighttime adventure seekers • The parking lot there is often full already and will cause more on street parking (The parking lot needs to be resurfaced but there is no plan for that in the near future) • It’s unsightly A second meeting was scheduled that was led by Joshua Thompson. I feel that our voices were not heard and 6 neighbors that I spoke with afterward felt that they had no say and that the city had already made up their mind. Here are some of my notes and thoughts about the meeting. Concerning neighbor input: According to the city representative, Carr Park is a neighborhood park which was defined as a service area of 1/4-1/2 mile and serves the neighborhood that it is in. My neighbors believe the “agility course” clearly belongs in a community park where more intense recreation facilities are more appropriate. The majority of the people in this neighborhood will not be using this sports equipment and signed a petition stating they did not want it in their neighborhood. (Most of the meeting attendees DROVE to the neighborhood meeting. This is yet another indicator that they would most likely not be a user of the course.) It was stated that things change over time and that is why they try and evaluate every park space we have to say hey, what is the best spot for this. It seems to me that people would be better served if they had input into what happens in their neighborhood instead of a top down approach where someone imposes their idea on a neighborhood just because it fits the criteria for someone’s random idea. Would it be ridiculous to ask the neighbors located around a neighborhood park what they would like to see there and actually listen to their ideas? I would like to know what type of demographic study was done to ascertain whether this would be a good fit for the “neighborhood”. It seems the process has been to buy this equipment and then figure out where to install it. It would seem to be more prudent to examine each park and decide what makes the most sense for that location. Someone asked “Knowing that the neighbors around Carr Park do not support the agility course how does that fact influence the decision to place the course in Carr Park?” The reply was that he would take the feedback from the meeting to the Parks and Rec commission. (This is not an answer and I didn’t see anyone from the city taking notes at the meeting) When asked what they would like to see in Carr Park a citizen replied, “Something that people won’t get hurt as much on.” The reply was, “Unfortunately part of the issue is that you see things because you live across the street or don’t approve of their activity. However you can go to any park in the city and people are getting hurt. And individuals that live across the street may turn their head and say, “That’s their problem.” This answer shocked me. One man (Who was one of the few there that looked like he might use the structure) asked if there were lower scope alternatives and did they need to go to this extreme? The reply was, “Like I said, it’s the largest it will be. We have the space available to do it” and promptly called on another citizen. I don’t see how this addressed the man’s ideas and concerns. Concerning safety: It was stated that safety is number one. When someone asked if the agility course facility in Minnesota had been contacted to inquire about accidents on this equipment the reply was, “I guarantee you we have 100% liability insurance. We have an aquatic center that has 2,000 people per day.” They went on to talk about someone who sued the city when they fell on a trail while running in a blizzard. They stated that they couldn’t prevent that and one thing they do now is that they put “Limited trail maintenance” signs on the trail and that releases the city from all liability according to their lawyers. The person who asked the question was concerned about people hurting themselves not about liability for the city. They also assured everyone that the manufacturer made safe equipment. This answer didn’t deal with the issue of safety at all. The answer was about liability. They did say that Parks and Rec doesn’t do law enforcement and if you have issues with that then call the police. In my opinion an agility course belongs indoors where it can be supervised (which would decrease injuries) and would cost less to maintain. Not to mention the many months out of the year that the structure can’t be used because of cold weather. The courses like this online that I found were indoors, supervised, and charged admission. Concerning maintenance: It was stated that there would be a rubber base on the ground that the structures would be placed on. The rubber would cost $20 per square foot and would last 8-10 years. It was stated that it would cover between 6,000-8,000 square feet. If it is at the low end at 6,000 square feet, where will the money come from for the $120,000 needed in 8-10 years to replace this? There hasn’t been money to maintain what is already there. That would be a quarter of a million dollars spent in 20 years for an outdoor rubber floor. We were also told that the rubber couldn’t withstand flooding. I wonder how the 4 month layer of moisture from ice and snow will affect it. No maintenance has been done on the interior of the pool house for 10 years and a minimum of maintenance on the exterior only when an event happens such as