HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - September 8, 2020, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAGENDA
JOINT MEETING OF THE AMES HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AND AMES
CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE, AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL*
SEPTEMBER 8, 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 PM
JOINT MEETING OF THE AMES HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND AMES CITY COUNCIL
1. Presentation of 2019 Annual Report
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION (AAMPO) TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE**
**The Regular Meeting of the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO)
Transportation Policy Committee will immediately follow the Joint Meeting of the Ames
Human Relations Commission and Ames City Council.
1. Review of Scored Project Ranking and Funding Summary for the 2045 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan
POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING***
***The Regular City Council Meeting will immediately follow the meeting of the Ames Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Committee.
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving Minutes of Regular Meetings of August 18, 2020, and August 25, 2020
3. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period August 16 - 31, 2020
4. Motion approving certification of Civil Service applicants
5. Motion authorizing Mayor to send Letter of Support for Main Street to pursue funding through
a Main Street Challenge Grant for 412 Burnett and 330-5th Street
6. Motion approving 5-day (September 15 - September 20) Class C Liquor License - Gateway
Hotel & Conference Center, 2100 Green Hills Drive
7. 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 - Kum & Go #0217, 3111 S. Duff Avenue
b. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege and Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee #1 Clubroom,
3800 West Lincoln Way
c. Class B Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - The Love Club, 4625
Reliable Street
d. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer), and
Sunday Sales - Southgate Expresse, 110 Airport Road
e. Class C Liquor License with Class B Native Wine Permit, Outdoor Service, and Sunday
Sales - AJ’s Ultra Lounge, 2401 Chamberlain Street
8. Motion approving Water Quality Grant Application through the State Revolving Fund sponsored
project for refund of interest for use for future storm water improvements and designating
Municipal Engineer Tracy (Warner) Peterson as the authorized representative
2
9. Resolution accepting the report of the Rapid Need Purchases for repairs to the 161 KV tie line
for Electric Services
10. Resolution awarding contract for On-Call Architectural and Engineering Services to ASK Studio
of Des Moines, Iowa, for a period of two years, with hourly rates between $50-$150 depending
on the staff member, and annual renewal options for up to three additional years for Cy-Ride
11. Resolution awarding contract for 15kV 1/0 Stranded Aluminum for Electric Services to Wesco
Distribution, of Des Moines, Iowa, in the amount of $80,892.00 (inclusive of sales tax)
12. Resolution approving contract for Fiber Optic Cable Installation for the Solar Farm to
Communication Innovators, of Pleasant Hill, Iowa, in the amount of $52,900
13. Resolution awarding for Unit 8 Precipitator Roof Replacement to Henkel Construction
Company, of Mason City, Iowa, in the amount of $487,784 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax)
14. Resolution approving contract and bond for Unit 8 Crane Renovation
15. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2020/21 Seal Coat Program (Franklin Avenue)
16. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2020/21 Seal Coat Program (East 8th Street)
17. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Standard
Vegetation)
18. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2020/21 Right-of-Way Restoration (Native
Vegetation)
19. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation (Little
Bluestem)
20. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2020/21 Traffic Signal Program (S. Duff & S. 5th
Street)
21. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements (13th
Street & Clark Avenue)
22. Resolution approving contract and bond for Baker Subdivision Improvements
23. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2019/20 Multi-Modal Roadway Improvements
(Mortensen Road, West of South Dakota Avenue)
24. Resolution approving Plat of Survey for Bishop Farms at 831 E. Riverside
25. Resolution approving Final Plat for Northridge Heights Subdivision, 19th Addition
26. Resolution approving partial completion of public improvements and reducing required security
for Quarry Estates, 2nd Addition
27. Resolution approving partial completion of public improvements and reducing required security
for Quarry Estates, 4th Addition
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:
28. Staff Report on Delinquent Utility Accounts related to COVID-19
3
PLANNING & HOUSING:
29. Staff Report regarding sidewalk construction for Bricktowne Development
30. Request of Verbio to annex to the City of Nevada:
a. Motion directing staff to prepare an amendment to the Annexation Moratorium Agreement
to allow Verbio to annex to Nevada and extend the Agreement until 2030
PUBLIC WORKS:
31. Resolution approving private Water Main Agreement between Harvester Land Holdings, LC,
and Dickson and Luann Jensen for uses on the seven existing lots
HEARINGS:
32. Hearing on the Domani property located at 2200 Oakwood Road:
a. Rezoning property generally located at 2200 Oakwood Road from Agricultural (A) to
Planned Residence District (F-PRD):
i. First passage of ordinance
b. Major Site Development Plan for property generally located at 2200 Oakwood Road:
i. Resolution allowing for the construction of a single-family residential development
comprised of 63 residential lots
c. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat for 2200 Oakwood Road
33. Hearing on 2017/18 Main Street Pavers (Clark to Burnett):
a. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Pillar Inc., of
Huxley, Iowa, in the amount of $175,408.46
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
4
2019 ANNUAL REPORT
AMES HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
1
2019 ANNUAL
REPORT
AMES HUMAN RELATIONS
COMMISSION
CITY OF AMES MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 14
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the provision of the Iowa
Civil Rights Act and to further provide for t he general welfare of
persons in the City of Ames, Iowa, by prohibiting certain discriminatory
practices, and to establish a commission for the investigation of
complaints of discrimination; and, to undertake projects of education to
prevent discrimination; and, to establish procedures for the conciliation
of such complaints; and to enforce the provisions hereof.
At an August 2018 city council workshop, council members directed the
AHRC to not adjudicate cases and instead refer all cases to the Iowa
Civil Rights Commission. At this workshop, Council also discussed
various methods of gathering additional information to inform an
adjusted or revised ordinance and directed the AHRC to review data
available (including the Campus Climate Survey, Municipal Equality
Indexes) and other available data; interact with ISU, ACSD, and any
others well-positioned to give input on diversity, inclusion and equity in
the community in order to recommend action items and changes to the
ordinance.
2019 COMMISSIONERS:
Liming Pals
Wayne Clinton
Joel Hochstein (Chair)
Jill Crosser
Madesh Samanu
Deb Schildroth (City staff)
CONTENTS
2019 Activity
Highlights……………..
……………pages 2-3
Ames Civil Rights
Complaints 2019……..
……………pages 3-6
2017-19 AHRC
Strategic
Plan………pages 6-9
2
ACTIVITY HIGHLIGHTS:
JANUARY 2019:
Approved to co-sponsor a poverty simulation in cooperation with Inclusive Ames.
Discussed the success of its partnership with the 2018 Symposium on Building Inclusive
Organizations. Wrote letter to City Council supporting funding request from Dan Culhane at
the Chamber of Commerce for the 2019 Symposium.
FEBRUARY 2019:
Reviewed and approved our annual report for submission to City Council.
Update on planning for 2019 Symposium on Building Inclusive Organizations.
MARCH 2019:
Approved changes to the “A Home for Everyone” Award.
APRIL 2019:
Discussed the March joint meeting with City Council.
Discussed and approved additional changes to the “A Home for Everyone” Award.
MAY 2019:
Scheduled and approved June retreat.
Selected Joel Hochstein to serve as Chair.
JUNE 2019:
Held special meeting (retreat) to discuss outreach plan for soliciting information from various
groups throughout the community.
Discussed Source of Income Discrimination in Housing as referred by the City Council.
JULY 2019:
Authorized Chairperson Hochstein to draft a memo supporting the Council’s discussion of
Source of Income Discrimination in Housing.
Approved FY 19/20 budget.
AUGUST 2019:
Chairperson Hochstein updated the commission on on-going planning for the 2019 Symposium
on Building Inclusive Organizations.
Discussed proposal by Inclusive Ames to collaborate on a program also sponsored by the Story
County Democrats and Story County Republicans. AHRC discussed and ultimately did not co-
sponsor the event at risk of having the Commission be involved in structured political activity.
SEPTEMBER 2019:
No September meeting.
OCTOBER 2019:
Worked with city staff to inquire about the possibility of conducting an electronic survey in lieu of
focus groups.
Approved Humanitarian Award application materials and referred city staff to post on AHRC
website.
Approved Commissioner Clinton to serve on behalf of the AHRC on the Martin Luther King Jr.
Celebration Planning Committee.
Approved Commissioner Crosser to serve on next year’s Symposium planning group and
commissioners attended the Building Inclusive Organizations Symposium.
3
NOVEMBER 2019:
Reviewed and approved questions for online survey being conducted through the City’s
website.
Approved and sent memo to Council outlining various suggestions to enhance the City’s
commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion for Council’s goal setting retreat.
DECEMBER 2019:
Telephonic meeting conducted due to commissioner schedule conflicts.
Selected Janet Hopper as the Humanitarian Award recipient.
Approved language and nomination form for the “A Home for Everyone” award.
AMES CIVIL RIGHT COMPLAINTS TO THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMISSION 2019:
Citizens are able to initiate complaints to the City via the City Manager’s Office or make them directly to
the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). As a matter of procedure, reports made to the City are sent
to the ICRC for investigation and are tracked by the ICRC. Reports have been made to the Iowa Civil
Rights Commission involving Ames of which the Ames Human Relations Commission is not notified.
The Commission requested aggregate summaries of the Ames complaints made to the ICRC for the
purpose of understanding the areas of complaints and concerns identified. Results of this request are
provided below.
Figure 1. Areas of Discrimination Complaints
10
3
Areas of Discrimination Complaints
Employment Housing
4
Figure 2. Basis for Complaint (Consolidated)
Figure 3. Results of Complaints
For comparison, in calendar year 2018, there were 31 complaints filed from Ames. Of these, 81% (25)
were related to employment, while the remaining 19% (6) were related to housing, public
accommodation or education. The bases or basis for the complaints was race/color (12 complaints),
age (4 complaints), Sex (12 complaints), retaliation (2 complaints), disability (12 complaints), religion (2
complaints), “national origin” (2 complaints). Note that individuals may file complaints in more than one
area simultaneously. Five (5) of these complaints received administrative closure, one (1) was deemed
“no probable cause”, while nineteen (19) were under open investigation, two (2) issued a Right-to-Sue
letter, and four (4) were satisfactorily adjusted at the time of the request.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
National Origin
Retaliation
Age
Disability
Sex
Race/Color
Sexual Orientation
Basis for Complaint (Consolidated)
2
46
1
Results of Complaints
Successfully Mediated Administrative Closure
Open Investigation No Probable Cause
5
Full 2019 Information shared by Iowa Civil Rights Commission
Area Basis Cause of Action Result
Housing Disability Failure to accommodate, terms and
conditions
Successfully
mediated
Employment
National origin, age,
sexual orientation,
disability, retaliation
Harassment, undesirable assignment,
constructive discharge In investigation
Employment Retaliation Harassment, discharge
Administrative
closure by
EEOC
Employment Race, sex, color,
retaliation Discharge, constructive discharge Administrative
closure
Employment Sex, retaliation Failure to train, undesirable
assignment, other adverse actions
Open with
EEOC
Housing Race Harassment No probable
cause
Employment Race, color, disability Discharge Awaiting
investigation
Employment Sex, retaliation Failure to promote, discharge,
undesirable assignment, unequal pay
Administrative
closure
Employment Sex, age, retaliation Harassment, reduction in hours Successfully
mediated
Employment Race, retaliation Terms and conditions of employment
Administrative
closure by
EEOC
Employment Age, sexual
orientation Discipline, discharge Awaiting
investigation
Employment Disability, retaliation
Discipline, failure to promote, failure
to train, harassment, undesirable
assignment
Awaiting
investigation
Housing Disability Failure to accommodate, terms and
conditions In screening
AMES HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION 2017-19 STRATEGIC PLAN
Introduction:
Since establishment by City Ordinance in 1974 the Ames Human Relations Commission has been
charged with the responsibility of investigating, reporting, and making recommendations to the City
Council on civil rights and human relations issues. The establishing ordinance prohibits specified
discriminatory practices. It is the duty of the Commission to put in place and oversee, consistent with
the City Ordinance, a process by which complaints of such discrimination are received, investigated
and resolved in a manner that enforces those prohibitions. Additionally, the Commission has a duty to
produce research, investigations, reports and publications to promote goodwill among the diverse
citizens of Ames. What follows is a broadly stated strategic plan to guide the Commission in meeting
its responsibilities in 2017-2019.
6
Strategic Goal A – Watchdog
The Human Relations Commission will function as an alert and energetic watchdog. A watchdog is
sensitive to approaching danger and barks a warning before harm happens. To that end, the
Commission will undertake activities to discover conduct or circumstances that may lead to prohibited
discrimination so that the community can be warned and assisted in preventing
it. The Commission will develop and follow a protocol to handle discriminatory incidents in the Ames
community.
Strategic Goal B – Information & Analysis
The Commission will study the existence, character, causes and extent of discriminatory practices in
the community.
Objective Strategies Performance Measures
Maintain objective knowledge
related to claims of
discrimination.
Obtain reports from the Iowa
Civil Rights Commission on
claims of discrimination in
relation to types and probable
cause.
Annually review and trend
reports.
Monthly receive reports from
the City on types of claims
made locally in writing, or on the
website.
Monthly agenda report of
Discriminatory Claims to the City, and
any concerns expressed on the
Human Relations@cityofAmes.org.
Formal and informal reports will
be used to determine priority
areas of focus.
Review reports and share
with City Council and Community
leaders annually and as needed.
City and Community employers
will be knowledgeable regarding
workplace discrimination and
how to decrease the risk.
Partner with community
employers and human resource
specialists to identify concerns
and opportunities for non-
discriminatory workplace
cultures.
Meet with Cyclone Society for
Human Resource Management
(CySHRM) to identify their concerns
and opportunities to promote non-
discriminatory cultures and practices.
Summarize and share
qualitative and quantitative findings
with City Council relating to claims of
discrimination.
Support accurate reporting of
City activities related to
inclusion and anti-discrimination
practices.
Work with City to identify public
reporting related to inclusion
and anti-discriminatory
practices.
Municipality Equality Index.
Research potential rubrics for
inclusion for City
Services/Municipalities.
Identify opportunities for
obtaining information related to
community member perceptions
and experiences in relation to
housing, employment, public
accommodation, race and
ethnic minority, gender identify,
religion, age, gender, sexual
orientation, physical or mental
disability, or familial status.
Reach out to community
partners or populations to
identify concerns or successes.
Bi-annually, collect and
summarize findings to be used for
future planning, i.e. Community
Demographics, CyRide or City
Surveys.
7
The Commission will be an
active presence in providing
community education and
deterring discrimination.
The Commission will increase
engagement and community
interactions.
Monitor and report contacts or
participation in relation to social media
and public engagement activities.
Strategic Goal C – Public Awareness & Effective Communication
The Human Relations Commission will work to improve its profile and effectiveness in communicating with the
general public as follows:
Objective Strategies Performance Measures
Raise public awareness of the
Commission’s work
Expand media outreach Provide an educational
press release (on housing,
employment, education/training,
public accommodations or
services, credit) to CitySide, the
Ames Tribune, Iowa State Daily,
and/or KHOI Radio station at
least 4 x per year, ideally every 3
months.
Develop a protocol to
communicate with the press
following discriminatory incidents
in the Ames community.
Maintain an active presence in
the Ames community
Have at least one
commissioner attend each of the
events listed in the
Commission’s annual calendar,
with visible identification (t-shirt,
name-tag)
Co-sponsor community
events with aligned
organizations and individuals
Develop a list of, and
work with, aligned organizations
and individuals to provide links
from their websites to the AHRC
website.
Keep the AHRC website current
and easy to navigate
Make a link to any
AHRC educational pieces and
resolutions, Iowa Civil Rights
Commision documents, etc. from
the website
Provide and update the
annual calendar of events
Use social media to
communicate with the public
Utilize the City of Ames
Facebook page.
Improve access to AHRC
publications and dissemination
of information for all persons
Revise website and documents
to provide accessibility to those
persons with limited English
proficiency
On the website:
Provide translated
bolded/large print directions (in
Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and
Korean) on (a) how to translate
the web contents on the City
8
site; (b) how to file a complaint;
(c) how to access interpretation
for other City services.
Provide link to Iowa Civil
Rights Commission Complaint
Form directions in Spanish
On AHRC documents:
Provide translated
bolded/large print directions (in
Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and
Korean) on how to obtain
interpretive services for
assistance in understanding
discrimination laws and filing
complaints
Bi-annually, review Ames City
(Cy-Ride) demographic data to
determine if translation is
needed for other languages
Improve communication with
transgender, gender-
nonconforming, and gender-
questioning persons within the
Ames community
Revise City website and
brochures to include gender
neutral language
Remove his/her
language from AHRC-specific
literature
Explore the possibility of
removing such language from
other City documents.
Raise public awareness of
community organizations,
activities, and individuals that
exemplify inclusivity and a non-
discriminatory approach
List these organizations,
activities, and individuals on the
AHRC website
Annually, award the
Humanitarian Award and Fair
Housing Award
Strategic Goal D – Management Excellence
The Human Relations Commission will strive to keep this strategic plan at the forefront of all its
decisions and activities. In the spirit of that objective, the Human Relations Commission agenda will
reflect the strategic plan by indicating a section for each strategic goal. All business of the commission
should be placed under a subheading in the agenda for each meeting and if a business item is linked to
more than one goal, each goal should be identified beside the business item [ie: Commission
Response to White Nationalist Remark (SG-A, SG-C)]
The Human Relations Commission will strive to effectively spend the budgeted monies from the
Ames City Council. Monies allocated for the Commission should only be used in ways what advance
these strategic goals. During its annual report, the Commission should describe the ways in which its
monies were used and in what ways its use advanced the goals described above.
City of Ames Human Relations Commission
Strategic Plan 2020-2022
Strategic Goal A – Advocacy
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) values a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community and will
function as an advocacy group for the citizens of the City of Ames. The Commission will undertake
activities to discover, conduct analysis on, and circumvent instances that may lead to prohibited
discrimination so that the community can be warned and assisted in preventing it. Commission
members will be active participants in the city and will develop and follow a protocol to handle
discriminatory incidents in the Ames community and will report and make recommendations directly to
the City Council to ensure all voices are heard.
Strategic Goal B – Information & Analysis
The Human Relations Commission will study the existence, character, causes and extent of
discriminatory practices in the community while using resources to gain information and work with
community partners, leaders, and report directly to the City Council.
OBJECTIVE 1: HRC will maintain objective knowledge related to claims of discrimination.
• HRC will work directly with the Iowa Civil Right Commission and will collaborate annually
with a representative to better understand the complaint process.
• HRC will obtain and review reports from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on claims of
discrimination in relation to types and probable cause.
• HRC will obtain and review reports from the City on types of claims made locally in
writing, or on the website and report of Discriminatory Claims to the City, and any concerns
expressed on the Human Relations@cityofAmes.org.
• HRC will obtain and review formal and informal reports that will be used to determine
priority areas of focus and will share with City Council and Community leaders annually and as
needed.
OBJECTIVE 2: HRC will partner with City and Community members to learn about discrimination and
how to decrease the risk.
• HRC will partner with community employers and human resource specialists to identify
concerns and opportunities for non-discriminatory workplace cultures as needed.
• HRC will summarize and share qualitative and quantitative findings with City Council relating
to claims of discrimination.
• HRC will work with the City to identify public reporting related to inclusion and anti
discriminatory practices.
OBJECTIVE 3: HRC will identify opportunities for obtaining information related to community member
perceptions and experiences in relation to housing, employment, public accommodation, race and
ethnic minority, gender identify, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability,
or familial status.
• HRC will reach out to community partners or populations to identify concerns or
successes in the areas mentioned above.
• HRC will collect and summarize findings to be used for future planning, i.e. Community
Demographics, CyRide or City Surveys.
OBJECTIVE 4: HRC will be an active presence in providing community education and deterring
discrimination.
• The Commission will increase engagement and community interactions.
• Monitor and report contacts or participation in relation to social media and public
engagement activities.
Strategic Goal C – Public Awareness
& Effective Communication
The Human Relations Commission strives to be a central location for the citizens of the City of
Ames to advocate for, build awareness of, and communicate with. Commission members will
connect with their community through public awareness and effective communication
members.
Objective 1: HRC will work to improve effectiveness in communicating with the general public through
media outlets
• HRC will increase engagement, community interactions and raise public awareness of the
Commission’s work by expanding media outreach.
• HRC will provide educational press releases on topics related to housing, employment,
education/training, public accommodations or services, credit, and other topics to the city of
Ames Facebook page, and other media outlets regularly.
• HRC will administer communication with the press following discriminatory incidents in the
Ames community as determined by the commission.
• HRC will monitor and report contacts or participation in relation to social media and public
engagement activities.
Objective 2: HRC will maintain an active presence in the Ames community
• HRC will be active in the community and have commissioners attend events listed in the
Commission’s annual calendar with visible identification (t-shirt, name-tag).
• HRC will co-sponsor community events with aligned organizations and individuals throughout
the city.
• HRS will provide and update the annual calendar of events online.
• HRC will raise public awareness of community organizations, activities, and individuals that
exemplify inclusivity and a nondiscriminatory approach. Members will be present at annual
awarding the Humanitarian award (January-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Holiday) and Fair
Housing Award (April at City Council).
Objective 3: HRC will keep all documentation related to its mission current, easy to navigate, assessible,
and with person first language
• HRC will create link to educational pieces and resolutions, Iowa Civil Rights Commission
documents, etc. from the website to improve access to publications and dissemination of
information for all persons.
• HRC will provide translated bolded/large print directions (in Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and
Korean) on (a) how to translate the web contents on the City site; (b) how to file a complaint;
(c) how to access interpretation for other City services.
• HRC will provide translated bolded/large print directions (in Spanish, Chinese, Arabic,
and Korean) on how to obtain interpretive services for assistance in understanding
discrimination laws and filing complaints on all HRC Documents.
• HRC will provide a link to Iowa Civil Rights Commission Complaint Form directions in Spanish and
Chinese. HRC will also provide information on how to obtain it in other languages and formats.
• HRC will improve communication with transgender, gender-nonconforming, and gender-
questioning persons within the Ames community and will assist in the revision of all City website
and brochures to include gender neutral language: Remove his/her language from AHRC-specific
literature
Strategic Goal D – Management Excellence
The Human Relations Commission will ethically work towards this strategic plan for the
betterment of our community in an ethical and fiscally responsible way.
Objective 1: HRC will strive to keep this strategic plan at the forefront of all its decisions and activities and
within our areas of focus and expertise
• The HRC’s monthly meeting agenda will reflect the strategic plan by indicating a section for each
strategic goal and all the council’s priorities will feed each section.
• HRC Commission Members will work with community partners who specialize in areas of
expertise
• HRC Commission members will represent the HRC with respect, recognize and celebrate the
strength of the City of Ames’ greatest asset, the value of all people, via diversity and inclusion.
They will be respectful of opinions, customs, and individual preferences to help build strong
relationships.
Objective 2: HRC will manage the annual budget in a fiscally responsible manner
• HRC will strive to effectively spend the budgeted monies from the Ames City Council
responsibly. Monies allocated for the Commission should only be used in ways what advance
these strategic goals.
• HRC will describe the ways in which its monies were used and in what ways its use advanced
the goals described above in the annual report.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
To: AAMPO Transportation Policy Committee Members
Cc: John Joiner, AAMPO Administrator [Public Works Director]
From: Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer [Vice Chair of MPO TTC]
Date: September 4, 2020
Subject: September 8, 2020, Policy Committee Meeting: Progress Update for
the Ames Area MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan “Forward 45”
BACKGROUND:
On July 14, 2020, the Ames Area MPO Policy Committee was given a presentation on
the progress of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). At that meeting, the
MPO’s consultant, HDR, went through the public input process for the plan, the
“universe of alternatives” list of potential projects, and the performance measures
(scoring criteria) for the plan.
FUNDING SUMMARY AND DRAFT FISCAL CONSTRAINED PLAN:
On September 8, 2020, HDR will review the performance measures and resultant
project scoring. (See Attached Presentation) The consultant will also provide a review of
the funding summary to show the estimated budget for the next 25 years of
transportation improvements (fiscal constraint). The Policy Committee can give
direction to HDR and staff for any desired changes to the prioritized projects.
