Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
~Master - August 25, 2020, Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council
AMENDED AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL* AUGUST 25, 2020 *DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED AS AN ELECTRONIC MEETING. IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE INPUT ON ANY ITEM, YOU MAY DO SO AS A VIDEO PARTICIPANT BY GOING TO: https://zoom.us/j/826593023 OR BY TELEPHONE BY DIALING: US:1-312-626-6799 or toll-free: 1-888-475-4499 Zoom Meeting ID: 826 593 023 YOU MAY VIEW THE MEETING ONLINE AT THE FOLLOWING SITES: https://www.youtube.com/ameschannel12 https://www.cityofames.org/channel12 or watch the meeting live on Mediacom Channel 12 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public during discussion. If you wish to speak, please see the instructions listed above. The normal process on any particular agenda item is that the motion is placed on the floor, input is received from the audience, the Council is given an opportunity to comment on the issue or respond to the audience concerns, and the vote is taken. On ordinances, there is time provided for public input at the time of the first reading. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the consent agenda will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the Council members vote on the motion. 1. Motion approving payment of claims 2. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period August 1 - 15, 2020 3. 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 - Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way b. Class B Liquor License with Catering, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Hilton Garden Inn Ames, 1325 Dickinson Avenue c. Class C Liquor License with Catering, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Whiskey River, 132 - 134 Main Street d. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - El Maguey Mexican Restaurant Inc., 217 S. Duff Avenue e. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Wallaby's Grille, 2733 Stange Road f. Class C Liquor License with Catering, Class B Wine, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - +39 Restaurant, Market, & Cantina, 2640 Stange Road - pending dram shop 4. Resolution for Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief Fund Claims and Designating Finance Director to request reimbursement under the Program 5. Resolution approving FY 2020/21 Human Services Contract for Mid-Iowa Community Action, Inc., (MICA) 6.Resolution endorsing submission of Transportation Safety Improvement Program Grant for the 2020/21 S. Dayton Avenue Improvements 7. Resolution approving extension of the Service Agreement with RFID Library Solutions for the automated materials handling system in the total amount of $82,500 for a five-year period 8.Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Unit No. 8 Boiler Repair; setting October 14, 2020, as bid due date and October 27, 2020, as date of public hearing 9. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2018/19 Shared Use Path System Expansion (Trail Connection South of Lincoln Way); setting September 15, 2020, as bid due date and September 22, 2020, as date of public hearing 10. Resolution awarding contract for 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (Mortensen Rd, west of South Dakota Ave) to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $65,495.95 11. Electric Meter Supply Contract: a. Resolution awarding a contract to Vision Metering of York, South Carolina, for the purchase of electric meters in Groups 1, 3, and 4 in accordance with unit price bid b. Resolution awarding a contract to Van Wert Company of Grundy Center, Iowa, for the purchase of electric meters in Groups 2, 5, and 6 in accordance with unit price bid 12. Resolution approving contract and bond for Power Plant Maintenance Services Contract 13. Resolution approving contract and bond for Unit 8 Crane Renovation Additional Item: Resolution approving Amendment to Public Improvements Agreement for Kingsbury Subdivision, 4th Addition 14. Resolution approving Plat of Survey for 702 Ridgewood Avenue 15. Resolution accepting completion of 2018/19 Traffic Signal Program (U.S. Hwy. 30 westbound and South Dakota PUBLIC FORUM: This is a time set aside for comments from the public on topics of City business other than those listed on this agenda. Please understand that the Council will not take any action on your comments at this meeting due to requirements of the Open Meetings Law, but may do so at a future meeting. The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public; however, at no time is it appropriate to use profane, obscene, or slanderous language. The Mayor may limit each speaker to three minutes. ADMINISTRATION: 16. Discussion with ASSET Volunteers regarding FY 2021-22 ASSET Priorities: a. Motion approving City of Ames ASSET Priorities for FY 2021-22 Funding Cycle 17. Discussion of review of Draft Face-Covering Ordinance 18. Discussion of Appeal of Charges for Water Meter Replacement 19. Discussion of suspension of Vending Licenses due to COVID-19 Additional Item: Discussion of suspension of City-sponsored Block Parties due to COVID-19 20. Resolution approving Revised Contract for Economic Development Services between the City 2 of Ames and the Ames Economic Development Commission for FY 2020/21 FINANCE: 21. Essential Corporate Purpose General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, Series 2020A: a. Presentation of bids received b. Resolution accepting bids and authorizing the sale and issuance of Essential Corporate Purpose General Obligation and Refunding Bonds in an amount not to exceed $20,105,000 PLANNING & HOUSING: 22. Staff Report regarding Status of Urban Revitalization Areas HEARINGS: 23. Hearing on Unit 8 Precipitator Roof Replacement: a. Motion accepting the report of bids and delaying award 24. Hearing on Power Plant Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul: a. Motion accepting the report of bids and delaying award 25. Hearing on 2020-21 Seal Coat Program - Franklin Avenue (Lincoln Way to Oakland Avenue): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Manatt’s of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $946,841.53 26. Hearing on 2020-21 Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements Program -E. 8th Street (Duff Avenue to Carroll Avenue): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to All Star Concrete, of Ankeny, Iowa, in the amount of $161,610.46 27. Hearing on 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Standard Vegetation): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Country Landscapes, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $96,175.65 28. Hearing on 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Native Vegetation): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Country Landscapes, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $45,426.25 29. Hearing on 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation (Little Bluestem): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to J & K Contracting, of Urbandale, Iowa, in the amount of $133,233 30. Hearing on 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program (Lincoln Way & Beach Avenue): a. Motion rejecting all bids and directing staff to rebid the project 31. Hearing on 2020/21 Traffic Signal Program (S. Duff and S. 5th Street): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Voltmer, Inc., of Decorah, Iowa, in the amount of $208,696.51 32. Hearing on 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (13th St. & Clark Ave): a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Voltmer, Inc., of Decorah, Iowa, in the amount of $109,589.30 33. Hearing on Baker Subdivision: a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $1,317,872.65 3 ORDINANCES: 34. Third passage and adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 4419 revising Municipal Code Section 17.33 pertaining to selling, giving, or supplying tobacco, tobacco products, or cigarettes to persons under 18 years of age DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: COUNCIL COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: 4 REPORT OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact Public Works 2018/19 Traffic Signal Program (US 30 WB-S. Dakota) Period: Item No. 2 Smart Choice 515.239.5133 non-emergency Administration fax To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members From: Lieutenant Tom Shelton, Ames Police Department Date: July 26, 2020 Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda The Council agenda for August 25, 2020 includes beer permits and liquor license renewals for: •Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine, Class C Beer (Carryout Beer) and Sunday Sales - Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way •Class B Liquor License with Catering, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Hilton Garden Inn Ames, 1325 Dickinson Avenue •Class C Liquor License with Catering, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Whiskey River, 132 - 134 Main Street •Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Wallaby's Grille, 2733 Stange Road •Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales – El Maguey Mexican Restaurant Inc., 217 S. Duff Avenue •Class C Liquor License with Catering, Class B Wine, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - +39 Restaurant, Market, & Cantina, 2640 Stange Road Thank you, A review of police records for the past 12 months found no liquor law violations for any of the above locations. The Ames Police Department recommends renewal of licenses for all the above businesses. Item No. 3 ITEM # 4 DATE: 08/25/20 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION FOR IOWA COVID-19 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELIEF FUND CLAIMS AND DESIGNATING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AS THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE PROGRAM BACKGROUND: The State of Iowa has made Federal CARES Act funds available to local governments. Requests for reimbursement by local governments must be consistent with CARES Act funding guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department. Additionally, expenses eligible for FEMA reimbursement must be made through FEMA and claims cannot be duplicated. City staff is in the process of preparing claims for reimbursement under the FEMA program, the Federal Transit program, and the Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief Fund. The first reimbursement request deadline under the Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief Fund is September 15, 2020. To be eligible for Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief funding, the City Council must pass a resolution stating that the City will follow State and Federal guidelines on use of the funds and that if claims are misrepresented the City will be liable for repayment and any applicable penalty and interest. This is similar to terms in other grant programs. Due to the timing and coordination of claims related to COVID, the Council should consider designating the Finance Director as the City’s authorized representative to submit reimbursement requests under the Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief Fund in accordance with the terms and guidance of the program. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt a resolution stating that the City of Ames will follow applicable guidance when seeking reimbursement for eligible expenses under the Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief Fund and designates the Finance Director as the City of Ames authorized representative to submit reimbursement requests in accordance with the terms and guidance of the program. 2. Refer back to City staff for modifications. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The adoption of a resolution is required to become eligible to request reimbursement of eligible expenses under the Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief program. Reimbursement of expenses will assist in mitigating the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above. 1 ITEM # ___5___ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FY 2020/21 ASSET CONTRACT FOR MICA BACKGROUND: City Council approved all FY 2020/21 ASSET contracts at the June 9, 2020 Council meeting. However, one contract, MICA, was withheld due to the agency working through service changes that ultimately required adjustments in its FY 2020/21 allocation. That service change involves the Dental Clinic which is being transitioned to Primary Health Care. In FY 2020/21 the City allocation to MICA for the Dental Clinic totaled $95,000. Because of this transfer of service Primary Health Care, the MICA contract for FY 20/21 was reduced accordingly. It is possible that Primary Health Care will submit a request to the City for this $95,000 later in the current fiscal year. Regardless of this year, the ASSET Administrative Team has approved Primary Health Care’s eligibility to apply for ASSET funding for FY 2021/22. Therefore, the City Council should expect a funding request from during the next budget cycle. ACCESS $ 98,599 $ 101,563 $ 2,964 ACPC 100,145 112,128 11,983 All Aboard for Kids 1,881 2,714 833 American Red Cross 9,933 9,933 0 Arc of Story County 10,400 10,720 320 Boys and Girls Club 113,800 116,724 2,924 Camp Fire USA 7,519 7,770 251 Center for Creative Justice 59,479 61,244 1,765 Central Iowa RSVP 30,593 31,664 1,071 Childserve 23,975 21,000 (2,975) Emergency Residence Project 102,046 107,844 5,798 Good Neighbor 21,872 25,849 3,977 Heartland Senior Services 190,362 195,131 4,769 HIRTA 39,988 40,993 1,005 Legal Aid 98,888 101,432 2,544 Lutheran Services in Iowa 5,700 5,700 0 Mary Greeley Home Health Services 32,500 33,474 974 MICA 120,271 25,037 (95,234) NAMI of Central IA 7,163 7,200 37 Raising Readers 23,337 25,603 2,266 Salvation Army 48,804 49,542 738 University Comm Childcare 63,195 68,519 5,324 Volunteer Center of Story County 11,173 7,650 (3,523) YSS 244,579 260,416 15,837 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the FY 2020/21 contract with MICA in the amount of $25,037. 2. Do not approve the FY 2020/21 contract with MICA. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council has allocated funds for human services through the ASSET process and the approval of the City’s FY 2002/21 budget. MICA has signed and returned their contract for services which now reflects the transfer of the services of the Dental Clinic to Primary Health Care. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the MICA contract for FY 2020/2. ITEM # 6 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF TSIP (TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM) APPLICATION FOR 2020/21 S. DAYTON AVE. IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUND: The Iowa DOT administers a Traffic Safety Improvement Program, which has the intent of distributing funds for roadway safety improvements, traffic control devices, research, studies, or public information initiatives. Cities, counties, or the Iowa DOT may request TSIP funding for use on any public roads. One requirement of the application is a resolution by the local government that the project has the local funding required for the project and that the project will be adequately maintained. The project includes the signalization of the Westbound and Eastbound ramp- intersections with S. Dayton and U.S. Highway 30. Also, at the S. Dayton and S.E. 16th Street intersection, there will be widening that includes a westbound left- turn lane and a southbound right-lane. These improvements should increase the capacity of the S. Dayton corridor to respond to current and future traffic congestion. The revenues and expenses for this project are as follows: Revenues Expenses Total $1,600,000 Total $1,079,700 ALTERNATIVES: 1a. Approve the TSIP Grant Application for the 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements. b. Commit the local funding as shown in the 2020/21 Budget necessary for the construction of the project beyond any Traffic Safety Improvement Program (TSIP) funding. c. Commit to accepting and maintaining the 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements in accordance with the Iowa DOT’s Transportation Safety Improvement Program (TSIP) 2. Do not approve the TSIP Grant Application for the 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proceeding with this grant application may significantly reduce the local costs for the S. Dayton Ave Improvements project. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. Rev. 5/18 Application for SITE-SPECIFIC TSIP FUNDS 8/13/2020 Location / Title of Project 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements (US HWY 30 & S E 16th If more than one highway authority is involved in this project, please indicate and fill in the information below (use additional sheets if necessary). PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PROJECT INFORMAT ION: Total Safety Cost $ 842,300 Total Project Cost $ 1,079,700 $ 500,000 Does this project appear on a Safety Improvement Candidate List or is there a safety study recommendation for this project? Yes – Explain _ ____________________________________________________ No Rev. 5/18 APPLICATION CERTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC AGENCY To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information included in this application is true and accurate, including the commitment of all physical and financial resources. This application has been duly authorized by the participating public agency(ies). I understand the attached resolution(s), where applicable, binds the participating public agency(ies) to assume responsibility for any additional funds, if required, to complete the project. In addition, the participating public agency(ies) agrees to maintain any new or improved public streets or roadways for a minimum of five years. I understand that, although this information is su fficient to secure a commitment of funds, a firm contract between the applicant and the Department of Transportati on is required prior to the authorization of funds. B Background: A request was received from District 1 of the Iowa DOT to study congestion at the EB off-ramp of US HWY 30 onto S. Dayton Avenue in September of 2019. City staff had already been conducting a study of the SE 16th Street and S. Dayton Avenue intersection, which was experiencing significant peak hour delays. Traffic from the S. Bell business district, in combination with the significant amount of trucks accessing US HWY 30 through the S. Dayton interchange, was causing queueing problems at the WB and SB approach of the intersection. The City of Ames programmed a combined signal / intersection project in fiscal year 2020/21 to make improvements to the S. Dayton Interchange corridor. S E 16th & S. Dayton : This four-way intersection is currently signalized with protected / permissive left turns for NB & SB traffic. The north, south, and eastbound approaches have designated left turn lanes. Westbound has a single lane approach. US HWY 30 WB & S. Dayton : This ramp terminal is currently stop controlled for WB traffic only. The northbound approach has a designated left turn lane. The westbound off-ramp has a dedicated right turn lane and a combined thru/left lane. US HWY 30 EB & S. Dayton: This ramp terminal is currently stop controlled for EB traffic only. The southbound approach has a designated left turn lane. The eastbound off-ramp has a dedicated left turn lane and a combined thru/right lane. The S. Dayton Interchange area is the main gateway to the SE industrial district of the City of Ames. Located at the intersection is a node of Highway Oriented Commercial property. It is also the location of a significant portion of the community’s commercial hotels. The area has seen a significant growth in traffic, including a large percentage of heavy trucks. Proposed Concept: The proposed concept, as shown in Attachment G-2, includes the following: • Signalizing both the EB & WB US HWY 30 ramp terminals. • Adding a SB left turn lane at S. Dayton & SE 16th Street. • Adding a WB left turn lane at S. Dayton & SE 16th Street. Safety Justification: The City conducted a warrant study and a corridor traffic simulation. The traffic study found that a WB left turn lane and SB right turn lane were needed to improve intersection capacity. The existing traffic signal also required phasing and timing improvements associated with the proposed geometric improvements. The warrant study for the US HWY 30 westbound ramp showed that all 3 volume warrants (Warrants 1, 2, 3) were met. The warrant study for the US HWY 30 eastbound ramp did not indicate volume warrants were met; however, the Coordinated Signal System warrant, and the All-Way Stop Warrant were met. Furthermore, the B signalization of both ramp terminals allows for the implementation of adaptive signal control technology. The proposed traffic signals and additional turn lanes will reduce delays and queuing and lead to a better Level of Service for users of the corridor and provide a safe transfer of right-of-way. The interchanges along US HWY 30 in Ames have experienced significant queueing in recent history, where peak hour traffic backs up onto the HWY 30 mainline. The S. Dayton Interchange location presents additional complications due to its proximity with the newly reconstructed Interstate 35 – US Highway 30 interchange. Modern traffic signals will also provide urban level street lighting, which is expected to help with nighttime operations, especially during inclement weather. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE C S. DAYTON AVE IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.- TRAFFIC DIV. CITY OF AMES, IA 8/12/2020 Safety Related Item Est Unit Item #Item Code Description Quant Unit Price Amount Division 2 - Earthwork 2.1 2010-108-D-2 Topsoil, Compost-amended, 4" Depth 200 cy 50.00 10,000.00 2.2 2010-108-E-0 Excavation, Class 10 400 cy 30.00 12,000.00 2.3 2010-108-G-0 Subgrade Preparation, 12" Depth 1600 sy 5.00 8,000.00 2.4 2010-108-I-0 Special Backfill, 6" Depth 1600 sy 20.00 32,000.00 Division 4 - Sewers and Drains 4.1 4020-108-A-1 Storm Sewer, Trenched, RCP, 15" dia. 16 lf 100.00 1,600.00 4.2 4040-108-A-0 Subdrain and Fittings, Perforated, PVC, 4" dia. 1400 lf 10.00 14,000.00 4.3 4040-108-D-0 Subdrain Outlets & Connections 7 ea 250.00 1,750.00 Division 6 - Structures for Sanitary and Storm Sewer 6.1 6010-108-B-0 Intake Type SW-505 1 ea 6000.00 6,000.00 6.2 6010-108-H-0 Remove Manhole/Intake 1 ea 1000.00 1,000.00 Division 7 - Streets and Related Work 7.1 7010-108-A-0 Pavement,PCC, 8" Depth 600 sy 65.00 39,000.00 7.2 7010-108-A-0 Pavement,PCC, 10" Depth 700 sy 75.00 52,500.00 7.3 7030-108-A-0 Removal of Sidewalk/Shared Use Path/Driveway 110 sy 10.00 1,100.00 7.4 7030-108-C-0 Shared Use Path, PCC, 6" depth 100 sy 50.00 5,000.00 7.5 7030-108-D-0 Special Subgrade Preparation for Shared Use Path 100 sy 10.00 1,000.00 7.6 7030-108-G-0 Detectable Warning 30 sf 40.00 1,200.00 7.7 7040-108-H-0 Pavement Removal 500 sy 12.00 6,000.00 7.8 7040-xxx-x-x Granular Shoulder 100 ton 20.00 2,000.00 Division 8 - Traffic Control 8.1 8010-108-A-0 Traffic Signal Modifications 1 ls 60000.00 60,000.00 8.2 8010-108-A-0 Traffic Signalization of Ramp 1 ls 600000.00 600,000.00 8.3 8020-108-B-0 Painted Pavement Markings, Solvent/Waterborne 40 sta 200.00 8,000.00 8.4 8020-108-G-0 Painted Symbols and Legends 10 ea 250.00 2,500.00 8.5 8020-108-K-0 Pavement Markings Removed 10 sta 200.00 2,000.00 8.6 8030-108-A-0 Temporary Traffic Control 1 ls 5000.00 5,000.00 Division 9 - Sitework and Landscaping 9.1 9010-108-B-0 Hydraulic Seeding, Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching 0.2 ac 10000.00 2,000.00 9.2 9040-108-N-1 Silt Fence & Removal 1400 lf 4.00 5,600.00 Division 11 - Miscellaneous 11.1 11010-108-A Construction Survey/Staking 1 ls 3000.00 3,000.00 11.2 11010-108-B Pedestrian Facility Construction Survey & Staking 1 ls 500.00 500.00 11.3 11020-108-A Mobilization 1 ls 15000.00 15,000.00 11.4 11060-108-A Concrete Washout 1 ls 2000.00 2,000.00 -------------------------- TOTAL OF SAFETY RELATED ITEMS $ 842,300.00 SUBTOTAL 899,750.00 ENGINEERING (20%)179,950.00 CONTINGENCY (0%)0.00 -------------------------- TOTAL $1,079,700.00 FUNDING SOURCES TSIP FUNDS (APPLIED FOR) 500,000$ ROAD USE TAX 200,000$ U-STEP FUNDS 400,000$ TOTAL 1,100,000$ D Date Activity August 2020 Submit TSIP Grant Application November 2020 Prepare Plans and Specifications December 2020 Grant Approval from Commission January 2021 Iowa DOT Plan Review March 2021 Final Plan Revisions July 2021 Bid Letting August 2021 Award Project May‐June 2022 Begin Construction October‐November 2022 Project Completion Time Schedule TE N 1 inch = 6,612 feet Date: 8/12/2020 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements(US HWY 30 Ramps & SE 16th) Project Location F Looking West-Southwest from SE 16th Street & Isaac Newton Drive 1920 1910 1820 2101 1810 1609 2100 2101 2125 2108 2120 1803 2108102 2108103 2108104 2108101 EXIT 150 EXIT 150 EXIT 150 EXIT 150 SE 16TH ST S DAYTON AVE ISAAC NEWTON DR Story N 1 inch = 200 feet Date: 8/13/2020 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements(US HWY 30 Ramp & SE 16th St) Existin g ROW S No ROW Required FEET 6030 SCALE O August 2020 US HWY 30 & SE 16th St 2020-21 S. Dayton Improvements G.2 FEET 6030 SCALE O August 2020 US HWY 30 & SE 16th St 2020-21 S. Dayton Improvements G.2 SE 16th Street S Dayton Ave US HWY 30 SE 16th Street S Dayton Ave US HWY 30 1920 1820 1910 1901 1810 1609 2100 2005 2101 2137 2120 1803 2108102 2108103 2108104 2108101 EXIT 150 EXIT 150 EXIT 150 EXIT 150 SE 16TH ST S DAYTON AVE SE 18TH ST ISAAC NEWTON DR 2001 N 1 inch = 200 feet Date: 8/13/2020 2020/21 S. Dayton Ave Improvements(US HWY 30 Ramp & SE 16th St)Aerial Photograph S Crash Severity Fatal Crash 0 Suspected Serious Injury Crash 0 Suspected Minor Injury Crash 2 Possible/Unknown Injury Crash 1 Property Damage Only 10 13 Injury Status Summary Fatalities 0 Suspected serious/incapacitating 0 Suspected minor/non-incapacitating 3 Possible (complaint of pain/injury)4 Unknown 0 7 Property Damage Total (dollars):85,999.00 Average (per crash dollars):6,615.31 Total Vehicles:26.00 Average (per crash):2.00 Total Occupants:35.00 Average (per crash):2.69 Property/Vehicles/Occupants Fatalities/Fatal Crash:0.00 Fatalities/Crash:0.00 Injuries/Crash:0.54 Major Injuries/Crash:0.00 Minor Injuries/Crash:0.23 Possible/Unknown Injuries/Crash:0.31 Average Severity 08/13/2020 1 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Major Cause Animal 0 Ran stop sign 0 FTYROW: At uncontrolled intersection 0 FTYROW: From stop sign 0 FTYROW: Making left turn 1 FTYROW: From parked position 0 FTYROW: Other 1 Disregarded RR Signal 0 Crossed median (divided)0 Aggressive driving/road rage 0 Exceeded authorized speed 0 Operating vehicle in an reckless, erratic, ca...1 Passing: On wrong side 0 Passing: With insufficient distance/inadequa...0 Passing: Other passing 0 Driver Distraction: Manual operation of an e...0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hands free ...0 Driver Distraction: Other electronic device ...0 Driver Distraction: Unrestrained animal 0 Driver Distraction: Inattentive/lost in thou...0 Driver Distraction: Exterior distraction 0 Ran off road - straight 0 Lost control 0 Over correcting/over steering 0 Failure to signal intentions 0 Vehicle stopped on railroad tracks 0 Other: Improper operation 0 Other: Disregarded signs/road markings 0 Downhill runaway 0 Towing improperly 0 Equipment failure 0 Other: Getting off/out of vehicle 0 Improper backing 0 Illegally parked/unattended 0 Operator inexperience 0 Unknown 1 Other: No improper action 0 Ran traffic signal 1 Failed to yield to emergency vehicle 0 FTYROW: Making right turn on red signal 0 FTYROW: From yield sign 0 FTYROW: From driveway 0 FTYROW: To pedestrian 0 Drove around RR grade crossing gates 0 Crossed centerline (undivided)0 Traveling wrong way or on wrong side of road 0 Driving too fast for conditions 0 Improper or erratic lane changing 0 Followed too close 5 Passing: Where prohibited by signs/markings 0 Passing: Through/around barrier 0 Made improper turn 0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hand-held d...0 Driver Distraction: Adjusting devices (radio...0 Driver Distraction: Passenger 0 Driver Distraction: Reaching for object(s)/f...0 Driver Distraction: Other interior distracti...0 Ran off road - right 0 Ran off road - left 0 Swerving/Evasive Action 0 Failed to keep in proper lane 0 Traveling on prohibited traffic way 0 Other: Vision obstructed 0 Other: Disregarded warning sign 0 Other: Illegal off-road driving 