graffiti. There are homeless people living there and people use it frequently for outdoor urination. It has decayed and is growing mold. The volleyball court is an eyesore and the restrooms and horseshoe courts to the south are in a state of neglect. Since what is already in place isn’t being maintained it’s not unreasonable to think that anything new will be. Making sure money is secured for maintenance regardless of which fund it is required to be taken from should be a priority before any project is considered. There were a handful of people for it. One citizen who lives a few streets away wanted it for their 10 and 12 year old children. They argued that the fast non compliant traffic at the intersection of Carr and Meadowlane didn’t matter because people were going to speed through there regardless and they warn their kids to be extra careful there. Another citizen thought they could have classes there and another thought it would be good for elderly people to be fit to make their everyday lives easier. I read the meeting minutes from July 15, 2021 Parks and Rec Commission meeting and see that Brookside was the most discussed choice with Northridge Heights and Hira Park as well as Emma McCarthy Lee Park and Carr Park as alternate locations. At this point the city seems set on forcing it on Carr Park. During the neighborhood meeting there was no indication from the city that it would be placed anywhere else. Also I see that an update for the “Agility Course Location” was listed for discussion on the minutes for the meeting on August 19th under “Project Updates” but I don’t see any notes regarding this item. Could someone let me know if there was a discussion or why it wasn’t discussed? I appreciate that Keith addressed the concerns about the neglected pool house and offered to remain diligent about the issue. I have written other emails about this and I understand all of the emails from neighbors that were received by Keith and Joshua will be forwarded to the Parks and Rec commissioners. I am grateful that you will be able to read our concerns about this project. Thank you for your time, Tracy Stajcar Dear Parks and Facilities Director Thompson, I am writing in response to the public meeting regarding the proposal for an agility course to be permanently installed at Carr Park which is co-located with McDonald/Gunder/Nutty Woods. I was unable to attend the first meeting and was glad to have had the opportunity to learn more about the proposal at the second meeting. The presentation included a list of criteria used to identify a suitable space for the proposed agility course. Following the meeting, and after further thought, I remain unconvinced that Carr Park is the only viable location for an agility course. I cannot recall the full list but some of the criteria include: grade, must be out of the floodplain, have sidewalks, have a parking lot, and visibility from the street. I want to address a few of the criteria that disqualified a few other parks. Northridge Heights Park was not considered because there is no parking lot. Northridge Heights Park has a play structure, swing set, basketball court, and shelter w/ picnic tables and grills. No parking lot yet four distinct amenities were installed at this park. Anyone who drives to this park must park on the street. It is apparent that Ames Parks and Rec does indeed install recreational amenities at parks that don't have parking lots. I will also note that this is a relatively new park which means it wasn't all that long ago that Ames Parks and Rec made the decision to create a park at this location knowing the size of the park could not or would not accommodate a parking lot. Brookside Park didn't check all the boxes because there is no parking lot near the site where an agility course could be installed. I assume the proposed site is the large open field south of the basketball court and four tennis courts. Anyone who wishes to use those tennis or basketball courts already has to park in the parking lot on the west side of the footbridge and walk or park along Brookridge Avenue and walk to reach these amenities. Another issue was visibility from the roadway as it pertains to policing. Obscured visibility of that area did not prevent either of these amenities from being placed there. Additionally, this area is essentially flat and is the only portion of Brookside Park that does not lie within the floodplain. Emma McCarthy Lee Park was not chosen because there are no sidewalks along Ross Road. Emma McCarthy Lee Park features a play structure, 4 tennis courts, room for 2 soccer fields (as seen from aerial photos), a shelter, and upper and lower parking lots (including a walking path that joins the upper parking area with the lower portion of the park). A sidewalk/path access on Oakland Street provides access for those living south of the main park entrance. All of these amenities exist with Ross Road not having sidewalks. The lack of Ross Road sidewalks has not been a deterrent to patrons who visit Emma McCarthy Lee Park nor has it prevented Ames Parks and Rec from installing and maintaining recreational equipment and fields. I have visited Labh and Tahira Hira Park twice in as many weeks. In that time I have noticed progress on the shelter and what will be paved paths. As far as plans for the park go, I can only find a short description from a February 