Otherwise, no other action by the Policy Committee is needed at this meeting.
The funding is broken into multiple time frames; Committed Project (2021-2024), Short-
Term (2025-2029), Mid-Term (2030-2037), and Long-Term (2038-2045). The costs for
projects in each respective time frame are based on 2020 construction costs inflated by
approximately 4% per year.
The fiscally constrained plan will prioritize projects that fall within the funding limits of
each time frame based on need and highest possible benefit to the network. Projects
that are caused by new development (annexations, subdivisions, or other large
developments) or projects in the fiscally constrained plan that are accelerated by
impacts of development are expected to be 100% funded by the developer. Those
projects that are known during the implementaion of the 2045 MTP will be considered
as “development-driven projects.”
Illustrative projects are projects that are identified by the plan as having benefits to the
transportation system and are sometimes referred to as “unfunded needs” or “projects
of opportunity.” The need for those projects likely falls outside the time frame (>2045) or
outside the fiscal constraint (higher priority projects expend all available funds). These
projects are expected to happen when need and funds from external sources become
available to the jurisdictions.
NEXT STEPS:
September 22, 2020 - The Policy Committee will receive a presentation of the Draft
2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Minor corrections or revisions will be discussed
at that meeting. The Policy Committee is not expected to take final action on the
plan at this meeting. The by-laws of the MPO requires that we begin a 30-day
minimum comment period, which would end on October 22, 2020.
October 27, 2020 - The Policy Committee will be presented with the Final 2045 MTP
“Forward 45” for formal approval/adoption. Staff does not expect to make a formal
presentation on the Final plan unless there are substantive changes needed from the
public comments received.
STAFF COMMENTS:
It should be noted that the Ames Plan 2040 (update to the Comprehensive Plan) is not
likely to be finalized by the October 27, 2020 adoption of the 2045 MTP (Forward 45).
Therefore, any changes to the identified transportation priorities in the final draft
of the Comprehensive Plan may later require an amendment to the MTP if there is
a desire to use Federal Aid to fund those transportation projects. The amendment
process would include a minor update to the plan and a recalculation of the fiscal
constraint. These changes to the MTP would require DOT and FHWA review and
approval.
Ames Area MPO
Policy Committee
Presentation
09/08/20
Performance-Based Planning Approach
Performance Measures
Performance Measures
Roadway Project Scoring Results
MTP ID Project Description Scoring Tier Project Cost
16 13th St & Grand Ave -Left Turn Lanes (All Approaches)High $3,000,000
19 Lincoln Way from Gilchrist St to Duff Ave -Road Diet from 4 Lanes to 3 Lanes High $1,750,000
20 Lincoln Way from Duff Ave to South Skunk River -Road Diet from 4 Lanes to 3 Lanes High $220,000
26 Y St from Lincoln Way to Mortensen Rd including Mortensen Rd Extension to Y St -Pave 3 Lanes High $3,200,000
29 Grand Ave from S 16th Street to Airport Rd -New Road w/ Traffic Signal @ Airport Road High $13,500,000
30 Duff Ave from S 16th Street to Airport Rd -Widen to 6 Lanes/Reconstruct Interchange to 4 lane Diverging Diamond Interchange High $11,180,000
32 Duff Ave from Airport Rd to 265th St -Widen to 5 Lanes High $16,020,000
40 16th Street, Grand Avenue, and Dayton Avenue Traffic Signals High $1,130,000
42 Hyde Ave from Bloomington Rd to 190th St -Traffic Calming High $300,000
44 Grand Ave from Bloomington Rd to 180th St -Widen to 4 Lanes and intersection improvements High $20,190,000
1 520th Ave & W 190th St -Roundabout Medium $1,500,000
2 530th Ave/Grant Ave & W 190th St -Roundabout Medium $2,000,000
3 520th Ave & Cameron School Rd -Roundabout Medium $1,500,000
4 E Riverside Rd to from Grand Ave to N Dayton Ave -Widen to 3 Lanes Medium $12,920,000
13 N Dakota from Ontario St to UPRR -Widen to 3 Lanes Medium $840,000
14 13th St & Stange Road -N/S Left Turn Lanes Medium $2,490,000
17 13th St from Dayton Ave to 570th Ave -Widen to 6 Lanes/Reconstruct Interchange to 4 lane Diverging Diamond Interchange Medium $11,880,000
18 13th St from 570th Ave to 580th Ave -Widen to 4 Lanes Medium $8,040,000
21 Duff Ave & UPRR Crossing -Grade Separation Medium $22,000,000
22 Dayton Ave from 13th St to Lincoln Way -Widen to 5 Lanes Medium $3,200,000
24 Lincoln Way & Cherry Ave -Traffic Signal & Turn Lanes Medium $1,200,000
25 Lincoln Way & University Blvd -Intersection Diet/Protected Intersection Medium See Bicycle/Pedestrian Project CR 42
28 13th Street & Dayton Ave -Add turn lane(s)Medium $2,000,000
31 Lincoln Way & Y Street -Traffic Signal & Turn Lanes Medium $2,000,000
37 Airport Rd from Duff Ave to Sam's Club -Improve Roadway/Access Medium $800,000
Roadway Project Scoring Results (continued)
MTP ID Project Description Scoring Tier Project Cost
38 Grand Ave & 20th St -Left Turn Lanes Medium $1,600,000
39 Dayton Ave & Riverside Rd -Add Left Turn Lanes Medium $750,000
43 George Washington Carver from Weston Dr to 190th St -Widen to 3 Lanes Medium $5,650,000
45 190th St from 520th Ave to Grand Ave -Widen to 3 Lanes / Grade Separation w UPRR Medium $11,310,000
46 Dayton Ave from 13th St to Riverside Rd -Widen to 3 Lanes Medium $9,870,000
47 Cameron School Rd from George Washington Carver to Grant Ave -Pave to 3 Lanes / Grade Separation w/ UPRR Medium $6,330,000
49 Lincoln Way from Thackery Rd to Y Ave -Widen to 4 Lanes Medium $5,800,000
50 Ontario St from Idaho Ave to Y Ave -Widen to 3 Lanes Medium $3,780,000
52 Lincoln Way from Y Ave to X Ave -Widen to 4 Lane Medium $8,070,000
53 South Dakota Avenue from Lincoln Way to Mortensen Road -Widen to 5 lanes Medium $6,000,000
54 Lincoln Way from I-35 to 580th Ave -Widen to 3 Lanes Medium $8,200,000
1a 520th Ave & W 190th St -Traffic Signal & Turn Lanes Medium $1,400,000
2a 530th Ave/Grant Ave & W 190th St -Traffic Signal & Turn Lanes Medium $1,400,000
3a 520th Ave & Cameron School Rd -Traffic Signal & Turn Lanes Medium $1,150,000
5 E Riverside Rd from N Dayton Ave to 570th Ave -Add New 3-Lane Road & I-35 Overpass Low $7,950,000
6 E Riverside Rd & I-35 -New Interchange (remove 190th St/I-35 Interchange)Low $15,000,000
7 550th Ave from Ken Maril Rd to Airport Rd -Pave 2 Lanes Low $5,530,000
9 Bloomington Rd from Hyde Ave to Hoover Ave -Widen to 4 Lanes Low $3,210,000
10 580th St and UPPR Grade Separation Low $2,830,000
12 550th Ave from 265th to Ken Maril Rd -Pave 2 Lanes Low $5,600,000
27 Freel Dr from Lincoln Way to Dayton Ave -Add New Road Low $4,500,000
33 265th St from Duff Ave to Skunk River -Pave to 3 Lanes Low $5,500,000
34 265th St from Skunk River to I-35 -Pave to 2 Lanes Low $2,800,000
35 265th St & I-35 -New Interchange Low $15,000,000
36 265th from University Ave to Duff Ave & University Ave from 265th to Collaboration Pl -Pave to 3 Lanes Low $9,660,000
48 Stange Rd Extension North to Cameron School Rd -Pave 3 Lanes Low $2,700,000
51 Y Ave from Lincoln Way to Ontario St -Widen to 3 Lanes Low $4,070,000
Roadway
Scoring
Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scoring
Results
MTP ID Project Description
Overall Project
Priority Project Cost
CR 14 Intersection of 20th / Grand -Crossing / Signal Improvements High $180,000
CR 25 Intersection of Grand / 24th St-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety High $100,000
CR 36 Intersection of Mortensen Rd / Seagrave Blvd-beacon/signal upgrade High $230,000
CR 41 Intersection of Grand Ave / 13th St -improvements for crossing visibility and safety (on bikeway) Implement with project ON-6 and roadway project 16 High $180,000
CR 42 Intersection of Lincoln Way / University -Protected intersection. Roadway project 25 High $750,000
CR 43 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Hyland -improvements for crossing visibility and safety (bike and pedestrion)High $130,000
CR 46 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Beach Ave High $130,000
CR 47 Intersection of Beach Ave / S 4th High $80,000
CR 50 Intersection of 24th St and Stange Rd / Improvements for crossing visbility and safety High $500,000
CR 6 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Clark -Improve crossing visibility High $130,000
CR 7 Intersection of Grand / 30th St -Crossing Visibility / Signal improvements High $130,000
OFF 1 East 13th sidepath, Northwestern Ave to Duff Ave.High $920,000
OFF 10 Lincoln Way sidepath, Grand Ave to Duff Ave. With roadway projects 19 and 20.High $380,000
OFF 14 20th St sidepath, Ames High to Grand High $560,000
OFF 15 20th sidepath, Grand Ave to Duff Ave High $380,000
OFF 2 West Mortensen Side Path, fill in gap west of South Dakota High $410,000
OFF 20 Grand Ave Side Path between 6th and 16th Street High $650,000
OFF 27 South Dayton Side Path between S 16th St and Lincoln Way High $930,000
OFF 29 Cherry Ave to Squaw Creek sidepath High $490,000
OFF 3 24th St sidepath, Grand Ave to Duff Ave High $250,000
OFF 31 Hyland-Hayward South Campus Trail Connection High $1,850,000
OFF 48 trail to connect to Skunk River Trail (from east end of 6th)High $550,000
OFF 50 S Duff Ave from E Lincoln Way to S 5th St -Shared-use path or protected bike lanes High $290,000
OFF 55 Stange Rd shared use path gap High $110,000
ON 15 Clark / Walnut bike boulevard, South 3rd to S 5th Street High $30,000
ON 16 Welch On-Street Bike Treatment, Mortensen to Union Drive High $90,000
ON 21 Bike boulevard north of Lincoln Way between North Dakota and Iowa State Campus High $350,000
ON 22 Bike boulevard across Campus between Beach/Lincoln Way and Pammel/Stange High $110,000
ON 29 Kellogg bike boulevard, S 3rd to 6th St High $70,000
ON 30 Ash Ave bike boulevard, current bike lane end to Lincoln Way High $80,000
ON 33 Cessna St Bike Boulevard High $110,000
ON 44 Eisenhower Ave/Hayes Ave/Ridgewood Ave from Harrison Rd to 6th St -Bike Blvd High $380,000
ON 47 Carroll Avenue bike boulevard, 13th St to 5th St, 5th St to Duff Ave High $150,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scoring
Results (continued)
MTP ID Project Description Overall Project Priority Project Cost
CR 1 Intersection of University / Mortensen -Improve visibility / safety at Mortensen Medium $180,000
CR 10 Intersection of US 30 / University North Ramp -Crossing Visibility / Signal improvements Medium $130,000
CR 11 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Welch-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $20,000
CR 12 Intersection of Hyland / Ontario -Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $180,000
CR 17 Stange at Bruner Dr Midblock -Improve crossing visibility / consider crossing signal Medium $230,000
CR 18 Stange at Somerset -Midblock crossing improvements for visibility / consider crossing signal Medium $130,000
CR 2 Intersection of University / S 16th St -Consider median crossing or pedestrian refuge Medium $70,000
CR 20 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Lynn --Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $10,000
CR 21 Intersection of Grand / Bloomington Rd -Crossing Visibility / Signal improvements Medium $130,000
CR 22 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Ash-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $10,000
CR 23 Intersection of Lincoln Way / Knoll -Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $10,000
CR 26 Beach / Mortensen crossing to provide safer crossing than University / Mortensen Medium $230,000
CR 27 Lincoln Way / Stanton -Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $230,000
CR 28 Intersection of South Dakota Ave / Todd Dr-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $230,000
CR 30 Intersection of Bloomington Rd / Eisenhower Ave-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $110,000
CR 34 Intersection of Mortensen Rd / Welch Ave -ped signal Medium $230,000
CR 35 Intersection of State Ave / Arbor St-beacon/signal upgrade Medium $30,000
CR 37 Intersection of Wilmoth Ave / Lincoln Way-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Medium $230,000
CR 38 Bike/ped crossing to Ada Hayden from Hyde Medium $40,000
CR 45 Intersection of University / S 4th St -protected intersection Medium $500,000
CR 51 Intersection of Maxwell Ave and 13th St / Bike boulevard crossing improvement Medium $240,000
CR 8 Intersection of Stange / 13th St -Improvements for trail crossing visibility Medium $180,000
CR 9 Intersection of US 30 / University South Ramp -Crossing Visibility / Signal improvements Medium $130,000
OFF 11 On-street facility on Cottonwood connecting Trail Connection Medium $200,000
OFF 12 Worrell Creek Trail with US 30 Crossing (Identify Grade Separation)Medium $2,730,000
OFF 16 Research Park / University Blvd Trail connection to Heart of Iowa trail (beyond MPO Boundary)Medium $2,290,000
OFF 25 Riverside Rd Trail (Paved Shoulder is Alternative)Medium $4,420,000
OFF 26 Dayton Trail or Improved Shoulders north of 13th Street Medium $2,990,000
OFF 28 E 13th St Trail or Paved Shoulders for Bikes Extension past I-35 Medium $810,000
OFF 33 Squaw Creek Trail from Grand Avenue Extension to 4th Street Medium $2,210,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scoring
Results (continued)
MTP ID Project Description
Overall Project
Priority Project Cost
OFF 38 South Dakota / R38 Northbound Bike Connection between 240th Street and Mortensen Medium $100,000
OFF 4 Wilder-Ontario Side Path Connection Medium $2,120,000
OFF 41 Sidepath with S 500th Avenue Improvement between Lincoln Way and Mortenson Extension Medium $340,000
OFF 42 Sidepath along Mortensen Avenue Extension west to S 500th Avenue (Developer Funded Roadway Project *Medium $1,140,000
OFF 52 Squaw Creek trail Medium $2,330,000
OFF 53 Skunk River trail connection Medium $2,990,000
OFF 57 East 13th -570th to 580th Medium $750,000
OFF 6 North Dakota Side Path Medium $1,950,000
OFF 7 George Washington Carver Side path or bike lanes on shoulder to Gilbert Medium $2,040,000
OFF 9 Zumwalt Station to Oakwood Trail Medium $2,430,000
ON 20 Bike boulevard along Wilder, Mortensen to Lincoln Way, with intersections improvements Medium $100,000
ON 32 6th St bike boulevard east of Duff Medium $20,000
ON 34 Oakland St bike boulevard between Trail and Hyland Ave Medium $20,000
ON 36 Hoover Ave from Bloomington to Ada Hayden Medium $60,000
ON 39 Bike boulevard on Crawford from 6th St up to Municipal Cemetery.Medium $30,000
ON 4 Hoover On-Street Bike Treatment, 30th St to 24th St Medium $50,000
ON 41 Welch Ave ped mall (Lincoln to Hunt)Medium $130,000
ON 43 Hazel St from 6th to S 4th -Bike Blvd Medium $70,000
ON 45 Knapp St from path end (near Hayward Ave) to Ash St -bike blvd Medium $60,000
ON 46 Gable/Sunset from Ash St to Beach -Bike blvd Medium $40,000
ON 52 Arterial Widening Medium $1,360,000
ON 53 Arterial Future Medium $510,000
ON 56 Collector Future Medium $100,000
ON 57 Arterial Future Medium $820,000
ON 59 Collector Future Medium $90,000
ON 60 Collector Future Medium $210,000
ON 62 Collector Future Medium $140,000
ON 63 Collector Future Medium $80,000
ON 68 Collector Future Medium $50,000
ON 69 Collector Future Medium $90,000
ON 70 Collector Future Medium $230,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scoring
Results (continued)
MTP ID Project Description Overall Project Priority Project Cost
ON 71 Collector Future Medium $200,000
ON 74 Arterial Future Medium $170,000
ON 75 Arterial Widening Medium $910,000
ON 78 Arterial Widening Medium $250,000
CR 31 Intersection of Airport Rd / S Loop Dr (location 1)-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Low $80,000
CR 32 Intersection of Airport Rd / S Loop Dr (location 2)-Crosswalks across Airport Rd Low $80,000
CR 33 Intersection of Mortensen Rd / Wilder Blvd, Mortensen Rd / Miller Ave, Mortensen Rd / Poe Ave-Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Low $240,000
CR 39 Intersection of Weston / George W Carver -add crosswalk/ other safety improvements Low $70,000
CR 48 Grade Separation of RR at 580th Low See Roadway Project #10
CR 49 Skunk River Trail Grade Separated Crossing of 13th Low $500,000
OFF 21 Recreational Trail Adjacent to Veenker Golf Course and Reactor Woods Low $2,710,000
OFF 24 South Skunk River Trail extension to MPO Boundary Low $4,540,000
OFF 34 Bloomington Road and Squaw Creek Trail connection to north MPO Boundary Low $5,190,000
OFF 36 Cameron School Road sidepath to west MPO Boundary Low $4,000,000
OFF 37 US 69 South Trail to MPO Boundary Low $720,000
OFF 39 Skunk River Trail connection between soft-surfaced trails near Peterson Park to Ada Hayden Park. Co*Low $6,540,000
OFF 40 Sidepath with Grand Avenue Roadway Extension between S 16th St and Airport Road Low $1,020,000
OFF 54 State Ave from Mortenson to MPO boundary Low $1,550,000
OFF 56 Lincoln Hwy east of Dayton Low $4,170,000
OFF 58 580th Lincoln to 13th Low $600,000
ON 48 Arterial Widening Low $1,050,000
ON 49 Arterial Future Low $810,000
ON 50 Arterial Widening Low $1,490,000
ON 51 Arterial Widening Low $960,000
ON 54 Arterial Widening Low $640,000
ON 55 Collector Future Low $190,000
ON 61 Collector Future Low $160,000
ON 64 Collector Future Low $200,000
ON 65 Collector Future Low $100,000
ON 66 Collector Future Low $200,000
ON 67 Collector Future Low $200,000
ON 72 Arterial Future Low $670,000
ON 73 Arterial Widening Low $290,000
ON 76 Collector Future Low $180,000
ON 77 Collector Future Low $40,000
Bicycle
/Pedestrian
Scoring
Bicycle
/Pedestrian
Scoring
Develop Anticipated Funding Levels
•Federal, State and Local Funding Sources
•Develop Time Periods:
•Current TIP (2021-2024)
•Short-Term (2025-2029)
•Mid-Term (2030-2037)
•Long-Term (2038-2045)
•Cost Breakdown Projections
•System Preservation
•System Improvement
Improvement Funding Summary
Roadway
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Time Period/Years Formula-Based
Funds1
Discretionary
Funds2 Local Funds3
TIP Years 2021-2024 $2,713,000 $18,284,000 $19,318,000
Short-Term 2025-2029 $3,912,000 $4,303,000 $8,503,380
Mid-Term 2030-2037 $6,898,000 $7,587,000 $14,993,820
Long-Term 2038-2045 $7,770,000 $8,547,000 $16,889,940
Total 2025-2045 $18,580,000 $20,437,000 $40,387,140
1 -STBG funds not directed towards future preservation projects
2 -Estimated potential ICAAP (CMAQ) and NHPP funds
3 -Local funds not spent on system preservation, or improvement of local system / non-Federal aid streets
Time Period/Years Formula-Based
Funds1
Discretionary
Funds2 Local Funds3
TIP Years 2021-2024 $96,000 $0 $0
Short-Term 2025-2029 $534,000 $0 $5,511,590
Mid-Term 2030-2037 $942,000 $0 $9,718,310
Long-Term 2038-2045 $1,062,000 $0 $10,947,370
Total 2025-2045 $2,538,000 $0 $26,177,270
1 -TAP and TAP-Flex funds not directed towards future preservation projects
2 -No bicycle / pedestrian discretionary funds assumed
3 -Local funds not spent on system preservation
Develop Constrained Plan
•Multiple Criteria Applied
•Project Scoring
•Current Issues / Future Issues
•Anticipated Growth in Near Future
•Project Timing Coordination
•Project Costs
•Illustrative Plan Will Be Included
•Priority Projects that are Not Fiscally-Constrained
•Some Developer-Driven Projects
Draft
Roadway
Draft Roadway Plan
Time
Frame Project ID Project Description
Cost
(2020 $)
Cost
(YOE $)
Potential
Federal
Share
Potential
Local Share*
Potential Non-
Local Funding
Sources
Potential
Sponsor(s)
Sh
o
r
t
-Te
r
m
(2
0
2
5
-20
2
9
)
40 16th Street, Grand Avenue, and Dayton Avenue Traffic Signals $1,130,000 $1,440,000 $724,752 $715,248 ICAAP City of Ames
37 Airport Rd from Duff Ave to Sam's Club -Improve Roadway Access $800,000 $1,020,000 $513,366 $506,634 STBG Swap City of Ames
16 13th St & Grand Ave -Left Turn Lanes (All Approaches)$3,000,000 $3,820,000 $1,922,606 $1,897,394 STBG Swap City of Ames
2 OR 2A Hyde Ave/Grant Ave & W 190th St $2,000,000 $2,540,000 $1,278,382 $1,261,618 STBG Swap Story County / City
of Ames
28 13th Street & Dayton Ave -Add turn lane(s)$2,000,000 $2,540,000 $1,278,382 $1,261,618 STBG Swap City of Ames
24 Cherry -Lincolnway Intersection Improvements $1,200,000 $1,530,000 $770,049 $759,951 STBG Swap City of Ames
38 Grand Ave & 20th St -Left Turn Lanes $1,600,000 $2,040,000 $1,026,732 $1,013,268 STBG Swap City of Ames
Time Frame Total $11,730,000 $14,930,000 $7,514,269 $7,415,731
Mi
d
-Te
r
m
(2
0
3
0
-20
3
7
)
30 Duff Ave from S 16th Street to Airport Rd -Widen to 6
Lanes/Reconstruct Interchange $10,000,000 $15,910,000 $8,007,503 $7,902,497 STBG / NHPP /
ICAAP
City of Ames /
Iowa DOT
19 Lincoln Way from Gilchrist St to Duff Ave -Road Diet from 4 Lanes to
3 Lanes $1,750,000 $2,780,000 $1,399,174 $1,380,826 STBG Swap City of Ames
32a Duff Ave from Airport Rd to Ken Maril -Widen to 5 Lanes $8,010,000 $12,740,000 $6,412,042 $6,327,958 ICAAP City of Ames
Time Frame Total $19,760,000 $31,430,000 $15,818,719 $15,611,281
Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
(2
0
3
8
-20
4
5
)
44a Grand Ave from Bloomington Rd to 190th St -Widen to 5 Lanes $10,400,000 $21,790,000 $10,966,907 $10,823,093 ICAAP / NHPP City of Ames /
Iowa DOT
22 Dayton Ave from 13th St to Lincoln Way -Widen to 5 Lanes $3,200,000 $6,700,000 $3,372,110 $3,327,890 STBG Swap Story County / City
of Ames
14 13th St & Stange Road -N/S Left Turn Lanes $2,490,000 $5,220,000 $2,627,226 $2,592,774 Local City of Ames
Time Frame Total $16,090,000 $33,710,000 $16,966,243 $16,743,757
Grand Total $47,580,000 $80,070,000 $40,299,231 $39,770,769
* Note that some of these projects will be paid for by developer funds if development accelerates project need and time frame
Draft
Bicycle/
Pedestrian
Draft Bicycle / Pedestrian Plan
Time Frame Project ID Project Description Cost (2020 $)Cost (YOE $)
Potential
Federal Share
Potential
Local Share*
Potential
Funding
Sources
Potential
Sponsor(s)
Sh
o
r
t
-Te
r
m
(2
0
2
5
-20
2
9
)
CR 42 Intersection of Lincoln Way / University -Protected intersection.$750,000 $950,000 $0 $950,000 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 1 East 13th sidepath, Northwestern Ave to Duff Ave $560,000 $710,000 $87,330 $622,670 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 2 West Mortensen Side Path, fill in gap west of South Dakota $410,000 $520,000 $63,960 $456,040 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 3 24th St Sidepath Grand to Duff $250,000 $320,000 $39,360 $280,640 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 20 Grand Ave Side Path between 6th and 16th Street $650,000 $830,000 $102,090 $727,910 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 29 Cherry Street Connection to Squaw Creek $490,000 $620,000 $76,260 $543,740 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 48 East 6th St to Skunk River Connection $550,000 $700,000 $86,100 $613,900 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 50 South Duff Sidepath $290,000 $370,000 $45,510 $324,490 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 15 Clark / Walnut bike boulevard, South 3rd to S 5th Street $90,000 $110,000 $13,530 $96,470 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 47 Carroll Ave Bike Boulevard $150,000 $190,000 $116,466 $73,534 TAP / Local City of Ames
Time Frame Total $4,190,000 $5,320,000 $630,606 $4,689,394
Mi
d
-Te
r
m
(2
0
3
0
-20
3
7
)
OFF 53 Skunk River trail connection $2,990,000 $4,760,000 $585,480 $4,174,520 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 33 Squaw Creek Trail from Grand Avenue Extension to 4th Street $2,200,000 $3,500,000 $430,500 $3,069,500 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 30 Ash Ave bike boulevard, current bike lane end to Lincoln Way $80,000 $130,000 $15,990 $114,010 TAP / Local City of Ames
CR Various Pedestrian Crossing Projects $1,700,000 $2,700,000 $0 $2,700,000 TAP / Local City of Ames
Time Frame Total $6,970,000 $11,090,000 $1,031,970 $10,058,030
Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
3
8
-20
4
5
)
OFF 31 Hyland-Hayward South Campus Trail Connection $1,850,000 $3,880,000 $477,240 $3,402,760 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 55 Stange Rd shared use path gap $110,000 $230,000 $28,290 $201,710 TAP / Local City of Ames /
Iowa State
ON 14 20th St Bike Route, Ames High to Grand $150,000 $310,000 $38,130 $271,870 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 16 Welch On-Street Bike Treatment, Mortensen to Union Drive $90,000 $190,000 $23,370 $166,630 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 21 Bike boulevard north of Lincoln Way between North Dakota and Iowa State Campus $350,000 $730,000 $89,790 $640,210 TAP / Local City of Ames /
Iowa State
ON 26 20th Street bike boulevard, Grand to Duff $70,000 $150,000 $18,450 $131,550 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 33 Cessna St Bike Boulevard $110,000 $230,000 $28,290 $201,710 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 41 Welch Ave ped mall (Lincoln to Hunt)$130,000 $270,000 $33,210 $236,790 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 44 Eisenhower Ave/Hayes Ave/Ridgewood Ave from Harrison Rd to 6th St -Bike Blvd $380,000 $800,000 $98,400 $701,600 TAP / Local City of Ames
CR Various Pedestrian Crossing Projects $2,400,000 $5,030,000 $0 $5,030,000 TAP / Local City of Ames
Time Frame Total $5,640,000 $11,820,000 $835,170 $10,984,830
Grand Total $16,800,000 $28,230,000 $2,497,746 $25,732,254
* Note that some of these projects will be paid for by developer funds if development accelerates project need and time frame
Draft Transit Plan
Time Frame Project ID Project Description Cost (YOE $)
Sh
o
r
t
-Te
r
m
(2
0
2
5
-20
2
9
)
1 Vehicle Replacement/Expansion -3 buses per year $9,200,000
2 Building Improvements and Expansion $3,880,000
8 Light Duty Vehicles $660,000
9 Articulated Bus Expansion/Replacement $4,930,000
10 Install Benches & Shelters $200,000
Total $18,870,000
Mi
d
-Te
r
m
(2
0
3
0
-20
3
7
)
1 Vehicle Replacement/Expansion -3 buses per year $17,860,000
2 Building Improvements and Expansion $7,540,000
8 Light Duty Vehicles $1,280,000
9 Articulated Bus Expansion/Replacement $9,570,000
10 Install Benches & Shelters $380,000
Total $36,630,000
Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
(2
0
3
8
-20
4
5
)
1 Vehicle Replacement/Expansion -3 buses per year $22,620,000
2 Building Improvements and Expansion $9,550,000
8 Light Duty Vehicles $1,620,000
9 Articulated Bus Expansion/Replacement $12,130,000
10 Install Benches & Shelters $480,000
Total $46,400,000
Grand Total $101,900,000
Note: All Projects are Rolling Stock and Facilities / Stations Improvements
Next Steps:
•Develop Draft Plan
•Present to Policy Committee (Sep 22)
•Develop Final Plan
•Present to Policy Committee (Oct 27)
Questions?