0 Separation of units 0 Cargo/equipment loss or shift 0 Oversized load/vehicle 0 Failure to dim lights/have lights on 0 Improper starting 0 Driving less than the posted speed limit 0 Other 3 Not reported 0 13 08/13/2020 2 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Time of Day/Day of Week Day of Week 12 AM to 2 AM 2 AM to 4 AM 4 AM to 6 AM 6 AM to 8 AM 8 AM to 10 AM 10 AM to Noon Noon to 2 PM 2 PM to 4 PM 4 PM to 6 PM 6 PM to 8 PM 8 PM to 10 PM 10 PM to 12 AM Not reporte d Total Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Monday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Tuesday 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Wednesday 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 Thursday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Friday 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Saturday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 6 1 0 1 0 13 Manner of Crash Collision Non-collision (single vehicle)0 Head-on (front to front)0 Rear-end (front to rear)9 Angle, oncoming left turn 1 Broadside (front to side)2 Sideswipe, same direction 0 Sideswipe, opposite direction 0 Rear to rear 0 Rear to side 0 Not reported 0 Other 1 Unknown 0 13 Surface Conditions Dry 12 Wet 1 Ice/frost 0 Snow 0 Slush 0 Mud, dirt 0 Water (standing or moving)0 Sand 0 Oil 0 Gravel 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 13 Fixed Object Struck Bridge overhead structure 0 Bridge/bridge rail parapet 0 Ditch 0 Ground 0 Guardrail - face 0 Concrete traffic barrier (median or right sid...0 Cable barrier 0 Utility pole/light support 0 Traffic signal support 0 Fire hydrant 0 Tree 0 Snow bank 0 Wall 0 Other fixed object 0 Bridge pier or support 0 Curb/island/raised median 0 Embankment 0 Culvert/pipe opening 0 Guardrail - end 0 Other traffic barrier 0 Impact attenuator/crash cushion 0 Traffic sign support 0 Other post/pole/support 0 Mailbox 0 Landscape/shrubbery 0 Fence 0 Building 0 None (no fixed object struck)26 26 08/13/2020 3 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Driver Age/Driver Gender Driver Age - 5 year Bins Female Male Not reported Unknown Total < 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 15 0 0 0 0 0 = 16 0 0 0 0 0 = 17 1 0 0 0 1 = 18 0 0 0 0 0 = 19 0 1 0 0 1 = 20 2 0 0 0 2 >= 21 and <= 24 3 1 0 0 4 >= 25 and <= 29 2 0 0 0 2 >= 30 and <= 34 0 2 0 0 2 >= 35 and <= 39 2 1 0 0 3 >= 40 and <= 44 0 2 0 0 2 >= 45 and <= 49 0 1 0 0 1 >= 50 and <= 54 1 1 0 0 2 >= 55 and <= 59 0 2 0 0 2 >= 60 and <= 64 1 1 0 0 2 >= 65 and <= 69 0 0 0 0 0 >= 70 and <= 74 0 0 0 0 0 >= 75 and <= 79 0 0 0 0 0 >= 80 and <= 84 0 0 0 0 0 >= 85 and <= 89 1 0 0 0 1 >= 90 and <= 94 0 0 0 0 0 >= 95 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 Total 13 12 0 0 25 Alcohol Test Given None 26 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 26 Drug Test Given None 26 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 26 Drug Test Result Negative 0 Cannabis 0 Central Nervous System depressants 0 Central Nervous System stimulants 0 Hallucinogens 0 Inhalants 0 Narcotic Analgesics 0 Dissociative Anesthetic (PCP)0 Prescription Drug 0 Not reported 26 Other 0 26 Drug/Alcohol Related Drug 0 Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Alcohol (Statutory)0 Drug/Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Drug/Alcohol (Statutory)0 Refused 0 Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/Medications 0 None Indicated 13 13 08/13/2020 4 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Crash Severity - Annual Crash Year Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash Possible/Unknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only Total 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 3 3 2016 0 0 0 0 1 1 2017 0 0 0 0 2 2 2018 0 0 1 0 2 3 2019 0 0 1 1 2 4 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 2 1 10 13 Severity/Year 08/13/2020 5 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Injury Status - Annual Crash Year Fatalities Suspected serious/incapac itating Suspected minor/non- incapacitating Possible (complaint of pain/injury)Unknown Total 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 2 3 0 5 2019 0 0 1 1 0 2 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 3 4 0 7 Injury Status/Year 08/13/2020 6 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Jurisdiction: Statewide Year: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Map Selection: Yes Filter: None Meeting the following criteria SE 16th and S Dayton Analyst Information 08/13/2020 7 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Collision Diagram 8/13/2020 - 8/13/2020 13 Crashes Clear 2/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 5 6/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 5 10/28/2015 7/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 6 9/29/2017 11/28/2017 4/15/2018 8/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 8 12/8/2018 1/ 4 / 2 0 1 9 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 9 3/5/2019 11/5/2019 (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 8/13/2020 Crash Magic Online Crash Severity Fatal Crash 0 Suspected Serious Injury Crash 0 Suspected Minor Injury Crash 0 Possible/Unknown Injury Crash 0 Property Damage Only 8 8 Injury Status Summary Fatalities 0 Suspected serious/incapacitating 0 Suspected minor/non-incapacitating 0 Possible (complaint of pain/injury)0 Unknown 0 0 Property Damage Total (dollars):37,500.00 Average (per crash dollars):4,687.50 Total Vehicles:15.00 Average (per crash):1.88 Total Occupants:25.00 Average (per crash):3.13 Property/Vehicles/Occupants Fatalities/Fatal Crash:0.00 Fatalities/Crash:0.00 Injuries/Crash:0.00 Major Injuries/Crash:0.00 Minor Injuries/Crash:0.00 Possible/Unknown Injuries/Crash:0.00 Average Severity 08/13/2020 1 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Major Cause Animal 0 Ran stop sign 0 FTYROW: At uncontrolled intersection 0 FTYROW: From stop sign 1 FTYROW: Making left turn 0 FTYROW: From parked position 0 FTYROW: Other 0 Disregarded RR Signal 0 Crossed median (divided)0 Aggressive driving/road rage 0 Exceeded authorized speed 0 Operating vehicle in an reckless, erratic, ca...0 Passing: On wrong side 0 Passing: With insufficient distance/inadequa...0 Passing: Other passing 0 Driver Distraction: Manual operation of an e...0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hands free ...0 Driver Distraction: Other electronic device ...0 Driver Distraction: Unrestrained animal 0 Driver Distraction: Inattentive/lost in thou...1 Driver Distraction: Exterior distraction 0 Ran off road - straight 0 Lost control 0 Over correcting/over steering 0 Failure to signal intentions 0 Vehicle stopped on railroad tracks 0 Other: Improper operation 0 Other: Disregarded signs/road markings 0 Downhill runaway 0 Towing improperly 0 Equipment failure 0 Other: Getting off/out of vehicle 0 Improper backing 0 Illegally parked/unattended 0 Operator inexperience 0 Unknown 0 Other: No improper action 0 Ran traffic signal 0 Failed to yield to emergency vehicle 0 FTYROW: Making right turn on red signal 0 FTYROW: From yield sign 0 FTYROW: From driveway 0 FTYROW: To pedestrian 0 Drove around RR grade crossing gates 0 Crossed centerline (undivided)0 Traveling wrong way or on wrong side of road 0 Driving too fast for conditions 0 Improper or erratic lane changing 0 Followed too close 5 Passing: Where prohibited by signs/markings 0 Passing: Through/around barrier 0 Made improper turn 0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hand-held d...0 Driver Distraction: Adjusting devices (radio...0 Driver Distraction: Passenger 0 Driver Distraction: Reaching for object(s)/f...0 Driver Distraction: Other interior distracti...0 Ran off road - right 0 Ran off road - left 1 Swerving/Evasive Action 0 Failed to keep in proper lane 0 Traveling on prohibited traffic way 0 Other: Vision obstructed 0 Other: Disregarded warning sign 0 Other: Illegal off-road driving 0 Separation of units 0 Cargo/equipment loss or shift 0 Oversized load/vehicle 0 Failure to dim lights/have lights on 0 Improper starting 0 Driving less than the posted speed limit 0 Other 0 Not reported 0 8 08/13/2020 2 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Time of Day/Day of Week Day of Week 12 AM to 2 AM 2 AM to 4 AM 4 AM to 6 AM 6 AM to 8 AM 8 AM to 10 AM 10 AM to Noon Noon to 2 PM 2 PM to 4 PM 4 PM to 6 PM 6 PM to 8 PM 8 PM to 10 PM 10 PM to 12 AM Not reporte d Total Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wednesday 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Thursday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friday 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Saturday 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 Manner of Crash Collision Non-collision (single vehicle)1 Head-on (front to front)0 Rear-end (front to rear)6 Angle, oncoming left turn 0 Broadside (front to side)1 Sideswipe, same direction 0 Sideswipe, opposite direction 0 Rear to rear 0 Rear to side 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 8 Surface Conditions Dry 7 Wet 1 Ice/frost 0 Snow 0 Slush 0 Mud, dirt 0 Water (standing or moving)0 Sand 0 Oil 0 Gravel 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 8 Fixed Object Struck Bridge overhead structure 0 Bridge/bridge rail parapet 0 Ditch 0 Ground 0 Guardrail - face 0 Concrete traffic barrier (median or right sid...0 Cable barrier 0 Utility pole/light support 0 Traffic signal support 0 Fire hydrant 0 Tree 0 Snow bank 0 Wall 0 Other fixed object 0 Bridge pier or support 0 Curb/island/raised median 0 Embankment 0 Culvert/pipe opening 0 Guardrail - end 0 Other traffic barrier 0 Impact attenuator/crash cushion 0 Traffic sign support 1 Other post/pole/support 0 Mailbox 0 Landscape/shrubbery 0 Fence 0 Building 0 None (no fixed object struck)14 15 08/13/2020 3 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Driver Age/Driver Gender Driver Age - 5 year Bins Female Male Not reported Unknown Total < 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 15 0 0 0 0 0 = 16 0 0 0 0 0 = 17 0 0 0 0 0 = 18 0 0 0 0 0 = 19 0 1 0 0 1 = 20 0 1 0 0 1 >= 21 and <= 24 2 0 0 0 2 >= 25 and <= 29 1 2 0 0 3 >= 30 and <= 34 0 0 1 0 1 >= 35 and <= 39 1 0 0 0 1 >= 40 and <= 44 0 1 0 0 1 >= 45 and <= 49 0 0 0 0 0 >= 50 and <= 54 1 0 0 0 1 >= 55 and <= 59 0 1 0 0 1 >= 60 and <= 64 0 3 0 0 3 >= 65 and <= 69 0 0 0 0 0 >= 70 and <= 74 0 0 0 0 0 >= 75 and <= 79 0 0 0 0 0 >= 80 and <= 84 0 0 0 0 0 >= 85 and <= 89 0 0 0 0 0 >= 90 and <= 94 0 0 0 0 0 >= 95 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 9 1 0 15 Alcohol Test Given None 15 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 15 Drug Test Given None 15 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 15 Drug Test Result Negative 0 Cannabis 0 Central Nervous System depressants 0 Central Nervous System stimulants 0 Hallucinogens 0 Inhalants 0 Narcotic Analgesics 0 Dissociative Anesthetic (PCP)0 Prescription Drug 0 Not reported 15 Other 0 15 Drug/Alcohol Related Drug 0 Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Alcohol (Statutory)0 Drug/Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Drug/Alcohol (Statutory)0 Refused 0 Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/Medications 0 None Indicated 8 8 08/13/2020 4 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Crash Severity - Annual Crash Year Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash Possible/Unknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only Total 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 2 2 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 3 3 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 2019 0 0 0 0 2 2 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 8 8 Severity/Year 08/13/2020 5 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Injury Status - Annual Crash Year Fatalities Suspected serious/incapac itating Suspected minor/non- incapacitating Possible (complaint of pain/injury)Unknown Total 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Injury Status/Year 08/13/2020 6 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Jurisdiction: Statewide Year: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Map Selection: Yes Filter: None Meeting the following criteria WB Off-Ramp Analyst Information 08/13/2020 7 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Collision Diagram 8/13/2020 - 8/13/2020 8 Crashes Clear 1/2/2015 4/3/2015 6/ 7 / 2 0 1 7 8/23/2017 9/9/2017 6/20/2018 4/27/2019 6/21/2019 (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 8/13/2020 Crash Magic Online Crash Severity Fatal Crash 0 Suspected Serious Injury Crash 1 Suspected Minor Injury Crash 0 Possible/Unknown Injury Crash 0 Property Damage Only 7 8 Injury Status Summary Fatalities 0 Suspected serious/incapacitating 1 Suspected minor/non-incapacitating 0 Possible (complaint of pain/injury)0 Unknown 0 1 Property Damage Total (dollars):67,900.00 Average (per crash dollars):8,487.50 Total Vehicles:12.00 Average (per crash):1.50 Total Occupants:14.00 Average (per crash):1.75 Property/Vehicles/Occupants Fatalities/Fatal Crash:0.00 Fatalities/Crash:0.00 Injuries/Crash:0.13 Major Injuries/Crash:0.13 Minor Injuries/Crash:0.00 Possible/Unknown Injuries/Crash:0.00 Average Severity 08/13/2020 1 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Major Cause Animal 2 Ran stop sign 1 FTYROW: At uncontrolled intersection 0 FTYROW: From stop sign 2 FTYROW: Making left turn 0 FTYROW: From parked position 0 FTYROW: Other 0 Disregarded RR Signal 0 Crossed median (divided)0 Aggressive driving/road rage 0 Exceeded authorized speed 0 Operating vehicle in an reckless, erratic, ca...0 Passing: On wrong side 0 Passing: With insufficient distance/inadequa...0 Passing: Other passing 0 Driver Distraction: Manual operation of an e...0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hands free ...0 Driver Distraction: Other electronic device ...0 Driver Distraction: Unrestrained animal 0 Driver Distraction: Inattentive/lost in thou...0 Driver Distraction: Exterior distraction 0 Ran off road - straight 1 Lost control 0 Over correcting/over steering 0 Failure to signal intentions 0 Vehicle stopped on railroad tracks 0 Other: Improper operation 0 Other: Disregarded signs/road markings 0 Downhill runaway 0 Towing improperly 0 Equipment failure 0 Other: Getting off/out of vehicle 0 Improper backing 0 Illegally parked/unattended 0 Operator inexperience 0 Unknown 0 Other: No improper action 0 Ran traffic signal 0 Failed to yield to emergency vehicle 0 FTYROW: Making right turn on red signal 0 FTYROW: From yield sign 0 FTYROW: From driveway 0 FTYROW: To pedestrian 0 Drove around RR grade crossing gates 0 Crossed centerline (undivided)0 Traveling wrong way or on wrong side of road 0 Driving too fast for conditions 0 Improper or erratic lane changing 0 Followed too close 2 Passing: Where prohibited by signs/markings 0 Passing: Through/around barrier 0 Made improper turn 0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hand-held d...0 Driver Distraction: Adjusting devices (radio...0 Driver Distraction: Passenger 0 Driver Distraction: Reaching for object(s)/f...0 Driver Distraction: Other interior distracti...0 Ran off road - right 0 Ran off road - left 0 Swerving/Evasive Action 0 Failed to keep in proper lane 0 Traveling on prohibited traffic way 0 Other: Vision obstructed 0 Other: Disregarded warning sign 0 Other: Illegal off-road driving 0 Separation of units 0 Cargo/equipment loss or shift 0 Oversized load/vehicle 0 Failure to dim lights/have lights on 0 Improper starting 0 Driving less than the posted speed limit 0 Other 0 Not reported 0 8 08/13/2020 2 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Time of Day/Day of Week Day of Week 12 AM to 2 AM 2 AM to 4 AM 4 AM to 6 AM 6 AM to 8 AM 8 AM to 10 AM 10 AM to Noon Noon to 2 PM 2 PM to 4 PM 4 PM to 6 PM 6 PM to 8 PM 8 PM to 10 PM 10 PM to 12 AM Not reporte d Total Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Monday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wednesday 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Thursday 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Friday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 Manner of Crash Collision Non-collision (single vehicle)2 Head-on (front to front)0 Rear-end (front to rear)2 Angle, oncoming left turn 0 Broadside (front to side)2 Sideswipe, same direction 0 Sideswipe, opposite direction 0 Rear to rear 0 Rear to side 0 Not reported 2 Other 0 Unknown 0 8 Surface Conditions Dry 5 Wet 1 Ice/frost 0 Snow 0 Slush 0 Mud, dirt 0 Water (standing or moving)0 Sand 0 Oil 0 Gravel 0 Not reported 2 Other 0 Unknown 0 8 Fixed Object Struck Bridge overhead structure 0 Bridge/bridge rail parapet 0 Ditch 0 Ground 0 Guardrail - face 0 Concrete traffic barrier (median or right sid...0 Cable barrier 0 Utility pole/light support 0 Traffic signal support 0 Fire hydrant 0 Tree 0 Snow bank 0 Wall 0 Other fixed object 0 Bridge pier or support 0 Curb/island/raised median 0 Embankment 0 Culvert/pipe opening 0 Guardrail - end 0 Other traffic barrier 0 Impact attenuator/crash cushion 0 Traffic sign support 0 Other post/pole/support 0 Mailbox 0 Landscape/shrubbery 0 Fence 0 Building 0 None (no fixed object struck)12 12 08/13/2020 3 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Driver Age/Driver Gender Driver Age - 5 year Bins Female Male Not reported Unknown Total < 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 15 0 0 0 0 0 = 16 0 0 0 0 0 = 17 0 0 0 0 0 = 18 0 0 0 0 0 = 19 0 2 0 0 2 = 20 1 0 0 0 1 >= 21 and <= 24 0 1 0 0 1 >= 25 and <= 29 0 0 0 0 0 >= 30 and <= 34 1 2 0 0 3 >= 35 and <= 39 0 0 0 0 0 >= 40 and <= 44 0 1 0 0 1 >= 45 and <= 49 0 0 0 0 0 >= 50 and <= 54 0 1 0 0 1 >= 55 and <= 59 0 0 0 0 0 >= 60 and <= 64 0 1 0 0 1 >= 65 and <= 69 0 1 0 0 1 >= 70 and <= 74 0 0 0 0 0 >= 75 and <= 79 0 0 0 0 0 >= 80 and <= 84 0 0 0 0 0 >= 85 and <= 89 0 0 0 0 0 >= 90 and <= 94 0 0 0 0 0 >= 95 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 1 0 1 Total 2 9 1 0 12 Alcohol Test Given None 11 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 1 12 Drug Test Given None 11 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 1 12 Drug Test Result Negative 0 Cannabis 0 Central Nervous System depressants 0 Central Nervous System stimulants 0 Hallucinogens 0 Inhalants 0 Narcotic Analgesics 0 Dissociative Anesthetic (PCP)0 Prescription Drug 0 Not reported 12 Other 0 12 Drug/Alcohol Related Drug 0 Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Alcohol (Statutory)0 Drug/Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Drug/Alcohol (Statutory)0 Refused 0 Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/Medications 0 None Indicated 8 8 08/13/2020 4 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Crash Severity - Annual Crash Year Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash Possible/Unknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only Total 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 1 0 0 4 5 2016 0 0 0 0 1 1 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 2019 0 0 0 0 1 1 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0 0 7 8 Severity/Year 08/13/2020 5 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Injury Status - Annual Crash Year Fatalities Suspected serious/incapac itating Suspected minor/non- incapacitating Possible (complaint of pain/injury)Unknown Total 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 1 0 0 0 1 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0 0 0 1 Injury Status/Year 08/13/2020 6 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Jurisdiction: Statewide Year: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Map Selection: Yes Filter: None Meeting the following criteria EB Off-Ramp Analyst Information 08/13/2020 7 of 7 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2015-2019 Collision Diagram 8/13/2020 - 8/13/2020 8 Crashes Clear 1/24/2015 6/7/2015 10/28/2015 6/2/2016 5/2/2018 10/23/2019 (2) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 8/13/2020 Crash Magic Online 2 02 0 S D ayt o n In t e rch ang e S t u d y - T MC T hu Nov 7 , 2 01 9 AM Pe ak (No v 0 7 20 19 7 :4 5 AM - 8 :4 5 AM) All Clas s e s (Mo to r cy cle s , Lig ht s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu lat e d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s t r ian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 74 35 76 , Lo cat io n : 4 2 .00 82 6 2 , -93 .5 86 61 4 Pr o vid e d b y: C ity of Am e s (I A) 5 1 5 Clar k Av e n u e , Am e s , I A, 1 2 3 4 5 , US [N] S D ayton Ave [E] SE 16th St [S ] S Dayton A ve [W] S E 16th St Total: 724 Total: 1040 Total: 53 7 Total: 35 9 Out: 446 Out: 3 08 Out: 374 Out: 2 02 In: 278 In: 73 2 In: 163 In: 1 57 2 00 69 358 55 6 72 11 83 313 61 77 25 2 2 02 0 S D ayt o n In t e rch ang e S t u d y - T MC T hu Nov 7 , 2 01 9 PM Pe ak (No v 0 7 20 19 5 PM - 6 PM) - O ve r all Pe ak Ho ur All Clas s e s (Mo to r cy cle s , Lig ht s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu lat e d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s t r ian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 74 35 76 , Lo cat io n : 4 2 .00 82 6 2 , -93 .5 86 61 4 Pr o vid e d b y: C ity of Am e s (I A) 5 1 5 Clar k Av e n u e , Am e s , I A, 1 2 3 4 5 , US [N] S D ayton Ave [E] SE 16th St [S ] S Dayton A ve [W] S E 16th St Total: 926 Total: 1138 Total: 49 2 Total: 53 6 Out: 372 Ou t: 773 Out: 12 6 Out: 2 75 In : 5 54 In: 365 In: 366 In: 26 1 4 13 75 219 39 9 1 32 16 275 78 68 137 85 2 2 02 0 S D ayt o n In t e rch ang e S t u d y - T MC T hu Nov 7 , 2 01 9 AM Pe ak (7 :1 5 AM - 8:15 AM) - O v e r all Pe ak Hou r All Clas s e s (Mo to r cy cle s , Lig ht s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu lat e d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s t r ian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 74 35 79 , Lo cat io n : 4 2 .00 74 2 3 , -93 .5 86 50 6 Pr o vid e d b y: C ity of Am e s (I A) 5 1 5 Clar k Av e n u e , Am e s , I A, 1 2 3 4 5 , US [N] S D ayton Ave [E ] HW30 WB Off-Ramp [S ] S Dayton A ve [W] H W30 WB On-R amp Total: 1039 Total: 570 Total: 15 3 Total: 33 4 Out: 732 Out: 1 63 Out: 1 53 Out: 0 In: 307 In: 407 In: 0 In: 334 1 58 403 1 49 329 5 4 2 02 0 S D ayt o n In t e rch ang e S t u d y - T MC T hu Nov 7 , 2 01 9 PM Pe ak (No v 0 7 20 19 4 :30 PM - 5 :30 PM) - O v e r all Pe ak Hou r All Clas s e s (Mo to r cy cle s , Lig ht s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu lat e d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s t r ian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 74 35 81 , Lo cat io n : 4 2 .00 74 2 3 , -93 .5 86 50 6 Pr o vid e d b y: C ity of Am e s (I A) 5 1 5 Clar k Av e n u e , Am e s , I A, 1 2 3 4 5 , US [N] S D ayton Ave [E ] HW30 WB Off-Ramp [S ] S Dayton A ve [W] H W30 WB On-R amp Total: 1130 Total: 589 Total: 19 8 Total: 39 1 Out: 368 Out: 3 95 Out: 0 Ou t: 391 In: 762 In: 194 In: 198 In: 0 3 87 2 180 3 75 188 8 14 2 02 0 S D ayt o n In t e rch ang e S t u d y - T MC T hu Nov 7 , 2 01 9 AM Pe ak (7 :1 5 AM - 8:15 AM) All Clas s e s (Mo to r cy cle s , Lig ht s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu lat e d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s t r ian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 74 35 74 , Lo cat io n : 4 2 .00 54 6 9 , -93 .5 86 27 3 Pr o vid e d b y: C ity of Am e s (I A) 5 1 5 Clar k Av e n u e , Am e s , I A, 1 2 3 4 5 , US [N ] S . D ayton Ave [E] H W 30 E B On-R amp [S ] S. D ayton A ve [W] HW 30 EB Off-Ramp Total: 567 Total: 24 Total: 39 6 Total: 15 5 Out: 404 Out: 12 Out: 0 Out: 15 5 In: 163 In : 1 2 In: 396 In: 0 12 11 3 1 51 1 393 2 02 0 S D ayt o n In t e rch ang e S t u d y - T MC T hu Nov 7 , 2 01 9 PM Pe ak (4 :3 0 PM - 5 :3 0 PM) - O v e r all Pe ak Ho ur All Clas s e s (Mo to r cy cle s , Lig ht s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu lat e d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s t r ian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 74 35 74 , Lo cat io n : 4 2 .00 54 6 9 , -93 .5 86 27 3 Pr o vid e d b y: C ity of Am e s (I A) 5 1 5 Clar k Av e n u e , Am e s , I A, 1 2 3 4 5 , US [N ] S . D ayton Ave [E] H W 30 E B On-R amp [S ] S. D ayton A ve [W] HW 30 EB Off-Ramp Total: 591 Total: 62 Total: 17 0 Total: 41 1 Out: 196 Out: 10 Out: 0 Out: 411 In: 395 In : 5 2 In: 170 In: 0 9 37 10 3 86 15 159 1 SE 16th & S Dayton Phases 08/13/2020 1,(6) 6 3,(8)8 7,(4)4 5,(2)2 S Day ton Stop SE 16th 5,(2) 2 8 6 WB Ramp HW30 WB Ramp Phases 08/13/2020 1,(6) 6 3,(8)8 7,(4)4 5,(2)2 SE 16th S Dayton 5,(2) 2 8 6 WB Ramp HW30 EB Ramp Phases 08/13/2020 S Dayton 2 EB Ramp 4 6 S Dayton Intersection or Spot Benefit / Cost Safety Analysis Rev. 5/18 Iowa DOT Office of Traffic & Safety County: Prepared by: Date Prepared: Aug 13, 2020 Intersection: Improvement Proposed Improvement(s): 242,300$ Estimated Improvement Cost, EC 15 Estimated Service Life, years, Y -$ Other Annual Cost (after initial year), AC 42 Crash Reduction Factor (integer), CRF -$ Present Value Other Annual Costs, OC 4.0%Discount Rate (time value of $), INT Present Value Cost, COST = EC + OC Traffic Volume Data Source:11/7/2019 Date of traffic count Daily Entering Vehicles by Approach (or AADT / 2) 4,700 Current Annual Entering Veh., AEV = DEV * 365 2,800 2,200 veh / day, Final Year DEV, FDEV 5,850 MEV, Total Million Entering Veh. Over life of Project, TMEV 1.0%Projected Traffic Growth (0%-10%), G 15,550 Current Daily Entering Vehicles, DEV Crash Data 2015 First full year --> 2019 Last full year 5.0 years, Time Period, T 0 Additional months 0 Fatal Crashes 0 Fatalities @ $4,500,000 -$ 0 Major Injuries @ $325,000 -$ 3 Injury Crashes 3 Minor Injuries @ $65,000 195,000$ 4 Possible Injuries @ $35,000 140,000$ 10 Property Damage Only (assumed cost per crash) $7,400 -$ -OR- enter all Property Costs of all crashes: 85,999$ 13 Total Crashes, T Total $ Loss, LOSS 420,999$ 2.60 Current Crashes / Year, AA = TA / T Crashes / MEV, Crash Rate, CR 32,385$ Cost per Crash, AVC = LOSS / TA CR = TA x 10^6 / (DEV x 365 x T) 41.9 Total Expected Crashes, TECR = CR x TMEV Present Value of Avoided 1.10 Crashes Avoided First Year AAR = AA x CRF / 100 Crashes, BENEFIT 35,481$ Crash Costs Avoided in First Year, AAR x AVC 17.6 Total Avoided Crashes, TECR x CRF/ 100 Benefit / Cost Ratio Benefit : Cost = $420,273 :=1.73 : 1 242,300$ $242,300 City of Ames 5,675,750 18,053 91.36 0.46 420,273$ Story DNP SE 16th Street and S Dayton Avenue Turn-lane & Signal improvements at intersection YINTINT ACOC 1 11 106 1 11 YG G AEVTMEV Y INT G GINT AARAVCBEN 1 11. Intersection or Spot Benefit / Cost Safety Analysis Rev. 5/18 Iowa DOT Office of Traffic & Safety County: Prepared by: Date Prepared: Aug 13, 2020 Intersection: Improvement Proposed Improvement(s): 300,000$ Estimated Improvement Cost, EC 15 Estimated Service Life, years, Y -$ Other Annual Cost (after initial year), AC 28 Crash Reduction Factor (integer), CRF -$ Present Value Other Annual Costs, OC 4.0%Discount Rate (time value of $), INT Present Value Cost, COST = EC + OC Traffic Volume Data Source:11/7/2019 Date of traffic count Daily Entering Vehicles by Approach (or AADT / 2) 5,050 Current Annual Entering Veh., AEV = DEV * 365 0 2,550 veh / day, Final Year DEV, FDEV 3,050 MEV, Total Million Entering Veh. Over life of Project, TMEV 1.0%Projected Traffic Growth (0%-10%), G 10,650 Current Daily Entering Vehicles, DEV Crash Data 2015 First full year --> 2019 Last full year 5.0 years, Time Period, T 0 Additional months 0 Fatal Crashes 0 Fatalities @ $4,500,000 -$ 0 Major Injuries @ $325,000 -$ 0 Injury Crashes 0 Minor Injuries @ $65,000 -$ 0 Possible Injuries @ $35,000 -$ 8 Property Damage Only (assumed cost per crash) $7,400 -$ -OR- enter all Property Costs of all crashes: 37,500$ 8 Total Crashes, T Total $ Loss, LOSS 37,500$ 1.60 Current Crashes / Year, AA = TA / T Crashes / MEV, Crash Rate, CR 4,688$ Cost per Crash, AVC = LOSS / TA CR = TA x 10^6 / (DEV x 365 x T) 25.8 Total Expected Crashes, TECR = CR x TMEV Present Value of Avoided 0.45 Crashes Avoided First Year AAR = AA x CRF / 100 Crashes, BENEFIT 2,100$ Crash Costs Avoided in First Year, AAR x AVC 7.2 Total Avoided Crashes, TECR x CRF/ 100 Benefit / Cost Ratio Benefit : Cost = $24,875 :=0.08 : 1 300,000$ $300,000 City of Ames 3,887,250 12,364 62.57 0.41 24,875$ Story DNP HW 30 & S Dayton Interchange (ramp terminals) Signalization of WB On-Ramp Intersections YINTINT ACOC 1 11 106 1 11 YG G AEVTMEV Y INT G GINT AARAVCBEN 1 11. Intersection or Spot Benefit / Cost Safety Analysis Rev. 5/18 Iowa DOT Office of Traffic & Safety County: Prepared by: Date Prepared: Aug 13, 2020 Intersection: Improvement Proposed Improvement(s): 300,000$ Estimated Improvement Cost, EC 15 Estimated Service Life, years, Y -$ Other Annual Cost (after initial year), AC 35 Crash Reduction Factor (integer), CRF -$ Present Value Other Annual Costs, OC 4.0%Discount Rate (time value of $), INT Present Value Cost, COST = EC + OC Traffic Volume Data Source:11/7/2019 Date of traffic count Daily Entering Vehicles by Approach (or AADT / 2) 3,200 Current Annual Entering Veh., AEV = DEV * 365 3,100 0 veh / day, Final Year DEV, FDEV 300 MEV, Total Million Entering Veh. Over life of Project, TMEV 1.0%Projected Traffic Growth (0%-10%), G 6,600 Current Daily Entering Vehicles, DEV Crash Data 2015 First full year --> 2019 Last full year 5.0 years, Time Period, T 0 Additional months 0 Fatal Crashes 0 Fatalities @ $4,500,000 -$ 1 Major Injuries @ $325,000 325,000$ 1 Injury Crashes 0 Minor Injuries @ $65,000 -$ 0 Possible Injuries @ $35,000 -$ 7 Property Damage Only (assumed cost per crash) $7,400 -$ -OR- enter all Property Costs of all crashes: 67,900$ 8 Total Crashes, T Total $ Loss, LOSS 392,900$ 1.60 Current Crashes / Year, AA = TA / T Crashes / MEV, Crash Rate, CR 49,113$ Cost per Crash, AVC = LOSS / TA CR = TA x 10^6 / (DEV x 365 x T) 25.8 Total Expected Crashes, TECR = CR x TMEV Present Value of Avoided 0.55 Crashes Avoided First Year AAR = AA x CRF / 100 Crashes, BENEFIT 27,201$ Crash Costs Avoided in First Year, AAR x AVC 8.9 Total Avoided Crashes, TECR x CRF/ 100 Benefit / Cost Ratio Benefit : Cost = $322,198 :=1.07 : 1 300,000$ Story DNP HW 30 & S Dayton Interchange (ramp terminals) Signalization of EB On-Ramp Intersections $300,000 City of Ames 2,409,000 7,662 38.78 0.66 322,198$ YINTINT ACOC 1 11 106 1 11 YG G AEVTMEV Y INT G GINT AARAVCBEN 1 11. SE 16th & S Dayton Type CMF CRF Number of Crashes By Type Crash Aspect Percentage of Total Crashes Factored CRF Install Left Turn Lane 0.41 0.59 4 Rear-End 30.8% 18.09 Install Right Turn Lane 0.70 0.30 4 Rear-End 30.8% 9.23 Permissive to Prt/Perm FYA 0.60 0.40 3 Left-Turn 23.1% 9.28 daptive Control 0.64 0.36 2 ll 15.4% 5.54 13 Cumulative CRF 42.14 WB Off-Ramp Type CMF CRF Number of Crashes By Type Crash Aspect Percentage of Total Crashes Factored CRF Install Traffic Signal (Major Road 40 Mph) 0.33 0.67 2 Angle / Broadside 15.4% 10.31 Interchange Lighting 0.50 0.50 1 Nighttime 7.7% 3.85 daptive Control 0.64 0.36 5 ll 38.5% 13.85 8 Cumulative CRF 28.00 EB Off-Ramp Type CMF CRF Number of Crashes By Type Crash Aspect Percentage of Total Crashes Factored CRF Install Traffic Signal (Major Road 40 Mph) 0.33 0.67 2 Angle / Broadside 15.4% 10.31 Interchange Lighting 0.50 0.50 2 Nighttime 15.4% 7.69 daptive Control 0.64 0.36 6 ll 46.2% 16.62 10 Cumulative CRF 34.62 Total Crashes Total Crashes Total Crashes ITEM#: 7 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR AUTOMATED MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC LIBRARY BACKGROUND: In 2011 the Library identified a need for an automated materials handling system (AMHS) to be installed. An AMHS is a system by which library materials returned to the book drop are automatically checked in from patron circulation and sorted into bins in preparation for shelving by staff. This process allows staff to spend more time on the floor assisting customers and less time checking in materials. In the current COVID-19 environment, the Library continues to benefit from this efficiency as well as from the reduced physical handling of materials being returned. The current multi-year Service Agreement with RFID Library Solutions was entered into in 2013 and expires in 2020. Staff continues to be very satisfied with the AMHS and the service provided by RFID Library Solutions. Council is being asked to approve a renewal of the Service Agreement for an additional five years beginning October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2025. The cost remains $15,000 per year for the first two years and increases to $17,500 per year, thereafter, for a total of $82,500 for the entire five-year period. The Ames Public Library Board of Trustees has recommended approval of the extension of the Service Agreement with RFID Library Solutions for the automated materials handling system at their August 20, 2020 meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the extension of the Service Agreement with RFID Library Solutions for the automated materials handling system in the total amount of $82,500 for a five- year period. 