2020 meeting which was listed on the City of Ames' Calendar of Events. According to the event, the "6 acre parcel will include a parking lot, play structure, green space, shelter, picnic tables, paths and other features". I'm not sure what "other features" might include but the parcel seems large enough that it could include an agility course. I will also note that this park is not located within the floodplain, currently has two parking lots, can be viewed from two streets as it sits on a corner lot, and Westwood Drive has a sidewalk. Another positive attribute of this former elementary school turned park is that it is nearly flat which is one of the criteria used for site selection. In contrast to the four parks listed above, the absolute best part of Carr Park is what it doesn't have. It is largely wild, yet managed, and there are minimal permanent structures (play structures, game fields, shelters, hard surface courts, etc.) to detract from its natural beauty. Those who regularly visit the park do so because Carr Park provides an environment no other park in Ames can equal. Walking/running on paved sidewalks and unpaved trails, visiting the diverse prairie, foraging edibles, cross country skiing on groomed trails, ice skating, fishing, swimming, dog walking, a venue for cross country running practice for local schools, observing wildlife, exploring the banks and riverbed of the South Skunk River, canoeing and kayaking, and tending raised-bed community gardens are among the favorite activities enjoyed by Carr Park visitors. All of these opportunities are located within our city but the feeling you experience while you're there is akin to visiting a larger, rural county park. Due to its size and location, Carr Park offers diverse habitat for many plant and animal species. During my visits to Carr Park I have personally observed deer, foxes, groundhogs, raccoon, possums, eagles, barred owls, great blue heron, ducks, Canada geese, snapping turtles, spiny softshell turtles, beaver, muskrats, a variety of fish, crawdads, and a few species of mussels. Every effort should be made to preserve this habitat. Given Carr Park's valuable attributes, I have real concerns regarding the proposed addition of an agility course. I am concerned a permanent structure designed for active recreation/use/training will increase traffic (vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian), increase noise from users, generate more garbage from users, decrease parking availability, result in unknown frequency of police patrol based on the park's out of the way location, and if future plans include expansion of this type of recreation, equipment, or structures at Carr Park. Furthermore, I'm concerned about the continued disruption from more demolition and construction. Our neighborhood, and the wildlife we share it with, have endured extensive construction projects spread over a number of years. The projects have impacted wildlife habitat and disrupted the quality of life for those living in the neighborhood. The list that follows is from memory only so it is probably incomplete and events are not chronologically listed. 1. Demolition of Carr Pool and subsequent filling of the pool's void. 2. A sidewalk was installed to connect Inis Grove with Carr Park. Along with the sidewalk came new and larger concrete culverts to divert water away from the path and into the river. While some of the culverts work well, others haven't been as effective and required further sculpting to recreate a channel for the ephemeral rill originating at the golf course. In several locations along the river this work included moving a substantial amount of earth to create large draws between the sidewalk and river. 3. Machinery is almost routinely brought in to clear the sidewalk which is often covered by mud and water following heavy rains that bypass the blocked or clogged culverts and cover the sidewalk. 4. The same sidewalk has been frequently closed or impassable due to extreme erosion from the golf course. The most recent closure to mitigate the erosion problem, again, brought heavy, loud equipment which disturbs the neighborhood and causes further damage to the ground on both sides of the sidewalk. 5. Within the last several years, a few sections of the east bank were graded, jetty-type structures installed in the river, and rock added along the bank to minimize erosion. Access for that project brought heavy equipment traffic through the east entrance to the park. The equipment left deep ruts and damaged vegetation and, without question, disturbed wildlife and park visitors. 6. Unrelated to Parks and Rec but nonetheless part of the disruption to our neighborhood was the demolition and reconstruction of Meadowlane Avenue. First it was the lower, flat section of the street. The following summer it was the hill. Work began and then stalled for months before crews finally returned to complete that phase of the project. The months where no work occurred only added to the disruption of the neighborhood. 7. Just a few days ago, September 8th, a section of E. 20th Street was closed to thru traffic for the next leg of removal and replacement. This will happen in two phases, unknown if both will be completed before winter. Heavy truck traffic uses Meadowlane Avenue to transport refuse. 