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 18, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor John Haila called the Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council,
which was being held electronically, to order at 6:00 p.m. with the following Council members
present: Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and
David Martin. Ex officio Member Nicole Whitlock was also present.
Mayor Haila announced that it is impractical to hold an in-person Council meeting due to the
Governor of Iowa declaring a public health emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, this meeting is being held as an electronic meeting as allowed by Section 21.8 of the Iowa
Code. The Mayor then provided how the public could participate in the meeting via internet or by
phone.
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING AMES AS A “BIRD-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY:”
Mayor Haila proclaimed the City of Ames as a “Bird-Friendly Community.” He urged citizens to
recognize the importance of birds in the community and to commit to learning and identifying how
people can make a difference, even in their own backyards. Municipal Engineer Tracy Warner
thanked everyone who had helped with the designation. Bird-Friendly Iowa Steering Community
member Doug Harr explained that the Bird-Friendly Community was created back in 2015. Mr. Harr
gave background information about the program. He stated he was pleased to recognize the City of
Ames as the next City to officially be designated as a Bird-Friendly Community. In honor of the
designation, were given a framed certificate, logo flag, and two signs that can be placed where the
City wants to.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the following items
on the Consent Agenda.
1 Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Minutes of Special Meetings of July 21, 2020, and August 12, 2020, and
Regular Meeting of July 28, 2020
3.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period July 16 - July 31, 2020
4.Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor
Licenses:
a.Class C Beer Permit with Class B Wine Permit and Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Gas
#5013, 4018 West Lincoln Way
b.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Inside Golf, 2801 Grand Avenue #1075
c.Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales -
Iowa State Center, CY Stephens, CY Stephens - Iowa State University
d.Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carry-out
Beer), and Sunday Sales - KWIK Stop Liquor & Groceries, 125 6th Street
e.Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carry-out
Beer), and Sunday Sales - Kum & Go #1215, 456 Lincoln Way
5.Requests from Ames Main Street for Art Walk/Music Walk on October 8, 2020 (Rescheduled
from June 4, 2020):
a.Motion approving Blanket Vending License for Central Business District from 3:00
p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
b.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for Central Business District
from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
c.RESOLUTION NO. 20-418 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License
d.RESOLUTION NO. 20-419 approving closure of ten metered parking spaces in the
Central Business District
e.RESOLUTION NO. 20-420 approving usage of electricity in Tom Evans Plaza and
waiver of fee for cost of electricity
f.RESOLUTION NO. 20-421 approving closure of Kellogg Avenue, from Main Street
to 5th Street, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
g.RESOLUTION NO. 20-422 approving transfer of funds from Local Option Sales Tax
Fund to Parking Fund in the amount of $2.50
6.Requests from Ames Main Street for Downtown September Sidewalk Sales from September
10-13, 2020:
a.Motion approving Blanket Vending License
b.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
c.RESOLUTION NO. 20-423 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License
d.RESOLUTION NO. 20-424 approving suspension of parking regulations and
enforcement for Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 12,
2020
e.RESOLUTION NO. 20-425 approving transfer of funds from Local Option Sales Tax
Fund to Parking Fund in the amount of $1,370.25
7.Requests from Ames Main Street for Shop for Cause on November 7, 2020:
a.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
b.Motion approving Blanket Vending License
c.RESOLUTION NO. 20-426 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License
d.RESOLUTION NO. 20-427 approving suspension of parking regulations and
enforcement for the Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November
7, 2020
e.RESOLUTION NO. 20-428 approving transfer of funds from Local Option Sales Tax
Fund to Parking Fund in the amount of $1,370.25
8.Requests from Ames Main Street for Small Business Saturday on November 28, 2020:
a.Motion approving Blanket Vending License
b.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
c.RESOLUTION NO. 20-429 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License
d.RESOLUTION NO. 20-430 approving suspension of parking regulations and
enforcement for Downtown from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 28,
2020
e.RESOLUTION NO. 20-431 approving transfer of funds from Local Option Sales Tax
Fund to Parking Fund in the amount of $1,370.25
9.Requests from Ames Main Street for Snow Magic from December 4 - 24, 2020:
a.Motion approving Blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
b.Motion approving Blanket Vending License
c.RESOLUTION NO. 20-432 approving waiver of fee for Blanket Vending License
2
d.RESOLUTION NO. 20-433 approving closure of Kellogg from Main Street to 5th
Street, including closure of 12 metered parking spaces, from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on
December 4 for Santa’s Train
e.RESOLUTION NO. 20-434 approving closure of four metered parking spaces within
the Downtown from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on December 4 to facilitate pick-up and
drop-off of passengers on horse-drawn carriage rides through Downtown
f.RESOLUTION NO. 20-435 approving waiver of parking meter fees for closed parking
meters on Friday, December 4
g.RESOLUTION NO. 20-436 approving usage of electricity in Tom Evans Plaza and
waiver of fees for electricity
10 RESOLUTION NO. 20-437 approving Memorandum of Understanding with Story County and
authorizing application for grant funding under the 2020 Department of Justice Bureau of
Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
11.RESOLUTION NO. 20-438 approving extension of waiver of parking regulations for parking
spaces at Ames Public Library to facilitate curbside pick-up
12.RESOLUTION NO. 20-439 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2017/18 Main
Street Pavers (Clark to Burnett); setting September 2, 2020, as bid due date and September 8,
2020, as date of public hearing
13.RESOLUTION NO. 20-440 awarding contract for Power Plant Maintenance Services to
Anderson Process & Instrumentation Solutions, LLC, of Marshalltown, Iowa, for hourly rates
and unit prices bid in an amount not to exceed $125,000
14.Seven snowplow trucks and accessories for Public Works:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 20-441 awarding contract to O’Halloran International of Altoona,
Iowa, for purchase of seven International HV507 Chassis - six single axle, and 1
tandem axle in the amount of $594,821
b.RESOLUTION NO. 20-442 awarding contract to Henderson Truck Equipment of
Manchester, Iowa, to equip the six single axle truck chassis and 1 tandem axle chassis
from O’Halloran International with dump body, snow removal equipment, and
accessories in the amount of $799,329
c.RESOLUTION NO. 20-443 awarding contract to O’Halloran International of Altoona,
Iowa, to install the Optimus Vector system on the seven chassis for year-round use of
B100 bio-diesel in the amount of $93,996
d.Motion authorizing staff to pursue grants in the next 12 months to pay for the Optimus
system; if unsuccessful a loan will be provided by Fleet Services to Public Works
15.RESOLUTION NO. 20-444 approving contract and bond for Emma McCarthy Lee Park
Pedestrian Bridge Replacement
16.RESOLUTION NO. 20-445 approving contract and bond for 2019/20 Clear Water Diversion
17.RESOLUTION NO. 20-446 approving contract and bond for 2020/21 US Hwy 69
Improvements (South Duff Avenue and US Highway 30 Eastbound Off-Ramp)
18.Power Plant Steam Turbine No. 8 Parts Procurement:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 20-447 rescinding Resolution No. 20-374 awarding contract to
Action Turbine Bid Repair and rescinding Resolution No. 20-406 approving contract
and bond of Action Turbine Bid Repair due to bid being withdrawn
b.Motion directing staff to purchase the parts originally intended to be purchased from
Action Turbine Repair Service from the next low bidders
3
19.RESOLUTION NO. 20-448 approving Change Order No. 3 with RW Excavating Solutions
for the Low-Head Dam Improvements Project in the amount of $59,483.99
20.WPC Digester Improvements Project - Phase 2:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 20-449 approving Change Order No. 4 with Shank Constructors
Inc., in the amount of $5,197
b.RESOLUTION NO. 20-450 accepting completion
21.RESOLUTION NO. 20-451 accepting completion of 2019/2020 Pavement Restoration
Program (Slurry Seal)
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum. No one requested to speak, so he closed
Public Forum.
PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND ADDITIONAL
STUDIES: Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth introduced Ted Redmond, co-founder of
paleBLUEdot LLC, and Michael Orange from Orange Environmental. Mr. Redmond and Mr. Orange
are the consultants that the inter-departmental team had worked with. Ms. Schildroth pointed out that
this project was a group effort. The group that helped provide the report was Merry Rankin, Water and
Pollution Control, Electric Services, Planning and Housing, Resource Recovery, Public Works, Fleet
Services, Parks and Recreation, and the City Manager’s Office.
Mr. Redmond stated that he will do an abbreviated version of the presentation. He noted that they
produced three reports. The primary report was the Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory.
They produced a number of tools beyond the report itself to help support the City’s continuation of the
GHG Inventory. Mr. Redmond explained they also provided two additional documents to the City to
help the City with foundational information: a Climate Vulnerability Assessment and a Solar PV
Potential Study. He briefly explained why GHG emissions matter and then went over the city-wide
numbers from 2014 to 2018.
Mr. Orange thanked the staff for helping with this project. He reviewed a diagram for the City’s
energy flows, which are very complex in Ames. The five energy sources are renewal, coal, natural gas,
refuse derived fuel, and electricity. When the City replaced coal with natural gas, it had a profound
effect on emissions. Mr. Orange continued to go over the emission trends by sectors. He pointed out
that in 2018 the total city-wide reduction went down by 222,218.
Mr. Redmond briefly reviewed the GHG Community Comparisons. He didn’t recommend drawing
a direct line between any two communities. The national average was 16.94 per-capita and the City
of Ames is at 16.5 per-capita. A GHG Emissions Forecast was put together and the current national
emission forecast is a 4.6-degree warming.
The Climate Vulnerability Assessment was presented by Mr. Redmond. He explained that Climate
Change Vulnerability Assessment is “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope
with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.” He went over
4
climate risks to the Ames’ population. It was noted that the most vulnerable were children, older
adults, individuals with disabilities, those in economic need, people of color, at-risk workers, food
insecure individuals, and individuals without vehicle access. With all the information given, they were
able to prioritize climate risks and hazards. For the City of Ames, the higher risks are extreme heat,
flooding, air quality impacts. The moderate risks were drought, vector-borne diseases, and nutrition
insecurity.
The last report presented was the city-wide solar PV potentials study. In determining city-wide
potentials, the methodology that was used was inputting data from roof plan surveys and lidar data
obtained from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. From those data pools, they could then
classify roofs based on orientation and tilt. Finally, they calculated solar PV energy generation based
on the roof calculation with the assumption that the panels were 350-watt panels, estimated the
installed capacity based on roof plane type, calculated system losses based on orientation and tilt. Mr.
Redmond explained that they produced two scenarios for projecting into the future. The first scenario
was based on the current city share of statewide install trends and the second scenario was increasing
city share in terms of KW installed to match the Statewide install trends per-capita.
Council Member Betcher inquired about the city comparisons. She wanted to know if there was a
difference in the numbers based on if the city is producing its own electricity or buying electricity off
the grid. Mr. Redmond explained that the answer to that question would be “sometimes yes and
sometimes no.” He stated that if they compared operations to operations, the numbers would be all
over the map; however, when it comes to community-wide emissions it can boil down to where the
cities are using energy.
Council Member Martin wanted to know when it comes to characterizing the GHG emissions that
come from the purchases of electricity from the grid, they found the breakdown of sources. Mr. Orange
stated the information is published, and they were able to obtain the information from other providers.
Council Member Betcher questioned the potential impact of adding more solar. She noted that the City
relies on the municipal electric plant to be burning RDF as one of the sustainable means of producing
energy, and if the City increased its solar , whether there be a negative trade-off. Mr. Redmond
mentioned that there are a lot of varying opinions to that question and would invite the Ames Energy
Department to give its perspective, but from his perspective, the answer would be “no.” He did want
to point out that there may be some circumstances when some upgrades may need to be done with the
grid.
Mayor Haila inquired if the manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, the life expectancy, and
impact on the environment on disposal goes into the overall analysis or if they are looking at the
ethicacy of the different systems. Mr. Redmond stated the report looks at the ethicacy of the system
in general and some of the specifics will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. The carbon footprint
of a solar panel usually has a payoff within two years. The systems do have their own carbon footprint
and most solar panels installed have a life expectancy of 20-30 years.
Mayor Haila questioned the findings for the city-wide emission and total city-wide operations and
wanted to clarify what city-wide entailed. Mr. Redmond explained that the smallest circle on the slide
5
is the City of Ames operations excluding energy generation. That smaller circle is a subset of the next
biggest circle for total city operations for the City of Ames, which now includes the energy generation.
The total city operations circle is also a subset of the City-wide emissions, which is everything within
the City of Ames. The percentage of city operations is 6.6% of the total city-wide emissions.
Mayor Haila asked for more information to help him understand the financial slide when dealing with
agriculture, mortality, energy, etc. Mr. Redmond stated that all the information came from a national
study that was done by the University of California Berkeley. The University had done a matrix
comparing different communities and analyzing the data. There is a direct link between the increase
in temperature and crime. Labor Productivity is both indoor and outdoor labor. Mayor Haila mentioned
that he was surprised by the amount as within the city limits of Ames there is not a lot of Agriculture.
Mr. Redmond stated that another way to look at it is to validate the end result. The end result is saying
that the emissions have an impact on the future, and this is one way to quantify what that means. If you
take that number and divide it by the City’s number of emissions, you would end up with about $55.00
per metric ton of carbon emission, also known as the social cost of carbon.
Council Member Gartin asked how Greenhouse Gas emissions measured. He noted that at some point
the City is going to evaluate the measures it has taken to reduce GHG. Mr. Gartin mentioned that, if
the City if going to go to different lengths to reduce the GHG, the City needs to make sure they
understand the way in which the data is arrived at. Mr. Orange explained that all the data is readily
accessible and verifiable. The electricity data regarding consumption comes from each of the providers
and he trusts it to be reliable as well as the natural gas. Coal usage was provided by Iowa State
University and City of Ames Electric. On-road transportation came from Iowa Department of
Transportation in terms of vehicle miles traveled. A complex methodology has been used for decades
and when translating from vehicle miles traveled to GHG emissions, Mr. Orange used national data
as he was unable to find state specific data. Mr. Gartin commented that the City could create its own
benchmark using its own data.
Council Member Martin wanted to know if the vehicle miles traveled is within the City of Ames or
does it include the interstate and Hwy 30 that pass-through Ames. Mr. Orange explained that the
vehicle miles traveled is done on a jurisdictional boundary for cities and counties, which mean those
areas would be included.
Merry Rankin mentioned she didn’t have anything to add. The process has been very thorough, and
in order to move forward the City needs to know where it stands. She is excited to start looking at
goal-setting going forward.
Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth stated she has enjoyed the process and had learned a lot. She
appreciated the work that Mr. Redmond, Mr. Orange, Ms. Rankin, the Department Heads, and staff
have done, and is anxious to move forward.
Mayor Haila asked what the next steps would be for the Climate Action Plan
City Manager Steve Schainker stated this was a goal of the Council members for next year, and even
with all the cuts due to COVID-19, the funding was left in for the consultant to help the City move
6
forward with a Climate Action Plan. The next step will be for the staff to put together a Request for
Proposals (RFP).
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to accept the report as presented.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
STAFF REPORT ON FACTORS TO CONSIDER IF IMPLEMENTING A CITY-WIDE FACE
COVERING MANDATE: Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth explained that at the July 14,
2020, City Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to develop a process to determine the
appropriate time to implement a city-wide face covering mandate. The process would include gathering
information on the rate of positive COVID-19 cases and the community spread of the virus in
Ames/Story County from local health sources including Mary Greeley Medical Center, McFarland
Clinic, and Story County Public Health; monitoring guidance from the Iowa Department of Public
Health, Story County Board of Health, and the CDC. Following the analysis of the information
collected, the factors below would be considered to warrant a city-wide face covering mandate:
-The Intensive Care Unit at Mary Greeley Medical Center is at capacity
-The percentage of positive COVID-19 cases in Story County reach 10% (“red zone”)
and continue rising
-ISU and schools move to an all-virtual learning and businesses reduce hours and/or
close
-The Governor’s Proclamation is amended to mandate face coverings in the State of
Iowa
Ms. Schildroth noted that the Governor’s current Proclamation encourages the use of face coverings.
The Attorney General’s Office has issued an opinion stating that any local regulations requiring face
coverings are preempted by the Governor’s proclamations; therefore, cities and counties do not have
the authority to issue a face covering mandate since the Governor’s Proclamation is in place. In
response to this, the City Council supported the Mayor sending a letter to the Governor requesting she
empower cities with the authority to implement public health mandates, such as face coverings in
public, when circumstances warrant doing so in our communities. To date, no such authority has been
granted, but the City has continued moving forward with promoting the Cyclone Cares campaign and
the four pillars of health. Council has also approved a measure requiring face coverings in City
buildings and during some Parks and Recreation activities, which took effect July 27, 2020.
Ms. Schildroth mentioned that in the Staff Report there is a table outlining the actions taken by a
variety of other communities. She noted that there had been a few updates since the Staff Report had
been written and the updates include Dubuque, Mount Vernon, and Waterloo all adopting face
covering requirements within their communities. Ms. Schildroth noted that Story County Public Health
provided a letter to all city and county government officials about their recommendations on face
coverings. Story County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution requesting the authority to
mandate face coverings from Governor Reynolds.
Council Member Betcher asked what sort of action was taken in Mount Vernon and Dubuque. She
pointed out that Waterloo had done a Resolution. Ms. Betcher commented that she would like to
understand if other cities are doing Proclamations, Resolutions, or an Ordinance. Ms. Schildroth stated
that Dubuque was done by an Ordinance and she was not sure of Mount Vernon. Council Member
7
Martin mentioned that Mount Vernon was done by Resolution, but it states that the Resolution is
symbolic in nature and staff will not be able to enforce the Resolution. Mayor Haila explained that
Waterloo is not in the Staff Report as it had just passed the other day.
Council Member Betcher asked what the difference would be in the weight of issuing a Resolution
versus a Proclamation; City Attorney Lambert explained that the difference would be that a Resolution
comes from the Council and a Proclamation would be done by the Mayor. He noted he has seen a few
Resolutions that other cities have done that have included penalties, which Mr. Lambert wouldn’t
recommend doing. If going to include penalties, it should be done by Ordinance. Attorney Lambert
mentioned that he has not changed his legal advice and recommends following the Attorney General’s
opinion.
Council Member Gartin explained that it is not just the Attorney General’s office, but the majority of
municipal attorneys in Iowa that have taken the same position. Mr. Lambert stated as far as he knows
that would be correct.
Council Member Gartin questioned if the Council were to pass an Ordinance and the City doesn’t have
the authority, what effect the Ordinance would have. Attorney Lambert explained the City can enforce
the Ordinance until its told by a court that they don’t have the authority. Mr. Lambert mentioned that
if the City had a reasonable belief that they were acting under the color of the law, that is a valid legal
theory.
Council Member Gartin asked City Manager Steve Schainker if during his tenure, as the City Manager,
the Council had ever disregarded the advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Schainker noted that he could
not recall a time that had been done. The same question was asked to Attorney Lambert, who stated
he could not recall a time either.
Mayor Haila explained that he had invited Mike Norton to the meeting. Mr. Norton explained that he
is the General Council for ISU and had been serving on the President’s fall planning committee and
the task force related to fall planning. Also included in the meeting was Michael Newton. Mr. Newton
is the Chief of Police for ISU and the Associate Vice-President for Public Safety. Mr. Newton serves
as a liaison for the Senior Leadership group when its Emergency Operation Center is open. He is also
on the fall planning committee and other communities that deal with COVID-19. Also included in the
meeting was Ames Police Commander Geoff Huff.