2. Do not approve the Service Agreement with RFID Library Solutions for the automated materials handling system in the total amount of $82,500 for a five-year period. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The AMHS system is essential for the continued success of the Library’s operations and provides efficiencies to staff to create the best possible customer service experience. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # ____8_ _ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: UNIT 8 BOILER REPAIR PROJECT BACKGROUND: This Council action is for the approval of plans and specifications for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project. This project, which has been planned for several years, is to repair the boiler through the following actions: • Replacing the waterwall tube stubs in the lower section of the boiler • Replacing all the pendant tubes in the superheat section • Modifying the boiler as per the original equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) recommendation Unit 8 is one of two primary boilers at the City’s Power Plant and is now 40 years old. Due to a combination of age, a history of firing coal, firing natural gas since 2016, and co-firing refuse derived fuel (RDF), the boiler is in critical need of superheater tube repairs. As a result of boiler tube failures, Unit 8 has been off-line since late 2019. It is critical that this Unit 8 project proceed as quickly so that the Power Plant can have both primary boilers operating reliably. After switching from coal to natural gas four years ago, staff found that the boiler tubes, especially the superheater tubes, were deteriorating at an accelerated pace. The water vapor created during the combustion of natural gas combines with the chlorides and acid gases created from combusting RDF, causing the tube surfaces to corrode very quickly, especially in the high temperature zones of the superheater. For many years, the power boiler and waste to energy (WTE) industries have relied on coating or cladding boiler tubes with nickel-based alloys to form a barrier to the corrosive attack of boiler gases on the tubes. For this project, the outer surfaces of the new replacement superheater tubes and the stub tubes coming from the lower headers, will be clad with a nickel- based alloy to prevent or largely mitigate the corrosive attack upon the tubes. The engineer’s cost estimate for this project is $8,574,000. The approved Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) includes $6,550,000 for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project. The project in its entirety consists of five (5) work elements. Three of the five elements are deemed urgent and critical. The engineer’s estimate for the critical three elements is $5,278,000, $1,272,000 less than budget. The other two elements, estimated to cost an additional $3,296,000 are needed and important, but can be 2 deferred for a future budget cycle, if necessary. Because it is staff’s desire that the bids would be such that all elements of the project can be undertaken without deferring, these two elements will be bid as alternates to determine if there are sufficient funds to proceed with more than the three elements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project and set October 14, 2020, as the bid due date and October 27, 2020, as the date of hearing and award of contract. 2. Delay the Unit No. 8 Boiler Repair. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This project will go to great lengths to address Unit 8’s boiler tube failures. It is crucial that the project proceed as soon as possible in order to minimize downtime for this boiler and to increase the Power Plant’s reliability to produce electricity and burn refuse derived fuel. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above. 1 ITEM # 9 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2018/19 SHARED USE PATH SYSTEM EXPANSION (TRAIL CONNECTION SOUTH OF LINCOLN WAY) BACKGROUND: This program provides for the construction of shared-use paths on street rights-of-way, adjacent to streets, and through greenbelts. This project will construct a path from Beedle Drive to Franklin Park along an alignment that was approved by the Ames Bicycle Coalition. Staff has been working with WHKS of Ames, Iowa, on this project to complete plans and specifications, with a total estimated construction cost of $218,116. The table below shows the revenues and expenses for this project: Revenue Expenses Construction (Estimated) 218,116 This project is scheduled to have a September 15, 2020 letting, which will be conducted through the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT). Construction is anticipated to begin as soon as the weather allows in the spring of 2021 with project completion to occur in the fall of 2021. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve plans and specifications for the 2018/19 Shared Use Path System Expansion (Trail Connection South of Lincoln Way) project and establish September 15, 2020, as the date of letting and September 22, 2020, as the date for the report of bids. 2. Do not approve this project. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the plans and specifications will continue to keep this project on the Iowa DOT’s September 15, 2020, letting schedule. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. BEYER CT LINCOLN WAY TRIPP ST STATE AVE DOTSON DR COY ST BEEDLE DR S WILMOTH AVE S FRANKLIN AVE MARIGOLD DR HARRIS ST WOOD ST APLIN RD HILLTOP RD STORY ST S SHELDON AVE HICKORY DR LETTIE ST HYLAND AVE CAMPUS AVE HOWARD AVE WILMOTH AVE FRANKLIN AVE SUNFLOWER DR COLORADO AVE HUNT ST COCHRANE PKWY S HYLAND AVE MARSHALL AVE KNAPP STVILLAGE DR FRONTAGE RD MCDONALD DR TRAIL RIDGE RD MORNINGSIDE ST BELLFLOWER DR STORY ST N 1 inch = 583 feet SW Greenbelt Trail2018/19 Shared Use Path System Expansion (Trail Connection south of Lincoln Way)TAP-U-0155(699)--8I-85 BEYER CT UNION DR LINCOLN WAY TRIPP ST WEST ST WOODLAND ST COY ST STATE AVE DOTSON DR BEEDLE DR HYLAND AVE CAMPUS AVE SHELDON AVE HICKORY DR ARBOR ST FRANKLIN AVE S WILMOTH AVE S FRANKLIN AVE MARIGOLD DR HARRIS ST WOOD ST APLIN RD HILLTOP RD STORY ST S SHELDON AVE CRANE AVE LETTIE ST ELLIS ST HOWARD AVE WILMOTH AVE WESTWOOD DR SUNFLOWER DR COLORADO AVE HUNT ST COCHRANE PKWY S HYLAND AVE MARSHALL AVE KNAPP ST OLIVER AVE VILLAGE DR TRAIL RIDGE RD FRONTAGE RD HILLCREST AVE MCDONALD DR MORNINGSIDE ST BELLFLOWER DR STORY ST Proposed Project Amendment Revised Project Limits Future Infrastructure Improv. 1 ITEM # 10 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2019/20 MULTI-MODAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (MORTENSEN ROAD, WEST OF SOUTH DAKOTA AVE) BACKGROUND: Multi-modal transportation refers to the various modes used by Ames residents to travel the transport system. This program is aimed at improving the roadway to create a safer interaction between modes using alternatives such as improved crossing visibility at intersections, bike detection, and on-street facilities (e.g., bike lanes, sharrows). Bike lanes consist of a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Sharrows are markings used in travel lanes that are shared by bicycles and motor vehicles. This technique is used when a travel lane is too narrow to provide a standard width bike lane. Bike detection improvements include retrofitting signalized intersections to radar detection to facilitate the movement of bicycles. This project will install new accessible ramps at the intersections of Mortensen Road & Miller Avenue and Mortensen Road & Poe Avenue. The Mortensen Road and Miller Avenue intersection was originally built to serve as a CyRide turnaround before being converted into a standard intersection once a new CyRide turnaround was constructed further west. Removal of the old Cy-Ride turnaround at Miller Avenue and construction of standard intersection radii will also be included with this project. Staff developed plans for this project with an estimated cost of $65,569, which allowed for the solicitation of formal quotes per the City of Ames Purchasing Policies & Procedures (Bid thresholds shown in Appendix 6-1). On July 29, 2020, quotes were received for this project as follows: Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s estimate $ 65,569.00 Con-Struct, Inc. $ 65,495.95 Day Construction Services $ 70,320.00 2 The revenues and expenses for this project are as follows: Revenues Expenses Construction $65,495.95 Total $110,000 Total $80,495.00 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award the 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (Mortensen Road, west of South Dakota Ave) project to Con-Struct, Inc. of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $65,495.95. 2. Do not proceed with this project MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Although the Purchasing Policies & Procedures allow staff to receive quotes for this work, the purchasing limit restrictions require City Council approval for purchases over $50,000. Proceeding with this project will make it possible to create safer pedestrian crossings for residents in the area. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. ITEM #___11__ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: ELECTRIC METER SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR THE ELECTRIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND: This proposed action is for the purchase of standard residential single phase, AMR (Automated Meter Reading) residential single phase, AMR poly phase, and AMR programmable demand socket type electric meters to meet the needs of the Electric Services Department inventory. These meters will be purchased from an Electric Services Technical Services Division inventory asset account and charged to the appropriate operations accounts as the meters are put into use. This contract is to provide electric meters for the period from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. The contract includes a provision that would allow the City to renew the contract for up to two additional one-year terms. Under the proposed contract, electric meters would be purchased at the City’s discretion, which may be quarterly or on an as-needed basis. This provides the City with flexible inventory management and helps to reduce the need for storage space. Bid prices plus applicable sales taxes, which are applicable to the purchase of this equipment, are paid directly by the Utility. Funds for the meters will be used from the Operating Expense account, which is $104,358.00 for FY20-21. Council should note that no contract amount is being authorized at this time, since purchase orders will be made as these meters are purchased. On July 23 2020, an Invitation to Bid document was issued to 11 companies. The bid was advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing webpage. On August 12, 2020, three bids were received as shown below. VISION METERING York, SC COMPANY Grundy Center, IA REINHARDT Cedar Rapids, IA $3,230.00 $3,300.00 $3,718.00 GROUP 2 - AMR Meters – Single Phase $65,520.00 $67,176.00 NO BID GROUP 3 - AMR Meters 2ERTs Single Phase $2,100.00 $6,384.00 NO BID GROUP 4 - AMR Meters 2ERTs Polyphase/Demand $9,160.00 $16,240.00 NO BID GROUP 5 - AMR Meters 2ERTs Polyphase/Demand $936.00 $912.00 NO BID GROUP 6 - AMR Meters 3ERTs Polyphase/Demand $16,380.00 $15,370.00 NO BID 2 VISION METERING York, SC COMPANY Grundy Center, IA REINHARDT Cedar Rapids, IA Lead Time ARO Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3-4 weeks Group 2: 4-8 weeks Stock to 8 weeks Groups 3, 4, 5: 6-8 weeks Group 1: Stock Council should note that the evaluation amounts are based on unit prices and estimated quantities from prior year purchases. The recommended award is based on the estimated total evaluated cost, as well as response time. The specification was written to allow meters to be awarded by group. Staff reviewed the bids and concluded that the apparent low bids based on estimated quantities are acceptable for Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The meters in Group 2 are in high demand and need to be delivered in a timely manner. The low bidder offered a 6-8 week lead time, which is extensive. The next low bidder stocks the needed meter for a quick delivery. For less than $2,000, the meters are more readily available. Group 2 should be awarded to the second low bidder. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Award a contract to Vision Metering, York, South Carolina, for the purchase of electric meters in Groups 1, 3, and 4 in accordance with unit price bid. This option considers both price and critical delivery time. b. Award a contract to Van Wert Company, Grundy Center, Iowa, for the purchase of electric meters in Groups 2, 5, and 6 in accordance with unit price bid. c. Electric meters will be purchased as requested. Payments will be based on unit prices bid and actual quantities ordered, plus applicable sales taxes. 2. Award a contract to the low bidder in each Group. This option considers only the lowest price. a. Vision Metering, York, South Carolina, for the purchase of electric meters in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 in accordance with unit price bid. b. Van Wert Company, Grundy Center, Iowa, for the purchase of electric meters in Groups 5 and 6 in accordance with unit price bid. c. Electric meters will be purchased as requested. Payments will be based on unit prices bid and actual quantities ordered, plus applicable sales taxes. 3. Reject all bids and purchase electric meters on an as needed basis at unpredictable prices. 3 MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is important to purchase electric meters at the lowest possible cost, together with timely deliveries, with minimal risk to the City to meet customer needs for new service or emergency replacements. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above. Smart Choice MEMO 515.239.5105 main fax To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: City Clerk’s Office Date: August 25, 2020 Subject: Contract and Bond Approval There is/are no Council Action Form(s) for Item No(s). 12 and 13. Council approval of the contract and bond for this/these project(s) is simply fulfilling a State Code requirement. /alc ITEM #:Addt’l Item #1 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: Amendment to Kingsbury 4th Addition Public Improvements Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Kingbury’s Fourth Addition (previously identified as the 3rd Addition) was approved by the City Council on May 12, 2020 for the purposes of dividing a 6.91 acre site on SE 3rd Street into Lot 1 and Lot 2 and for the extension of SE 3rd Street to the eastern end of the site. The City of Ames entered into a Development Agreement with DET Land Company (Doug Pyle) in regard to dedication of right-of-way and construction of public improvements, including City construction of the road extension and the developer completing sewer, water, and sidewalk improvements. The property owner executed a public improvements agreement for a three-year deferral with financial security for his required improvements, totaling $64,655. Doug Pyle now requests the City of Ames accept an assignment of these development obligations with an amendment to the Public Improvement agreement and substitution of financial security. The proposed change would have the improvements and their financial security assigned respectively to Lot 1 and Lot 2 within the subdivision in accordance with the attached agreement. The new owner of Lot 1 will be responsible for proportional costs of sidewalk installation and storm water while Doug Pyle will maintain responsibility for the other improvements. Although it is unusual to split the public improvement obligations per lot, the requirements do not change and the same amount of financial security is held by the City. Approval of the amendment will allow for Mr. Pyle to receive some of his initial financial security back and have it substituted with financial security provided by the owner of Lot 1. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can approve the amendment to the Public Improvements Agreement for Kingsbury Fourth Addition. 2. The City Council can deny the request to amend the Public Improvements Agreement and substitute financial security. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposed assignment of public improvements is distinct in relation to each lot within the Subdivision and can be completed independent of each lot. With the approved change, each property owner will be independently responsible for their own improvements and may seek release of the financial security upon competition of improvements. Although the request to assign responsibility is unusual, it does not change the total amount of financial security for the improves or the requirements for the improvements. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council act in accordance with Alternative #1 recommending approval of the amendment to the Public Improvements Agreement for the Fourth Addition. Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Final Plat Amendment to Agreement for Public Improvements This Amendment is made by and between City of Ames, Iowa, DET Land Company, L.C., and WW Holdings Corporation as follows: 1. Definitions. The following terms are defined: 1.1. “City” means the City of Ames, Iowa. 1.2. “DET” means DET Land Company, L.C. 1.3. “WW” means WW Holdings Corporation 1.4. “Subdivision” means Kingsbury’s Fourth Addition, Ames, Story County, Iowa. 1.5. “Agreement” means the “Agreement for Public Improvements” between City and DET as Owner dated May 11, 2020, filed May 21, 2020, and recorded as Inst. 2020-05296 in the office of the Recorder of Story County, Iowa. 1.6. “Amendment” means this instrument as signed by the parties hereto. 2. Circumstances & Purpose. City and DET entered into the Agreement as required by City’s ordinances for the platting by DET of the Subdivision. DET conveyed a part of the Subdivision to WW. DET and WW have requested the City to divide the obligations due under the Agreement between the two buildable lots, and City has agreed to do so. Effective with this amendment, WW will be responsible for the Improvements on Lot 1, and DET will be responsible for the Improvements on Lot 2. 3. Revised Financial Security Estimate. Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby deleted, and the revised Exhibit A attached hereto is substituted therefor. S P A C E A B O V E R E S E R V E D F O R O F F I C I A L U S E Legal description:Lots 1 and 2, Kin sbur s Fourth Addition, Am s, Stor Count , Iowa. Return document to: Cit Clerk, 515 Clark enue Ames IA 5001 Document prepared by: Cit of Ames Le al Department, 515 Clark Ave., Ames, IA 50010 515 239 514 4. Assignment of Obligations. DET assigns to WW and WW accepts all of the obligations of the Owner under the Agreement for the installation of Improvements for Lot 1 as shown on Exhibit A. WW shall forthwith deposit $_________________________ (“Substituted Security”) with the City as required under the Agreement. City approves the Assignment. 5. Release of Deposit. Upon deposit of the Substituted Security, City will release to DET the amount of the Substituted Security. 6. Completion of Public Improvements. Upon the satisfactory completion of Improvements, including the paying of reasonable engineering and inspection fees therefore, the Clerk shall be authorized to release the security to the party posting the same. 7. Reaffirmation of Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby reaffirmed in its entirety. This Amendment shall be strictly construed to the subject of this Amendment only, and all other agreements, particularly the Development Agreement filed May 21, 2020, as Inst. No. 2020-05291, are reaffirmed. DET LAND COMPANY, L.C. B : Dou las P le, Mana e STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.: This instrument was acknowledged before me on ___________________ by Douglas Pyle, as Manager of DET Land Company, L.C. NOTARY PUBLIC WW HOLDINGS CORPORATION B : R an Davis, President and Directo STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.: This instrument was acknowledged before me on ___________________ by Ryan Davis, as President and Director of WW Holdings Corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC Passed and approved on ________________________. 2020, by Resolution No. 20-________ adopted by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa. CITY OF AMES, IOWA B : John A. Haila, Ma o Attest: Diane R. Voss, Cit Cler STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 2020, by John A. Haila and Diane R. Voss, as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Ames, Iowa. NOTARY PUBLIC ITEM # __14___ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: PLAT OF SURVEY (CONVEYANCE PARCEL) FOR 702 RIDGEWOOD AVENUE BACKGROUND: The City’s subdivision regulations in Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code include a process for creating or modifying property boundaries and for determining if any improvements are required in conjunction with the platting of property. This proposed plat of survey is for a conveyance parcel described as the North 45 feet of Lot 14, Chautauqua Park Addition to Ames, Story County, Iowa, which is addressed as 702 Ridgewood Avenue. This parcel includes approximately 6,307 square feet and is zoned Residential Low Density (RL). It is currently developed with a single-family home. A conveyance parcel is any parcel created by the division of land through a deed or contract conveyance, or any boundary line adjustment of land established through a deed or contact conveyance, initially created or established without the benefit of City review and approval. This parcel was part of a complete lot that was platted as part of the Chautauqua Park Subdivision in 1914. The property owner sold of the north 45 feet in 1946 to create the parcel as it is today. Although the parcel does not meet current zoning standards, the created parcel appears to have complied with the Ames Zoning Ordinance as it existed in 1946. The parcel is categorized as a non-conforming conveyance parcel per the City’s Subdivision Code, due to its 45-foot lot width compared to a current requirement of 50 feet. Section 23.307 (6)(b) allows the Planning & Housing Planning Director to make a determination that although it is a non-conforming parcel, that it has legal lot status as a parcel and therefore does not require approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for creating the parcel. The Director made this determination based on the standards in place at the time it was created and that it had survey monuments already in existence, although a survey was not recorded. Upon approval of the proposed plat of survey, the parcel will become a conforming conveyance parcel and then building and zoning permits can be issued for use of the site. The proposed Plat of Survey keeps the parcel as is with its current dimensions. The parcel is only 45 feet in width, which is 5 feet less than the Residential Low-Density Zoning District requires. Although the lot is non-conforming per zoning standards, it may still be built upon subject to compliance with all zoning standards, such as setbacks and lot coverage. The current home on the lot meets these standards. All new construction would also be subject to meeting current zoning standards for setbacks and coverage. Approval of this plat of survey (Attachment B) will allow the applicant to prepare the official plat of survey and submit it to the Planning and Housing Director for review. The Director will sign the plat of survey confirming that it fully conforms to all conditions of approval. The prepared plat of survey may then be signed by the surveyor, who will submit it for recording in the office of the County Recorder. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can adopt the resolution approving the plat of survey consistent with the standards of Chapter 23.307 for approval. 2. The City Council can deny the proposed plat of survey if the City Council finds that the requirements for plats of survey as described in Section 23.307 have not been satisfied. 