8. Demolition of the old Homewood clubhouse and construction of the new one. 9. Likewise, the demolition and construction of a new dam at North River Valley Park was disruptive. Technically a different park yet because it is adjacent to Carr Park, what happens in one impacts the other, especially as it relates to wildlife habitat. Finally, I am aware that it takes years to plan, fund, design, build, and budget to commit to maintaining every one of the city's parks and venues. I appreciate the responsibility placed upon the City to thoughtfully select projects and suitable sites that compliment the wants and needs of the neighborhood residents in which amenities are constructed. As the mother of an active 12YO and 9YO and I'm not opposed to an agility course. What I am opposed to is the construction of an agility course in an overwhelmingly passive recreational park because the two do not mesh. Not only do we not need an agility course, I'm asking for strong consideration of residents and wildlife living near Carr Park. After years of construction and disruption, how much more should our neighborhood have to endure? I respectfully request the City to reconsider the location for the proposed agility course. Respectfully, Emily Tyndall Joshua, thanks for your careful and patient presentation of the plans for Carr Park at the meeting on Thursday evening, August 26. I like the idea of seeing Carr Park enhanced, and I like the idea of giving our youth another option for activities in our park system. I apologize for the negativity from some of my dear neighbors. You did take it in stride, and I hope plans go forward in due time. Blessings, Tom Niehof Joshua, Thanks for holding the neighborhood meeting tonight. You are a man of exceptional patience. I just want to voice my support for the project. We live at 1518 Meadowlane and would love to have an agility course in our neighborhood. Thanks! Sincerely, Drew Delp Attachment F Thank you for including me in the Parks and Recreation meeting on September 16th. I appreciate the dialogue and the thoughtful questions. I have a few more thoughts I would like to share about the agility course possible location in Carr Park. 1. At the meeting it was brought up a few times about the past and the pool. The argument was that since there was a lot of traffic and noise from children when the pool was there, extra traffic and noise shouldn’t be an issue now. It was also pointed out that parks are transitional. Twelve years have passed since the pool has closed. Since then Carr Park has transitioned into a quiet natural area. Just because noise and extra traffic were accepted in the past doesn’t mean that it would be welcomed now. 2. I looked up Sunderbruch Park in Davenport where their agility course is located. It is not located in a neighborhood. It resides in a largely undeveloped 134 acre park which is a more appropriate place for an agility course to be used. I have no doubt that it is used frequently in the Davenport park. Ada Hayden would fit the bill if we wanted to follow Davenport’s lead. My guess is that it wouldn’t be allowed there because of the same reason my neighbors and I don’t wish to have it located in Carr Park. 3. At the meeting I was asked about alternative ideas. I made a call to a Reiman Gardens employee to get more details on an idea. There is an independent non profit organization called All-American Selections that tests new varieties of plants for home gardens. There is an AAS trial garden at Reiman Gardens that is lovely. Carr Park would be a perfect location for one of these trial gardens. Garden plots with beautiful flowers and vegetables would fit in with the community garden plots that are presently located near there. There would be space to walk through the plots and educational programs about horticulture/biology/insects etc. could be implemented. My thought was that the city could partner with ISU horticulture students/interns to operate it. Here is a link to the AAS website. There is a FAQ that offers short and concise answers about the program. I would be happy to contact ISU to inquire further about the feasibility of this partnership with the city. Please let me know if this would be a possibility. https://all-americaselections.org/how-to-become-a-display-garden/ 4. My hope is that we respect the land at Carr Park by maintaining its natural beauty. Thank you again for taking time to consider this. Tracy Stajcar ITEM # ___19__ DATE: 10-26-21 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1100 BUCKEYE AVENUE BACKGROUND: There is a fifteen-foot-wide utility easement across the Red Lobster property located at 1100 Buckeye Avenue (Lot 5 in Block 2 of Southwood Subdivision First Addition). As part of the Flood Mitigation project along Ioway Creek, the utilities located within the easement are being relocated and a new easement was obtained from RL Enterprises LLC as part of the land acquisition process. Therefore, the existing easement is no longer necessary and should be vacated. The area to be vacated is shown on Attachment A. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the vacation of the aforementioned utility easement. 2. Do not proceed with vacation of the aforementioned utility easement. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The easement can be vacated because a new easement was obtained with the land acquisition process. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.