Mayor Haila stated that all the Council and citizens are concerned about the spread of COVID-19.
They were thrilled to have students come back to the community and applaud ISU for testing everyone
who was coming to the University and doing everything they could to keep the ISU and Ames
community safe. As students have returned there have been some concerns with some large gatherings
that are happening off Campus. Mayor Haila noted that he and Mr. Schainker had a conversation with
President Wintersteen at ISU to discuss how to strengthen the message of Cyclones Care. ISU has
adopted mandatory face coverings on Campus. Mayor Haila stated they had a Zoom meeting on
Monday with ISU to go over recent events and to see what else the Council can do to help. He
explained that he was proud of the way that the County, the local community, ISU, and business
communities have worked together to help keep doors open and keeping everyone safe. Mayor Haila
8
shared that he had called and spoke with the Mayors of Ankeny, Des Moines, Coralville, Urbandale,
and Iowa City. He had called them to see what kind of responses those cities had received from their
citizens after issuing a mask mandate. Mayor Haila explained that Coralville did have positive results
to the adoption and Iowa City had also seen good compliance. He commented that the City of Des
Moines purchased 10,000 masks and the Police Department or Fire Department approached citizens
that were not wearing masks and gave them masks and discussed safety. Mayor Haila mentioned that
ISU has stated that there will be no tailgating on Iowa State property. This doesn’t mean that tailgating
will go away; it just means it will not happen on Iowa State property.
Mike Norton stated they appreciate the partnership between the City and ISU. Mr. Norton explained
that on Campus they started out with a policy that masks are expected, but feedback was received that
language was not strong enough. Their biggest concern has always been enforcement, but have they
progressed from the expectation of wearing a mask until now when it is required. The concerns about
enforcement haven’t gone away, but the impact of that change has been felt around Campus. They are
working on educating the students and providing masks when students forget. He noted that they have
had 100% compliance in the classrooms, and on Campus, there is a high-level of compliance, but not
100%. Mr. Norton mentioned that while he completely understands the enforcement challenges for
the City, he does think even if it is largely symbolic, the symbolism will have an important effect on
the community and the students. Mr. Norton explained that from ISU’s perspective, whatever can be
done to strengthen the possibility that masks will be worn in the Ames community would be important.
Mayor Haila inquired as to what is required in the residence halls. Mr. Norton stated that masks are
required everywhere except for in the student’s own dwelling space. Mayor Haila wanted to know how
compliance was working in the residence halls. Chief Newton explained that the PAs need to do some
reminders, but for the large part, they are seeing compliance. The ISU officers are doing walk-throughs
in the residence halls and have had to do a few gentle reminders. Chief Newton mentioned that law
enforcement isn’t equipped to or have the staffing to be the enforcement arm. It was noted that they
are trying to get a good partnership with some of the rental building’s landlords to talk about the
capacity of some of the parties.
Commander Geoff Huff commented that they were a little disappointed with the way “801 Day”
looked. What they saw this year was exactly the same as it was last year. Compliance with social
distancing and masks was low. Commander Huff mentioned that around this time of year they like to
do a lot of education. Their hope is to do a lot of education to hopefully avoid enforcement. He is
concerned about how tailgating will be this year; since tailgating is not allowed on ISU property, it will
happen somewhere else. Commander Huff pointed out that there is Nuisance Party Ordinance, and
while it doesn’t address masks or social distancing, it does address some of the other problems and
does give the Police Department a tool to use. The Nuisance Party Ordinance was not helpful during
“801 Day” as the entire block was engaged in a party, and it only moved the students from one spot
to the next. Going forward it will be a tool to use, but he is not sure what is going to happen during
football season.
Mayor Haila asked the Commander to speak about the situation with bars. Commander Huff stated that
they have had a few reports about the bars not following the Governor’s Proclamation, and one of the
bars shut down voluntarily until August 23 in order to get more guidance from the state. It was noted
that the Police Department has a great relationship with the bars in Ames and have good compliance.
9
The Alcoholic Beverages Division and the Department of Inspections and Appeals will be coming to
town to do some spot-checking. Commander Huff explained they are using a similar strategy with
reaching out to landlords. A lot of what took place on “801 Day” violated leases in some way. The
Police Department will be working with the landlords to help them understand the process and have
a way to reach out to their own tenants.
Council Member Betcher asked how many of the parties that were held were at student/parent-owned
houses and not rentals. Commander Huff stated that the majority were rentals, but the Nuisance Party
Ordinance has a three-step process. The first violation the people in charge of the party are cited, the
second violation is a higher fine, and the third violation goes to the property owner or manager. There
is the possibility if the property owner or manager is not willing to step up and help, they could
eventually be cited; however, the Police Department is hoping they will not have to do that. It was
pointed out that “801 Day” was a bit of an anomaly; he doesn’t believe the parties happen that much
on normal weekends.
Mayor Haila asked if the Nuisance Ordinance could be modified to incorporate public health
emergency situations. He also wanted to know what the financial impact would be on someone for
violating the Ordinance. City Attorney Lambert commented that the Council could amend the
Ordinance, but he is not sure if it would change anything as it would be the same as the Governor’s
Proclamation. Currently, under the Governor’s Proclamation, it would be a simple misdemeanor.
Commander Huff stated that the Nuisance Party Ordinance can be a municipal infraction or a simple
misdemeanor. The Nuisance Party Ordinance covers a lot; examples given were underage drinking,
public urination, garbage, parking violations, etc. A municipal infraction is $100 for the first violation,
$250 for the second, and $500 for the third. Mayor Haila wanted to know if the fees were set by State
Code or if the Council could change the amounts. Attorney Lambert explained that there is a limit to
the amount that can be charged per the State Code.
Mayor Haila inquired what some challenges would be that could have to be faced if enforcement was
necessary and what would be achievable. Commander Huff commented that it will put the Police
Department in a bad light sometimes, especially when there are 200 people at a party. He noted that
being heavy-handed is not what people are looking for right now, and they would need to be careful
on how to approach those situations. They will continue to rely on outreach and building relationships.
Chief Newton explained that they need to set the right stage by being firm, but gentle, at the same time.
He noted that if they can set the stage within the first 45 days, it will make a difference for the rest of
the academic year. Chief Newton mentioned that peer pressure goes a long way to get a social
movement going. What they are seeing in regards to compliance is students stating that “their friends
are going and then I get there and don’t know what to do” and if they can work together to educate the
community and get buy-in from the entire community, it will be helpful.
Mayor Haila asked ex officio Nicole Whitlock what the Student Government is doing. Ms. Whitlock
stated that the Student Government had already sent a letter to the Governor requesting a mask
mandate. The Student Government is fully recommending anything to do with a mask. Ms. Whitlock
commented that it was worrisome to her personally with “801 Day” knowing she was going to be
around a lot of those students on Campus. She commented that masks are not fully required when
outdoors on Campus and she felt this was an issue. Mayor Haila asked if she had any suggestions on
10
how to help get students on-board with wearing masks. Ms. Whitlock stated that ISU has been handing
out masks and if you show your student ID, you can get two masks. In classrooms masks have been
worn. Making it more social or “cool” to wear masks would help. She stated that making students
more comfortable wearing them and for those wearing one to not be judged would also help.
Council Member Junck mentioned she agreed with what ex officio Whitlock stated. What students do
off Campus directly affects how they act on Campus. She pointed out that even if a student is wearing
a mask on Campus, they could contract COVID-19 while off Campus. It is crucial that everyone in
Ames should have a face covering. Ms. Junck stated that having a Resolution or an Ordinance from
the City to strongly enforce face coverings would be helpful.
Council Member Gartin asked if public input would be taken tonight. Mayor Haila stated this was a
Staff Report and he is not sure if he will open public input tonight as the Council already received
several emails regarding this topic.
Council Member Junck commented that, in the Staff Report, it lists the factors that would be
considered in triggering a city-wide face covering, and she wanted to know how those factors were
decided upon. Assistant Manager Schildroth explained that the factors are examples and could be
modified. The information was given during their weekly Executive Leadership Community partners
meeting. Ms. Junck wanted to know if other cities where using similar factors or if it more anecdotal.
Ms. Schildroth stated it was more anecdotal. It was noted that several communities are still closed to
the public.
Council Member Corrieri stated that a lot of the key factors was to be pro-active. She noted that, while
the information in the Staff Report was great, what needs to be decided is if the City of Ames wants
to take a more proactive approach. Ms. Corrieri liked what Chief Newton said about setting the stage
within the first 45 days; that is a great idea.
Mayor Haila noted that Story County also wrote a letter to the Governor requesting to have a face
mandate and a lot of the big box stores have gone along the route of requiring masks. He mentioned
that there have been a number of times he has been asked if the City of Ames was going to issue a
mask mandate.
Council Member Betcher inquired about the factor that stated that “the percentage of positive COVID-
19 cases in Story County reach 10% (red zone) and continue rising.” She wanted to know why 10%
when 175 students have tested positive and suddenly the City added over 10,000 people. Ms. Betcher
stated that it seemed odd to go by the percentage when the numbers keep going up. She pointed out
that 175 cases within the first two weeks is a lot, but because of the influx of students returning, the
percentage is still relatively low. Ms. Betcher wanted to know how accurate the percentage would be
in recognizing a “hot-spot.” Ms. Schildroth commented that the 10% is the benchmark that the state
has used. When the Staff Report was written the COVID-19 testing was just starting. She explained
that factor could be changed based on the information that has now been received.
Council Member Betcher explained that she has been involved in discussions with the University’s
Communities Council and the International City and County Management Association over the past
11
10-12 weeks. At State College, Pennsylvania the manager reported the next day their city staff was
inundated with horrible phone calls, emails, and really horrible comments directed at staff. She would
like to get the City Manager’s opinion on the fallout from mandating masks with the Police
Department or other staff who will have to deal with outraged citizens. City Manager Schainker stated
he doesn’t have the data, but he believed that the majority of the citizens of Ames would be supportive
of a mask mandate. He noted that there is also a substantial number of citizens who believe it is their
right to not wear a mask and those people will be more volatile in their responses, and the City will
be chastised by those people. Ms. Schildroth stated that she spoke with the City Manager in Iowa City
and they stated that a majority of the calls were from business and individuals asking for clarification
and interpretation of what was expected. Mr. Schainker stated that once, it is passed, there will a lot
of people calling to report people not wearing masks and demanding the City to enforce, but it will be
impractical to do with a few people here and there.
Council Member Betcher wanted to clarify that the Ordinance that State College had passed had very
strict regulations; there is a limit of ten people outside of bars, ten or fewer people in housing, and they
limited public gatherings to 25 people. The first fine is $350, and if a repeat offender, you can be
removed from the city, but that seems a bit draconian.
Chief Newton commented that ISU has gotten more positives than negatives. They have gotten some
calls about when people are not wearing face coverings, but they typically don’t respond unless they
are in the area. He noted that what they are finding is that citizens are unsure of when or when not, they
should be wearing face coverings. This is where education is a huge piece for whatever is going to be
done. Commander Huff explained that education is being discussed; but education is not the issue as
everyone is aware of what is going on with COVID-19 and it is a disregard. He is concerned about
putting their officers in a position for more confrontations. Commander Huff mentioned that those calls
about citizens not wearing masks will be low priority. He believed that most citizens will do the right
thing and wear a mask. Council Member Betcher stated that if people do not live within Ames for the
entire year, they don’t necessarily care what happens, but building a sense of community may make
a difference.
Mayor Haila stated that he would not normally open public comment on a Staff Report, but he will
open it tonight based on the feedback so far from the Council.
Jon Emory, 5422 Cervantes Drive, Ames, stated that the City of Ames does need a mandate and the
City doesn’t need to wait for the Governor. He recommended an Ordinance cover the entire City
including Campustown. Mr. Emory mentioned it might be helpful to say that all businesses have to
have a mask mandate, but not sure if that would help. He agreed that Ames needs to show some type
of leadership.
Mayor Haila closed public comment.
Mayor Haila asked City Attorney Lambert what would happen if the Council requested to do an
ordinance. Mr. Lambert stated they would need direction from the Council regarding what they want
to put into the ordinance. He noted that they would need at least two City Council meetings; one to
review the draft ordinance, and the other to pass the ordinance. Mayor Haila inquired if any public
12
notification was required to pass an ordinance. Attorney Lambert commented that a notice would be
required, but would need to double check the length of time needed.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that normally when an ordinance is passed there is an amount of
time before the Ordinance goes into effect. He inquired what the normal timeframe would be. Mayor
Haila mentioned that once the Council has the third reading, the ordinance is adopted effective upon
the publication in the newspaper. Attorney Lambert commented that it is usually the Friday after a
Council meeting. Mr. Gartin asked if that same time frame would apply to an Ordinance that has
penalties in it. Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that the City would warn citizens and educate
them first before a penalty would be applied. Council Member Gartin inquired if any of the other
cities’ ordinances apply to children. Mr. Lambert explained that the majority of the other cities have
an exemption for children three years of age or younger. City Manager Schainker stated if the Council
is thinking of doing an ordinance, they need to provide as much specificity as possible. He asked if the
mask mandate would apply to backyard parties, citizens in their own yard, etc.
Mayor Haila asked the Council what they are looking to accomplish; is it ensuring that every person
in the City is wearing a mask or is it to be applied to large parties or mass gatherings. Chief Newton
stated that those would be two separate things. He believed, overall, anything they can do to get more
people to fully embrace face coverings everywhere would be advantageous to the City. Council
Member Betcher mentioned that the Council does have the recommended face coverings guidance
from the Story County Board of Health and commented that this was a Resolution recommending face
coverings. Council Member Martin mentioned that the initial draft was a Resolution to encourage
municipalities to adopt a Resolution, but he doesn’t think the Board put a lot of stock in the face
covering mandate being a Resolution versus a mandate or an ordinance. Ms. Betcher commented that
the Board put the language into the guidance letter that is in the packet that would be helpful for a
Resolution.
Council Member Betcher stated that the ordinance process is lengthy, and if the Council wanted to
move faster, they could also do a Mayors Proclamation or a resolution. She also inquired if an
Ordinance could supersede an intermediate proclamation. Attorney Lambert explained that the Council
could do a Mayor’s Proclamation and then an ordinance later. If they are to give citizens more
notification, an ordinance would give more time. Mr. Lambert mentioned that an Ordinance is
normally three readings, but the Council could do all three readings in one night.
Mr. Lambert explained that he double-checked, and the City does not have a publication requirement
for this type of Ordinance. A publication notice is required for budgeting, Zoning, or a Flood Plain
Amendment. He noted that ordinances get passed all the time and they go into effect the Friday after
the Council meeting. Attorney Lambert mentioned the Council could put an effective date into the
ordinance if they want a later effective date.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen explained that an ordinance does take longer to draft and approve,
but as soon as the Council says “hey staff, draft an ordinance” it will hit the media and have the same
effect as a Mayor’s Proclamation. Mayor Haila questioned if a mandate would it be hollow without
any kind of penalty. If there was a mandate without any penalty, it would relieve a lot of issues with
law enforcement and confrontation; the police would then be able to tell the citizens that there is an
13
ordinance and then give education. Mayor Haila wondered if a mask mandate void of any penalty
would be seen as a joke to the community. Mayor Haila stated that in Iowa City they have not written
any citations.
Mr. Schainker stated that if the Council wanted to add a penalty to an ordinance, he doesn’t believe
a $10 penalty would be effective. Mr. Schainker wanted to know if the Police Department is supposed
to go into all businesses (barbershops, grocery stores) and enforce if someone is not wearing a mask.
Ms. Schildroth commented that the majority of the cities are written that way and quoted Dubuque’s
Ordinance stating “No business that is open to the public may provide service to a customer or allow
a customer to enter the premises unless the customer is wearing a face covering as required by this
Ordinance.”
Council Member Corrieri stated she is very sympathetic to the burden a mandate would put on the
Police Department and staff; however, the City of Ames is one of the few places in the country that
does not have something like this in place. The penalties are not the goal, but a tool in the “toolbox”
to help with enforcement if education is not working.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to approve Option 4 that would adopt an ordinance
mandating face coverings to be worn indoors in public places and outdoors when social distancing (at
least 6 feet) cannot be achieved.
Council Member Gartin stated that a lot of time has been spent tonight discussing the substance of a
mask mandate, but very little time discussing whether the Council has the authority to do so. He noted
that the Counsel took an oath to support the Iowa Constitution and at a minimum they need to act
within the scope of the authority that the municipal government has. Mr. Gartin explained that the
City’s Legal Council is saying that the Council should follow the position of the Attorney General. He
felt that adopting an Ordinance would set a precedent and the City does not have the authority to do
so. Mr. Gartin commented that the Council has already ignored the guidance of the CDC regarding
pools and now by not even listening to the City Attorney.
Council Member Martin asked the City Attorney if the Council went against his advice, would he tell
the Police Department that the Ordinance has no authority. Attorney Lambert stated he would advise
the Departments on how to enforce the Ordinance. He will presume it is valid until told otherwise. Mr.
Lambert explained that there is no clear answer regarding a mask mandate, and he is giving his advice
based on his years as an attorney, looking at governmental issues, and reading the Attorney General’s
Opinion. Mr. Lambert believed the Attorney General is correct. He stated if the Ordinance is passed
it is still his job to enforce it. Mr. Gartin inquired if Mr. Lambert had been in contact with the Story
County Attorney’s Office regarding their position. Mr. Lambert explained that Story County is in
agreement that the Attorney General’s Opinion is correct.
Council Member Corrieri stated that she does not take likely Attorney Lambert’s opinion, but right
now, she is willing to do something contrary to his opinion. She weighed the risks and believed the
risk to the public health and to the local economy is driving what would be in the best interest of the
City. Ms. Corrieri stated her number one priority is to address indoor public settings.
14
Council Member Gartin stated that the entire Council agreed to follow certain principles and one of
those was the law, and sometimes that means setting aside strongly held positions. He is not sure how
he would vote on the issue if Governor Reynolds allowed the Council to make that decision locally.
He would like more input from Mary Greeley Medical Center. Mr. Gartin explained that in his six
years on the Council he has never seen such an open disregard for the rule of law.
Mayor Haila commented that Mary Greeley did put out a notification last week. Council Member
Corrieri stated that Mary Greeley’s had released a statement that they would be requesting a face
covering mandate.
Council Member Junck asked for a clarification if it would be for indoor face coverings only, but other
elements would be in the draft Ordinance as well. Council Member Martin stated he wanted to clarify
that the ordinance addresses indoor public settings and has penalties in it, but the current City
Attorney’s advice would be that it there is no authority for assessing the sort of punishment for the
draft ordinance that is on the table at the moment. Council Member Corrieri stated that the Council is
going to have a vote whether there is an agreement among Council members to have a face covering
mandate; no details have been discussed yet.
Council Member Corrieri withdrew the motion.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Junck, to draft an ordinance that would require face coverings within
the City of Ames.
Council Member Martin asked Mr. Lambert if he understood the motion to be against his advice.
Attorney Lambert confirmed that would be correct. City Manager Schainker stated that the Attorney
can disagree, but the question should be if the City Attorney believes the Council would be passing
an ordinance that is illegal. Mr. Lambert explained that he cannot say with certainty that it would
unlawful.
Roll Call Vote 4-2. Voting Aye: Corrieri, Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Junck. Voting Nay: Gartin, Martin.
Mayor Haila asked what else would need to be included in the draft ordinance.
Council Member Junck stated that she liked the appendix that the Story County Board of Health had
released regarding recommendations. Ms. Corrieri commented that it would be similar to the Dubuque
Ordinance. Council Member Martin explained that a lot of the other cities’ ordinances are similar, but
the Waterloo ordinance doesn’t have the same requirements for things in one’s household as this
Appendix. Council Member Betcher commented on public transportation and asked if the Council
would have authority to add it to the ordinance or would that need to go to the Transit Board. Attorney
Lambert advised that the Council has, through the Municipal Code delegated its authority to make
operational decisions to the Transit Board; however, when passing a broad ordinance, it would apply
to buses as well.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Corrieri, to include the recommendations in Appendix 1 in the draft
Ordinance.
15
Council Member Martin stated that he has one concern as it requires face coverings within one’s
household if individuals who do not live in the household are present. He noted that is within
someone’s house and would be hard to enforce.
Council Member Junck, seconded by Corrieri, to amend the previous motion to remove the last three
bullets in the first section and remove “or in a residence with persons who do not live in their
household” in bullet one.
Council Member Martin asked if churches or houses of worship would be exempt from the ordinance
and if the City would be going into churches to do enforcement. Mr. Lambert explained that would be
up to the Council. Council Member Betcher stated that the Governor had already given specific
guidance on churches.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Gartin, to further exclude houses of worship from the requirements
of the draft ordinance.
Council Member Junck asked if this exemption was found in other cities examples. Mr. Lambert
mentioned he did not recall it being addressed by other cities.
Council Member Gartin explained that if the motion doesn’t pass it would be allowing the Police
Department to go inside churches and cite the parishioners. Ms. Beatty-Hansen wanted to know why
a place of worship was different from a business or any other public setting where there are a lot of
people. Mr. Gartin explained that they have given special precedence and exemption to houses of
religious worship. Mr. Lambert asked the Council to decide one way or the other, and when he is
preparing the draft ordinance, he will review the Governor’s Proclamations. Mr. Schainker stated that
the whole ordinance would be in conflict as fitness centers have been released from the requirements
by the Governor.
Vote on Motion: 3-3. Vote on Motion: Gartin, Martin, Betcher. Voting Nay: Beatty-Hansen, Junck,
Corrieri.
Motion failed.
Council Member Corrieri stated that a penalty should be put in place, but doesn’t want to be the one
to set that amount. Mayor Haila mentioned that Dubuque has a $10 penalty and Iowa City had a simple
misdemeanor; citation should be last a last resort to maintain compliance. Mayor Haila inquired what
a simple misdemeanor would mean. Attorney Lambert explained that the citizen could get 30 days in
jail, get a fine, or both. The fine could be $855, but the court would be the one to impose the penalty.
Mr. Lambert stated the majority of the ordinances are municipal infractions or simple misdemeanors.
Mr. Schainker asked what the cost would be for a municipal infraction. Commander Huff stated that
it could be $50 or $100. Mr. Schainker recommended using the language from Iowa City’s Ordinance.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Junck, to add language about the penalty being a municipal infraction.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
16
Mayor Haila asked the Council about the enforcement. Council Member Betcher stated that she
assumed it would be up to the discretion of the Police Officer. City of Ames Police Officers prioritize
how to handle a situation. Ms. Betcher stated what she had been hearing from other cities was that just
the potential of enforcement has been helpful.
Council Member Martin stated he agrees with Mr. Gartin that, in order to support the ordinance, you
would have to have a good faith belief that the authority does exist, and you might win in court.
The meeting recessed at 9:39 p.m. and reconvened at 9:47 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCES IN FY 2020/21: Assistant City Manager
Phillips explained that this item is described in the memo provided to the Council. Staff wanted to
provide an opportunity for the Council to discuss and decide how they wanted to handle conferences.
City staff has suspended travel for conferences and training, and is proceeding cautiously with
expenditures until all the impacts are fully known. Mayor Haila pointed out that the Iowa League of
Cities and the National League of Cities have both gone virtual.
Council Member Betcher stated she is in a tough position on this topic because as the Chair of the
Universities Communities Council, the expectation is that she will attend and chair the meeting. Mayor
Haila inquired if she had to be there in-person or is it virtual only.
Mayor Haila asked if this would be for traveling to a conference or the fees for attending a virtual
meeting. Mr. Phillips stated that City staff will only attend training that is required to maintain
licensure or other credentials.
City Manager Schainker stated that one of the Council’s goals was to educate themselves about equity
inclusion and diversity and felt these needed to be done no matter what.