3. The City Council can refer this back to staff and/or the owner for additional information CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The conveyance parcel process was established in 2009 to create a means for property owners to bring parcels of land into compliance with the City’s permitting processes. The goal was to establish usable and buildable parcels with a recorded survey in order to have measurable property lines. Approving this proposed plat of survey will recognize the current parcel as a legal lot for permitting purposes. Approving the plat of survey as a conveyance parcel will not exempt the parcel from meeting zoning development standards for building, such as setbacks and coverage. Staff has determined that the proposed Plat of Survey satisfies all Subdivision Code requirements for a conforming conveyance parcel and has made a preliminary decision of approval. The creation of a legal parcel of the current lot does not increase any nonconformities related to the RL zoning district. There are no gaps in infrastructure requiring improvements with the Plat of Survey. Any future construction on the site will be reviewed by staff for compliance with zoning standards. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council accept Alternative #1, thereby adopting the resolution approving the proposed Plat of Survey. ADDENDUM PLAT OF SURVEY FOR 702 RIDGEWOOD AVENUE Application for a proposed Plat of Survey has been submitted for: Conveyance parcel (per Section 23.307.6 (b)) Boundary line adjustment (per Section 23.309) Re-plat to correct error (per Section 23.310) Auditor’s plat (per Code of Iowa Section 354.15) The site is located at: Property Owner: Nathan and Carol Sage Existing Street Addresses: 702 Ridgewood Avenue Assessor’s Parcel #s: 09-03-425-300 Survey Description-Parcel A: North 45 Feet of Lot 14, Block 1, Chautauqua Park Addition Public Improvements: The preliminary decision of the Planning Director finds that approval requires all public improvements associated with and required for the proposed plat of survey be: Installed prior to creation and recordation of the official plat of survey and prior to issuance of zoning or building permits. Delayed, subject to an improvement guarantee as described in Section 23.409. Not Applicable. (no additional improvements required) Note: The official plat of survey is not recognized as a binding plat of survey for permitting purposes until a copy of the signed and recorded plat of survey is filed with the Ames City Clerk’s office and a digital image in Adobe PDF format has been submitted to the Planning & Housing Department. ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP Attachment B: Sketch of Existing Conditions Attachment C: Plat of Survey ITEM # DATE:08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2018/19 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (US HWY 30 WB OFF-RAMP & S DAKOTA AVE) BACKGROUND: The Traffic Signal Program is the annual program that provides for replacing older traffic signals and constructing new traffic signals in the City, which will result in improved visibility, reliability, and appearance of signals. In recent years, traffic signal replacements have included radar detection systems instead of in-pavement loop detection systems that had previously been used (frequently a point of vehicle detection failure). Another advantage of the radar detection system is that it detects bicycles in addition to vehicles. This project installed a new signal and new pedestrian ramps at US HWY 30 WB Off-Ramp & S Dakota Avenue. On September 10, 2019, City Council awarded the project to Iowa Signal Inc. of Grimes, Iowa in the amount of $199,688.43. One balancing change order was approved by staff for a total increase to the contract of $844.20, bringing the final construction cost to $200,532.63. Revenues and expenses for this project are shown below: Revenues Expenses Total $325,785 Total $303,363.63 A portion of the savings from the project will be used for the 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (13th & Clark) project. The remainder of the savings will be used for future Traffic Signal improvements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the 2018/19 Traffic Signal Program (US HWY 30 WB Off-Ramp & S Dakota Ave) project as completed by Iowa Signal Inc. of Grimes, IA in the amount of $200,532.63. 2. Direct staff to pursue a modification to the project. MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The project has now been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # __16___ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: FY 2021/22 ASSET PRIORITIES BACKGROUND: The ASSET funding process for FY 2021/22 will begin in August 2020. ASSET volunteers will conduct their agency visits to discuss services, gather information, and submit written reports that will be used for the agency hearings and work sessions scheduled in January 2121. Last year the priorities underwent significant change in that the City’s ASSET volunteers recommended 1) prioritizing the sub-bullets and 2) adding more specificity to some of the priorities. Council supported both of these recommendations which resulted in the following as the City’s current priorities: #1 Meet basic needs, with emphasis on low to moderate income • Quality, childcare cost offset programs, including daycare and State of Iowa licensed in-home facilities • Food cost offset programs, to assist in providing nutritious perishables and staples • Medical and dental services • Housing cost offset programs, including utility assistance • Sheltering • Transportation cost offset programs • Legal assistance • Disaster response #2 Meet mental health and chemical dependency needs • Ensure substance abuse prevention and treatment is available in the community • Provide outpatient emergency access to services • Provide crisis intervention services • Provide access to non-emergency services #3 Youth development services and activities • Skill development and enhancement • Summer enrichment/prevention of loss of learning The Mayor and City Council members continue their involvement with the comprehensive review of the ASSET process, specifically in the areas of establishing a 2 set of shared priorities amongst the Joint Funders and incorporating outcome data in decision making. It was anticipated that the Community Needs Assessment would have reached a stage of completion by now where the top needs would’ve been identified and included in the Joint Funder’s shared priorities so that the shared priorities could have been piloted during the FY 2021/22 ASSET process. Unfortunately, the work on the Community Needs Assessment was put on hold in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was only until this month that the work has re-started and with a different approach given the information and lessons learned during the first few months of the pandemic. The completion of the Assessment is now delayed until early 2021. Therefore, individual ASSET Funder priorities will again be needed for the upcoming funding cycle. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the City’s ASSET priorities for FY 2021/22, unchanged from FY 2020/21. 2. Adopt modified priorities for the FY 2021/22 ASSET process. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The ASSET volunteers have reviewed the priorities and several of the priorities mirror the current needs in the community since experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the final work product or recommended set of revisions to the process has been delayed, so it would seem premature to establish new priorities for FY 2021/22. Assuming the Council’s current priorities reflect the desires of the Council, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the City’s FY 2021/22 ASSET priorities unchanged from FY 2020/21. Priorities for 2021/22 (NOTE: Priority categories AND sub-bullets are in priority order) #1 Meet basic needs, with emphasis on low to moderate income: • Quality childcare cost offset programs, including daycare and State of Iowa licensed in-home facilities • Food cost offset programs, to assist in providing nutritious perishables and staples • Medical and dental services • Housing cost offset programs, including utility assistance • Sheltering • Transportation cost offset programs • Legal assistance • Disaster response #2 Meet mental health and chemical dependency needs • Ensure substance abuse prevention and treatment is available in the community • Provide outpatient emergency access to services • Provide crisis intervention services • Provide access to non-emergency services #3 Youth development services and activities • Skill development and enhancement • Summer enrichment/prevention of loss of learning REV 7/28/20 Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service 515.239.5146 main fax Legal Department To: Mayor Haila and Ames City Council members From: Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney Date: August 21, 2020 Subject: Draft face coverings ordinance Attached is the draft face-coverings ordinance which you directed me to prepare during the last City Council meeting, August 18, 2020. As a reminder, this is not first reading of the proposed ordinance, rather this is the Council’s opportunity to review the draft and make changes so that the ordinance can be brought back for first reading. A few items of note: 1.I put a Preamble into this ordinance. The City has not traditionally put preambles or statements of intent in ordinances, but in this situation I felt it was necessary to set forth the public-health reasons for the ordinance as well as our legal justification for the ordinance. 2.I began, as the Council indicated, with the Story County Board of Health’s recommendations, and I also consulted the other ordinances or mayoral proclamations on this subject from around the state, primarily the City of Dubuque ordinance. This is a hybrid put together with the goal of providing the Council with what the Council requested. 3.Although the Story County Board of Health recommendation was for an exception for children under the age of 2, we drafted the ordinance to say children under the age of 3, which seemed more workable in the real world. Therefore, children age 1 or 2 would be exempt from the face-covering mandate; children aged 3 or older would be required to wear a face covering. 4.The ordinance would apply to “any indoor or outdoor setting or establishment where the public is invited in.” This would exclude, for Item No. 17 example, private office buildings, but would apply to retail stores (among others). 5. There is an exclusion when a person is in the person’s own home, or yard, or in another person’s home. 6. There is an exclusion for employment settings where six feet of separation can be achieved. For example, a grocery store manager would not be required to wear a face covering in her or his office in the back of the store, but the employees (or the manager) out in the grocery store interacting with the public and other employees would be required to wear a face covering. 7. Violations are a municipal infraction, punishable by a $50 fine per occurrence. The ordinance specifies that a citation is a last resort. 8. I added a Sunset Clause, so that the ordinance self-expires after May 31, 2021. The sunset date can be extended or the ordinance repealed before that date. This is to indicate to the public that this is not a permanent ordinance. Of course, any of these provisions, or any other provision, may be changed or deleted by the Council. # ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 17.37 THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACE COVERING REQUIREMENT REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that: Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby amended by enacting a new Section 17.37 as follows: “Sec. 17. 37 FACE COVERING REQUIREMENT: PREAMBLE: This ordinance is being adopted in response to a worldwide pandemic of the novel coronavirus which causes COVID-19. The virus has been spreading locally in Story County, the City of Ames, and on the Iowa State University campus. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Iowa Department of Public Health, Story County Board of Health, and Mary Greeley Medical Center have all encouraged people to wear face coverings as a method to slow or prevent transmission of the virus. This ordinance is being adopted pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Authority as stated in Article III, Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Iowa Code section 364.1. It is the intent and belief of the Ames City Council that this ordinance does not conflict with provisions of the Governor of Iowa’s Public Health Disaster Emergency Proclamation regarding COVID-19 which is currently in effect. (1) Every person in the City of Ames three (3) years of age or older must wear a face covering that completely covers the person’s nose and mouth under the following circumstances: a. Outside whenever the person cannot stay at least six (6) feet away from others; b. Inside any indoor setting or establishment where the public is invited in, including, but not limited to: i. Grocery, retail, and hardware stores, gas stations and convenience stores, fitness centers, pharmacies, any other indoor public setting when with persons who do not live in the person’s household, and other public settings that are not the person’s place of residence. (2) A person is not required to wear a face covering at the following places or times: a. While traveling in a personal vehicle alone or with household members. b. While a person is in the person’s household or the household’s yard, or in another person’s household. c. While outside, where at least six (6) feet of physical separation from others can be maintained. d. While at a person’s place of employment where at least six (6) feet of physical separation from others can be maintained. e. While exercising at moderate or high intensity, such as jogging or biking or while engaging in or practicing for sporting activities. f. While seated inside or outside at a food establishment in the process of eating or drinking. g. While seated inside or outside at a bar in the process of eating or drinking. h. While obtaining a service that would require temporary removal of the person’s face covering. i. When federal or state law prohibits wearing a face covering or requires the removal of the face covering. (3) The following persons are exempt from wearing a face covering: a. Persons younger than three (3) years of age. b. Anyone who has a medical condition causing difficulty of breathing or is on oxygen therapy or a ventilator. c. Anyone who is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the face covering without assistance. d. Anyone who has been advised by a medical or behavioral health professional not to wear face coverings. e. Anyone actively engaged in a public safety role, including but not limited to law enforcement, firefighters, or emergency medical personnel, although a face covering should be worn if possible. (4) Violations of this section shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty of $50 for a person’s first violation thereof and $50 for each repeat violation. Attempts to obtain compliance with this ordinance shall first be through education and encouragement, with citation as a last resort. SUNSET CLAUSE: This ordinance expires and becomes null and void after May 31, 2021, unless the date in this clause is amended or the ordinance is sooner repealed.” Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a municipal infraction punishable as set out by law. Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any. Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Passed this day of , . _____________________________________________________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor Memo OLD CAF ITEM NO: 18 DATE: 08/25/20 On July 28, Council received an email from Mr. Dan Craig appealing fees that his property was assessed as a result of a frozen water meter. Council referred that appeal to staff for a background memo. BACKGROUND: According to the County Assessor’s website, the home was constructed in 1900. It was originally constructed as a single-family home that was later converted to a two-family dwelling. On Saturday, April 4, 2020, a Water Meter Repair Technician was dispatched to the home in response to a trouble call that came to the Water Plant reporting a leaking water meter. The Technician noted on his service order that the problem found was a “frozen meter” located in the basement of the property. He noted on the service ticket that he replaced the meter body. The Technician reported that there is a single-pane window above the meter and an unheated crawl space that is open to the basement area. The Technician noted on the service order that he contacted Mr. Craig by phone to let him know that there would be a prorated charge for the frozen meter; and that Mr. Craig “wasn’t happy but understood.” The Technician also noted that he gave some recommendations to Mr. Craig about how to insulate the meter to avoid having the same problem in the future. Mr. Craig subsequently received an invoice from the City for $325 for the damaged water meter. Mr. Craig returned the invoice with a notation that he would not be paying the charge. Mr. Craig was not present when the meter was replaced and has declined offers from the Water Meter Division to visit their office to view the damage to the meter. Ames Municipal Code The Ames Municipal Code specifies that water meters are owned by the City of Ames. According to the Municipal Code, the City will provide routine maintenance for the water meters. In return, the customer is responsible for protecting the meter from damage due to carelessness or negligence. Explicitly included in the Municipal Code is a requirement to protect the meter from freezing. WATER METER DESIGN: Water meters used in climates where frozen water lines are a possibility are designed with the bottom plate (often referred to as a “frost plate”) as the weakest part of the meter. (See AWWA Standard C700-15: Cold-Water Meters – Displacement Type.) The frost plate is designed to break when the meter freezes in order to protect both the meter and the customer’s premise plumbing from more catastrophic damage. WHY DO WATER METERS FREEZE? Problems with frozen water meters are an all too common occurrence. The Ames Water Meter Division experiences approximately two dozen frozen meters per year. Even when occupied parts of a home are kept at a comfortable temperature, the location where the water meter sits is often much colder. Unoccupied basements and crawl spaces are typically not heated, and in older homes not even insulated. Frequently, homeowners will frame in a water meter to hide it, unintentionally preventing warm air being circulated through the room from reaching the plumbing or the water meter. Any number of factors could explain why two meters can sit side-by-side, and one might freeze while the other does not. It could be due to slight differences in air drafts in the room, or distance from an outside wall. It could be that one meter had enough 55° water flowing through it during a cold snap that it kept the meter from freezing, while the other meter sat with stagnant water that got cold enough to freeze. Similarly, there are multiple explanations of why a meter might not freeze when it is -30°F but does freeze when it is +24°F. Again, it could be because there was 55° water flowing through the meter on the -30°F night, but not on the +24°F. Or a window or door could have been inadvertently left ajar on the second night, allowing cold outside air into the space. It is worth noting that frequently the meter will not leak while the meter body is frozen. The leaks begin once the meter thaws back out and water begins moving through the pipes again. CHARGES FOR DAMAGED METERS: The fees and charges associated with a frozen water meter are contained in Appendix Q in the Ames Municipal Code. Meters that are 1½” and larger are cost effective to rebuild; thus the charge is a trip fee plus the actual cost to repair. Meters 1” and smaller are not cost-effective to rebuild and are replaced when damaged. Most meters in this size range are residential meters that are replaced on a 10- 15-year cycle depending on the volume of water that has passed through the meter over its life. If a meter must be replaced early due to being frozen, the fee is based on the depreciated value (or remaining life) of the meter, as a percentage of the current cost to install a new meter. METER FROM 5212 LINCOLN WAY: Regardless of how it happened, it is clear in staff’s professional judgement that the meter removed from 5212 Lincoln Way had been frozen. Frozen meters are something staff experiences multiple times every winter, and the visual signs are very easy to spot. The following page contains a photo of the meter from 5212 Lincoln Way, and a library of photos from other locations where the water meter froze. Photo of damaged meter from 5212 Lincoln Way Attachment A: Service Order Ticket Attachment B: Appeal Request Attachment C: Council Referral Attachment D: Invoices 1 ITEM # ___19____ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF VENDING LICENSES DUE TO COVID-19 BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, on March 18, City staff administratively suspended Vending Licenses. These licenses are used by food vendors who operate in regular locations in downtown and Campustown. The City Council has subsequently approved Vending Licenses for several special events occurring in the downtown during the next several months. For the special events occurring this fall, several requested Vending Licenses for the purpose of displaying merchandise, not food. Routine vending operations outside of special events have not resumed. These routine Vending Licenses are primarily for food sales. On May 26, the City Council authorized the temporary relocation of vendors who normally operate on Welch Avenue to Chamberlain Lot Y. This action was requested due to the Campustown Public Improvements Project, which is currently taking place. The relocation is effective once the suspension of vending operations has concluded. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether to continue to suspension of Vending Licenses (except those approved as part of organized special events). The City Clerk’s Office has received inquiries from prospective vendors about obtaining new Vending Licenses. It appears that licensed vendors who operated prior to the pandemic on City streets and sidewalks have found alternative locations on private property to vend (which does not require a Vending License) or have paused their vending operations altogether. As with other decisions related to COVID-19, the Council must consider the ability of these operations to operate in a hygienic manner, along with the ability to appropriately distance patrons. City staff notes that pre-pandemic, crowds tended to form by vendors as patrons wait for food, particularly within the hours around bar closing time. 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the suspension of Vending Licenses through December 31, 2020, except those approved as part of a special event. Prior to that date, staff will re- evaluate conditions and present an update to the City Council. 2. Resume suspended Vending Licenses and direct staff to accept applications for new licenses effective immediately. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Ongoing vending operations have been suspended since March. City staff is continuing to receive inquiries from prospective vendors, and therefore, clarity from the City Council regarding vending would be helpful. Staff continues to have concerns about the crowds that form at food vendors and the ability to maintain appropriate patron distancing and hygiene. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. 1 ITEM # Additional Item DATE 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF CITY-SPONSORED BLOCK PARTIES DUE TO COVID-19 BACKGROUND: The City operates a trailer that can be reserved for neighborhood block parties during warm-weather months. Additionally, City staff facilitates neighborhood block parties that do not involve the use of the trailer by providing barricades to close streets. In response to COVID-19, on May 12, the City Council approved the cancellation of City-sponsored block parties through September 1. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether to continue the cancellation of City-sponsored block parties through the end of the calendar year. Several reservations have been made for the block party trailer for the first available weekends in September. Therefore, a decision must be made prior to that date to allow the block parties to proceed, or to cancel them for the remainder of the season. The decision-making criteria and analysis of the use of the Block Party Trailer, which was presented to the City Council in May, is attached. The review of these criteria indicate that the circumstances have not changed to warrant the resumption of block parties. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the suspension of City-sponsored block parties through December 31. 2. Allow for the City-sponsored block parties on City rights-of-way, but do not make available the Block Party Trailer. 3. Allow for the City-sponsored block parties on City rights-of-way, along with the use of the Block Party Trailer. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reservations have been made for the block party trailer after the start of September. A decision is required to clarify whether those reservations should proceed or if the use of City resources for block parties should be cancelled for the remainder of the year. An analysis of block parties conducted in May suggests that the block parties should not be held. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. 