Council Member Gartin asked what the cost would be for joining virtually opposed to a flight and
hotel. Mr. Phillips explained that a conference attended in person would cost several thousand of
dollars per attendee while the virtual conferences would range around $150 per person. Mr. Gartin
stated that given the expense of in-person training he would recommend limiting the Council to virtual
conferences only and forgo traveling to conferences at this time. He felt that it is important to send a
message to staff that the Council is in it with those who have had to make significant budget cuts.
Moved by Gartin, seconded Betcher, to have the City Council limit conference participation to virtual
participation only.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF VACATED CITY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH EDGE OF 2400 SE 16TH STREET
(CONTINUED FROM JULY 28, 2020): The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. He closed
the hearing after no one asked to speak.
17
City Manager Schainker wanted to confirm that the easement had been received. Public Works
Director John Joiner confirmed it was.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-452 approving the
conveyance of a portion of vacated City right-of-way adjacent to the south edge of 2400 SE 16th Street
to Van Wall Equipment, Inc., in the amount of $28,410.06.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON UNIT 8 CRANE RENOVATION (CONTINUED FROM JULY 28, 2020): Mayor
Haila opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-453 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Miner Corporation, dba MHC Systems, LLC, of
Urbandale, Iowa, in the amount of $273,439.10 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON INTEGRATED SITE PLAN (MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT) FOR 3619 STANGE ROAD: The Mayor opened the public hearing and
closed it after there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-454 approving, with
conditions, the Integrated Site Plan for 3619 Stange Road.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0-1. Vote on Motion: Voting Aye: Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck,
Martin. Voting Nay: None. Abstaining due to Conflict of Interest: Gartin.
Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
STAFF REPORT ON REQUEST FROM DICKSON JENSEN FOR SIDEWALK WAIVER
ADJACENT TO BRICKTOWNE DEVELOPMENT: Mayor Haila asked the Council if they had
any questions for staff and when hearing none, he opened public comment.
Dickson Jensen, 4611 Mortensen Road, Ames, stated that he has been in the community for the past
50 years, developing and conducting business. He wanted to take a moment to state he couldn’t
believe the conversation earlier tonight. Mr. Jensen commented that the lawlessness and not
respecting the City Attorney is why we are in the world today the way it is. He commented that the
Council is going to make a decision on his sidewalk that doesn’t mean anything, but the Council will
do things that is against what the Governor, Attorney General, and City Attorney have recommended.
Mr. Jensen stated he has a ditch by Highway 69 that was not installed correctly. He commented that
he had given the City the property right-of-way to put the sidewalk in, but the ditch was not designed
correctly. He noted that the City is asking him for more land, which was not in the original
Development Agreement, and he doesn’t want to give the City any more land. In the Staff Report,
it notes that there is supposed to be a bench on the sidewalk for people to sit on, but there is no ditch.
18
He noted that clearly the bench is in the middle of the ditch. This has been going on for the past three
to four years. Mr. Jensen asked the Council for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement.
Council Member Betcher asked if this is a slightly different version than what was discussed with
the Southdale residents at the church. Mr. Jensen stated that it was the same issue as it was never
installed correctly. He explained that the Council will hear from those residents at another meeting
as he was told the items could not be discussed at the same time. He stated that he couldn’t get any
more Building Permits from the City until the sidewalk is done.
Council Member Gartin asked Public Works Director John Joiner to talk about Mr. Jensen’s concern
with the ditch. Director Joiner explained that the segment from his southern driveway on Jade Street
south towards the church property was built with the Highway 69 widening. City Engineering staff
communicated with the developer’s representative during the design of the project, and during its
construction, about the ditch design and leaving a flat “bench” along the property frontage to allow
for sidewalk installation. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a construction permit for
the sidewalk and then subsequently approved the construction of the widening of Highway 69. In
April 2020 the DOT rescinded the Construction Permit and stated that they needed to have a four-
foot offset between the top of the backslope and the front of the walk, so the bench was not built to
construct that offset plus a five-foot sidewalk, plus they typically have a one-foot gap between the
back of the walk and the property line. Staff didn’t design for the new four-foot requirement offset,
and that is why staff has asked for an additional five feet from Mr. Jensen.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know if there was another way around the sidewalk issue without
taking more property from Mr. Jensen. Director Joiner stated that the ditch is designed to convey the
appropriate amount of overflow and there is also design in the south part of the apartments for
detention facilities. There would be overflow from the detention facilities that would overflow into
the ditch. The ditch is designed as a system. Mr. Joiner commented that the ditch would need to be
redesigned and enclosed to accommodate the overflow. Mr. Gartin inquired how this could have
been done differently knowing what everyone knows now. Mr. Joiner explained that without
knowing of the requirement by the DOT for the four-foot offset, the plans were approved by the
DOT without the four-foot offset. Mr. Gartin asked whose fault it was and asked if it was the DOT
for changing the rules. Mr. Joiner commented that he does not want to place fault, only that the four
feet was a requirement that staff was not told about. He explained that if the City had known about
the requirement the design, would have been done differently and they probably would have enclosed
the ditch. Director Joiner stated that the other way would have been to get the additional five feet
from Mr. Jensen as the project was being built.
Council Member Gartin verified that Mr. Jensen is requesting Option 1 which would waive 500 feet
of sidewalk at the south end of the site and defer the construction of the commercial frontage until
development of that portion of the site. Mr. Jensen stated the ditch drawing has the space in there,
but that wasn’t done by the contractor. He doesn’t believe it was the DOT’s fault, but the contractors.
There is now erosion in the ditch and the sidewalk will now be undercut and will crack quickly if
installed. Mr. Jensen pointed out that the sidewalk would lead to the church on the south and a
19
cemetery on so the sidewalk would be leading nowhere.
Council Member Betcher asked if something is going to be coming from the church. Mr. Joiner
stated he is unsure as they have been communicating with the Planning Department.
Mayor Haila stated that it is the assertion that the ditch was not built correctly and asked Director
Joiner if that was an accurate statement. Mr. Joiner explained that the project engineer felt that the
ditch substantially meets the plans and the project was closed out and approved by the DOT.
Council Member Gartin asked if they forgo some of the sidewalk on the east side does whether the
City would be building additional bike infrastructure on the east side. Mr. Joiner explained that, with
the project, they constructed a shared facility on the east side, which is separated from the roadway
by bollards. With the new Comprehensive Plan if the southern area was to grow, Mr. Joiner believes
they would connect it on the east side with a Shared Use Path. Council Member Gartin stated that
is a good factor to think about when looking for accessibility. Council Member Beatty-Hansen
mentioned they always regret it when they don’t put in a sidewalk when they can, as it is hard to go
back. Mr. Schainker inquired what the Complete Streets Plan called for. Director Joiner stated the
Complete Streets Plan would advocate for the connectivity on both sides.
Council Member Betcher wanted to know why they are talking about this issue now when they will
probably be seeing the southern half of the same question when the church brings forward its issue.
The issue is a shared issue among Bricktowne, the church, and the neighbors across the street. Mr.
Jensen stated the reason he was told was because the Planning and Housing Director Kelly
Diekmann said they were two separate issues. Council Member Martin stated he is a Council
Member and he has no idea what the issue about the church is and he is not sure how much they
should discuss it.
Mayor Haila stated that the issue with sidewalks and requiring sidewalks on new developments is
something the Council has committed to, and by leaving any sidewalk gaps, it makes problems for
future Council members.
Council Member Gartin stated that they are just taking from Mr. Jensen and he would recommend
going with Option 1 unless there is some merit to waiting a bit longer while staff negotiates with Mr.
Jensen. He explained that, from a pragmatic perspective, it makes sense to move the sidewalk over
five feet, but he is concerned about the erosion.
Mr. Schainker explained that what it comes down to is whether the Council wants a sidewalk or not.
Mr. Gartin mentioned that maybe there is some give and take that could be done with Mr. Jensen.
Moved by Gartin to table this request and direct staff to: 1) report back to the Council on the
engineering aspects of the viability on the sidewalk given the potential erosion issues; and 2) to
explore options of negotiating with the developer to find a way to reach an agreement on the
additional five-foot strip.
20
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
City Council Betcher asked for an explanation regarding the situation with the two different issues
with the same section of sidewalk and ditch, and why they are showing up on two different agendas
when it seems they are related and should be considered together. Planner Julie Gould stated she
can’t speak directly about the sidewalk design to the south as that was handled by another Planner
in the Department. She noted that it is likely coming separately as she doesn’t believe the church had
even applied for its Certificate of Occupancy yet. This specific sidewalk in front of Bricktowne was
specifically laid out in the Development Agreement who was responsible for it and how it was to go
in. She believes that it is a bigger issue then just the sidewalk going onto the property.
Council Member Gartin asked what the cost would be to put in the necessary piping for
underground. Mr. Joiner stated a rough estimate would be $40,000 without knowing much about
the layout of the site. Mr. Gartin stated why doesn’t the Council just spend the money and get it
done. Mr. Joiner stated that one potential complicating factor is that the retention ponds to the south
of the buildings are designed to go into the ditch so they would have to ensure that the overflow
would still be accommodated with enclosing the ditch.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to table this item to give Public Works an opportunity to get
obtain an estimate for enclosing the ditch.
Council Member Betcher stated she has concerns about the stability of the ditch based on what she
saw last year. She wondered if they were going to have two projects and the engineers for the church
are going to come before the Council at a later time stating they can’t put in a sidewalk.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Gartin, Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri. Voting Nay: Junck,
Martin.
ORDINANCE REVISING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.33 PERTAINING TO
SELLING, GIVING, OR SUPPLYING TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR
CIGARETTES TO PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE: Moved by Corrieri, seconded by
Betcher, to pass on second reading an ordinance revising Municipal Code Section 17.33 pertaining
to selling, giving, or supplying tobacco, tobacco products, or cigarettes to persons under 18 years of
age.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: City Manager Steve Schainker stated
that the first item is Water and Pollution Control’s Director John Dunn’s response to Dan Craig’s
request to waive charges incurred for a broken/replaced water meter. It was explained that Mr. Craig
is requesting a waiver of the $325 fee for replacing a broken water meter as he believes it is not his
fault and the City should pay for the replacement.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Junck, to deny the request to waive the fee.
21
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The second item was a letter from Ames Main Street Farmers’ Market requesting to lift the
restrictions related to music, tables and chairs, and food consumption at the Ames Main Street
Farmers’ Market.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Martin, to allow Ames Main Street Farmers’ Market to lift the
restrictions related to music, tables and chairs, and food consumption.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Corrieri, Beatty-Hansen, Gartin, Martin. Voting Nay: Betcher,
Junck. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The last item was an email from Linda DeSchane regarding her concerns with a potential
manufactured home development south and west of Sunset Ridge. Mr. Schainker noted that there
have not been any rezoning requests and advised the Council to accept the letter and note her
opposition to the potential development. Council Member Martin explained that he did reply to Ms.
DeSchane’s email letting her know that there is nothing before Council about the area at this time.
Mayor Haila recommended taking it under advisement at this time. The Council agreed.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Betcher wanted to welcome back the students and
wish that they cared about the City of Ames. She is not on Campus this semester, but hopes to see
students wearing their masks.
Mayor Haila commented that the City has gone through a lot of stress this past week as the City is
working to get electric service back to all the residents. He appreciates everything that staff has done.
Council Member Gartin stated that they have had the most amazing, patient citizens and the
comments that he had received from people were that they were grateful. He wanted to thank
everyone for their hard work.
CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Haila asked City Attorney Mark Lambert if there was a legal reason
to go into Closed Session. Mr. Lambert replied in the affirmative, citing Section 21.5(1)c, Code of
Iowa, to discuss matters presently in or threatened to be in litigation.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Martin, to go into Closed Session under Section 21.5(1)c, Code of
Iowa, to discuss matters presently in or threatened to be in litigation.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The Council entered Closed Session at 10:42 p.m. and reconvened in Regular Session at 11:49 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin to adjourn the meeting at 11:49 p.m.
22
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
23
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 25, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor John Haila called the Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council,
which was being held electronically, to order at 6:00 p.m. with the following Council members
present: Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and
David Martin. Ex officio Member Nicole Whitlock was also present.
Mayor Haila stated that it was impractical to hold an in-person Council meeting due to the Governor
of Iowa declaring a public health emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this
meeting was being held as an electronic meeting as allowed by Section 21.8 of the Iowa Code. The
Mayor then provided how the public could participate in the meeting via internet or by phone.
The Mayor announced that the Council was working off an Amended Agenda. City staff had added
a Resolution approving an Amendment to the Public Improvements Agreement for Kingsbury
Subdivision, 4th Addition, to the Consent Agenda. Also added was a discussion regarding the
suspension of City-sponsored Block Parties due to COVID-19 under the Administration portion of
the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila stated that staff had requested to pull Item No. 7, Resolution
approving extension of the Service Agreement with RFID Library Solutions for the automated
materials handling system, Item No. 13, Resolution approving contract and bond for Unit 8 Crane
Renovation, was also pulled due to staff not receiving the contract and bond.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve the following items on the Consent
Agenda.
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 NO. 20-455 for Iowa COVID-19 Local Government Relief Fund Claims and
Designating Finance Director to request reimbursement under the Program
5.RESOLUTION NO. 20-456 approving FY 2020/21 Human Services Contract for Mid-Iowa
Community Action, Inc., (MICA)
6.RESOLUTION NO. 20-457 endorsing submission of Transportation Safety Improvement
Program Grant for the 2020/21 S. Dayton Avenue Improvements
7.RESOLUTION NO. 20-459 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
8.R RESOLUTION NO. 20-460 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
9.RESOLUTION NO. 20-461 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
10.Electric Meter Supply Contract:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 20-462 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 NO. 20-463 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
11.RESOLUTION NO. 20-464 approving contract and bond for Power Plant Maintenance
Services Contract
12.RESOLUTION NO. 20-458 approving Amendment to Public Improvements Agreement for
Kingsbury Subdivision, 4th Addition
13.RESOLUTION NO. 20-466 approving Plat of Survey for 702 Ridgewood Avenue
14.RESOLUTION NO. 20-467 accepting completion of 2018/19 Traffic Signal Program (U.S.
Hwy. 30 westbound and South Dakota
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum. No one requested to speak, so he closed
Public Forum.
DISCUSSION WITH ASSET VOLUNTEERS REGARDING FY 2020/21 ASSET
PRIORITIES: Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth explained that the ASSET funding process
for FY 2021/22 will be beginning soon. ASSET volunteers will conduct their agency visits to discuss
services, gather information, and submit written report, which will be used for the agency hearings
and work sessions. Ms. Schildroth explained that the priorities listed in the Report were the same
as last year. She reminded the Council that last year the priorities underwent significant changes. The
City’s ASSET volunteers had recommended 1) prioritizing the sub-bullets and 2) adding more
specificity to some of the priorities. It was anticipated that the Community Needs Assessment would
have reached a state 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
2
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. This month, work has re-
started with a different approach given the information and lessons learned during the first few
months of the pandemic. The completion of the Assessment has now been delayed until early 2021.
ASSET Volunteer Jennifer Schill explained that it was helpful to have the priorities in order, which
helped make it a lot easier to make decisions on what agencies would get some of the left-over funds
or the bulk of the funding.
ASSET Volunteer Tim Lubinus mentioned that the feedback from the Council is very valuable to
the volunteers. As a process, they want to keep in mind the priorities that need to be verified and the
changes the Council made had helped the process.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that disaster response is listed in Priority 1, but listed as the
last bullet, and she wondered if that was the appropriate place or if it should be listed higher on the
prioritized sub-bullets. Ms. Schildroth explained that what services are in the ASSET portion of the
disaster response are primarily from RSVP (volunteer management for disaster services and
recovery) and Salvation Army (staff who attend the disaster coalition and help plan and respond to
disaster). Ms. Schildroth stated that she had been asked earlier if the sub-bullets were followed in
the order that are listed under listed Priority 1. She explained that all the priorities are looked at in
conjunction with what the agencies are requesting in their budget. Some agencies may request the
same amount of money as they previously received, more money, or less money. The priories help
when looking at a service; it may raise up higher on the City’s priorities list, but not United Way’s
or the County’s, so the City may take the lead to make sure there is adequate funding. It was noted
that if the Council wanted to more the disaster response up on the sub-bullets they could, but it
doesn’t change its importance based on where it is on the list.
Council Member Betcher commented that the ASSET team has done a great job with limited funds
and interpreting the multiple joint funders priorities. She is continually impressed and thanked the
ASSET team.
Mayor Haila asked if the ASSET team only looked at Priority 1 to begin with and tried to fill all
those first before moving on to Priority 2 or 3. He explained that he was questioning this due to the
fact that more mental health and other issues may come up due to COVID-19. Assistant Manager
Schildroth mentioned that, with knowing the kind of year 2020 has been so far, other needs are going
to arise as they begin to work through the budget. There will be two new agencies in the process:
Primary Health Care (dental clinic) and Wings of Refuge (helping individuals recovering from
human trafficking). She reassured the Council that ASSET tries to look at everything
comprehensively and look at every funder in order to provide funding to the best of their ability. The
other piece in all of this is outcomes, which has been discussed for a long time, and moving in that
direction with the Clear Impact Score card and with the other reporting that Agencies do. They want
to make sure they are meeting the needs of the community.
3
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to approve the City of Ames ASSET Priorities for the FY
2021/22 Funding Cycle.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT FACE-COVERING ORDINANCE: Mayor Haila explained that 15
days ago the City of Ames was hit by a city-wide storm. Shortly afterwards there was an amazing
outpouring of people in the community working and helping one another. City staff had worked
countless hours in order to have the power turned back on for the community. Mayor Haila stated
that in a similar way the City has been fighting the effects of the COVID-19 virus. He noted that the
County, local healthcare providers, school districts, local Mayors, and ISU have all worked
extremely hard and cooperatively during both the city-wide storm and the pandemic. The Mayor
explained that he has a heavy heart about this topic and the effect it can have on the community. The
Council will attest to the fact that they have received around 200-300 emails on the topic of face
coverings over the past couple of months. Mayor Haila said he wants to do the best for the
community and believes each citizen is looking to do the same. He acknowledged that the decision
that the Council makes tonight will not make everyone happy and encouraged citizens to work
together to come up with a positive outcome.
Mayor Haila pointed out that the item being discussed is a Draft Ordinance; it is not the first reading.
Public input will be allowed this evening. The Council will give direction to staff to either proceed
with the Ordinance or make any recommended changes. He asked Attorney Lambert to point out
what is and what is not possibly going to be required.
Attorney Lambert explained that he started out with adding a Preamble into the Ordinance, which
is normally not done, but in this case, he thought it would be a good idea. The Preamble lays out the
public health and legal argument in favor of cities passing this type of ordinance. The basic
requirement is that children age three or older must wear a face covering that completely covers the
person’s nose and mouth under the following circumstances:
1. Outside whenever the person cannot stay at least six feet away from others
2. Inside any indoor setting or establishment where the public is invited in including, but not
limited to: grocery, retail, hardware stores, gas stations, 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.
Mr. Lambert pointed out that it was a draft ordinance; changes can be made. He then explained that
a person is not required to wear a face covering at the following places or times: 1)While traveling
in a personal vehicle alone or with household members, 2) while a person is in the person’s
household or the household’s yard, or in another person’s household, 3) while outside, where at least
six feet of physical separation from others can be maintained, 4) while at a person’s place of
employment where at least six feet of physical separation from others can be maintained, 5) while
exercising at moderate or high intensity, such as jogging or biking, while engaging in or practicing
for sporting activities, 6) while seated inside or outside at a food establishment in the process of
eating or drinking, 7) while seated inside or outside at a bar in the process of eating or drinking, 8)
4
while obtaining a service that would require temporary removal of the person’s face covering, and
9) when federal or state law prohibits wearing a face covering or requires the removal of the face
covering.
When reviewing other cities ordinances and looking at adding language, there will be some people
who are exempt from wearing a face covering and those are: 1) persons younger than three years of
age, 2) anyone who has a medical condition causing difficulty of breathing or is on oxygen or a
ventilator, 3) anyone who is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the face
covering without assistance, 4) anyone who has been advised by a medical or behavioral health
professional not to wear face coverings, and 5) 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.
A $50.00 fine was added to the draft Ordinance. Attorney Lambert stated that the amount was
sufficient enough to have citizens comply and is not excessive. The fine would be $50.00 per
incident and a note was added that compliance would be done first through education and
encouragement, with a citation being a last resort. Mr. Lambert explained he also added a Sunset
Clause as he doesn’t believe this would be a permanent ordinance as hopefully the pandemic will
end. He added that the Ordinance will expire and become null and void after May 31, 2021, unless
the date in the clause is amended or the Ordinance is repealed sooner.
Council Member Martin mentioned that the Council has recognized that there are some legal issues
with the way the current draft Ordinance had been written. Mr. Martin explained that the Council
was previously advised that an ordinance such as this one might not pass “legal muster” given the
current circumstances. Attorney Lambert stated that was correct and explained that the Iowa
Attorney General issued an informal opinion that stated, “when the Governor has exercised her
authority to declare a public health emergency, the Governor has all the authority.” There is a section
of the Iowa Code that states the Governor can delegate the authority, but at this time, that has not
been done. Mr. Lambert mentioned that there are other legal opinions that there is a provision in the
Iowa Constitution about “Home Rule” authority and that cities can legislate on any topic if it does
not conflict with state law. Under that legal analysis, there are attorneys who believe cities have the
authority to issue a mask mandate. Attorney Lambert stated that he is not advising the Council that
it is unlawful to pass the ordinance. He is advising that the Attorney General’s opinion is correct.
Council Member Martin asked what the Council could do to the Ordinance to be completely clear
of any legal ramifications. Attorney Lambert stated that the Council could remove the penalty fee
and affirmatively stated that there would be no penalty. If the Council passed the Ordinance with a
statement that there is no penalty for violation of it, he does not see how a court could view the
ordinance as conflicting with the Governor’s authority.
Council Member Gartin asked if there were any other examples in the City Code that required
something, but there is no penalty to encourage enforcement. Attorney Lambert commented that
there were none that he could think of, and this one would be unique. Mr. Gartin asked what the
5
difference would be by passing a resolution that the Council strongly encourages masks versus a
mandate that has not penalty and no enforcement. He asked if they would be functionally equivalent.
Mr. Lambert commented that they would be functionally equivalent, but believed it sends a stronger
message by having an ordinance. Attorney Lambert stated he is not advocating for taking out the
penalty. Council Member Gartin asked if someone did not have a mask would there be any
enforcement at all if there is no penalty. Mr. Lambert stated that would be fair to say as he doesn’t
believe the Police will be telling people they had to wear a mask, because without a penalty it is not
really a mandate. Mr. Gartin asked if the City Attorney looked at any of the other cities that had a
penalty to see what amount they were charging. Mr. Lambert explained that he looked at other cities
in Iowa and it ranged from $10 to a simple misdemeanor, but did not look at other states. Mr. Gartin
stated he did some research and pulled up an article on the municipalities in California that have
varying fines. Council Member Gartin explained that normally the level of the fine is based on the
level of the offense to communicate the seriousness of the offense. Mr. Gartin worried about what
it communicates to the public when there is no fine at all.
Council Member Betcher wanted to know if there were any ordinances that have steep fines, but
were rarely, if ever, imposed on anyone. Mr. Lambert stated he believed there were a few. Ms.
Betcher stated she is not sure if the amount of a fine is acting as a deterrent consistently in Ames.
Her experience is that the City of Ames tends to educate before imposing any citation or fine. She
is not sure if having any amount of fine is going to act as a deterrent when evidence in the past says
otherwise. Ms. Betcher commented that if the Council’s goal is to have consistent messaging and
education opportunities then having a tool available to make changes would be helpful if the
situation changes. She felt the ordinance made more sense as a means of establishing what they want
to do, and to meet the Council’s goals.
Council Member Junck noted that the Sunset Clause is set for May 31, 2021. She wanted to verify
that the date could be changed to an earlier or later date. Mr. Lambert stated that was correct and the
Council could recommend a different date tonight.
Mayor Haila opened public comment. Mayor Haila mentioned he would like to take an informal,
unscientific poll to find out if the citizens who are online are in favor or opposed to the draft
ordinance that was presented. Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips asked for those online who were
in favor to raise their hands. There were 12 hands that were raised in favor of the draft ordinance and
37 hands raised who were opposed to the ordinance.
Cindy Paschen, 2117 Graeber Street, Ames, stated she was speaking as a surrogate for her husband,
Dr. John Paschen, Chair of the Story County Board of Health. She explained that her husband has
volunteered to serve on the Story County Board of Health for the past 20 years. Ms. Paschen
commented that her husband’s main statement as a Pediatrician and Chair of the Story County Board
of Health is that masks do work. The evidence that was in the email to the Council was from a hair
salon in Missouri, where two stylists wore their masks and developed COVID-19, but none of their
clients turned up positive. The other instance was in Georgia at a sleep-over camp where masks were
not required, and a lot of children and staff developed COVID-19. There was a thought early on that
6
children could not pass COVID-19 on to other people and that was found to not be true.
Drew Meyer, 3805 Calhoun Avenue, Ames, stated that he found it ironic that the leadership of Ames
is considering further restrictions in the mist of the pandemic on the very day that Story County
reported zero hospitalizations. He also found it ironic that there were not any trends or metrics being
reviewed to make decisions. Mr. Meyer strongly encouraged the Council to consider religious
exemptions from any further restrictions as they move forward with the pandemic. He was appalled
at how quickly the house of worship exemption was dismissed at the last City Council meeting. He
believed that houses of worship should be safe havens from the over-politicized and derisive culture.
Mr. Meyer thanked the Council for their time and for serving on the Council during these difficult
times.
LeeAnn Willson, 5326 Springbrook Drive, Ames, mentioned that she sent an email earlier to the
Council that conveyed her concerns; she is in support of a mask ordinance. She hoped that the action
of the City of Ames to adopt a mandate will get rid of the problem of the Governor not issuing a
state-wide mandate.
David Gravlin, 3425 Taft Avenue, Ames, thanked the Council for the open process that they have
followed for this issue. When talking about putting an ordinance in place and amending it later, he
questioned why they can’t wait to pass an ordinance later if it could be amended later. Mr. Gravlin
wanted to know about education and why the City of Ames doesn’t focus on education exclusively
and convince citizens to wear a mask instead of spending a lot of time and legal effort on something
that might not be needed. He wanted to remind citizens that this is not a critic on the effectiveness
of masks, but more on the authority and enforcement of a mandate in the City of Ames. He explained
that he sees the mandate as unnecessary and divisive in nature, even though he understands the intent
is good.
Justin Maynes, 427-13th Street, Ames, explained that he believed the mask ordinance is unnecessary
and a very divisive issue. He commented that the City of Ames would be inviting people who
wouldn’t normally be polarized by these issues to stand firm. Mr. Maynes wanted to have everyone
enjoy their freedom and enjoy life. By making a mandate that affects how they operate every day is
a strong restriction on the freedoms everyone enjoys. He is a business owner and commented that
he would have a hard time telling his construction crew that they must wear a mask in 90-degree
weather. He thanked the Council for their time and understands this is not an easy topic to discuss.
He wanted to know if any of the Council members had questioned the Governor to find out why she
has not put something in place. Mr. Maynes would like to see that all efforts have been exhausted
to implore a mask mandate instead of taking it into the City’s own hands and revolt against the
Governor.
Joe McGovern, 531 Crystal Street, Ames, voiced his appreciation for all the work the Council had
done regarding this topic. He really appreciated the community and being concerned with protecting
one another and keeping each other safe. His concern with the current means by which the Council
is going to enact such a desire into law is very dangerous. The decision is opposing the City’s legal
7
counsel and the State’s legal counsel. Mr. McGovern stated it is outside of the city’s scope of
authority within the context of the state democracy. He explained that ignoring the City’s Legal
counsel sets a very dangerous precedence as it will allow future decisions by the Council to reference
this decision as a reason why they could ignore legal counsel. Mr. McGovern believed that the
authority of the local government becomes void if they do not submit to state government. He noted
that just because other municipalities in the state are abusing the limits of its power doesn’t mean
that the City of Ames has to as well. Mr. McGovern commented that he strongly opposes the mask
mandate.
Ruth Hulstrom, 214 E. 16th Street, Ames, explained that she had some concerns about how the draft
ordinance is written for children three and under. She has two small children and one is a five-year-
old who she has trouble with keeping his mask on. She supports the idea of wearing masks under
the right circumstances. Ms. Hulstrom is concerned about the age requirement and how it could
potentially impact childcare providers who need to engage closely with young children. Some
childcare centers do not wear masks as they need to have the face-to-face connection. She was also
concerned about what the legal costs would be for the City and where the financing would come
from. Ms. Hulstrom wanted to know from the City Attorney what the cost may be.
Chris Campbell, 2412 Eaton Avenue, Ames, mentioned he does not have a background in law so he
will leave the legal issues to people who have that background. His background is in science and
wanted to know if there was any scientific data that supports the idea that a mask ordinance would
reduce the number of positive test cases. Mr. Campbell also wanted to know if there was any
scientific data that support the idea that children are at risk of getting seriously ill or spreading the
disease to other people. As someone who has a young child, it is not realistic to expect a three-year-
old child to keep a mask on. When he mentions scientific evidence, he is referring to randomized
control trials. He has heard a lot of anecdotes, but nothing scientific. Mr. Campbell commented that
it is great that people are passionate about the issue and no one wants anyone to get sick, but passion
isn’t a good way to make public policy. He wanted to know what the goal was; if it was to reduce
the number of people coming up with the virus, there should be scientific data before a mask
mandate is introduced to the public.
Dan Burns, 4010 Brickman Avenue, Ames, explained that he had written an email to the Council,
but wanted to make a few follow-up points. He noted that from a scientific standpoint if you were
to look up the trials and studies, they should be limited to pre-2020 to avoid any politicized studies.
Mr. Burns commented that the sub-N95 masks are about .3 microns and bioparticles are .125
microns; because of those numbers he stated it did not make any sense how anyone could limit the
viral spread. He noted that there are some good videos online that demonstrate the inefficiency of
masks. Mr. Burns mentioned that fundamentally it violates the right to an individual’s body, and
mandating masks will open the door to vaccine mandates. He explained he is not sure why the City
of Ames needs to take such extreme measures when they are on the downslope of the virus.
Daniel Bell, 419-18th Street, Ames, pointed out that there was some ambiguity in the unscientific poll
that was taken earlier. He requested to pose the question of “yes, in any form” versus “no, in any
8
form the next time.”
Tobias Gassman, 1605 Burnett Avenue, Ames, explained that he does like wearing a mask as he has
family members that are high-risk, but doesn’t think the City should mandate masks in churches and
other religious institutions within the City. Mr. Gassman felt a mask mandate would open the City
up to a bunch of legal issues down the road if someone was to sue.
Brigitte Gassman, 1605 Burnett Avenue, Ames, explained that we had spoken to one of her sons
before her. One of the issues for her is the City going against state law and this will lead to
lawlessness. When doing this, it is sending the message that, as a City, we are above the law of the
state. She noted that her family wears masks due to medical issues, and her statement is not against
wearing masks, but against the City Council deciding that the City is above state law. This action
could lead to lawsuits. She asked who is going to pay for the legal services. Ms. Gassman mentioned
if there is a $50 fee, who is going to enforce the fine when it goes against state law.
Curtis Powers, 731-5th Street, Ames, said he appreciated the work of the Council. He stated his
family social distances themselves and wears masks, but is against the draft ordinance as it is
currently written. He mentioned he liked what he heard about what Des Moines is doing to educate
their citizens and handing out masks where needed. Mr. Powers felt that exempting religious
institutions and kids under age12 would be helpful if moving forward with a mask mandate. He did
like the discussion earlier about moving forward with the mask mandate, but removing the penalty.
If removing the penalty would make the ordinance more solid legally, he would be more supportive.
Mr. Powers would like to see all efforts being exhausted first before having a mandate. He did
mention it may be a little more worrisome in the winter when people are moving to more inside
events.
Brian Woerth, 3515 Emerald Drive, Ames, stated he wanted to promote moving forward with the
process. He explained he is going against the assumption that the science of masks being protective
and safe assuming that the City believes that masks can reduce the virus then moving forward with
the process is an important step. The virus can decimate and hurt a community quickly, but if this
process is going to take a few months to go through, this process needs to move faster. He is afraid
that when the city is going to need a mask mandate it will not be ready. Mr. Woerth explained that
at this point in time the Council should just take the next step and move on. He recommended
developing a set of metrics that says that if the community is suffering “x” amount of bad because
of the virus then the city needs to take steps to protect the community. He felt that if a metric could
be built into the Ordinance it would be a great way to approach the pandemic. Mr. Woerth pointed
out that as of August 31, 2020, there will be a Test Iowa site in Ames, which will help give Ames
a better idea of what is going on.
Traci Jennings, 1606 S. Duff Avenue, Ames, explained that she owns the business at the address
given. She believes this is a serious virus and is compassionate to those who have lost loved ones
to the virus or have gotten sick. Ms. Jennings believed this is a reactive proposal due to the recent
community buzz from the state and local media regarding ISU students returning to Campus. A
9
mandate requiring a mask infringes on the freedoms that she believes the United States of America
bestows upon citizens. The public has a right to make their own choices, and if someone fears for
their safety, they have a right to choose were they go, were they shop, and the people they surround
themselves with. Ms. Jennings stated if you do not fear the virus you should be able to make other
choices. She is worried about the ability to enforce the mask mandate as the police force would be
tasked with such a matter. Ms. Jennings commented that due to her business, she visits with people
from around the world, and she wondered how the City would educate visitors to the community
about the mandate.
Nicole Barnes, 1315 Roosevelt Avenue, Ames, thanked the Council and commented that navigating
through these challenging times is not easy; she appreciated how the Council is representing the City.
She believes there are some ethical concerns from the last City Council meeting regarding the
disregard of legal counsel. This was alarming to her as she believes the City is overstepping its
authority. Ms. Barnes wanted to point out the disregard of protecting religious freedoms and houses
of worship. If the mask mandate is moved forward, a religious exemption should be something to
consider. She can’t support the action, but does believe the effectiveness of masks is something that
citizens should understand and make their own choice.
Vanessa Burnett, 2805 Northridge Parkway, Ames, stated she is a disaster management professional.
She had spent nine years in the US Department of Homeland Security and has done some pandemic
planning. Ms. Burnett is happy to see that the City is considering mandating masks, but is a little
frustrated by some of the public comments. She noted it is a public health best practice to wear a
mask. It has been well demonstrated to reduce the risk in other countries and other jurisdictions
within the United States. There is good data that show that wearing masks could help the City of
Ames stabilize the economy. Wearing masks helps citizens feel safer and protects the employees of
a store and other places where people are out in public. She has heard the concerns from other
citizens about the state versus local authority. Ms. Burnett pointed out that this country was built on
federalism. The country has a lot of principles, but federalism allows local and state government to
have power, and in this case she believes it is a good move for the City to exercise some of the power
when the state is failing to implement public health practices that could save lives and the economy.
Ms. Burnett mentioned that the science is well-established, and the CDC recommends wearing
masks to minimize the spread. Ms. Burnett commented that most of the speakers tonight are not
talking about the risks that masks mitigate. The virus kills and harms a lot of people and is highly
infectious. She stated this is a public health emergency and the City of Ames needs to act like it. This
is more about keeping people alive then it is freedoms. Ms. Burnett noted that people who do not
wear masks impede her freedom to stay alive.
Charles Long, 620 Barr Drive, Ames, mentioned that he had been mulling over this topic for a few
days and felt that what the City of Ames is doing is great. He had a couple concerns and is worried
about the possible cost if the state decided to sue the City. Mr. Long mentioned that he had
contracted the virus back in May and didn’t have any symptoms. He works for Cy-Ride and they
wear masks all the time. Due to previously having the virus, he now has acute asthma, which he
never had before in his life. Mr. Long mentioned that people talk about the costs of their freedom,
10
but where is his freedom now that he always has to have an inhaler with him. He explained that the
doctors are hoping he will get over the asthma, but since the virus is new, there is no way of telling.
As a citizen, whether or not it is legal for the City, citizens should just wear a mask. Mr. Long
explained that during this time people everywhere need to look out for each other.
Sehba Faheem, 1930 Long Road, Apt C, Ames, explained she feels very strongly about this topic.
She understands this is a difficult decision to make, but is upset that this conversation is happening
now. The conversation should have happened months ago and before 30,000 people came back to
Ames for school. Ms. Faheem stated that right now, the City of Ames is a petri dish for the virus.
She noted that 13% of students have already tested positive and testing is not even widespread
among the students yet. There is no question that the students interact with other citizens of Ames
as they go to businesses, restaurants, and libraries. She pointed out that this is not even just Ames
as there are some students who commute to school from other cities. Ms. Faheem is in favor of
having a mask mandate and stated that wearing a mask is not about yourself, but is about everyone
else.
Luke McGrath, 2519 Chamberlain Street, #312, Ames, mentioned that he is a student at Iowa State
University. He feels that everyone should be wearing a mask. The City can have a mandate, but it
doesn’t have to be permanent. The majority of the United States Government is in favor of wearing
masks. When looking at the effectiveness of masks, he stated if you look at pictures of the Spanish
flu in 1819, people were wearing masks. It is factual evidence that it may not mitigate the spread,
but it does a lot more than doing nothing.
Council Member Corrieri explained while waiting to speak, she looked at Mary Greeley Medical
Center’s data. There are currently nine people in the hospital for COVID-19 and three of them are
in the ICU.
Council Member Betcher stated she is not sure if everyone had seen the report from ISU, but in the
first week of classes, there were another 130 students, staff, and faculty added to the already 175
people who had tested positive during move-in. Council Member Junck mentioned that the test rate
this week on Campus was 13%.
Ms. Betcher also mentioned that Chris Campbell had asked about any studies that had been done on
children and the transmission of the virus from children. She explained there was a JMA article
published on July 30, 2020, which focused on the efficiency of transmission of COVID by small
children. Ms. Betcher is not sure if the article focused on the severity of the impact on the small
children.
Ex officio Member Nicole Whitlock wanted to mention that the N95 masks do block around 90%
of the particles and even the cheaper masks will block more than nothing.
Mayor Haila closed public input.
11
Council Member Betcher stated that they received a lot of comments from emails and from earlier
this evening about authority concerns. She knows that there have been some people who stated that
the Council is not following the oaths they had taken, but in talking with the City legal counsel, the
Preamble to the Ordinance is positive. The Preamble does state the authority by which they are
asserting they can pass the ordinance, which is the “Home Rule” authority is granted to the City
under the Iowa Constitution that the Council swore to uphold. Ms. Betcher mentioned they also
swore to uphold the laws of the state, but in this case, the legal situation has not been settled. There
has been no clear indication that what has been done is illegal and she felt the Council had the legal
authority to issue a mask mandate.
Mayor Haila asked Attorney Lambert to address the questions about legal costs and where the City
would come up with the money. Attorney Lambert stated he wanted to reiterate that the Attorney
General’s Office has said that while the Governor’s Proclamation is effective that cities do not have
the authority to issue mask mandates, he has advised the Council to follow the Attorney General’s
statement. Mr. Lambert explained that he has also told the Council that it is unsettled law, and it is
not clear. There is the argument that there is the “Home Rule” authority and he believes it is a valid
argument, but it has not been ruled on by a Court. Attorney Lambert stated he could not clearly state
that it is unlawful for the Council to pass the ordinance. Mr. Lambert mentioned regarding the cost
that there is insurance coverage that provides coverage for the Council and other City officials. The
vast majority of the cost for any litigation against the City would be covered by the insurance carrier.
There would be a co-pay, but Attorney Lambert is not sure of the amount.
Attorney Lambert explained he wanted to address the concerns about children wearing masks and
the Story County Board of Health had recommended that children two years of age and under should
wear masks, and he thought that would be tough. He had changed the age to three, but the Council
could change it to what they wanted. Mr. Lambert mentioned there was also the question of why pass
the mask mandate now without the penalty. He noted that one advantage to passing the face covering
Ordinance now is that any other changes the Council wanted to make would already be worked out
and the only change that would need to be make is adding the penalty.
Mayor Haila stated that one of the questions was if issuing the ordinance was outside the authority
of the Council. Attorney Lambert explained that he cannot say that it is outside of the scope of the
City’s authority. Council Member Gartin asked for a brief explanation on the state’s power versus
a municipal government’s power. Attorney Lambert stated, on the state level, local governments are
entities of the state. Local authority is subservient to the state government. State government can set
whatever rules they want; they can tell cities what they can and can’t do. In 1978, the Iowa
Constitution was amended to establish a “Home Rule” authority for cities. The “Home Rule”
authority says that cities may legislate, and may pass ordinances on any topic, except if they are
prohibited from doing so by the state or if the local ordinance would conflict with a state law. Mr.
Lambert mentioned that in this circumstance there is not a clear statement in the law that cities may
not legislate on this matter. There is only an interpretation from the Attorney General.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know if the City wanted to get into a fight with the State over who
12
has the right to regulate the area; who would win. Attorney Lambert stated the State would win. Mr.
Gartin explained that on August 6, 2020, Governor Reynolds stated, “We don’t believe during a
public health emergency that the local governments have the authority to supersede what has been
put in place at the statewide level by the Governor.” He pointed out that statement was in US News
and World Report. Mr. Gartin stated that Governor Reynolds has made it very clear that she does
not believe the City of Ames has that authority. He commented that Attorney Lambert had advised
the Council against taking action, and that is also the opinion of the Story County Civil Attorney.
Mr. Gartin pointed out that the majority of the attorneys in the area have taken the same position as
the Attorney General. On July 14, 2020, the Council requested that Mayor to send a letter to
Governor Reynolds asking for authority because the Council didn’t feel they had the authority. He
is concerned that the Council believes they have the authority. Mr. Gartin commented that he is
opposed to the Ordinance, but if things go as they did last week the Ordinance will still pass. Mr.
Gartin stated he did his own count, but within the past week, he had 67 emails that were in favor of
the mandate and 168 opposed to the mandate. He stated that the community has spoken and are
opposed to the mandate.
Mayor Haila stated he wanted to follow-up on the letter that was sent to Governor Reynolds. He
explained that the Governor has not responded, acknowledged, or said anything regarding the letter,
which is a disappointment. Mayor Haila mentioned he had also reached out to Governor Reynolds’
staff by email asking to have a conversation with her in advance of last week’s meeting. What is
disappointing is the Governor has given her opinion, but has not put it in writing.
Mayor Haila re-opened public comment.
Susie Petra, 2011 Duff Avenue, Ames, explained that she wanted to comment that the more cities
participate with a mask mandate it will pressure the Governor to give local authority. She stated
when talking about freedom, she wanted to remind people that initially people were not comfortable
with wearing seatbelts, but everyone does it now.
Mayor Haila closed public comment.
Mayor Haila asked Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips if he was aware what the City’s co-pay
would be. Mr. Phillips stated that the deductible for general liability claims is $25,000, and there are
some claims that will have higher deductible amounts under the Agreement with ICAAP. Mr.
Phillips was not entirely sure in this instance if someone was challenging a citation that was issued
if damages could be demanded for that. If that is not the case, he doesn’t believe the City would be
responsible for anything except the deductible.
Council Member Betcher pointed out that when she looked over her notes about the number of
emails the Council had received, it turns out that the numbers are not a landslide in either direction.
There were 225 total in favor of a mask mandate and 211 against the mandate. She noted that the
Council is hearing from both sides equally.
13
Also, Council Member Betcher stated one of the items in Section 1 of the draft ordinance mentions
that mask-wearing in other public settings, and some private settings, is excluded (i.e. offices). She
wanted to know how Attorney Lambert figured out what was a private versus a public setting. Mr.
Lambert explained that drafting an ordinance like this one was not easy. He had spent a lot time
speaking with the other attorneys in his office about how to define that. A public setting is anywhere
the public is invited in. If someone owned a business and worked in their office all day, and the
public did not come in then that would not be a public setting. Ms. Betcher stated one citizen
mentioned childcare providers and wanted to know if that would be considered a public setting.
Attorney Lambert commented that he would argue that it would be, but they could specify that in the
ordinance. Council Member Betcher noted they received a question via email regarding Section 2b,
which mentioned the exclusion of a person’s household or household yard or another person’s
household, but excludes the yard. She commented that the public would want to know why the
neighbor’s yard was not also excluded. Attorney Lambert mentioned if an exception was added to
the ordinance for going into another person’s yard, it was thought that it could be a major loophole
for parties in yards without wearing face coverings.
Ex-officio Member Whitlock explained that she wanted to make a personal statement. She mentioned
that her roommate is from Chicago, where there is a mask mandate, and she just moved in about a
week ago. Her roommate was very scared because of everyone not wearing masks, it made her very
uncomfortable, and she can’t believe the City of Ames does not have a requirement.
Council Member Junck stated that Attorney Lambert’s advice is that it is unsettled law and they do
not know the legality of the issue at this time. Until then the City of Ames needs to take
responsibility to protect its citizens. She noted since the Governor has neglected her responsibility
to issue a mask mandate, delegate the authority, or respond to the City of Ames letter, she felt it is
the Council’s duty to take up the issue. They have seen the signs of how face coverings work to
minimize the spread and she believes the scientific and medical community. Ms. Junck thinks the
Council should keep the bulk of the ordinance, including the enforcement piece, to keep it as strong
as possible. She would be in favor of making minor changes, but doesn’t understand how passing
an ordinance without any enforcement is any different then supporting the “Cyclones Care”
campaign.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen explained that she is in the same boat as the science is clear and the
medical community has weighed in. In terms of freedoms being infringed, she is sorry that people
feel that way, but everyone’s freedoms are infringed in many ways by living in a society with
government. She mentioned there are a lot of laws that govern how people have to conduct
themselves. Ms. Beatty-Hansen understands where the concerns are coming from, but for the
public’s health and safety, this is a time to take a stand. This is an untried area where they have the
Attorney General’s informal opinion, but they don’t have a formal statement from the Government.
Council Member Gartin asked Attorney Lambert that if it came down to a “tug-of-war” between the
Governor and the City of Ames, who would win. Attorney Lambert stated there is not a clear answer
to that question as it depends on what form the “tug-o-war” takes. Mr. Gartin asked if the Governor
14
issued a Proclamation stating that cities are not allowed to issue individual mandates, what would
the decision be. Mr. Lambert stated in that type of situation it would be unlawful for the City to have
a mask mandate. Mr. Gartin explained that there is not a Proclamation, but a clear statement from
the Governor stating that cities don’t have the authority to issue mandates for face coverings. Mr.
Gartin wanted to know why the City was going through this with an Ordinance versus a
Proclamation. Attorney Lambert stated the Governor could clearly settle the dispute by putting
something in a Proclamation, but she hasn’t done that yet. Mayor Haila mentioned that many cities
have asked the Governor to state something in a Proclamation.
Council Member Corrieri wanted to clarify that the state has not challenged any of the cities that
have passed mandates. Mr. Lambert stated that there has not been any yet. Attorney Lambert stated
that a challenge may come from private citizens too, who file a suit to challenge the Ordinance.
Council Member Corrieri stated she is generally not supportive of an ordinance that doesn’t have a
mechanism for enforcement. She explained that it would render the ordinance useless if you don’t
have an enforcement tool. The City has clearly indicated that they would not have the Police
Department walking up and down the streets looking for anyone without a mask, but having the
mechanism in the toolbox is important to have. Ms. Corrieri stated it has been said by the others, but
she felt it needed to be repeated that there is a consensus within the medical community that this is
an important step to take to protect the public health and boost the economy. That has been the
motivation behind why she would support the ordinance and will continue to do so.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to continue with the Ordinance as drafted.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated this is a hard one and there will be a lot of people that are not
pleased. She appreciated everyone reaching out, and have read through each one, who respects
everyone’s opinion, but the Council is trying to do what is best for the community.
Council Member Gartin wanted to clarify that the ordinance included a $50.00 fine. Mayor Haila
stated the motion by Council Member Junck is as drafted. Council Member Martin wanted to clarify
if the motion was to bring back the Ordinance that was presented tonight for a first reading or if there
could be subsequent motions for edits. Mayor Haila stated the motion is as is right now; if changes
need to be made the Council would need to do that first.
Council Member Betcher stated it is difficult for her to support the motion with the penalty included.