15 EVENT: BLOCK PARTY TRAILER RESERVATIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA: Is the event allowed under the Governor’s emergency proclamations? The Block Party Trailer is allowed; however, the events that use the trailer typically involve gatherings exceeding 10 people, which is not allowed. How many attendees are expected, and how densely crowded are they? Reservations have been accepted for May 16 and later and through May 7, nineteen reservations are approved for the 2020 season. (May = 4, June = 3, July = 2, August = 5, September = 1, October = 4) Attendance data is not collected so it is hard to estimate how many attendees are expected at events. Most reservations involve a request for a one- or two-block street closure in low density residential neighborhoods, with invitations extended to residents on those street(s). The trailer includes folding tables and chairs to accommodate about three dozen individuals. Residents may also bring their own lawn chairs, or sit on porches, etc. Block parties would likely have several focal points with greater attendee density, e.g., the trailer, food serving and consumption locations, and groups of game and activity participants. Do event organizers have a plan and equipment/supplies needed for increased hygiene? This is unknown at this time but could be made a requirement of making a reservation. The trailer supplies include a modest First Aid kit but no PPE is stocked. Unloading and reloading trailer equipment, supplies, and activities may require individuals to work within close quarters inside and outside of the trailer. There would be many shared surfaces as equipment is used as well as a lot of common touch points from the parts and pieces of games and activities supplied with the trailer. Since most of these events tend to be pot lucks, shared food serving utensils would be another potential shared touch point. Significant resources would be required to sanitize trailer equipment and supplies between events, doubly so on the weekends including two separate events. Is there sufficient staffing by event organizers to maintain social distancing among participants? This is also unknown since most block parties are informal neighborhood events with one or more event planners/organizers, but no structured supervision. Social 16 distancing would rely on self-monitoring and voluntary compliance of agreed upon criteria. Without enforcement, adherence to social distance standards would likely vary greatly among individuals and neighborhood events. Is there an increased risk that the event will require City staff to be in close contact with participants or organizers for an extended period of time? Parks and Recreation staff have limited, episodic contact with Block Party Trailer contacts, usually limited to delivery of the trailer yard sign to the resident's home along with an in-person hand-off of the trailer key. Police staff are involved with trailer delivery and pickup. Community Service Officers would have limited public contact, if any, during these transactions. Both Police and Fire staff are frequently invited to attend Block Party Trailer events. These visits involve extensive personal interaction between City staff and the public, as well as public contact with Police and Fire vehicles and equipment. CONCLUSION: This event involves promoting large neighborhood gatherings. Additionally, there are not sufficient resources needed to sanitize equipment and supplies. Therefore, the evaluation criteria indicate the Block Party Trailer should not be reserved for the 2020 season. Smart Choice 515.239.5101 main 5.239.5142 fax Ave. w.CityofAmes.org MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Steven L. Schainker, City Manager Date: August 21, 2020 Subject: Renewal of AEDC Contract At the June 9, 2020 meeting, the City Council reviewed a proposed renewal contract with the Ames Economic Development Commission. In keeping with past years, $150,000 has been earmarked to the AEDC to perform certain economic development activities in lieu of the City hiring permanent staff to accomplish these tasks. After reviewing the proposed contract, the City Council asked the City Manager to craft new language that more accurately represents how the contract is being operationalized. In addition, the City Council requested that a new task be specified in the contract that requires the AEDC to encourage and support minority-owned businesses in the community. As requested, I have discussed the agreement with the President of the AEDC and we have agreed to the proposed changes. Therefore, I am attaching for your approval the recommended contract with the AEDC for FY 2020/21. While most of the language remains the same as in previous years, I would ask that you pay particular attention to Article II B., paragraphs 2,3,14, and 15 where changes have been made. CONTRACT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 1st day of July, 2020, by and between the CITY OF AMES, IOWA, a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Iowa (hereinafter called "City") and the Ames Economic Development Commission, an adjunct of the Ames Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter called the AEDC); WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the City of Ames desires to purchase certain services from said organization in lieu of hiring additional permanent staff and expending additional City funds to accomplish these services; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto have agreed and do agree as follows: I PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to procure for the City and its citizens certain economic development-related services as hereinafter described and set out; to establish the methods, procedures, terms and conditions governing payment by the City of Ames for such services; and, to establish other duties, responsibilities, terms and conditions mutually undertaken and agreed to by the parties hereto in consideration of the services to be performed and monies paid. II SCOPE OF SERVICES A. In consideration for the payment of $90,000 in accordance with Section III, the AEDC shall provide the following economic development-related services to the City of Ames and its citizens during the term of this agreement: 1. The AEDC will serve as the lead contact for business representatives hoping to locate in Ames or to expand in our community. In this capacity the President of the AEDC will respond to information requests, coordinate the completion and submittal of state and local incentive applications, and show available industrial and commercial sites to prospects. 2. The AEDC will visit annually with all major companies to identify challenges and opportunities facing Ames businesses. 3. The AEDC will serve as the primary marketing entity for business recruitment to highlight Ames. 4. The AEDC will deploy an aggressive marketing campaign that will focus on targeted industries such as ag-biotechnology and advanced manufacturing businesses that do not overtax our infrastructure. 5. The AEDC will invest in significantly revising its marketing materials including website, brochures, and proposal packets to better reflect the image of Ames as a great place to do business. B. In consideration for the payment of $60,000 in accordance with Section III, the AEDC shall provide the following economic development liaison services related to the City of Ames and its citizens during the term of this agreement by maintaining a jointly funded Business Development & Marketing position to carry out the following duties and tasks: 1. Focus on the development of “small” or new businesses start-ups in the retail, commercial, and industrial sectors by: a) assisting with the recruitment and/or expansion of these types of businesses in the community; b) assisting entrepreneurs as they navigate through the various City, State, and Federal approval processes; and c) assisting entrepreneurs in obtaining the services available through the Small Business Development Center. 2. Serve as the Economic Development Liaison for the City of Ames by providing assistance and guidance regarding project requirements to developers and clients as they move through the City’s approval process. The position will ensure all required steps are completed, advocate for the City’s processes, and educate clients as to the rationale behind the City requirements. The Liaison will have regular communication with the City Manager regarding project progress. 3. Create and implement strategies to recruit, expand, and assist Minority-Owned businesses in the community. Maintain accurate data on the Minority-Owned businesses and provide support to those interested in starting a business by connecting them to various local, state, and federal agencies. 4. Provide input on communication pieces that will highlight the efforts of the AEDC and the City of Ames related to the positive developments in the community where the City and/or the AEDC have played an integral role. 5. Implement an aggressive marketing plan focused on targeted industries that dovetail with the competencies of Iowa State University related to food and nutrition technology, plant biotechnology, information technology, and animal science. These efforts should not be limited to the aforementioned, as the AEDC service territory includes site options for advanced manufacturing and distribution facilities. 6. Maintain frequent communication with stakeholders such as the Iowa Department of Economic Development, Alliant Energy, Iowa State University, and partners of the Ames-Des Moines Corridor. 7. Maintain a current list of active projects via the AEDC’s internal project tracking system and keep the City Manager apprised of these active projects. 8. Maintain a current list of consultants and site selectors, for periodic mailings and contacts in various markets so that the AEDC has a fresh list to choose from when visiting various locations around the U.S. 9. Review and analyze potential recipients of assistance from various economic development incentive offering entities. 10. Assist other AEDC/Ames Chamber of Commerce staff in responding to inquiries and working with economic development prospects, consultants, and supplier contacts, as needed. 11. Provide input into the overall plan of the AEDC and assist in its implementation where appropriate. 12. Provide an Ames customized Business Retention & Expansion (BRE) report to the City Manager on an annual basis both electronically and in paper form which highlights the overall health of various employers. 13. Provide a customized digital “Quarterly Economic Report” on Ames to the City Manager that highlights key economic indicators. 14. Prepare reports and perform analyses regarding economic development issues as requested by the City Manager. 15. The position will be supervised by the President and CEO of the Ames Economic Development Commission with performance feedback provided by the Ames City Manager. III METHOD OF PAYMENT A. All payments to be made by the City of Ames pursuant to Section II.A of this Agreement shall be reimbursement for actual costs incurred by AEDC in providing services required by Section II.A above. Payments made by the City of Ames pursuant to Section II.B of this Agreement shall be made in advance of services provide per terms in section III B of this Agreement. B. The City will disburse payments twice annually on requisitions of the AEDC in January and July of each year. Requisitions for services pursuant to Section II.A will be on a reimbursement basis and reflect cost for delivery of services for the prior six months. Requisitions for services pursuant to Section II.B will be one-half ($30,000) of the City’s annual contribution for the jointly funded position and paid in advance. If the jointly held position is vacant for more than 30 days, AEDC will provide the City with a pro-rata refund for the payment made in advance. Requisitions for disbursement shall be made in such form and in accordance with such procedures as the Director of Finance for the City shall prescribe. Said form shall include, but not be limited to, an itemization of the nature and amount of costs for which reimbursement is requested, and must be filled out completely. C. The maximum total amount payable by the City of Ames under this agreement is $150,000 as detailed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES (Section II of this contract), and no greater amount shall be paid. IV FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATION A. All monies disbursed under this Agreement shall be accounted for by the accrual method of accounting. B. Monies disbursed to AEDC by the City will be deposited by AEDC in an account under the AEDC’s name, with a bank located in Story County, Iowa. All checks drawn on the said account shall bear a memorandum line on which the drawer shall note the nature of the costs for which the check is drawn in payment, and the program(s) of service. C. All costs for which reimbursement is claimed shall be supported by documentation evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. All checks or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to this Agreement shall be clearly identified as such and readily accessible for examination and audit by the City or its authorized representative. D. All records shall be maintained in accordance with procedures and requirements as established by the City Finance Director, and the City Finance Director may, prior to any disbursement under this Agreement, conduct a pre-audit of record keeping and financial accounting procedures of the AEDC for the purpose of determining changes and modifications necessary with respect to accounting for funds made available hereunder. All records and documents required by this Agreement shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following final disbursement by the City. E. At such time and in such form as the City may require, there shall be furnished to the City such statements, records, reports, data, and information as the City may require with respect to the use made of monies disbursed hereunder. F. At any time during normal business hours, and as often as the City may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the City for examination all records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and AEDC will permit the City to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records. V REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS It is agreed that the City of Ames will be guaranteed three representatives on the AEDC Board of Directors (two City Council members appointed by the Mayor, and the City Manager). Furthermore, the City Manager will be guaranteed membership on the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. VI SUMMARY REPORT The AEDC further agrees to provide the City of Ames a written report no later than June 15, 2021, summarizing the accomplishments of the activities promised in Section II. VII DURATION This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from and after July 1, 2020, until June 30, 2021. VIII DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, no person shall, on the grounds of age, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have, by their authorized representatives, set their hand and seal as of the date first above written. CITY OF AMES, IOWA ATTEST: BY_______________________________ _________________________________ John A. Haila, Mayor Diane Voss, City Clerk AMES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BY______________________________ Daniel A. Culhane, President/CEO 1 ITEM # 21 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: SALE AND ISSUANCE OF ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2020A ISSUE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,105,000 BACKGROUND: The FY 2020/21 adopted budget includes General Obligation (G.O.) Bond-funded capital improvement projects in the amount of $10,681,900. The City Council held a public hearing on the issuance of these bonds and for the refunding of bonds on February 25,2020 as part of the budget process. Council action is now required to authorize the sale. Projects to be funded by this bond issue include the following: Subtotal Tax Supported Bonds $ 10,681,900 Refunding Bonds 9,175,000 Issuance Cost and Allowance for Premium 248,100 Grand Total – 2020/21 G.O. Issue $20,105,000 On the morning of August 25, 2020, the City will accept bids for the bonds per the terms of our offering statement. The bids will be evaluated by our financial advisor, the City’s Bond Counsel, and by City staff to recommend award to the bidder with the lowest cost. A report of bids will be provided to Council at the August 25, 2020 meeting. The City Council will then be asked to adopt a resolution accepting bids and authorizing award of the sale of bonds to the chosen bidder. The credit rating agency Moody’s Investor Services has affirmed the City’s Aa1 credit rating (attached). The rating is one notch below the highest rating of Aaa. 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt a resolution accepting bids and authorizing the sale and issuance of Essential Corporate Purpose General Obligation and Refunding Bonds in an amount not to exceed $20,105,000 to the chosen bidder. 2. Reject the bond sale resolution and delay the capital projects. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Issuance of these bonds is necessary in order to accomplish the City’s approved capital improvements during this fiscal year and realize the savings expected from bond refunding. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council accept Alternative No. 1, thereby adopting a resolution accepting bids and authorizing the sale and issuance of Essential Corporate Purpose General Obligation and Refunding Bonds in an amount not to exceed $20,105,000. U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE CREDIT OPINION 18 August 2020 Contacts Ryan Quakenbush +1.312.706.9963 Associate Lead Analyst ryan.quakenbush@moodys.com Eric Harper +1.312.706.9972 VP-Senior Analyst eric.harper@moodys.com CLIENT SERVICES Americas 1-212-553-1653 Asia Pacific 852-3551-3077 Japan 81-3-5408-4100 EMEA 44-20-7772-5454 Ames (City of) IA Update to credit analysis Summary Ames, IA (Aa1) has a very strong credit profile that benefits from institutional presence of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Aa2 stable). The city's finances are strong with ample revenue raising ability and healthy reserves. While Ames has a moderate debt burden and high fixed costs, this is offset with rapid debt payout. The city's ownership of Mary Greeley Medical Center (A2 stable) presents a degree of enterprise risk. We regard the coronavirus outbreak as a social risk under our ESG framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety. We do not see any material immediate credit risks for Ames. However, the situation surrounding coronavirus is rapidly evolving and the longer term impact will depend on both the severity and duration of the crisis. If our view of the credit quality of Ames changes, we will update our opinion at that time. Credit strengths »Institutional stability from Iowa State University »Substantial revenue raising flexibility »Healthy reserves Credit challenges »Enterprise risk from Mary Greeley Medical Center, whose operating expenditures are nearly three times the size of the city's revenues »Elevated fixed costs Rating outlook Outlooks are generally not assigned to local governments with this amount of debt. Factors that could lead to an upgrade »Reduction in the debt burden »Elimination of enterprise risk associated with the city-owned medical center Factors that could lead to a downgrade »Narrowing of operating reserves »Weakened credit profile of the medical center MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE »Tax base deterioration Key indicators Ames (City of) IA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Economy/Tax Base Total Full Value ($000)$4,058,344 $4,186,874 $4,639,809 $4,844,915 $5,028,924 Population 62,815 64,073 65,005 65,937 65,937 Full Value Per Capita $64,608 $65,345 $71,376 $73,478 $76,269 Median Family Income (% of US Median)118.9%115.4%120.9%113.9%113.9% Finances Operating Revenue ($000)$48,052 $48,934 $51,458 $51,955 $54,633 Fund Balance ($000)$22,917 $24,087 $26,066 $25,558 $27,072 Cash Balance ($000)$21,416 $22,652 $24,386 $24,209 $25,295 Fund Balance as a % of Revenues 47.7%49.2%50.7%49.2%49.6% Cash Balance as a % of Revenues 44.6%46.3%47.4%46.6%46.3% Debt/Pensions Net Direct Debt ($000)$64,110 $68,825 $68,230 $65,480 $63,290 3-Year Average of Moody's ANPL ($000)$71,853 $66,040 $66,907 $62,380 $87,222 Net Direct Debt / Full Value (%)1.6%1.6%1.5%1.4%1.3% Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues (x)1.3x 1.4x 1.3x 1.3x 1.2x Moody's - adjusted Net Pension Liability (3-yr average) to Full Value (%)1.8%1.6%1.4%1.3%1.7% Moody's - adjusted Net Pension Liability (3-yr average) to Revenues (x)1.5x 1.3x 1.3x 1.2x 1.6x Tax base data is displayed on a levy year basis, while financial information is based on a fiscal year basis. Source: Moody's Investors Service, Ames audited financial statements, U.S. Census Bureau Profile The City of Ames is located in central Iowa's (Aaa stable) Story County, approximately 40 miles north of the state capital of Des Moines (Aa2 stable). The city’s current population is approximately 66,000 residents. The city provides traditional municipal services and owns and operates a water, sewer, and electric utility. Detailed credit considerations Economy and tax base: strong tax base anchored by Iowa State University The coronavirus is driving an unprecedented economic slowdown. We currently forecast US GDP to decline significantly during 2020 with a gradual recovery commencing toward the end of the year. Local governments with the highest exposure to tourism, hospitality, healthcare, retail and oil and gas could suffer particularly severe impacts. The city's tax base is expected to remain strong due to several stabilizing institutions. The city is home to Iowa State University, with enrollment of over 30,000 students and employing more than 17,000 people. In addition to higher education the city benefits from an established health care and public sector employment base with major employers including the Mary Greeley Medical Center and the Iowa Department of Transportion. The city's current valuation of $5.0 billion has seen strong growth, with the last 5 years having an annual growth of 5.8%. The city has a myriad of economic development which should continue to have positive impact on the city's valuation. The city's median family income is 113.9% of the national median, slightly below rated peers, but skewed down due to a large student population. Ames June 2020 unemployment rate was 6.2%, which is well below the state and national unemployment rates. This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history. 2 18 August 2020 Ames (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE Financial operations and reserves: healthy financial performance; strong reserves The city's financial position will remain strong given prudent fiscal management, strong available reserves and significant revenue raising flexibility. Due to planned capital expenditures, the city estimates that its available operating fund balance will decline by $1.9 million, ending at a still strong $25 million or 46.1% of revenue. The city ended fiscal 2019 with an available fund balance of $27.1 million, or a very healthy 49.6% of revenue. With the expected decline in fund balance for fiscal 2020, the city will still have over 45% fund balance. For the current fiscal year, the city has a budget with a modest $160,000 surplus. Ames has significant revenue raising flexibility. The city does not currently levy the full general levy, does not levy a franchise fee, does not utilize the emergency levy, and does not utilize the employee benefits levy. In total, if the city used all available levies, it would generate more than $14 million in additional annual revenue. Mary Greeley Medical Center, which is presented as an enterprise fund in the city's financial statements, is a 220 bed regional hospital in Ames. The medical center has a separate, publicly-elected board of trustees that governs its operations. Operations of the hospital are sizeable relative to operations of the city. In fiscal 2019, operating expenses of the hospital were over three times larger than the city's total governmental revenues. While the financial operations of the hospital are strong, significant reductions in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements could adversely affect its financial position. Because the city owns the hospital, it is indirectly exposed to its financial operations and the broader pressures facing the not-for-profit health care sector. Notably, the city has not provided any financial support to the hospital for operations and does not plan to do so going forward. Liquidity At the close of fiscal 2019, the city had $25.3 million in liquidity, or a strong 46.3% of revenue. Debt and pensions: moderate debt and pension liabilities The city's debt and pension burden will likely remain moderate despite planned annual borrowings given continued tax base and revenue growth. Net direct debt totals $75.2 million, equal to a moderate 1.5% of full value and 1.4x operating revenue. The city plans to borrow $10-12 million annually over the next four years to finance projects included in its current five year capital plan. Moody's three year average adjusted net pension liability (ANPL), our measure of a local government's pension burden, was $87.2 million through fiscal 2019, equal to a somewhat above average 1.6x operating revenue and 1.7% of full value. Fixed costs, comprised of annual debt service requirements and retirement contributions, consumed a significant 39% of operating fund revenue in fiscal 2019. Legal security The city's GOULT debt is secured by the city's general obligation pledge and authorization to levy property taxes unlimited as to rate or amount to pay debt service. Debt structure All of the city's debt is fixed rate with a rapid ten-year principal payout of 92.7%. Debt-related derivatives The city is not a party to any debt-related derivatives. Pensions and OPEB The city participates in two defined benefit multi-employer cost sharing plans, the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) and Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI). On an annual basis, each plan establishes local government retirement contributions as a share of payroll based on actuarial requirements. The city has routinely made its full statutory contributions to the plans. The city's total fiscal 2019 contribution to both plans totaled $10.7 million or 19.5% of operating revenue. IPERS and MFPRSI contributions were 96% and 113% of tread water in fiscal 2019. Despite IPERS contributing below tread water, the plan level net pension liability for IPERS fell approximately 9% from fiscal 2018 to 2019 because of pension asset performance exceeding the plan’s assumed investment return. Because of a 12-month balance sheet reporting lag, the reduction in the plan’s unfunded liabilities in 2019 will not be reflected in local government balance sheets until fiscal 2020. 3 18 August 2020 Ames (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE The city operates a medical and dental plan for retired employees and their beneficiaries through a single-employer, defined benefit plan. Retired employees who choose to participate pay the full premium with no adjustment for the generally higher cost for retiree plans creating an implied subsidy for retiree health. The plan is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis and benefits terminate upon attaining Medicare eligibility. The plan reported a liability of $6.5 million, or a modest 0.2x operating revenues. ESG considerations Environmental Environmental considerations have a limited impact on the city's credit profile. Data from Moody's affiliate Four Twenty Seven indicate that Story County has a high exposure to heat stress compared to counties nationally. Rising temperatures could affect the region's agriculture production over the long term. Story County has medium exposure to water and extreme rainfall. Social Social factors are a consideration for the city. Resident incomes are above the state and national figures. Population growth has been strong over the last decade. The coronavirus outbreak is a social risk under our ESG framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety Governance Iowa cities have an Institutional Framework score of “Aaa,” which is very strong. Even with property tax caps on general and emergency levies, cities have strong revenue-raising flexibility because of various additional levies, including an unlimited levy for employee benefits. Unpredictable revenue fluctuations tend to be minor given the stability of the sector’s primary revenue source, which are property taxes. Expenditures mostly consist of personnel costs, which are highly predictable. Iowa’s public employee collective bargaining law limits the scope of bargaining to base wages for non-public safety employees. Across the sector, fixed costs are generally elevated and driven mainly by debt. 4 18 August 2020 Ames (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE Rating methodology and scorecard factors The US Local Government General Obligation Debt methodology includes a scorecard, a tool providing a composite score of a local government’s credit profile based on the weighted factors we consider most important, universal and measurable, as well as possible notching adjustments dependent on individual credit strengths and weaknesses. Its purpose is not to determine the final rating, but rather to provide a standard platform from which to analyze and compare local government credits. Scorecard Factors Measure Score Economy/Tax Base (30%) [1] Tax Base Size: Full Value (in 000s)$5,028,924 Aa Full Value Per Capita $76,269 Aa Median Family Income (% of US Median)113.9%Aa Notching Adjustments:[2] Institutional Presence Up Finances (30%) Fund Balance as a % of Revenues 49.6%Aaa 5-Year Dollar Change in Fund Balance as % of Revenues 12.7%Aa Cash Balance as a % of Revenues 46.3%Aaa 5-Year Dollar Change in Cash Balance as % of Revenues 12.4%Aa Notching Adjustments:[2] Outsized Contingent Liability Risk Down Other Scorecard Adjustment Related to Finances: significant revenue raising flexibility Up Management (20%) Institutional Framework Aaa Aaa Operating History: 5-Year Average of Operating Revenues / Operating Expenditures (x)1.0x A Debt and Pensions (20%) Net Direct Debt / Full Value (%)1.5%Aa Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues (x)1.4x A 3-Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Full Value (%)1.7%Aa 3-Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues (x)1.6x A Scorecard-Indicated Outcome Aa1 Assigned Rating Aa1 [1] Economy measures are based on data from the most recent year available. [2] Notching Factors are specifically defined in the US Local Government General Obligation Debt methodology. [3] Standardized adjustments are outlined in the GO Methodology Scorecard Inputs publication. Source: Moody's Investors Service, Ames audited financial statements, U.S. Census Bureau 5 18 August 2020 Ames (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE © 2020 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND/OR ITS CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $2,700,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.” Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively. MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY250,000,000. MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. REPORT NUMBER 1242029 6 18 August 2020 Ames (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE Contacts Ryan Quakenbush +1.312.706.9963 Associate Lead Analyst ryan.quakenbush@moodys.com Eric Harper +1.312.706.9972 VP-Senior Analyst eric.harper@moodys.com CLIENT SERVICES Americas 1-212-553-1653 Asia Pacific 852-3551-3077 Japan 81-3-5408-4100 EMEA 44-20-7772-5454 7 18 August 2020 Ames (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis Rating Action: Moody's assigns Aa1 to Ames, IA's GO Bonds 17 Aug 2020 New York, August 17, 2020 -- Moody's Investors Service assigns a Aa1 rating to the City of Ames, IA's $20.1 million General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2020A. Moody's maintains a Aa1 rating on the city's outstanding general obligation unlimited tax (GOULT) debt. Post-issuance, the city will have $75.2 million in GOULT debt outstanding. RATINGS RATIONALE The Aa1 rating reflects the city's healthy tax base and economy that is anchored by Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Aa2 stable). The city has had a history of strong financial performance that is supported by strong reserves and ample revenue raising flexibility. The rating is constrained by enterprise risk associated with the city's ownership of Mary Greeley Medical Center (A2 stable); however, this is offset by the hospital's strong liquidity and operating margins, and leading market position. The coronavirus outbreak is a social risk under our environmental, social, governance framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety. The coronavirus crisis is not a key driver for this rating action. We do not see any material immediate credit risks for the city. The situation surrounding coronavirus is rapidly evolving, however, and the longer term impact will depend on both the severity and duration of the crisis. If our view of the credit quality of the city changes, we will update the rating and/or outlook at that time. RATING OUTLOOK Outlooks are generally not assigned to local governments with this amount of debt. FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OF THE RATING - Reduction in the debt burden - Elimination of enterprise risk associated with the city-owned medical center FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO A DOWNGRADE OF THE RATING - Narrowing of operating reserves - Weakened credit profile of the medical center - Tax base deterioration LEGAL SECURITY The city's GOULT debt, including the Series 2020A bonds, are secured by the city's general obligation pledge and authorization to levy property taxes unlimited as to rate or amount to pay debt service. USE OF PROCEEDS The bonds will refund the city's 2010A, 2011B, and 2012 bonds, all of which were originally financed capital projects, as well as finance capital improvement projects across the city. PROFILE The City of Ames is located in central Iowa's (Aaa stable) Story County, approximately 40 miles north of the state capital of Des Moines (Aa2 stable). The city's current population is approximately 66,000 residents. The city provides traditional municipal services and owns and operates a water, sewer, and electric utility. METHODOLOGY The principal methodology used in this rating was US Local Government General Obligation Debt published in July 2020 and available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx? docid=PBM_1230443 . Alternatively, please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology. REGULATORY DISCLOSURES For further specification of Moody's key rating assumptions and sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and Sensitivity to Assumptions in the disclosure form. Moody's Rating Symbols and Definitions can be found at: https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx? docid=PBC_79004 . For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com. Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review. Moody's general principles for assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in our credit analysis can be found at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1133569 . Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody's legal entity that has issued the rating. Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating. Ryan Quakenbush Lead Analyst Regional PFG Chicago Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 100 N Riverside Plaza Suite 2220 Chicago 60606 US JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376 Client Service: 1 212 553 1653 Eric Harper Additional Contact Regional PFG Chicago JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376 Client Service: 1 212 553 1653 Releasing Office: Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 U.S.A JOURNALISTS: 1 212 553 0376 Client Service: 1 212 553 1653 © 2020 Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND/OR ITS CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S (COLLECTIVELY, "PUBLICATIONS") MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE MOODY'S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS ("ASSESSMENTS"), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS , ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS , ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY'S. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Moody's Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Corporation ("MCO"), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody's Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $2,700,000. MCO and Moody's investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody's Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody's Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading "Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy." Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody's Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. ("MJKK") is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody's Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody's SF Japan K.K. ("MSFJ") is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization ("NRSRO"). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively. MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY250,000,000. MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. 1 ITEM: ____22__ DATE: 08/15/20 Staff Report OVERVIEW OF AMES’ URBAN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM August 25, 2020 BACKGROUND: The City Council included a review of the established Urban Revitalization Areas (URA) and Programs in the Planning Division Workplan so that the Council may determine if any adjustments are needed to meet their current goals. City Council also directed staff to prepare options to revise the University Area URA in relation to construction of new Greek houses. The Urban Revitalization Areas are allowed by Iowa Code Chapter 404 as a means to encourage reinvestment, removal of “blight”, or for economic development by allowing a City to grant partial property tax abatement for new improvements to qualified real estate. Tax abatement is the elimination of property taxes, both the general levies and debt service, for all taxing entities related to the increased value of the project as a result of new improvements. The base value of the property before improvements and related taxes are not abated. The value of property tax abatements can be as much as 100% of the increased value or a set schedule of reduced percentages as defined by the Code of Iowa and approved by the City Council. The City also has established Programs that describe under what circumstances the City Council would consider creating a formal URA. The Programs do not in and of themselves establish property tax abatement incentives, they are only policies intended to guide consideration of a specific request to create a URA. The Addendum includes information regarding each current Program. Since 1981, the City has been administering the Urban Revitalization Area (URA) Program as allowed under Code of Iowa Section 404.2(2). The URA program initially occurred with the designation of five URAs that contained blighted and under-utilized conditions. An in-depth review of the URA Program in 1998 resulted in the City Council phasing out most of the URAs that existed at that time in order to gain more control over the tax incentive that was given for new development. Several transitional URA areas were established at that time to allow for the continuation of tax abatement for existing projects. City Council also established new URAs as a result of the comprehensive review. Additional changes have occurred since then on a case-by-case basis. The Addendum includes additional details on current URAs, including eligibility criteria, area maps, and the applicable value-added increase approved at time of adoption. PROGRAM AREA OBJECTIVES: By individual resolutions the City Council approve “Programs” that identified City priorities that would support creating a Revitalization Area upon request. These Programs are non- binding for creating Revitalization Areas and granting tax abatement. Currently the City has four Program areas. • Commercial Urban Revitalization Program in HOC Zoning • Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program • SE 16th St Commercial Urban Revitalization Program • University Impacted Area West Program URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS: In accordance with Chapter 404 of the Code of Iowa, the City Council has established multiple Urban Revitalization Areas (URAs). Urban Revitalization Areas may be established when an area meets one or more of the following criteria as established by the State: • Conditions exist that are detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. • Conditions exist that arrest sound growth, retard housing accommodation, constitute economic or social liability and menace public health, safety, or welfare. • Buildings exist needing preservation or restoration because of age , history, architecture, or significance. • The area has been designated an economic development area. • The area has been designated a housing or residential development area. Establishment of an Urban Revitalization Area requires a public hearing and adoption of an Ordinance. An Area Map and Criteria are defined that fulfill certain policy objectives related to that particular area. Project Specific URAs often include approved project site plans and building elevations in place of an area map. Once an URA is established by Ordinance, properties located within the URA may apply for tax abatement with the City Assessor if they meet the established criteria and are determined to be eligible by the City Council upon competition of improvements. Some project specific URAs have included expiration dates for the completion of the project and eligibility for URA tax abatement – but not all. Those which have not included an expiration date may be considered expired, due to the completion of the project, but it is staff’s opinion that a formal action on the part of the Council to eliminate these completed projects would be beneficial to avoid inadvertent subsequent property tax incentives for future improvements. Current URAs (map included in Addendum): • Downtown URA; No expiration • Campustown URA; No expiration • South Lincoln Neighborhood URA; No expiration • East University Impacted Area URA; No expiration • North Sheldon URA; No expiration • 405 & 415 Hayward URA [Iowa House] (Project Specific); No expiration • SE 16th Street First URA [Deery Brothers] (Project Specific); No expiration • 921 9th Street URA [Roosevelt School] (Project Specific); No expiration • 517 Lincoln Way URA [Squeaky Clean] (Project Specific); No expiration • 205 South Wilmoth URA [Breckenridge] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 • Walnut Ridge URA [3505-15 Lincoln Way] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 • The Union URA [2700 Lincoln Way] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 • 415 Stanton URA [The Crawford] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 Under Code of Iowa Section 404.7, the State grants the city authority to repeal the ordinance establishing a revitalization area, if the city determines that “the desired level of revitalization has been attained or if the city determines that economic conditions are such that the continuation of the URA abatement would cease to be of benefit to the city”. If a repeal of a URA should occur, existing tax abatements, based upon approved eligibility, continue until the completion of the tax abatement cycle of three, five or ten years. OPTIONS RELATED TO EXISTING URAs AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: URAs have generally been successful at incentivizing projects prioritized by the City Council over the past two decades. However, as time goes on the goals and objectives for an area or program may become stale, not support current priorities, or are ineffective at achieving their goals. Staff believes that some of these circumstances exist and that City Council may wish to repeal some URAs that that have been completed, have not achieved their purpose, or may not coincide with the preliminary direction on future changes related to Ames Plan 2040. City Council could also direct staff to revisit the criteria within a URA to update the expectations. Staff is not recommending creating any new URAs at this time. Extensive details on the current URAs and program objectives are included in the Addendum to assist in answering the following questions as City Council considers whether to update or repeal specific URAs: • Has the URA been effective in achieving its purpose? • Has the desired level of revitalization has been attained? • Has it had the impact on revitalization envisioned? • Are the individual criteria supportive of current goals and expectations for development? • With the upcoming completion of the Ames Plan 2040, will it still have relevance as a priority? • Are the economic conditions such that the continuation of the URA abatement would cease to be of benefit to the city? Option 1 – Determine if any changes are desired to the Program Objectives Are the following Program Objectives still needed? • Commercial Urban Revitalization Program In HOC • SE 16th St Commercial Urban Revitalization Program • Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program • University Impacted Area West Program Each of the Programs are unique and established at different times over the past 20 years. The Roosevelt School Area program has served its purpose of supporting adaptive reuse of the former school building and should be repealed. The remaining three Programs are not often utilized and City Council has not always chosen to create URA’s based upon their polices. Staff’s primary concern for these programs is looking forward, especially for the HOC Program, that they align with future redevelopment goals of Plan 2040. With Plan 2040’s focus on new Redirection Areas encouraging future context sensitive development, Sub-areas with planned broader areas of change, a general reorganization of commercial designations, and environmental policies, these Programs may not be relevant any longer. Although these Programs do not lock City Council in to creating URA and may not be a high priority at this time, it would be helpful to get direction on generally maintaining, repealing, or updating the Programs. If Council is interested in changes or updates, Staff would address specific changes at a follow up meeting based upon Council input. However, staff believes repealing Programs is preferable to making substantive changes to multiple areas in anticipation of Plan 2040. New Programs and areas can then be created based upon City Council priorities for implementation in 2021 when Plan 2040 is complete. Changes to the Programs only requires City Council to adopt a new resolution amending the Programs. Option 2 – Determine if any changes are desired to the URA Criteria Matrix and Map Areas Are the following URAs still needed and effective? • Downtown URA • Campustown URA • East University Impacted URA (addressed separately in following section) • North Sheldon URA • South Lincoln Neighborhood URA Establishment of Urban Revitalization Areas has been a useful tool to expedite project qualification. Its primary benefit is that the applicant is not subject to a lengthy approval process and discussion of unique criteria as generally applicable criteria apply to all projects that meet preestablished criteria. This approach emphasizes general area benefits rather than project specific benefits. The downside is that discretion on the desirability or need of providing the incentive for an individual project is limited. The most commonly used URAs are the Downtown and East University Impact URAs. The combination of demand for development in these areas related to ISU and the economic incentives encouraged substantial investments and changes to the areas. Of the current URAs, staff believes the South Lincoln Neighborhood URA should be repealed. Minimal redevelopment has occurred in this area and the structure of the criteria has not yielded the specific desired results in terms design and character. This area is labeled in Plan 2040 as an area to be revisited for an updated sub-area plan and it would be appropriate to consider a new URA in the future once that planning work is complete and to not encourage potentially undesirable redevelopment in the interim. Additionally, it is also staff’s recommendation that the Council modify the Downtown URA and request staff to develop eligibility criteria relate to the recent addition of the Ames Main Street Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the requirements of increasing assessed value to benefit from tax abatement, adding criteria related to historic preservation may or may not be economically valuable to a property owner, but it would encourage preservation. This type of update would require follow up with City Council to discuss appropriate criteria before proceeding with any changes. The other remaining URAs could be maintained as generally consistent with current goals and are not likely to conflict with Ames Plan 2040. They may need updates in future years based upon final decisions on redirection areas and sub-area plans (i.e. North Sheldon), but are not necessarily pressing needs at this time. Any URAs that are to be repealed require adoption by Ordinance. Any desired amendments to the criteria are made by resolution. Option 3 – Determine if project specific URAs which do not have a stated expiration date should be repealed to ensure closure Are the following project specific URAs still needed? • 405 & 415 Hayward URA [Iowa House] • SE 16th Street First URA [Deery Brothers] • 921 9th Street URA [Roosevelt School] • 517 Lincoln Way URA [Squeaky Clean] Several project specific URAs have not included an expiration date. Although the approval of the Urban Revitalization Area referenced specific attached project plans, a stated expiration date or limitation on the applicable time period for tax abatement qualification was not included. Staff recommends that for housekeeping purposes, all project specific URA ordinances adopted since 2000 without an expiration date be repealed. The exception would be the SE 16th Street First URA due to a companion development agreement for the properties. STAFF COMMENTS: The City Council should determine based on the data and analysis included in this report what changes to Ames’ Urban Revitalization Program and Urban Revitalization Areas should be considered. With the completion of Ames Plan 2040, guidance for new redevelopment areas will become apparent. Each of the options listed above include some recommended changes. Staff recommends moving forward with these changes in based upon current need or interest in the URAs and anticipation of Ames Plan 2040. It is staff’s intent that the material provided herein provides clarity for the Council to provide direction to staff on their preferences for changes, so that next steps can be defined. Although there will be some staff time involved to implement changes directed by Council, it is not anticipated that it will be burdensome to staff, given the background materials already compiled. Overall staff recommends that City Council repeal Programs and Areas that are complete, appear to not align with current priorities for economic development or preservation, or may conflict with future goals of Ames Plan 2040. Although many changes could be made, staff recommends prioritizing changes to the following as a first step. 1. Repeal Roosevelt Program and URA 2. Repeal South Lincoln Neighborhood URA 3. Repeal 405 & 415 Hayward URA -Iowa House 4. Repeal 517 Lincoln Way URA -Squeaky Clean 5. Update of Downtown to include Historic Preservation Criteria If City Council chooses to keep the other Programs or Areas in place at this time, the HOC program will need to be modified/repealed in 2021 to address the substantial changes in commercial designations planned with Ames Plan 2040. OPTIONS RELATED TO EAST UNIVERSITY IMPACTED URA AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GREEK HOUSING: The East University Impacted URA has had 13 properties seek tax abatement since 2006. Originally the criteria were designed to encourage preservation and expansion of existing Greek houses with the goal of incentivizing reinvestment in the area and supporting the Greek system to maintain its presence near campus. During the rapid expansion of ISU enrollment during the past decade, several things started to occur more frequently than were anticipated in the early 2000s. Staff saw a steady increase in the size of Greek houses due to a reduction in required parking as a result of 2014 zoning text amendment with the desire to upgrade and add amenity space, even if there is little or no increase in the bed capacity of the facility. Additional new chapters decided to locate in the area due to its location. Due to the desire to upgrade facilities there have been three approved demolitions and new construction approvals in the past five years years. With the change in the URA criteria in 2018 to allow for either additions or new construction to be eligible for tax abatement, the City created somewhat opposing policies between its current restrictive demolition standards in the Zoning Ordinance and its financial incentives for Greek homes in the URA. The map on page 15 of this report illustrates the location of current Greek Housing structures, those receiving tax abatement and those with new construction receiving tax abatement. City Council directed staff to address this difference with proposed adjustments to the URA criteria to not allow for new construction to be eligible for tax abatement. Council noted the intent was to allow for the Kappa Kappa Gamma house at 120 Lynn to proceed under the current rules as it was approved for demolition in December 2019. Rather than solely amend the criteria for new construction, it is also possible the Council could conclude that incentives for Greek house expansions are no longer necessary either due to the desirability of the area for locating Greek houses or the need to support expansion of amenity spaces. There does not appear to be a push to locate in other areas that are less costly or easier to develop than the areas adjacent to campus. Staff also identified an error by the City regarding one property’s eligibility for tax abatement as a result of mapping the approved tax abatements for the East University Area. The property at 313 Lynn applied for tax abatement under the East University Area URA and approved by the City per staff’s recommendation in 2018. This was an error as the property is not within the East University Area URA, it is in the West University Program Area to create a URA. City Council will need to provide direction on how to proceed with correcting this error in addition to future policy changes for the general East University URA. Option 1 – Direct that “new construction” be eliminated as an eligibility criterion. The change in focus of the URA from preserving existing Greek houses in this area to the greatest extent possible to now allowing tax abatement after demolition and new construction, will over time eliminate some of the historic characteristics of the area that once made it distinctive. Although the Criteria does not include specific historic preservation standards, it was one of the reasons for the initial standards for only addressing expansions. Eliminating new construction as an eligibility criterion restores tax abatement as an incentive to encourage and support adaptive reuse of Greek houses (some of which are likely to be historically and architecturally significant). Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1110(2) requires City Council approval for demolition of an existing or former Greek house in the East University Impacted Area. Five Greek houses have received approval for demolition in recent years— four houses (Kappa Kappa Gamma at 120 Lynn Avenue, Delta Tau Delta at 2121 Sunset Drive, Sigma Chi at 2136 Lincoln Way and Acacia at 138 Gray Ave) in order to construct new, larger homes for the increased Greek population. Two of these properties have thus far received tax abatement. The house at (129 Ash Avenue) was demolished to allow the construction of a parking ramp for a church and the Kappa Kappa Gamma house has not yet proceeded with their project. Even though demolition must be approved based upon hardship, concern has been expressed that the City might be incentivizing the demolition of historic buildings, contrary to city goals, objectives and policies for cultural resources. Additionally, with an incentive available to start afresh (with new construction), the motivation to renovate an existing structure is severely reduced. This option returns the URA to the former eligibility criteria: • The building is an existing or former residence recognized by the Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system; and • 70% of the area of the existing exterior walls of the structure will remain. • Construction of a new Greek residence recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system if built on a site that was formerly a Greek residence with a demolition approved by City Council prior to January 1, 2021-new Option 2 – Eliminate the East University Impacted URA altogether. Since the inception of the URA, 13 different properties have received tax abatement with one property receiving a second approval for a subsequent abatement. A list of these properties is included in the Addendum. The URA could be eliminated based upon the success of the program in solidifying the neighborhood with Greek housing and the clear market demand for this type of housing to be in areas adjacent to Campus. Some of the improvements incentivized by the program have been increases in amenity space more than an increase in capacity or renovation of the existing facilities to maintain their presence in the area. Ending the program could be through the repeal of the URA or establishing a date in the future where it is no longer in effect to allow projects planning to occur in the next year to proceed. Option 3 – Determine that no changes are needed to meet the City Council’s desired goals for the East University Impacted URA. This option leaves the current eligibility criteria as amended in 2017, in place. • 5% increase in assessed value • Properties must be located within the designated East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area. • Existing or former residences recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system, and which, following rehabilitation, 70% of the area of existing exterior walls of the structure will remain; OR • Construction of a new Greek residence recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system if built on a site that was formerly a Greek residence. The criteria align with the City’s land use policy for this area- to support the concentration of Greek housing in this area by continuing to house students who are members of the Greek organizations. Although the incentive and focus no longer is on supporting the reuse of existing Greek housing facilities, the criteria continues to provide tax abatement funding supporting a desired use for the area. However, it is more likely the program would support demolition requests rather than renovation and expansion as it is currently written. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is most supportive of Option 1, but sees merit in either of the first two options. Staff does not support Option 3. Council could also indicate an interest in changing some of the criteria related to eligibility to address other specific concerns. If City Council chooses to eliminate the URA, all current tax abatements would continue to the end of their approved abatement schedules. OPTIONS RELATED 313 LYNN AVENUE: The boundaries of the East University Impacted URA were implemented to replicate the O-UIE (East University Impacted Overlay District). The boundary of the URA has not changed since its initial adoption in 2006. The boundary encompasses the majority of Greek housing facilities that have historically been associated with ISU’s Greek Housing program. In 2018, the property at 313 Lynn Avenue was approved for tax abatement. This was in error. The application misstated that the property was located within the East University Impacted Area Overlay District, which is incorrect. It is rather, abutting the East University Impacted Area Overlay District, but located within the West University Impacted Area Overlay District. The property at 313 Lynn Avenue was purchased in 2016 by Delta Gamma for Greek housing. It formerly was home to the non-profit Assault Care Center and was constructed in 1972. The renovation retained 70% of the area of the exterior walls of the structure, resulting in it qualifying as having met the criteria of the URA (except for the mistaken location). The location discrepancy was only recently discovered as part of the preparation for this staff report. Staff has identified the following options to rectify the error and is requesting a determination from the City Council on how to proceed. Option 1 – Amend the boundary of the boundaries of the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area as described in Ordinance 3880, to include the 313 Lynn Avenue property; or Option 2 – Reverse the approval of the tax abatement for the property located at 313 Lynn Avenue, which became effective in 2018 and stop abatement for the remainder of its abatement schedule; or Option 3 – Identify another course of action to be implemented to rectify the situation. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff recommends proceeding with Option 1. ADDENDUM URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS (URAs): Current URAs: • Downtown URA; No expiration • Campustown URA; No expiration • South Lincoln Neighborhood URA; No expiration • East University Impacted Area URA; No expiration • North Sheldon URA; No expiration • 405 & 415 Hayward URA [Iowa House] (Project Specific); No expiration • SE 16th Street First URA [Deery Brothers] (Project Specific); No expiration • 921 9th Street URA [Roosevelt School] (Project Specific); No expiration • 517 Lincoln Way URA [Squeaky Clean] (Project Specific); No expiration • 205 South Wilmoth URA [Breckenridge] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 • Walnut Ridge URA [3505-15 Lincoln Way] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 • The Union URA [2700 Lincoln Way] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 • 415 Stanton URA [The Crawford] (Project Specific); Expires 12-31-2021 The following text includes Criteria Matrix and Map Areas for each URA: Campustown URA – Criteria: Masonry/Structured Parking/Mixed Use established 10-23-2001 by ORD # 3636; plan 10-09-2001 by RES # 01-462; amended criteria 03-28-2006 by RES # 06-113; 02-24-2009 by RES # 09-076; and12-14-2010 by RES # 10-563; amended map 12-13-2016 by ORD # 4285; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, 13 properties have received tax abatement: • 120-124 Hayward Ave [Campus Plaza LC] in 2018; • 2311 Chamberlain St [Cyclone Inns LLC]in 2017; • 2300 Lincoln Way [The Foundry] in 2016; • 2320 Lincoln Way [23 Twenty Lincoln] in 2016; • 127 Stanton Ave [Campus Acquisitions; The Resort] in 2013 • 111 Lynn Ave [Cyclone Inns LLC] in 2011; • 217 Welch Ave [Dickson D & LuAnn Jensen] in 2006; • 2420 Lincoln Way in 2005; • 121 Beach Ave [121 Beach LLC] in 2005; • 2519 Chamberlain St [Chamberlain LLC] in 2005; • 119 Stanton St [117 Stanton, LLC] in 2005; • 117 Stanton Ave [117 Stanton, LLC] in 2004; and • 215 Stanton Ave [Cyclone Plaza 2, LLC] in 2004. Current Eligibility Criteria: Campustown URA Criteria Appendix • All Projects must comply with an option from both column A & column B. Additionally, projects with residential uses must also comply with all requirements of column C. • Projects requesting final tax abatement approval must be compliant with an approved Site Development Plan and have received a certificate of building occupancy from the City of Ames Inspection Division. • All features incorporated into a project to meet URA criteria must be maintained for the life of the tax abatement. • Applications for final tax abatement approval must include supporting documentation for each of the relevant criteria. • Architectural Design Guidelines: The intent of this criterion is to promote building variation appearance within Campustown. The relative scale of new buildings can lead to similar building appearances due to construction techniques, uniform roof lines, and long building lengths; whereas, Campustown historically had diversity in building appearance and scale. Visual interest of a building means incorporating architectural features that define buildings elements, such as the base, middle, and top of a building. Appropriate architectural features can include window details, brick and material color variations that highlight building elements and support building identity, parapets, or expressive storefront glazing systems. Variation and Relief means building offsets that affect the apparent massing of the building at the ground level or for upper stories. For example, a uniform storefront at the base of building may have upper floor relief with a courtyard or changes in façade planes, alternatively, the lower levels of the building may have the appearance of multiple facades with a building offset that differentiates the façades and has a minimum depth of 6 inches. Recessed storefronts creating outdoor usable space at the ground floor can also provide variation and relief. The degree of needed facade relief will correspond to the scale of the building and length of the facade to achieve the desired effect of the URA criteria. Long facades are generally in excess of 60 feet; substantially longer façades may necessitate additional elements of relief. • Master Sign Program Sign program details in the plan shall include the style of signs (blade, channel letters, etc.) location of signs, size and scale, lighting details, method of attachment to buildings. Signage shall be orientated to the pedestrian level, internal illuminated cabinet signs with white or light color backgrounds are prohibited, channel letters should be affixed directly to the building without a visible raceway or have a backing panel that covers a creating the appearance of an overall sign face. Preferred signage would be decorative in appearance through its use of sign face materials, design, lighting, and style of signage. In consideration of approval of the Sign Program, the Planning Director will review the Campustown Idea Book signage guidelines, scale of signage and location in relation to the building features, and lighting type. Once a sign program is approved, individual sign permits must be consistent with the sign program. Properties must be located within the designated Campustown Urban Revitalization Area. See Map entitled, University Area Urban Revitalization Areas Map, on page 15. East University Impacted URA – Purpose: Greek Housing established 04-25-2006 by ORD # 3880; amended criteria 12-19-2017 by RES # 17-716; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, 13 different properties have received tax abatement: • 201 Gray Ave [Alpha Gamma Rho] in 2020; • 313 Lynn Ave [Delta Gamma] in 2018; • 2136 Lincoln Way [Sigma Chi] in 2018 (demolition & new construction); • 2121 Sunset Dr [Delta Tau Delta] in 2018 (demolition & new construction); • 117 Ash Ave [Delta Upsilon] in 2013; • 325 Ash Ave [Phi Gamma Delta] in 2012; • 228 Gray Ave [Sigma Phi Epsilon] in 2012; • 2125 Greeley St [Alpha Delta Pi] in 2011; • 2102 Sunset Dr [Kappa Delta] in 2011; • 233 Gray Ave [Sigma Kappa] in 2011; • 302 Ash Ave [Delta Delta Delta] in 2010; • 2007 Greeley St [Alpha Omicron Pi] in 2010; • 201 Gray Ave [Alpha Gamma Rho] in 2010; and • 227 Gray Ave [Chi Omega] in 2008. Current Eligibility Criteria: • Properties must be located within the designated East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area. • Existing or former residences recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system, and which, following rehabilitation, 70% of the area of existing exterior walls of the structure will remain; OR • Construction of a new Greek residence recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system if built on a site that was formerly a Greek residence. See Map entitled, University Area Urban Revitalization Areas Map, on page 15. North Sheldon URA – Purpose: Historic Preservation; established 04-25-2006 by ORD # 3881; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, one property has received tax abatement: • 2709 Lincoln Way [Suites on Lincolnway, LLC] in 2007. Current Eligibility Criteria: • The building on the site was originally built before 1941; and • Seventy percent (70%) of the area of the existing exterior walls of the structure will remain; and • Original or historical materials and designs will be preserved and/or restored. Properties must be located within the designated North Sheldon Urban Revitalization Area. See Map entitled, University Area Urban Revitalization Areas Map, below. 313 Lynn Downtown URA – Purpose: Retail Façade Improvement Standards eliminated in 1999; reinstated 05-22-2001 by ORD # 3615; repealed map 12-16-2008 and reinstated new map 12-16-2008 by ORD # 3978; amended map 06-14-2011 by RES # 11-286; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, 15 properties have received tax abatement: • 301 Main St [301 Main LLC; Sheldon-Munn] in 2018; • 413 Northwestern Ave [Ronald J McMillen; Wheatsfield Coop] in 2017; • 328-330 Main St [328-330 Main Street LLC] in 2015; • 123 Main St [Margaret Newton; Sportsmen’s] in 2014; • 313 5th St [Fifth Street 313 LC; Marr’s Wealth Management] in 2014; • 208 5th St [Fifth Street 208 LC] in 2013; • 203 Main St [turnkey Investments LLC] in 2013; • 410 5th St [Merrill Kim Sharp] in 2012; • 132-134 Main St [Main Street 134 WR LLC] in 2012; • 101 Main St [Richardson Worldwide LLC] in 2010; • 413 Northwestern Ave [Ronal J McMillen; Wheatsfield Coop] in 2010; • 216 Main St [Wescar Inc] in 2008; • 411 Kellogg Ave [Nyle H. Nims] • 220 Main St [Y2 LC] in 2005 • 229 Main St [Malone & Company Inc] in 2005 Current Eligibility Criteria: • Properties must be located within the designated Downtown Urban Revitalization Area; and • Improvements must be made to one or more of the facades of a building on the property that follow the current Downtown Design Guidelines for façade improvements as approved by City Council; and • The scope of the work must follow the current Downtown Design Guidelines for façade improvements as approved by City Council; and • If the first floor is vacant before the façade improvements are made, then the front half of the first floor is required to have a retail use after the improvements are completed. If the first floor has a permitted use before the façade improvements are made, then it is eligible. No residential structures are eligible; and • Improvements must be made to the property increasing its actual value by 5% or more. The property is eligible to receive abatement of 100% of this added value for each of three years. • The improvements must be maintained for the three years. Downtown Urban Revitalization Area Location Map South Lincoln Neighborhood URA - Purpose: Commercial Development; established 09-23-03 by ORD # 3733; criteria established by RES 03-347; amended 12-13-2005 by RES # 05-489; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, two properties have received tax abatement: • 306 S 3rd Street [D&N Ventures LLC (Celebrations)] in 2018; and • 207 S Third Street [Max Dallas LLC] in 2006. Current Eligibility Criteria: Properties must be located within the designated South Lincoln Neighborhood URA: South Lincoln Neighborhood URA Location Map PROJECT SPECIFIC – URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS (URAs): (These have no expiration date.) For Project Specific URAs, revitalization is applicable only to that subset of eligible property within the legal description that qualifies under the Criteria for Urban Revitalization and in accordance to the approved building and site plans. 405 & 415 Hayward URA [Iowa House Building LLC] – Criteria: Historic Preservation established 11-20-2007 by ORD # 3932; Project Specific, NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is 5% increase in value. Tax Abatement was approved in 2009 over a 3-yr period. Current Eligibility Criteria: An area will be considered for establishing an Urban Revitalization Area and Plan if one or more properties meet all of the following criteria: • Properties are located within the West University Impacted Overlay Zoning District; and • The National Park Service has determined that one or more of the properties has a structure(s) that meets the National Register Evaluation Criteria; and • Improvements are being made to one of the National Register eligible structures which preserve 70% or more of the area of existing exterior walls of the structure or restore original or historic materials and designs. NOTE: Improvements made to the structure or site on the property that the National Park Service has determined meets the National Register Evaluation Criteria are eligible for tax abatement, if the property value increases by 5% or more. 405 & 415 Hayward URA Location Map SE 16th Street First URA [Deery Brothers] – Criteria: Flood Mitigation established 11-27-2012 by ORD # 4131; Project Specific. NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is 15% increase in value. Tax Abatement was approved in 2015 over a 3-yr period. Current Eligibility Criteria (same as SE 16th Street Commercial Urban Revitalization Program): • The properties have frontage on Southeast 16th Street between South Duff Avenue and South Dayton Avenue. • Fill or other flood proofing will be placed on the site up to an elevation of, at least, 887 feet (NGVD29), when an engineer registered in Iowa provides written certification that raising the land would result in “no rise” to the Base Flood Elevation (100 year flood level). • The cost incurred after making the request for tax abatement for the placement of fill for flood proofing up to an elevation of 887 feet or above and/or channel improvements (See Criterion 6), if applicable, is expected to be equal to or greater than the value of the City’s portion of the tax abatement. • A public sidewalk is to be constructed along the south side of the Southeast 16th Street adjacent to the property. • The property will be used for uses permitted in the applicable zoning district except for the following as further defined and described in the Ames Zoning Ordinance: o Wholesale trade o Mini-storage warehouse facilities o Transportation, communications, and utility uses o Institutional uses o Adult entertainment businesses o Agricultural or industrial equipment sales o Agricultural and farm related activities • Owners of property abutting a river must perform channel improvements (widening, straightening, clearing, etc.) and provide certification from an engineer registered in Iowa that the improvements will mitigate flooding. These improvements must be approved by the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Ames. Since satisfaction of criterion 3, 5, and 6 cannot be guaranteed at the time of approving the tax abatement incentive, a developer agreement prior to the approval of the Urban Revitalization Plan will be required to assure that the City will repaid an amount equal to the tax abatement received for any criterion not met. In addition, the developer agreement should require that the conditions that allowed the determination of “no rise” be maintained by the property owner. SE 16th Street First URA Location Map 921 9th Street URA [Roosevelt School] - Criteria: Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse established 11-12-2013 by ORD # 4162; Amended 01-27-2015 by RES # 15-049; Project Specific, NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is 5% increase in value. Tax Abatement was approved in 2015, 2016, & 2017 for 3-yr, 5-yr, or 10-yr periods Current Eligibility Criteria: (same as Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program) • The property includes a former public school building that is no longer used as a school; and, • The National Park Service has determined that one or more of the properties has a structure that meets the National Register Evaluation Criteria; and, • The renovation and remodeling of structures will not destroy or obscure essential architectural features. In addition, such architectural features must be enhanced to the extent that it is feasible and prudent to do so. Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program Location Map 517 Lincoln Way URA [Squeaky Clean] – Criteria: Economic Development established 02-24-2015 by ORD # 4209; Establishes HOC Redevelopment Criteria as a Plan requirement; does not establish site specific improvement or architectural plans. RES #15-048 01-27-2015 Plan Project Specific. NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is 5% increase in value. Tax Abatement was approved in 2016 over a 3-yr period. Current Eligibility Criteria: (same as Commercial Urban Revitalization Program In HOC) • Properties eligible for tax abatement must be within the Highway-Oriented Commercial zoning district and also fit within one or more criteria: o Properties from which the principal building has been removed and the property has been vacant for at least seven years; and/or o Properties with a principal building that has been determined by the Building Official as meeting the definition of “Public Nuisance” in the Ames Municipal Code, Chapter 5, “Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Code” (Currently Section 5.401(7); and/or o Development or redevelopment of Brown Fields. Brown Fields include abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities or sites available for re-use or redevelopment. Expansion or redevelopment of such a facility or site is complicated by environmental contaminations. o Properties with at least 20% of the property area being within 1,000 feet of a City of Ames water well and within the Floodway-Fringe Overlay zoning district. The Developer must demonstrate that the proposed project cannot be configured or designed in a manner to avoid significant extra impact to the project because of its location near a City well head. • Non-qualifying Uses. Notwithstanding compliance under the above categories, tax abatement shall not be granted for properties developed for or otherwise used for the following uses: o Mini-storage warehouse facilities or other industrial uses. o Transportation, communications, and utility uses. o Institutional uses. o Automotive, boat, and/or RV sales. o Adult entertainment businesses. o Detention facilities. o Agricultural or industrial equipment sales. 517 Lincoln Way [Squeaky Clean] Location Map PROGRAM POLICY AREA OBJECTIVES: Commercial Urban Revitalization In HOC – Purpose: Economic Redevelopment established 08-10-1999 by RES # 99-305; amended 2009; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, 517 Lincoln Way [Squeaky Clean] is the only property that has been established as an URA and developed under the following objectives. Current Eligibility Criteria: • Properties must be within the Highway-Oriented Commercial zoning district, and also fit within one or more criteria: o Properties from which the principal building has been removed and the property has been vacant for at least seven years. o Properties with a principal building that has been determined by the Building Official as meeting the definition of “Public Nuisance” in the Ames Municipal Code, Chapter 5, “Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Code” (Currently Section 5.401(7)). o Development or redevelopment of Brown Fields. Brown Fields include abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities or sites available for re-use or redevelopment. Expansion or redevelopment of such a facility or site is complicated by environmental contaminations. o Properties with at least 20% of the property area being within 1,000 feet of a City of Ames water well and within the Floodway-Fringe Overlay zoning district. The Developer must demonstrate that the proposed project cannot be configured or designed in a manner to avoid significant extra impact to the project because of its location near a City wellhead. • Non-qualifying Uses. Notwithstanding compliance under the above categories, tax abatement shall not be granted for properties developed for or otherwise used for the following uses: o Mini-storage warehouse facilities or other industrial uses o Transportation, communications, and utility uses o Institutional uses o Automotive, boat, and/or RV sales o Adult entertainment businesses o Detention facilities o Agricultural or industrial equipment sales (See Map that follows.) Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program – Purpose: Historic Reuse established RES # 13-265; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, Roosevelt School Area URA is the only URA that has been established and developed under the Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program objectives Current Eligibility Criteria: An area will be considered for establishing an Urban Revitalization Area and Plan if one of the properties meets all of the following criteria: • The property includes a former public school building that is no longer used as a school; and, • The National Park Service has determined that one or more of the properties has a structure that meets the National Register Evaluation Criteria; and, • The renovation and remodeling of structures will not destroy or obscure essential architectural features. In addition, such architectural features must be enhanced to the extent that it is feasible and prudent to do so. • Improvements have been made to the property that conform to the approved Urban Revitalization Plan for that area and increase the actual value by 5% or more. Roosevelt School Area Urban Revitalization Program Location Map SE 16th St Commercial Urban Revitalization Program – Purpose: Flood Proofing established 06-12-2012; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. Since its establishment, SE 16th Street First URA [Deery Bros.] is the only URA that has been established and developed under the SE 16th Street Commercial Urban Revitalization Program objectives. Its value-added requirement is a 15% increase in value. Current Eligibility Criteria: • The properties have frontage on Southeast 16th Street between South Duff Avenue and South Dayton Avenue. • Fill or other flood proofing will be placed on the site up to an elevation of, at least, 887 feet (NGVD29), when an engineer registered in Iowa provides written certification that raising the land would result in “no rise” to the Base Flood Elevation (100 year flood level). • The cost incurred after making the request for tax abatement for the placement of fill for flood proofing up to an elevation of 887 feet or above and/or channel improvements (See Criterion 6), if applicable, is expected to be equal to or greater than the value of the City’s portion of the tax abatement. • A public sidewalk is to be constructed along the south side of the Southeast 16th Street adjacent to the property. • The property will be used for uses permitted in the applicable zoning district except for the following as further defined and described in the Ames Zoning Ordinance: o Wholesale trade o Mini-storage warehouse facilities o Transportation, communications, and utility uses o Institutional uses o Adult entertainment businesses o Agricultural or industrial equipment sales o Agricultural and farm related activities • Owners of property abutting a river must perform channel improvements (widening, straightening, clearing, etc.) and provide certification from an engineer registered in Iowa that the improvements will mitigate flooding. These improvements must be approved by the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Ames. Since satisfaction of criterion 3, 5, and 6 cannot be guaranteed at the time of approving the tax abatement incentive, a developer agreement prior to the approval of the Urban Revitalization Plan will be required to assure that the City will repaid an amount equal to the tax abatement received for any criterion not met. In addition, the developer agreement should require that the conditions that allowed the determination of “no rise” be maintained by the property owner. SE 16th St Commercial Urban Revitalization Program Location Map University Impacted Area West Program – Purpose: Historic Preservation / Reuse established 02-14-2006 by RES # 06-059; NO EXPIRATION The value-added requirement is a 5% increase in value. 405 Hayward URA is the only URA that has been established and developed under the University Impacted Area West Program. Current Eligibility Criteria: • Properties are located within the West University Impacted Overlay Zoning District; and • The National Park Service has determined that one or more of the properties has a structure(s) that meets the National Register Evaluation Criteria; and • Improvements are being made to one of the National Register eligible structures which preserve 70% or more of the area of existing exterior walls of the structure or restore original or historic materials and designs. • Improvements made to the structure or site on the property that the National Park Service has determined meets the National Register Evaluation Criteria are eligible for tax abatement, if the property value increases by 5% or more. • City Council must designate the proposed project site as an Urban Revitalization Area with an approved Urban Revitalization Plan. See Map entitled, University Area Urban Revitalization Areas Map, on page 15. ITEM # ____23___ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: POWER PLANT UNIT 8 PRECIPITATOR ROOF REPLACEMENT - REPORT OF BIDS BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2020, City Council approved preliminary plans and specifications for the Unit #8 – Precipitator Roof Replacement. This project is for the replacement of Unit 8 Precipitator Roof. Degradation to the current roof has resulted in water leakage throughout the Power Plant during seasonal rainfalls and snowmelts. Bid documents were issued to 23 firms and six plan rooms. The bid was advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing webpage and a Legal Notice was published on the websites of a contractor plan room service with statewide circulation. On August 19, 2020, two bids were received as shown in the report below. BIDDER LUMP SUM COST Henkel Construction Company Mason City IA $487,784.00 5,346.00 $493,130.00 Hansen Company, Inc. Johnston, IA $662,750.00 $1,820.00 $664,570.00 The Engineer’s estimate for the demolition, removal, proper disposal and replacement of the existing roof, steel roof deck, and wall panels is $250,000. The approved FY 2019/20 budget has $208,000 allocated for this project. The remaining $42,000 will be transferred from the unused balance in the Unit 7 Turbine Generator overhaul project. This turbine generator project is complete and has $300,000 in remaining funding available. Staff feels that additional time is needed to evaluate each bid in order to recommend an award that best meets the City’s needs. In addition, staff needs to determine the reasons why the bids are coming in significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate. If justified, staff will need to outline where the additional funding will come from when this is brought back to City council for award. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the report of bids and delay award for the Unit 8 Precipitator Roof Replacement until power plant staff is able to perform a thorough review and determine a recommended company to award the contract to. 2. Award a contract to the apparent low bid. 3. Reject all bids and direct staff to rebid. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff needs additional time to fully evaluate the bids before recommending action by the City Council. By choosing alternative No. 1, staff will have enough time to evaluate each bid to ensure the City receives these services at the best price. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1 as stated above. 1 ITEM # ____24_ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: POWER PLANT UNIT 8 TURBINE GENERATOR OVERHAUL PROJECT - REPORT OF BIDS 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 scheduled to be disassembled, inspected, and repaired at the same time as the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project. This work is required to replace worn parts and inspect the turbine and generator for repairs that may be needed to prevent unplanned turbine/generator outages, prevent costly turbine/generator damage, and increase turbine/generator reliability. Repairs and replacement of worn parts will be 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 and parts replacement are required and recommended by boiler and machinery insurance carriers and follows accepted industry standards. This bid is for labor and materials for the inspection and repairs on Unit 8 Turbine Generator. There was a separate bid for spare parts that are made available to the contractor for this repair. Bid documents were issued to sixty-three firms and five plan rooms. The bid was advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing webpage and a Legal Notice was published on the websites of a contractor plan room service with statewide circulation and the Iowa League of Cities. On August 12, 2020, seven bids were received as shown on the attached report. The specifications and bids are complex, and staff feels that additional time is needed to evaluate each bid in order to recommend an award that best meets the City’s needs. The Engineer’s estimate for the cost of the total project is $2,488,000. The approved Capital Improvements Plan includes the following funding for the Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul. 2019/20 Materials/Parts $1,000,000 2019/20 Construction 1,650,000 2019/20 GE Tech Support 350,000 TOTAL $3,000,000 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the report of bids and delay award for the Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul Project until power plant staff is able to perform a thorough review and determine a recommended company to award the contract to. 2. Award a contract to the apparent low bid. 3. Reject all bids and direct staff to rebid. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff needs additional time to fully evaluate the bids before recommending action by the City Council. By choosing alternative No. 1, staff will have enough time to evaluate each bid to ensure the City receives these services at the best price. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1 as stated above. BIDDER:Houston, TX ST Cotter Turbine Services, Inc Clearwater MN GE, Windsor, CT Turbomachinery Services, LLC Latham, NY Power Plant Park, IL Elliott Company Jeannette, PA Supply all materials,labor,and equipment to perform steam turbine generator major overhaul including the replacement of parts,inspection and repairs necessary for Unit 8 Turbine Generator as specified in the Invitation to Bid 2020-114 documents for the following lump sum amounts of: $1,253,108.00 $1,231,525.00 $999,983.00 $630,000.00 $922,737.00 $1,698,475.00 $656,964.00 $74,812.00 $92,364.38 City to determine N/A $43,679.00 $0.00 $0.00 ALTERNATE No. 1: Major Repair of First Stage Nozzle Parts:$11,208.00 $21,555.00 $32,265.00 $9,800.00 $12,626.00 $19,360.00 $30,274.00 ALTERNATE No. 2: Major Repair of First Stage Deflector:$18,761.00 $23,400.00 $15,305.00 $13,500.00 $28,910.00 $22,000.00 $18,600.00 ALTERNATE No. 3: Pull Turbine nozzle and perform major ensure proper fit: $62,302.00 $69,300.00 $10,189.00 $32,000.00 $52,596.00 $95,985.00 $22,450.00 ALTERNATE No. 4: $59,238.00 $108,095.00 $45,975.00 $59,800.00 $18,429/diaphragm $92,125.00 $156,416.00 ALTERNATE No. 6: Provide Two (2) On-Site Turbine Specialist during Outage Included in base bid $181,470.00 $378,180.00 $91,400.00 $149,800 each $294,652.00 $287,838.00 ALTERNATE No. 7 Provide One (1) On-Site Generator Specialist during Outage Included in Gen Testing Scope $52,550.00 See note 4 $104,000.00 $3,210/shift $198,462.00 $91,000.00 ALTERNATE No. 8: Four Main Shaft Journal Bearings:$16,125.00 $40,454.00 $45,000.00 $24,000.00 $37,900.00 $67,645.00 $49,950.00 ALTERNATE No. 9: Turbine Rotor Low Speed Spin Balance $8,193.00 $6,800.00 $9,826.00 $7,900.00 $18,500.00 $28,750.00 $25,040.00 ALTERNATE No. 10: High Speed Turbine Lube Oil Flush $61,019.20 $9,950.00 $180,149.00 $69,800.00 $53,206.00 $148,758.00 $79,992.00 ALTERNATE No. 11: High Speed Turbine Balance Test $45,334.00 $68,600.00 $44,937.00 $58,000.00 $68,500.00 $32,000.00 $54,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $1,535,288.20 $1,813,699.00 $1,761,809.00 $1,100,200.00 $1,194,975.00 $2,698,212.00 $1,472,524.00 Alternate Pricing Offered: $1,133,145.00 $32,639.00 Option 2 Section 485961 D Line 5 Diaphragm Inserts $23,873.00 GE Alternate No. 6A - Provide one on-site Turbine Specialist during outage $170,370.00 Diaphragm sealing $22,151.00 GE Alternate No. 13 - Control valves seat replacement $68,935.00 GE Alternate No. 14 - Replace main stop valve upper and lower PSH Bushings $23,209.00 GE Alternate No. 15 - Dynamic Frequency Response Test $22,018.00 GE Alternate No. 16 - Rotor Transportation est. $35,000 GE Alternate No. 17 - Diaphragms/Nozzle shipping to shop for repair cost+15% $936,033.00 GE Alt #2-Generator Test & Inspect $25,343.00 $20,448.00 $30,672.00 ITB 2020-114 UNIT 8 TURBINE GENERATOR OVERHAUL BID SUMMARY Alternate or Additional Pricing Proposed 1 8/13/2020 ITEM # 25 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 SEAL COAT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS – FRANKLIN AVENUE BACKGROUND: The Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements Program is the annual program for the removal and replace of worn out existing seal coat pavements from local streets and replaced with a new pavement surface. This program restores surface texture, corrects structural deficiencies, removes built-up seal coat. Built-up seal coat on streets causes excess crown which results in vehicles dragging at driveway entrances This replacement process results in: restore crown slopes, better riding surfaces, increased safety with improved surface texture, and increased life expectancy of streets. This project is for pavement improvements on Franklin Avenue north of Lincoln Way and includes replacement of the existing street with 7 inches of new asphalt pavement, upgraded pedestrian facilities to meet the current federal ADA regulations, and storm and sanitary sewer spot repairs and replacements. In place of a public meeting, staff made an informational video on the project and asked the residents for input on staging, construction timing and special access needs. Staff has completed plans and specifications for this contract which include a Base Bid (for improvements from Lincoln Way to Woodland St) and an Alternate Bid (to add improvements from Woodland St. to Oakland St On August 19th, 2020, bids for the project was received as follows: The program includes another project on East 8th Street, which is being bid separately. Revenue and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows: Funding Source Available Revenue Estimated Expenses 2019/20 Seal Coat (Road Use Tax Available Funds) $280,000 2019/20 Seal Coat Available (carryover) Funds $ 65,000 2019/20 Neighborhood Curb (Franklin Ave) $150,000 2020/21 Seal Coat Program $750,000 East 8th ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bid for the 2020/21 Seal Coat Pavement Improvements (Franklin Ave). b. Approve final plans and specifications for this project. c . Award the base bid and add alternate 2020/21 Seal Coat Pavement Improvements (Franklin Ave) project to Manatts of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $946,841.53. 2. Do not proceed with this project. MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The condition of the existing pavement for Franklin Ave has deteriorated such that a pavement replacement is necessary. The project will incorporate minor updates to existing storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and incorporate the latest ADA sidewalk compliance. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. 1 ITEM # 26 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 SEAL COAT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS - E 8TH ST BACKGROUND: The Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements Program is the annual program for the removal and replacement of worn out existing seal coat pavements from local streets and replacement with a new pavement surface. This program restores surface texture, corrects structural deficiencies, and removes built-up seal coat. Built-up seal coat on streets causes excess crown, which results in vehicles dragging at driveway entrances. This replacement process results in reduced maintenance costs, better riding surfaces, increased safety, and increased life expectancy of streets. This project is on East 8th Street from Duff Avenue to Carroll Avenue and includes replacement of the existing street with 8 inches of new concrete pavement, upgraded pedestrian facilities to meet the current federal regulations and storm and sanitary sewer spot repairs and replacements. In place of a public meeting, staff prepared an informational video about the project and asked the residents for input regarding design, staging, construction timing and special access needs. The initial design presented to residents included a 16-foot wide roadway. The residents provided feedback that a 16-foot wide roadway may encourage an increase in vehicle traffic and start to encroach on private properties. After receiving this feedback, the design was altered to include a 12-foot roadway with a 4-foot pedestrian zone. The 4-foot pedestrian zone will replace the existing sidewalk section currently located on private property. The pedestrian zone will be stained concrete (charcoal grey) and possibly textured to discourage vehicle traffic. A curbed section was also incorporated into the final designed at select locations based on resident feedback. On August 19th, 2020, bids for the project were received as follows: Bidder Base Bid Engineer’s Estimate $134,588.00 The program includes another project on Franklin Avenue, which is being bid separately. Revenue and expenses associated for this program are estimated as shown below. 2 2019/20 Seal Coat (Road Use Tax Available Funds) $280,000 2019/20 Seal Coat Available (carryover) Funds $ 65,000 2019/20 Neighborhood Curb (Franklin Ave) $150,000 2020/21 Seal Coat Program $750,000 Franklin Ave Base Construction (Lincoln Way to Woodland St) $ 700,733.28 Franklin Ave Add Alternate Constr. (Woodland St to Oakland St) $ 246,108.25 Engineering $ 130,000.00 ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bid for the 2020/21 Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements (E 8th St). b. Approve final plans and specifications for this project. c . Award the 2020/21 Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements (E 8th St) project to All Star Concrete of Ankeny, Iowa, in the amount of $161,610.46. 2. Do not proceed with this project. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The condition of the existing pavement for East 8th Street has deteriorated such that a pavement replacement is necessary. The project will incorporate minor updates to existing storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and incorporate the latest ADA sidewalk compliance. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above. 1 ITEM # 27 DATE 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 RIGHT-OF-WAY RESTORATION (STANDARD VEGATATION) BACKGROUND: This program is for restoration of the right-of-way areas associated with various Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) projects. Disturbed ROW areas are restored using seed or dormant seed. Success using these various types of restoration is volatile and appears to depend on the weather at and following the time of installation. The ROW Restoration program allows staff to utilize a single contractor that specializes in seeding to restore several locations. Staff has seen success in the program and has utilized observations from previous programs to improve this year's plans and specifications to provide a better overall project for the contractors, field inspection staff and citizens of Ames. Locations included within this project are shown on the attached page. The intent was to do a base bid and an add alternate for a warranty. Inadvertently the warranty was included with the base bid and in the add alternate with the final bid documents. Therefore, it is recommended to only award the base bid which includes the warranty. On August 19th, 2020, bids for the project was received as follows: Bidder Base Bid Add Alternate Bid Total Bid Engineer’s Estimate $149,992.00 $15,000 $169,992.00 Another project ROW Restoration (Native Vegetation) is being bid separately. Revenue and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows: 2 Funding Source Road Use Tax $125,000 Water Utility Fund $75,000 Sewer Utility Fund $75,000 Storm Sewer Utility Fund $50,000 2020/21 ROW Restoration (Native Vegetation) Construction $45,426.25 Engineering $30,800.00 ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bid for the 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Standard Vegetation) b. Approve final plans and specifications for this project. c. Award the Base Bid 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Standard Vegetation) project to Country Landscapes of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $96,175.65. 2. Do not proceed with this project. CITY MANAGER'SRECOMMENDED ACTION: Proceeding with this project will make it possible to begin restoration efforts on projects from the current construction as well as on projects planned for the 2021 spring construction season. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 3 2020-21 ROW Restoration (Standard Vegetation) Locations SITE #STREET FROM TO CIP LOCATION Phases SEED (SQ)REMARKS 1 13th Street Wilson Avenue Duff Avenue 2019/20 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements 4 222 14th Street Clark Avenue Duff Avenue 15th Street Burnett Avenue Duff Avenue 3 Bloomington Avenue Hoover Avenue Grand Avenue 2019/20 Collector Street Pavement Improvements 2 66 Des Moines Avenue Lincoln Way East 3rd St Center Avenue Lincoln Way East 2nd St East 3rd Street Duff Avenue East Avenue East 2nd Street Duff Avenue Center Avenue 5th Street Northwestern Avenue Allan Drive Douglas Avenue 7th Street 10th Street Grand Avenue 10th Street 11th Street 11th Street Grand Avenue Wilson Avenue Kellogg Avenue 12th Street 13th Street Burnett Avenue 14th Street 15th Street Johnson Street Northwestern Avenue Kennedy Avenue Franklin Avenue Lincoln Way Oakland Street 2 151 East 8th Street Duff Avenue Carroll Avenue 1 20 7 Idaho Ave (Spring Valley) Oklahoma Drive Idaho Circle 2016/17 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation 1 30 Resident backyard Locations 8 2019/20 Sanitary Sewer Rehab (Basin 10)1 5 Total 19 865 2 52 ESTIMATED QTY 2 2019/20 Asphalt Pavement Improvements 1722 4 2019/20 Concrete Pavement Improvements 1524 2019/20 Seal Coat Street Pavement Improvements 6 Varous Locations as needed ( As directed by Engineer) 5 2019/20 Clear Water Diversion 1 ITEM # 28 DATE 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 RIGHT-OF-WAY RESTORATION (NATIVE VEGATATION) BACKGROUND: This program is for restoration of the right-of-way area associated with the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) project 2018/19 Storm Water Facility (Little Bluestem). This location will have native vegetation established over an extended period of care. Disturbed ROW areas are restored using seed or dormant seed. Success using these various types of restoration is volatile and appears to depend on the weather at and following the time of installation. The ROW Restoration program (Native Vegetation) allows the City to utilize the expertise of a contractor that specializes in native vegetation to ensure its establishment. Another project—ROW Restoration (Standard Vegetation)—is being bid separately. Staff has seen success in the program and has utilized observations from previous programs to improve this year's plans and specifications to provide a better overall project for the contractors, field inspection staff and citizens of Ames. On August 19th, 2020, bids for the project was received as follows: Bidder Base Bid Engineer’s Estimate $53,625.00 One nonresponsive bid was also received. Revenue and expenses associated with this program are shown below. Funding Source Road Use Tax Fund $125,000 Water Utility Fund 75,000 Sewer Utility Fund 75,000 Storm Sewer Utility Fund 50,000 2020/21 ROW Restoration (Standard Vegetation) Construction $96,175.65 Engineering 30,800.00 $325,000 $172,401.90 2 Remaining funding will be allocated to other project locations as needed to ensure properly restored rights-of-way. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bid for the 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Native Vegetation) b. Approve final plans and specifications for this project. c. Award the 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Native Vegetation) project to Country Landscapes of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $45,426.25. 2. Do not proceed with this project. CITY MANAGER'SRECOMMENDED ACTION: Proceeding with this project will make it possible to begin restoration efforts on the 2018/19 Storm Water Facility (Little Bluestem) as well as on projects planned for the 2021 spring construction season. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. ITEM # ___29__ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2018/19 STORM WATER FACILITY REHABILITATION (LITTLE BLUESTEM) BACKGROUND: In accordance with the Municipal Code, new developments within the community are required to provide storm water management quantity control. As part of the post- construction storm water management ordinance adopted in April 2014, commercial and industrial landowners are responsible to maintain their own storm water facilities. This ordinance also outlines that the homeowner’s association/owner for residential developments will maintain all water quality features. However, the City is responsible for the long-term maintenance of residential regional detention facilities providing water quantity control. As these facilities age, sediment accumulates, volunteer vegetation becomes more prevalent, erosion occurs, and structures need to be improved. This annual program addresses those concerns. The location for the 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation Program is on a parcel owned by the City of Ames between Little Bluestem Court and Gateway Hills Apartments (Gateway Hills Lots W, X, Y, and Z). On August 19, 2020 bids for the project were received as follows: Bidder Bid Revenues and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows: ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Approve the report of bid for the 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation (Little Bluestem) Project. b. Approve final plans and specifications for this project. Funding Source Available Revenue Estimated Expenses c. Award the 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation (Little Bluestem) Project to J & K Contracting of Urbandale, Iowa in the amount of $133,233. 2. Do not proceed with the project. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: By approving this project, it will be possible for construction to commence during 2020. The rehabilitation of the Little Bluestem/Gateway Hills stormwater facility will improve the water quality entering Worle Creek and provide increased stormwater retention capacity in that area. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1. 1 ITEM # 30 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2019/20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (LINCOLN WAY & BEACH AVE) BACKGROUND: The Traffic Signal Program is the annual program that provides for replacing older traffic signals and constructing new traffic signals in the City, which will result in improved visibility, reliability, and appearance of signals. This program provides the upgrading of the traffic signal system technology. In recent years, traffic signal replacements have included video detection systems instead of in-pavement loop detection systems that had previously been used (frequently a point of vehicle detection failure). Another advantage of the video-based detection system is that it detects bicycles in addition to vehicles. This project will install a new signal and new pedestrian ramps at the intersection of Lincoln Way & Beach Avenue. On August 19, 2020, bids were received for this project as follows: Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s estimate $237,183.50 Voltmer, Inc. $309,684.19 The revenues and expenses for this project are as follows: Revenues Expenses Construction 309,684.19 Total $370,750 Total $ 413,272.19 Shortage $42,522.19 The bid received exceeds the estimated construction cost by a substantial amount. Staff believes that better bid pricing could be achieved if the project was rebid in late Fall 2020. Additionally, it is anticipated that a necessary easement with Iowa State University will be not approved until November 2020. 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program (Lincoln Way & Beach Ave) project. b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project. c. Reject all bids and direct staff to rebid the project. 2. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program (Lincoln Way & Beach Ave) project. b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project. c. Direct staff to find additional funding to cover project shortfall. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The bid received for this project significantly exceeds the project budget. Staff believes a better bid environment could be obtained by waiting until fall to re-bid the project. Additionally, this will provide staff time to complete a necessary easement with Iowa State University. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. ITEM # 31 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2020/21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (S. DUFF & S. 5TH STREET) BACKGROUND: The Traffic Signal Program is the annual program that provides for replacing older traffic signals and constructing new traffic signals in the City, which will result in improved visibility, reliability, and appearance of signals. This program provides the upgrading of the traffic signal system technology. Traffic signal replacements include video detection systems instead of in-pavement loop detection systems, providing detection of bicycles in addition to vehicles, and much higher reliability. This project will install a new signal and one new pedestrian ramp at the intersection of S. Duff Avenue and S. 5th Street. On August 19, 2020, bids were received for this project as follows: Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s estimate $197,636.15 Voltmer, Inc. $208,696.51 The revenues and expenses for this project are as follows: Revenues Expenses Construction $208,696.51 Total $389,500 Total $338,023.51 ALTERNATIVES: 1a. Accept the report of bids for the 2020/21 Traffic Signal Program (S. Duff & S. 5th Street) project. b.Approve the final plans and specifications for this project. c.Award the 2020/21 Traffic Signal Program (S. Duff & S. 5th Street) project to Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah, Iowa in the amount of $208,696.51. 2.Award the contract to one of the other bidders. 3. Do not proceed with this project MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proceeding with this project will make it possible to provide better service for residents using this intersection. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. 1 ITEM # 32 DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 2019/20 MULTI-MODAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (13TH STREET & CLARK AVENUE) BACKGROUND: Multi-modal transportation refers to the various modes used by Ames residents to travel the transport system. This program is aimed at improving the roadway to create a safer interaction between modes using alternatives such as improved crossing visibility at intersections, bike detection, and on-street facilities (e.g., bike lanes, sharrows). Bike lanes consist of a portion of the roadway designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Sharrows are markings used in travel lanes that are shared by bicycles and motor vehicles. This technique is used when a travel lane is too narrow to provide a standard width bike lane. Bike detection improvements include retrofitting signalized intersections to radar detection to facilitate the movement of bicycles. This project will install a new pedestrian hybrid beacon at the intersection of 13th Street and Clark Avenue (similar to the device in front of Fire Station #1). On August 19, 2020, bids were received for this project as follows: Bidder Total Bid Engineer’s estimate $111,522.25 Voltmer, Inc. $109,589.30 The revenues and expenses for this project are as follows: Revenues Expenses Construction $109,589.30 Total $225,000 Total $220,341.30 2 ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (13th Street & Clark Avenue) project. b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project. c. Award the 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (13th Street & Clark Avenue) project to Voltmer, Inc. of Decorah, Iowa, in the amount of $109,589.30. 2. Do not proceed with this project CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proceeding with this project will make it possible to create a safer, multi-modal intersection for residents utilizing the area. This intersection is a critical crossing for Clark Avenue to function as a Bicycle Friendly Street. Significant coordination with the Ames Bicycle Coalition (ABC) led to the design shown in the final plans for the project and this is an important improvement for ABC. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above. ITEM # __33 __ DATE: 08-25-20 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: BAKER SUBDISVION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2020 City Council approved the professional services contract with Civil Design Advantage LLC (CDA) for preparing public improvement plans for Baker Subdivision consisting of 26 single-family lots and one multi-family lot along Tripp Street between Wilmoth Avenue and State Avenue. The project improvements consist of sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewers, utility services; construction of Latimer Lane, alley/shared use path pavement, stormwater basin improvements, and sidewalk installation. On August 19, 2020 bids were received as follows: Contractor Base Bid (utilities) Alternate A (paving) Construction Engineer’s Estimate $1,022,899.00 $380,023.00 $1,402,922.00 On-Track Construction $1,055,153.50 $371,249.50 $1,426,403.00 Keller Excavating, Inc. $1,085,272.00 $412,980.10 $1,498.252.10 Available Revenue Estimated Expenses $1,317,872.65 The total allocation of the 2020-21 CDBG award is $602,642, of this amount $120,528 (20%) is available for administration, leaving approximately $482,000 for use on the Baker Subdivision. The total FY 20/21 amount has been earmarked for the City; however, the City will not receive these funds until HUD approves the City’s 2020- 21 Annual Action Plan. Due to the delay in completing the Annual Action Plan to incorporate the COVID-19 amendments, the City’s plan will not be completed until late September or early October. Therefore, moving ahead with the infrastructure contracts will need to occur in advance of HUD’s final approval of the Annual Action Plan. However, once the City’s Action Plan is submitted to HUD, the City’s allocation will be released to the City. This should occur sometime November 2020. It should be noted that the distributive geo-thermal system planned for this subdivision is not part of this bid package. It will be bid separately at a later date. ALTERNATIVES: 1. a. Approve the report of bids for the Baker Subdivision Improvements Project. b. Approve final plans and specifications for this project. c. Award the Baker Subdivision Improvements Project to Con-Struct Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount of $1,317,872.65. 2. Award a contract for the base bid only (utilities) to match the amount of funding currenting on hand. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: As part of development of Baker Subdivision, public improvements for utilities and paving are important to move the project forward toward building affordable homes in the Ames community. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1.