She doesn’t believe the penalty in the Ordinance is enough to change anyone’s behavior. If removing
the penalty means they would not be opening themselves up to legal arguments, then she can’t
support the draft as written. She would be open to supporting the Ordinance without the penalty
clause.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that what Council Member Gartin said earlier was correct
that without the penalty it is just a Proclamation saying they recommend it; there needs to be
something to attempt to enforce face coverings. Ms. Beatty-Hansen commented that education will
be done first, and someone will only be charged a fine as a last resort.
15
Vote on Motion: 3-3. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck. Voting Nay: Betcher, Gartin,
Martin.
Motion failed.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, approve the draft ordinance replacing the current language
of Section 4 with a statement that there is no penalty to be drafted by the Legal Department.
Council Member Gartin stated that this is rather odd as it would be a mandate without a penalty. He
stated that they can’t deter anyone without a penalty.
Council Member Martin commented that he understands that sentiment and it weakens the
Ordinance to not have any penalty, but on the other hand, he thinks a lot of people want to abide by
what they understand the community norms to be. An ordinance that says that people are required
to wear face covering will have more people than before responding to the Ordinance.
Mayor Haila mentioned that there were a couple comments from the public recommending
exemption for places of worship and daycare centers. Council Member Corrieri explained that she
doesn’t consider daycares to be open to the public. She stated that random people can’t walk into a
daycare.
Council Member Corrieri proposed a friendly amendment to add that daycare’s do not fall under
public places.
Council Member Corrieri wanted to be clear that the Council is wanting to pass an ordinance that
is going to take six weeks to pass and it is not enforceable. She commented that she is not sure what
the Council is doing other than wasting a lot of people’s time. Council Member Betcher stated she
is assuming it will give the opportunity to offer more educational opportunities and to be able to add
a penalty clause in the future should it be determined to be necessary. Council Member Junck stated
that Attorney Lambert mentioned earlier that, if there was no enforcement penalty, there would
virtually no enforcement at all and that would include education. Council Member Beatty-Hansen
confirmed that was stated earlier. Ex officio Whitlock stated she would also argue that adding some
sort of enforcement including a fine would not preclude anyone from offering education. Ms. Junck
asked Ex officio Whitlock, in her student opinion, would enforcement cause more students to comply
or would it be the same for an ordinance without any enforcement. Ms. Whitlock commented that
if there is not a fine, the students are not going to care as there is nothing to stop them from not
wearing a mask. In her opinion the students would follow the Ordinance more if there was a penalty.
Council Member Betcher stated that the students are already under the student conduct code
according to the President’s letter. The students behavior should not be falling to the Ames Police.
Ms. Whitlock stated that the process at ISU is going to take a long time to get back to the student(s)
responsible.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Martin, Junck. Voting Nay: Corrieri,
Gartin.
16
Motion declared carried.
Mayor Haila recessed at 8:39 p.m. and reconvened 8:46 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF APPEAL OF CHARGES FOR WATER METER REPLACEMENT: Water
and Pollution Control Director John Dunn mentioned that he provided a thorough Staff Report and
was available for any questions.
Council Member Gartin wanted to verify that this type of situation has come up before and that the
staff position in the report is consistent with what has been done in prior years. Mr. Dunn explained
that frozen meters happen a dozen times per year, depending on the weather, and the Staff Report
is the same response that they follow.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it after no one came forward.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to deny the appeal.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF SUSPENSION OF VENDING LICENSES DUE TO COVID-19: Assistant
City Manager Brian Phillips explained that he was seeking direction from the City Council as to
whether to continue the suspension of Vending Licenses (except those approved as part of organized
special events). Mr. Phillips explained that staff is receiving requests from new vendors requesting
to vend on City streets and sidewalks. There are a number of existing licensees that have found other
locations on private property to vend, which is not regulated by the City’s Vending Ordinance. He
pointed out that one concern is that vending late at night around the bars tends to cause larger crowds
to form and is a point of concern due to COVID-19. Staff is recommending that vending continues
to be suspended on City streets and sidewalks (except those approved as part of an organized special
event) through the end of the year.
Council Member Gartin stated they had talked before about an equal protection concept. He
explained that someone can have a food cart on private property, but not on a public street that may
be 10-feet away. He stated there should be some level of consistency. Mr. Gartin stated there is an
economic impact as these are small businesses. He commented that he would be willing to remove
the restriction and let vendors be on City property.
Council Member Martin doesn’t see this as an equal protection situation. He understands there are
some parallels between what people can do, but the Council can only regulate on City property.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve Alternative 1, which states to 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.
17
Council Member Gartin asked what the Council is trying to accomplish with this motion except
harming people’s livelihoods. He stated the Council should either prohibit vending across the board
or allow it across the board. City Manager Steve Schainker mentioned that they are not affecting
people’s livelihood as other vendors have made other arrangements, and are free to find a private-
sector property on which to vend. Mr. Schainker pointed out that a lot of the vendors want to vend
in Campustown and Welch Avenue, but that area is closed due to construction.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Betcher, Martin, Junck, Beatty-Hansen. Voting Nay: Gartin,
Corrieri.
Motion declared carried.
DISCUSSION OF CITY-SPONSORED BLOCK PARTIES DUE TO COVID-19: Assistant
City Manager Brian Phillips stated that in response to COVID-19, on May 12, the City Council
approved 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 weekend 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
review of the criteria indicates that the circumstances have not changed to warrant the resumption
of block parties.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know what the difference is from neighborhood gatherings versus
a ribbon-cutting for a new project. He noted that at the ribbon-cutting last weekend, there was ice
cream, people were social distancing, and wearing masks, but there were more than ten people. Mr.
Gartin explained he is trying to distinguish why to prohibit the City’s trailer and what people can
already do. Council Member Betcher stated that in her mind the difference is if you are using the
Block Party Trailer there are multiple touch points in the trailer that will be used by other people,
and staff will have to clean and disinfect the trailer. She pointed out that in a block party there is
usually a compressed area within where the event is occurring, but at the park dedication ribbon
cutting they were spread out all over the park. Ms. Betcher sees the difference as the ribbon-cutting
had more space to spread out and there was no trailer material; while the other is compressed and
using the same material for multiple parties.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Alternative 3, which states to allow for the City-
sponsored block parties on City rights-of-way, along with the use of the Block Party Trailer.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Gartin, Martin, Corrieri, Beatty-Hansen. Voting Nay: Betcher,
Junck. Motion declared carried.
REVISED CONTRACT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE
CITY OF AMES AND THE AMES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR FY
2020/21: City Manager Steve Schainker stated this contract deals with the personal services from
the Ames Economic Development Commission (AEDC). The contract was delayed in being
18
approved as the Council asked the City Manager to craft new language that more accurately
represented how the contract was 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. Mr. Schainker pointed out that in the updated contract, Article
II B., paragraphs 2, 3, 14, and 15 are where changes had been made.
Mayor Haila opened public comment. It was then closed when no one came forward.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-468 approving the Revised
Contract for the Economic Development Services between the City of Ames and the Ames
Economic Development Commission for FY 2020/21.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 2020A: Finance Director Duane Pitcher explained the City had accepted bids on
bonds this morning. They were favorable with an interest rate under 1% on the combination of the
bonds to fund the projects as shown in the Council Action Form, and also refunding of some of the
older bonds that will project some savings. He believed the interest rate was .924%. Director Pitcher
introduced Susanne Gerlach, PFM, who is the City’s registered municipal financial advisor and
asked her to give a summary of the sale.
Susanne Gerlach, PFM, told the Council that eight bids were received from over 46 different firms.
The True Interest Cost (TIC) ranged from .924% to 1.06%. The winning bid came from Piper
Sandler. She noted that the City of Ames is rated as Aa1, which is one step below the highest rating.
There were three series of outstanding bonds that were refunded: 2010A, 2011B, and 2012. The goal
for a cut refunding was a 3% savings and the City was able to save 6.7% ($613,000) for taxpayers.
She congratulated the City on a good sale.
Council Member Gartin asked over what period the savings would occur. Ms. Gerlach mentioned
it would be between now and 2032.
Mr. Pitcher stated he wanted to give an idea on the impact of next year. For 2021/22 the City will
have about $266,000 less in debt service than anticipated.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it when no one spoke up.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-469 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.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
19
STAFF REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS: Planning
and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann stated the City Council had requested a review of the
established Urban Revitalization Areas (URA) and Programs in the Planning Division Workplan in
order for the Council to determine if any adjustments were needed to meet their current goals. The
focus of the report is three different issues; 1) Options related to existing URA’s and Program
objectives, 2) Options related to East University Impacted URA and Construction of new Greek
housing, and 3) Error related to the property at 313 Lynn Avenue.
Within the past five years staff has started adding expiration dates to URAs. Staff is recommending
repealing all completed projects and two other adjustments to areas that do not have an expiration
date. Mr. Diekmann stated that they are recommending the repeal of the South Lincoln
Neighborhood URA. Minimal redevelopment has occurred in this area and the structure of the
criteria has not yielded the specific desired results in terms of 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. Additionally, it is also staff’s recommendation that
the Council modify the Downtown URA and request staff to develop eligibility criteria related 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.
Council Member Gartin asked for more guidance from Director Diekmann on exactly what he is
looking for, and what the pros and cons would be. Mr. Diekmann explained that staff’s
recommendations would be: 1) Repeal Roosevelt Program and URA, 2) Repeal South Lincoln
Neighborhood URA, 3) Repeal 405 and 415 Hayward URA - Iowa House, 4) Repeal 517 Lincoln
Way URA - Squeaky Clean, and 5) Update Downtown to include the Historic Preservation Criteria.
Director Diekmann stated that the areas that have no expiration date are a technical issue and would
be fine to go in and clean up. They would need to be clear to those areas that the area is no longer
eligible for tax abatement. He noted that the 517 Lincoln Way URA - Squeaky Clean was done for
that project and there was no real intent to keep incentivising activity on the property. Director
Diekmann stated that the South Lincoln Neighborhood area would be a policy question as they want
to support reinvestment, but doesn’t think the program has been successful. He commented that he
thought it would be easier to repeal it now and then replace it in the future if needed.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it when there was none.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to direct staff pursue Items 1-5 on page 6 of the Staff Report.
The items would be to: 1) Repeal Roosevelt Program and URA, 2) Repeal South Lincoln
Neighborhood URA, 3) Repeal 405 and 415 Hayward URA - Iowa House, 4) Repeal 517 Lincoln
Way URA - Squeaky Clean, and 5) Update Downtown to include the Historic Preservation Criteria.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Mr. Diekmann explained the next issue is the East University Impacted URA. There is a zoning
20
standard where demolition of an existing or previously existing sorority or fraternity is prohibited
without a determination by City Council that there is a hardship related to maintaining the building.
There is an incentive program to give a tax abatement for building new fraternities and sororities on
sites that were formally fraternities and sororities. Staff recommended going back to the original
version of the URA, with additions being eligible for a tax abatement, and new construction would
not be eligible. Mr. Diekmann explained another option would be to eliminate the East University
Impacted URA altogether. He pointed out that staff is supportive of either option.
Mayor Haila inquired if any communication would be sent out to the fraternities and sororities that
haven’t taken advantage of the tax abatement. Director Diekmann stated that they would as it is a
discreet audience and this area has been very active in the past.
Mayor Haila asked Director Diekmann to let the Council know what the options would be for the
area. Director Diekmann stated that Option 1 would be to remove new construction as a new
improvement, Option 2 would be to eliminate the East University URA altogether, and Option 3 is
to determine that no changes are needed to meet the City Council’s desired goals for the East
University Impacted URA.
Council Member Betcher mentioned that staff is recommending removal of the URA and she wanted
to know if this was because evidence is showing that the Greek residences are thriving now. Mr.
Diekmann explained that in 2006, the City completed the University Sub-Area Assessment, and that
is where the different overlays came in. During that time staff had wanted to make sure that
reinvestment by the Greek system happened in the area. Director Diekmann pointed out during his
time with the City, they have only seen interest in having fraternities and sororities located adjacent
to Campus. If the idea was to stabilize the neighborhood, he believed the URA has accomplished
that.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to remove the Urban Revitalization Area from the East
University Impacted Area.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that this area is complicated and he wanted to know what the
downside would be. Mr. Diekmann stated the downside would be removing the benefit of tax
abatement to do additions to the fraternities or sororities. The property would need to be improved
and add taxable value. If able to retain 70% of the walls during the improvement, the building would
be eligible for tax abatement. It was pointed out that any new construction would not get any tax
incentive and any remodeling or additions would not get the incentive either. Mr. Gartin inquired
why the Council would want to remove the URA and what would they be trying to accomplish. Mr.
Diekmann explained when looking at the area objectively, you would start an Urban Revitalization
Area program with certain goals. Hopefully, those goals are met and in the interest of saving tax
dollars you would look toward ending the incentive. The question is then if it is worth ending the
incentive or is it still worth doing individual tax abatement for the properties in the area. City
Manager Steve Schainker inquired if there was an option that would be allowed for renovations, but
not new construction. Mr. Diekmann stated that is what Option 1 would be. Mr. Schainker explained
21
that if the Council was not comfortable with any of the options provided by staff, they could ask to
get feedback from the fraternities and sororities. Mr. Gartin explained what is tricky for him is trying
to work through the idea without understanding what each fraternity or sorority has for a Capital
Improvement Plan. Mr. Diekmann mentioned they could add an end date to the URA and give
everyone notice that the URA is going to end.
Mayor Haila asked if the motion was to repeal the URA in its entirety would the Council be able to
bring it back to make changes. Mr. Diekmann explained that if it is the intent to amend the URA he
would prefer a different motion as the current motion is to repeal the URA in its entirety, and he
doesn’t want to get caught up in the process and then have to start over with a different hearing
process. Council Member Betcher questioned if there was a Sunset Clause would it still be
considered a repeal. Mr. Diekmann explained that it is not repealing, but amending the Plan to when
it is no longer effective. He mentioned that the notice process may be the same, but he couldn’t say
for sure at that moment.
Council Member Martin explained he liked the idea of exploring an extension before elimination
as it would give the Council time to hear back from the citizens. Mr. Schainker asked Mr. Diekmann
if there was a rush to get this URA repealed or if there was time to get more input from the
fraternities and sororities. City Manager Schainker recommended that the Council take the time to
give the fraternities and sororities the recommended options and get their feedback. Council Member
Betcher wanted to know if the notification could be done quickly as she doesn’t want to continue to
incentivize the demolition of Greek houses. Mr. Schainker mentioned possibly getting feedback and
bringing the information back to the September 8, 2020, City Council meeting. Director Diekmann
stated that would be an aggressive request to reach out in nine days and get the feedback needed. He
mentioned that the Greek houses have participated in the past, but felt that a week and half was not
enough notice. Mayor Haila inquired if the Council meeting on September 22 would be sufficient.
Mr. Diekmann commented that would be a reasonable timeframe for staff to reach out to leadership
to get their input.
Motion withdrawn by Council Member Betcher.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to have staff get input from the fraternities and the sororities
on the three options for the East University Impacted URA by the September 22, 2020, meeting.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Gartin commented that the Greek houses have always struck him as an odd part
of what they do as a city government. He was worried that the Greek houses have become
accustomed to the incentive and they may have forgotten what it was like to not have the incentive.
Mr. Gartin is supportive of bringing the URA to a close, but it may be a shock to the Greek houses
that the incentive will be going away or changed. Mr. Schainker explained that it may not go away
completely as there are options to continue the incentive, but with different policies. Council
Member Gartin mentioned it would be helpful to have some information about the fiscal impact to
the taxpayers that the program gives. Director Diekmann explained that staff would be able to
22
estimate that information based on the properties that have already received abatement, and work
with the City Assessor’s office to see what those figures would be.
Mr. Diekmann stated that City staff made an error a couple of years ago regarding the property at 313
Lynn Avenue. At the time the application was made, the applicant listed themselves as being located
within the East University Impacted Area Overlay District, which is incorrect. The property is
abutting the East University Impacted Area Overlay District, but located within the West University
Impacted Overlay District. Director Diekmann explained staff had listed a couple of options for the
Council to correct the error. The first option would be to amend the area to add 313 Lynn Avenue
to the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area, and the second option is to notify the
property owner that there was an error and they could no longer receive abatement. It was noted that
the property owner is in its third year of a ten-year abatement schedule.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that Option 2 would be difficult as it seems harsh to pull the
property from its tax abatement. He noted that if the property is similar to the others, it would be
easiest to amend the boundary.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to amend the boundary to include 313 Lynn Avenue within
the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON UNIT 8 PRECIPITATOR ROOF REPLACEMENT: The public hearing was
opened by the Mayor. He closed the hearing after no one asked to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to accept the report of bids and delay the award of
a contract.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON POWER PLANT UNIT 8 TURBINE GENERATOR OVERHAUL: The Mayor
opened the public hearing and closed it after there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to accept the report of bids and delay the award of a
contract.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON 2020/21 SEAL COAT PROGRAM - (FRANKLIN AVENUE): Mayor Haila
opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-470 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Manatt’s Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of
$946,841.53.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
23
HEARING ON 2020/21 SEAL COAT PROGRAM - (EAST 8TH STREET): Council Member
Betcher explained that she wanted to let the Council know that this project is a great example of how
staff was able to work with the citizens, who live along this very small street, to come to a resolution
on some disagreement about what the project should be like. She felt it was a successful process and
hopes this will fix a lot of the problems for the citizens who live along East 8th Street.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it after there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-471 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to All Star Concrete, of Ankeny, Iowa, in the
amount of $161,610.46.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2020/21 RIGHT-OF-WAY RESTORATION (STANDARD VEGETATION):
The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-472 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Country Landscapes, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the
amount of $96,175.65.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2020/21 RIGHT-OF-WAY RESTORATION (NATIVE VEGETATION): The
public hearing was opened by the Mayor. He closed the hearing after no one asked to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-473 approving the
final plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Country Landscapes, Inc., of Ames, Iowa,
in the amount of $45,426.25.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2018/19 STORM WATER FACILITY REHABILITATION (LITTLE
BLUESTEM): The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it after there was no one wishing
to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-474 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to J & K Contracting, LLC, of Urbandale, Iowa,
in the amount of $133,233.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2019/20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (LINCOLN WAY & BEACH
24
AVENUE): Mayor Haila opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Betcher, to reject all bids and direct staff to rebid the project.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON 2020/21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (S. DUFF & S. 5TH STREET): The
Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-475 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Voltmer, Inc., of Decorah, Iowa, in the amount
of $208,696.51.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2019/20 MULTI-MODAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (13TH & CLARK
AVE): The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. He closed the hearing after no one asked to
speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-476 approving the
final plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Voltmer, Inc., of Decorah, Iowa, in the
amount of $109,589.30.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON BAKER SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS: Council Member Martin asked if
the City was provisioning conduit as part of the infrastructure build for the purpose of providing
fiber. Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer stated that when they submitted their 2019/23
Consolidated Plan; HUD now requires that high-speed Wi-Fi be a part of any new construction. Ms.
Baker-Latimer explained that staff will be working with various Wi-Fi companies to get the service
as part of the Subdivision development. Mr. Martin asked if that would mean conduit would be done
when the City is trenching the area to put in electrical or just something that works. Ms. Baker-
Latimer stated it has to be available to each household. Planning and Housing Director mentioned
that the conduit for Wi-Fi is not listed in the plans and specifications, but staff will be working with
providers to see who will be able to come out and coordinate with the construction timing to get the
broadband internet installed while doing construction.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it after there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-465 approving the
final plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the
amount of $1,317,872.65.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
25
ORDINANCE REVISING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.33 PERTAINING TO
SELLING, GIVING, OR SUPPLYING TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR
CIGARETTES TO PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE: Moved by Martin, seconded by
Betcher, to pass on third reading and adopt 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.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila stated there were two
items to be addressed. The first item was an informational memo from the Planning and Housing
Department regarding a request to Amend the Ames Urban Fringe Plan map designation for
approximately 4.3 acres located at 27107 Timber Road. Planning and Housing Director Kelly
Diekmann explained that from time to time staff will get a request like this one, but in the past staff
has not initiated this type of request, but it is up to the City Council if they want to put the request
onto a future Agenda to discuss further.
Council Member Gartin inquired what the pros and cons would be for this request. City Manager
Schainker explained that if the staff memo was not clear enough then the Council would need to put
the item on a future agenda to discuss.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to have the City Council not take any action.
Vote on Motion: 5-0-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Junck, Corrieri, Martin, Beatty-Hansen. Voting Nay:
None. Abstaining due to conflict of interest: Gartin.
The second item was a letter from Greg Northrup, President and CEO of Verbio North America
requesting to annex a property located at 59219 Lincoln Highway to the City of Nevada. Mr.
Schainker explained that this request involves two parts as it involves the City of Ames and the
Annexation Agreement with Verbio that is going to expire this year and how it will affect Verbio.
It was noted there is a time issue on the request and Mr. Schainker recommended the Council place
the item on a future Agenda for discussion.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to place the request on a future agenda.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Junck stated she wanted to clarify her “yes” vote
earlier on the mask mandate discussion. She mentioned she was a little disappointed about how the
discussion went. Ms. Junck explained that even though what was voted upon may be legal, it was
not ethical, and it is frustrating to end up where they were before with an unenforceable expectation
of mask-wearing. She voted “yes” because she thought that what was proposed was better than
nothing, but in her opinion, the motion falls short of what the community and the residents need in
the face of the public health crisis. Ms. Junck wanted to echo what was said during Public Forum,
“people that don’t wear masks impede my freedom to stay alive,” it is important that they wear
26
masks with the expectation to protect others and not just themselves.
Ex Officio Whitlock wanted to echo what Council Member Junck said as she made a lot of good
points.
Council Member Martin stated that tonight’s discussion was tough and understands there are a lot
of issues, as people analyze differently. He didn’t believe it was a question of behaving unethically
and is grateful for the community and to move forward.
Council Member Betcher stated that she would agree with what Council Member Martin said. She
noted that tonight’s vote was not easy. She appreciated all the input from citizens on both sides of
the issues, and explained it is important for the Council to hear everything and understand where the
constituents stand on important issues. Ms. Betcher mentioned that six members of the Council,
including the Mayor, six members of Iowa State University staff, members of the Police Department,
Facilities, Planning, and Management, and the Dean of Students Office are all going to be
participating in the International Town and Gown Association sponsored “Race, Equity, and
Leadership” training event with Leon Andrews in September. It will be a great opportunity for the
Council to partner with Iowa State University.
Council Member Gartin stated that he had emailed the Council about a couple items. There is a
vacant lot at 400 S. 4th Street that he believed it would be valuable to look at the location for a
potential park to serve a neighborhood that is lacking that kind of space.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Martin, to refer the vacant lot at 400 S. 4th Street to staff for
consideration of a park.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to recommend to staff to evaluate the risks of best
practices of turning the water fountains on in the parks.
Mr. Gartin explained that he had provided the Council with a link from the CDC regarding
recommendations in dealing with outdoor water fountains. He felt it would be a tremendous benefit
to the public with very little risk. Council Member Betcher wanted to clarify that Mr. Gartin is just
asking staff to put his request through analysis process and decide if they think it should be turned
back on. Ms. Betcher stated that this request would be more in line with the Councils mandate to
Parks and Recreation to assess their facilities and decide when it would be appropriate to open or
not open. City Manager Schainker explained that if Mr. Gartin wanted to pull this particular item and
present it to the Parks and Recreation Department it would be appropriate.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Gartin stated that there have been three properties that have been referred to staff
that are in rough shape. He noted that there is a property in the 1200 block of Northwestern, a
27
property on Grand, and a property on the west side. Ms. Beatty-Hansen commented that there is also
a property on the 1500 block of Maxwell.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to get a status report on all the properties that have been
referred due to poor maintenance.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Gartin explained that they had received a memo regarding the Parks and Recreation
response to the Courts, and he is not happy with the response from the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to put the item on the next Agenda so the Council can have
a discussion about whether they would waive all or part of the fees associated with the Courts using
the City Auditorium for jury selection. He noted this would be an important opportunity to partner
with another branch of government.
Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth explained that it is the County’s responsibility to provide the
space for the courts, in this situation. The County was looking for an alternative location and then
paying for it if there were fees. The Board of Supervisors received a memo from Scott Hansen, to
consider the Gates Hall as an alternate location besides the City Auditorium. Ms. Schildroth
commented that she spoke with Board Chair Linda Murken and the Board of Supervisors did vote
in support of using Gates Hall. Mr. Gartin commented that was unfortunate news and he wished it
would have come to the Council. He stated that these would be Ames citizens that would have been
better served by having the jury selection done in Ames, but more importantly it was a missed
opportunity to partner with the Courts in their hour of need.
Motion withdrawn by Council Member Gartin.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to get a memo from staff on recommendations for potential
additions or changes to the Property Maintenance Code that would provide staff with more tools for
enforcement.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
28
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Public Works 2007/08 Shared Used Path
(Bloomington Rd to Ada
Hayden)
Facility Rehabilitation
Program (Somerset
Services Procurement
Improvements
Pollution
Control
Storage Building
Period:
Item No. 3
Department
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Public Works 2019/20 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation (Munn
Woods0
Pollution
Control
North River Valley Park
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 27, 2020
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission was called to order by Chairman Mike
Crum at 8:26 a.m. on August 27, 2020. As it was impractical for the Commission members to attend
in person, Chairman Mike Crum and Commission Member Harold Pike were brought in
telephonically. Commission Member Kim Linduska was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2020: Moved by Pike, seconded by Crum, to approve
the Minutes of the July 23, 2020, Regular Civil Service Commission meeting.
Vote on Motion: 2-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Crum, seconded by Pike, to
certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Entry-Level Applicants:
Treatment Plant Maintenance Worker
Sublist: WPC Matthew Williams Carryover from Exhausted List
Corey Tjaden 80
Shelby Perrin 80
Jacob Vulgamott 70
Vote on Motion: 2-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: The next Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission is scheduled for
September 24, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:27 a.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Michael R. Crum, Chairman Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
License Application (Applicant
Name of Applicant:Friends of ISU Hotel Holdings, LLC
Name of Business (DBA):Gateway Hotel & Conference Center
Address of Premises:2601 E 13th St
City
:
Ames Zip:50010
State
:
IA
County:Story
Business
Phone:
(515) 817-1661
Mailing
Address:
2100 Green Hills Dr
City
:
Ames Zip:50014
)
Contact Person
Name
:
Brian Osborne
Phone:(515) 268-2209 Email
Address:
briano@gatewayames.com
Status of Business
BusinessType:Limited Liability Company
Corporate ID Number:XXXXXXXXX Federal Employer ID
#:
XXXXXXXXX
Insurance Company Information
Policy Effective Date:09/15/2020 Policy Expiration
Date:
09/20/2020
Dram Cancel Date:
Outdoor Service Effective
Date:
Outdoor Service Expiration
Date:
Temp Transfer Effective Date:Temp Transfer Expiration Date:
Bond Effective
Continuously:
Insurance Company:General Casualty
Effective Date:09/15/2020
Expiration Date:01/01/1900
Classification
:
Class C Liquor License (LC) (Commercial)
Term:5 days
Privileges:
Ownership
Class C Liquor License (LC) (Commercial)
Doug Drees
First Name:Doug Last Name:Drees
City:Waukee State:Iowa Zip:50263
Position:Manager
% of Ownership:1.00%U.S. Citizen: Yes
Item No. 6
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: September 1, 2020
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for September 8, 2020 includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit
(Carryout Beer), and Sunday Sales - Kum & Go #0217, 3111 S. Duff
•Avenue Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege and Sunday Sales - Hy-
Vee #1 Clubroom, 3800 West Lincoln Way
•Class B Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - The Love
Club, 4625 Reliable Street
•Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit
(Carryout Beer), and Sunday Sales - Southgate Express, 110 Airport Road
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.
•Class C Liquor License with Class B Native Wine Permit, Outdoor Service, and
Sunday Sales - AJ’s Ultra Lounge, 2401 Chamberlain Street
A review of the police records for the past 12 months found 2 liquor law violations for
the above business. One individual provided officers a fake ID and was cited and the
second individual was given a warning and escorted off the property.
The Police Department will continue to monitor the above location by conducting regular
foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff through trainings and quarterly
meetings. The Ames Police Department recommends renewal of the license for the
above business.
Item No. 7
ITEM # ____8__
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION – STATE REVOLVING FUND
SPONSORED PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
The City of Ames has an opportunity to make stormwater improvements in the Squaw
Creek and S. Skunk River watersheds to stabilize stream banks and restore stream
functions.
As part of the grant application, staff has identified two stream restoration projects:
Squaw Creek (6th Street to 13th Street – through Brookside Park) and S. Skunk River
(SE 16th Street to East Lincoln Way). The Squaw Creek segment will be first priority for
the funds, however, if there is a delay in this project, the funds would be used in the
South Skunk River project.
Conceptually, the project will involve streambank stabilization and revegetation that will
restore the natural functions of the stream. Design will be in accordance with the Iowa
River Restoration Toolbox for Stream Restoration, which employs bioengineered
methods and best management practices (BMP). This will be a unique demonstration
for others who develop residential and commercial property within the city on how to
achieve successful stream restoration with natural methods and practices.
The grant opportunity is through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) as a Water Resource
Restoration Sponsored Project, which was created to fund water quality protection
projects. This program has been implemented through the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF), a loan program for construction of water quality facilities and practices.
On a typical CWSRF loan, a utility borrows the principal for a project from the state and
repays both the principal and applicable interest and fees. In contrast, on a CWSRF
loan with a sponsored project, the utility (City) borrows for a wastewater
improvement project and through a rebate equal to the amount of the required
interest payments on the loan, funding is provided for the water quality (storm
water) project. Thus, the utility’s ratepayers do not pay any more than they would have
for just the wastewater improvements.
In this case, a loan from the CWSRF was granted for two Sanitary Sewer projects, the
2018/19 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Siphon project and 2019-20 Sanitary
Rehabilitation Drainage Area 10 Improvements project, with a total principle amount of
$3,336,093. According to this state program the City would be eligible to receive an
amount equal to the interest payments, or in this case $336,609, towards a water quality
project
The staff intends to apply for this amount to help finance the Squaw Creek and Skunk
River bank stabilization projects. Through the SRF Sponsored Project funding, this
water quality project will be at no cost to the City and can be used as a demonstration
for area developers and other local agencies to consider for stream and channel
restoration.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize application for a Clean Water SRF Water Resource Restoration Sponsored
Project and designate Municipal Engineer Tracy (Warner) Peterson as the
authorized representative to sign the grant application.
2. Direct staff to make modifications to the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By supporting submission of this grant application, the City of Ames can be recognized
as an innovative community within Iowa that is willing to restore streams using
innovative methods that address soil erosion and water quality concerns in the
community and statewide. If funded, this project will be a unique demonstration
application of bioengineered water quality improvements in an urban setting.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM # ___9____
DATE 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RAPID NEEDS PURCHASE FOR 161 KV TIE LINE REPAIR
BACKGROUND:
On August 10, 2020, the City experienced widespread, destructive straight-line winds
which blew across central Iowa. This derecho event damaged the three transmission
interconnection points with the outside electrical grid. Thirteen transmission poles for
the 161 KV line between Ames and northern Ankeny were broken from the storm,
leaving the line out of service until replaced. To ensure reliable electrical service could
be maintained to the City’s electric customers, immediate repairs were needed to re-
establish this line. The repair work involved replacement of poles and restringing the
conductor.
City staff decided to implement rapid need purchases for the materials and installation
labor for the transmission poles. Per the Purchasing Policies & Procedures a “rapid-
need situation” occurs when materials and/or services could not have been predicted
and must be procured in less than the normal allotted time in order to continue a service
to the public”.
The City’s Purchasing Policies & Procedures state that "if the cost of purchases related
to [an] emergency or rapid need is $50,000 or more, the using department shall
maintain records” of the expenditure. It further states that the using department “shall
report the situation and related expenses to the City Manager for presentation to the
City Council. The report shall be in a format as directed by the City Manager."
Following the authorization of this "Rapid Needs" purchase by the City Manager’s
Office, three purchase orders were issued:
1. DGR Engineering, Inc., was issued a purchase order in an amount not to exceed
$10,000 for engineering services related to specifying the replacement poles.
2. Stella-Jones Corporation, Tacoma, WA, was issued a purchase order in the
amount of $63,434.95 to for transmission poles (inclusive of sales tax).
3. Hooper Corporation, Milwaukee, WI, was issued a purchase order in the amount
of $160,500 for the installation of poles and necessary repairs (inclusive of sales
tax). Additional labor was required after the full extent of the repair work was
understood. A change order was issued and the full amount of the contract to
Hooper Corporation is in the amount of $294,250.
2
The total of these costs to repair the 161 KV tie line is $367,684.95. This amount may
be subject to minor adjustments as staff completes the review of billings. The necessary
repairs are now complete, and the 161 KV tie line has been returned to service. The
repair costs will be paid from the Electric Operations budget, and City staff will seek
FEMA reimbursement for these expenses through the approved federal disaster
declaration related to the storm.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the report of the rapid needs purchase for repairs to the 161 KV tie line.
2. Refer this item to staff for further information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To restore reliable electric service to the City’s customers in the quickest manner
possible following the August 10 windstorm, the use of a rapid needs purchase was
required. Repairs have been completed to critical electric infrastructure through this
process and a report to the City Council is required.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as described above.
ITEM # ___10____
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CYRIDE ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Areas in CyRide’s facility are 40 years old and major components of the building are well
beyond their useful life. CyRide has identified several major upcoming capital improvement
projects that will require professional architectural and engineering services. Historically,
CyRide has utilized an on-call firm to provide these services. CyRide is currently at the end
of a five-year contract with ASK Studios of Des Moines, Iowa.
On June 22, 2020, CyRide released RFQ 2020-167 for On-Call Architectural and
Engineering services to support CyRide construction projects. Responses were due by July
16, 2020. The RFQ was developed for up to a five-year period so continuity between multiple
years and projects could be accomplished. The base contract is for two years, with annual
renewal options for up to three additional years.
CyRide received a single proposal from ASK Studios of Des Moines, Iowa. CyRide contact
several of the firms that were sent the RFQ to inquire about why they did not respond to the
RFQ. The common response from firms was that they did not believe they had the correct
skill set to meet CyRide’s needs, firms were concerned about the Federal Transit
Administration required clauses, or other projects were already committed to so the firms
chose not to respond.
Based on the proposal evaluation, ASK Studio was determined to be responsive to the RFQ.
An hourly rate of $50 - $150 per hour (see attached rate sheet), depending upon which staff
member is utilized on a specific project, was negotiated with the firm. This rate is comparable
to past CyRide on-call architectural and engineering contracts and based on a federally
required price analysis, the fees were determined to be fair and reasonable. Funding for
these services will be provided through federal grants and local dollars programmed into the
Capital Improvement Plan.
This contract was approved by the Transit Board of Trustees at their August 26, 2020
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the contract for On-Call Architectural and Engineering Services to ASK
Studios, of Des Moines, Iowa, for a period of two years, with hourly rates between
$50-$150 depending on the staff member, and annual renewal options for up to three
additional years.
2. Reject the contract and direct staff to modify the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Due to this firm’s strong technical experience and familiarity with CyRide’s existing facilities,
ASK Studios was determined to be a good fit for the various projects funded in the Capital
Improvement Plan. Award of this contract will allow for continuity between projects over the
next several fiscal years.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM # ___11__
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR 15kV 1/0 STRANDED ALUMINUM CABLE FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND:
This bid is for the purchase of 30,000 feet of 15kV 1/0 stranded aluminum cable to replenish
inventory for the Electric Services Department. Cable of this type is kept on hand in order to
ensure availability for the needs of the department. Typically, this cable is used to provide
service for commercial and residential applications and is necessary to meet the anticipated
needs of the Electric Services Department for new construction and maintenance projects.
On July 23, 2020, an Invitation to Bid (ITB) was issued to 59 vendors. The ITB was
advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing webpage. On August
13, 2020, three bids were received as shown below:
BIDDER TOTAL COST
WESCO Distribution, Des Moines, IA $80,892.00
RESCO, Ankeny, IA $82,400.70
Border States Industrial, Ames, IA $84,241.35
*Price inclusive of 6% State of Iowa Sales Taxes Plus 1% Local Tax
Staff reviewed the bids and concluded that the apparent low bid in the amount of $80,892.00
(inclusive of Iowa sales tax) submitted by WESCO Distribution, is acceptable.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract to Wesco Distribution, Des Moines, IA., for the purchase of Electric
Services aluminum cable in accordance with bid in the amount of $80,892.00
(inclusive of Iowa sales tax).
2. Award the bid to one of the other companies.
3. Reject all bids and attempt to purchase aluminum cable on an as needed basis.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Electric utility needs a supply of aluminum cable on hand to meet the needs of
commercial and residential customers. The low bid for this cable is acceptable to Electric
Services. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
1
ITEM #___12__
DATE: 09-08-20_
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION FOR THE SOLAR FARM
BACKGROUND:
This project will consist of the installation of a fiber optic cable for the purposes of
providing data communication and transfer between a new solar farm site and the
existing SCADA system for the City of Ames Electric Services Department. The solar
farm site is located at 623 Airport Road. The point of connection to the SCADA system
will be located at the Vet Med Substation at 1925 S. Riverside Drive.
On August 5, 2020, an invitation to bid (ITB) document was issued to 33 companies.
The ITB was advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing
webpage.
On August 26, 2020, four (4) bids were received as shown below. Bids were requested
for services including contractor-provided cable and installation (base bid) and services
for City-provided cable (Alternate bid).
Staff reviewed bids and concluded that the apparent low bid submitted by
Communication Innovators, Pleasant Hill, Iowa, is acceptable.
Funding for this project will come from the payments collects through the sale of Power
Packs for our new community solar farm. Current account balance is $1,031,786.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract to Communication Innovators, Pleasant Hill, Iowa, for the fiber
optic cable installation at the City’s new community solar farm for the base bid in the
amount of $52,900.
2. Award a contract to Communication Innovators, Pleasant Hill, Iowa, for the fiber
optic cable installation at the City’s new community solar farm for the Alternate bid in
the amount of $49,100.
3. Award the contract to one of the other three companies that submitted a bid.
Bidder Base Bid Deduct Alternate
Bid
2
4. Reject all bids and rebid the project.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project is critical in the operation of the Solar Farm. This competitively bid process
will provide installation at the best price. Staff does not believe we can purchase the
fiber optic cable any cheaper than the amount that is included in the base bid.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
1
ITEM # __ 13___
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: UNIT #8 – PRECIPITATOR ROOF REPLACEMENT
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 below:
Bidder
Engineer’s Estimate -- $250,000
Henkel Construction Company $5,346 $487,784
$1,820 $662,750
Staff reviewed the bids and concluded that the apparent low bid submitted by Henkel
Construction Company, Mason City, IA, in the amount of $487,784 (inclusive of Iowa sales
tax) is acceptable.
The Engineer’s estimate was based on previous projects that the Engineer had worked on
that were similar in scope of manufacturing companies. One main difference between the
previous projects and this project is the location and access to the roof at the Power Plant,
which are quite limiting and require a lot of workarounds for demolition and installation. The
City previously solicited bids from roof contractors, but received no bids. Their major
concern was that potential bidders felt a portion of the project (replacing the roof decking)
would need to be performed by a general contractor and they were also concerned about
the location and access to the roof itself. The City is now bidding the project for a second
time and sent the bid to general contractors who would then subcontract a roofing
company. We received only two bids (Henkel and Hansen).
After speaking with Henkel, they reiterated that the re-roofing portion of the project
was not out of the ordinary, but the limited access to the roof for demolition and
2
installation could be challenging, especially when trying to address protecting the
interior portion of the plant from flooding and debris.
The approved FY 2019/20 budget has $208,000 allocated for this project. The remaining
$279,784 will be transferred from the unused balance in the Power Plant Fire Protection
CIP, currently at $652,000.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Award a contract to Henkel Construction Company, Mason City, IA, for the Unit #8
Precipitator Roof Replacement in the amount of $487,784 (inclusive of Iowa sales
tax).
2. Award a contract to another bidder.
3. Reject all bids and delay the Unit 8 Precipitator Roof Replacement project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This work is necessary for the replacement of the existing roof, steel roof deck, and wall
panels. Given that this is the second time we have bid this project and feedback that there
is limited space for a contractor to accomplish the work, it is unlikely that rebidding the project
for a third time will result in lower bids. 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
P.O. Box 811
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: City Clerk’s Office
Date: September 8, 2020
Subject: Contract and Bond Approval
There is/are no Council Action Form(s) for Item No(s). 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, and
23. Council approval of the contract and bond for this/these project(s) is simply fulfilling
a State Code requirement.
/alc
1
ITEM # _24 __
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PLAT OF SURVEY (BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT) FOR 831 E.
RIVERSIDE ROAD-Bishop Farms
BACKGROUND:
The City’s subdivision regulations are found in Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code.
These regulations include the process for creating or modifying property boundaries and
for determining if any improvements are required in conjunction with the platting of
property. The regulations also describe the process for combining existing platted lots or
adjusting the boundary lines of existing tracts. These regulations also apply to divisions
of land or boundary line adjustments in unincorporated Story County, except where the
Urban Fringe Plan’s 28E agreement has delegated authority to the County. In this
situation the City has authority over the proposed Plat of Survey.
The subject properties contain farm fields and a portion of the Martin Marietta aggregate
mine. Currently, the west tract contains mostly farm field and the mine scale house and
front entrance (Attachment A). The east tract contains mostly mine operations and a small
field. The property owner, Bishop Farms, seeks to adjust to property line so that the
scale house will share a tract with the mine operations to the east. (The mine extends
to the north on additional tracts of land all owned by Bishop Farms.) No improvements
are proposed. The proposed Plat of Survey (Attachment C) will create a new Parcel R, to
contain 135.58 acres (including E. Riverside Road). Both tracts include easements for E.
Riverside Road at their south end.
On May 26th of this year, Council approved an amendment to the Ames Urban Fringe
Plan Land Use Framework Map from Rural Transitional Residential to General Industrial
for the portion of the west tract being added to the east tract (Attachment B). The Story
County Board of Supervisors approved the change on July 14, 2020. The Boundary line
adjustment is consistent with this AUFP amendment as was originally contemplated at
that time.
Approval of this Plat of Survey (See Attachment C) 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.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Plat of Survey.
2. Deny the proposed Plat of Survey if the City Council finds that the requirements
for Plats of Survey, as described in Section 23.309, have not been satisfied.
3. Refer this item back to staff and/or the owner for additional information.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has determined that the proposed Plat of Survey satisfies Subdivision Code
requirements for a Boundary Line Adjustment of existing parcels. As a boundary line
adjustment, there is no trigger for public improvements. Development of the site will be
within the purview of Story County.
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.
3
ADDENDUM
PLAT OF SURVEY FOR 831 E. RIVERSIDE ROAD
Application for a proposed Plat of Survey has been submitted for:
Conveyance parcel (per Section 23.307)
Boundary line adjustment (per Section 23.309)
Re-plat to correct error (per Section 23.310)
Auditor’s plat (per Code of Iowa Section 354.15)
The site is located at:
Property Owner: Bishop Farms
Existing Street Address: 831 E. Riverside Road
Assessor’s Parcel #s: 05-24-300-105
05-23-400-255
Legal Descriptions:
See Attachment D: Legal Descriptions of Proposed Parcels.
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.
4
Attachment A: Location Map
5
Attachment B: AUFP Land Use Designation Change
6
Attachment C: Proposed Plat of Survey
7
Attachment D: Legal Descriptions of Proposed Parcels
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – PARCEL ‘R’
Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and part of Lot 3 in the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, all in Section 23; and the West Half of the Southwest
Quarter and the West Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 24, all
in Township 84 North, Range 24 West of the 5th P.M., Story County, Iowa, all together
being described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of said Section 23; thence N00°04'55"W, 116.35 feet
along the east line thereof to the centerline of E. Riverside Road; thence following said
centerline northwesterly, 369.15 feet along a curve having a radius of 3819.72 feet,
concave to the north, a central angle of 5°32'14” and being subtended by a chord which
bears N77°44'36”W, 369.00 feet; thence N00°04'55"W, 1776.90 feet to the north line of
said Lot 3; thence N89°56'11"E, 360.48 feet along said line to the Northeast Corner
thereof, said point being on the west line of said Section 24; thence N00°04'55"W, 657.33
feet along said line to the West Quarter Corner of said Section 24; thence S89°34'29"E,
2003.10 feet along the north line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24 to the
Northeast Corner of the West Half of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter; thence
S00°16'07"W, 2633.77 feet to the Southeast Corner thereof; thence N89°26'38"W,
1987.03 feet along the south line of said Section 24 to the Southwest Corner thereof and
the point of beginning, containing 135.58 acres, which includes 8.46 acres of existing
public right of way.
ITEM #: 25
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
REQUEST: NORTHRIDGE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, NINETEENTH ADDITION –
MINOR FINAL PLAT
BACKGROUND:
The City’s subdivision regulations are included in Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal
Code. Once the applicant has completed the necessary requirements, including provision
of required public improvements or provision of financial security for their completion, a
“final plat application” may then be submitted for City Council approval. After City Council
approval of the final plat, it must then be recorded with the County Recorder to become
an officially recognized subdivision plat. The final plat must be found to conform to the
ordinances of the City and any conditions placed upon the preliminary plat approval.
Fareway Stores Inc. has submitted a final subdivision plat for Northridge Heights
Subdivision, Nineteenth Addition, which is a platting of an approved preliminary plat
affecting the eastern portion of the site. The Preliminary Plat was approved by the
Council on August 18, 2020 as a part of an Integrated Site Plan that included a Major
Site Development Plan. The applicant proposes to split off a lot along Stange Road
where a building for Burgie’s Coffee & Tea Co. will be constructed. An Integrated Site
Plan allows for the subdivision of a site into individual lots with consideration of the site in
its entirety for evaluating access, circulation, maintenance, and compliance with certain
zoning development standards (setbacks, landscaping, parking, etc.) that would
otherwise apply to individual lots. Approval of an Integrated Site Plan allows for more
flexible application of most development standards through the approval of the Major Site
Development Plan, although the overall site must meet all minimum standards.
The proposed final plat will have two commercial lots that will each contain a
building; a Fareway Grocery Store and a Burgie’s Coffee & Tea Co. Both lots will
front on Stange Road and no changes are proposed for vehicle access. The larger
lot will be 3.66 acres and will contain the Fareway store and nearly all of the parking lot.
The smaller lot will contain the Burgie’s and a small section of parking lot encompassing
the drive-through lane. The Integrated Site Plan regulations require all parking, vehicular
ways, and pedestrian paths be shared (Note 1 under Integrated Site Plan Notes on
Attachment 3). The new, smaller lot will not have any parking. Specific development
regulations in the CGS, Convenience General Service, Zoning District are also
considered for the property in its entirety. The whole development has a landscaped area
of 25.18%, just over the minimum of 25%. The lot containing Fareway, by itself, does not
meet the minimum.
The Integrated Site Plan does require the development to observe minimum setbacks in
CGS for shared property lines. Both buildings (existing and proposed), however, do
comply with the minimum setbacks (20-foot front, 5-foot side, 10-foot rear).
The Subdivisions Code requires an agreement for the shared maintenance of the
property. The applicant has submitted an Easement and Maintenance Agreement
between the owners of Fareway and Burgie’s assigning responsibility for improvements
and repair along with maintenance and replacement.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve the Final Plat of Northridge Heights Subdivision,
Nineteenth Addition, based upon findings that the Final Plat conforms to relevant
and applicable design standards, ordinances, policies, and plans with the following
condition:
• Correct the spelling of “Integrated” in the heading “Integrated Site Plan
Notes.”
2. The City Council can deny the Final Plat for Northridge Heights Subdivision,
Nineteenth Addition if it finds that the development creates a burden on existing
public improvements or creates a need for new public improvements that have not
yet been installed.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City staff has evaluated the proposed final subdivision plat and determined that the
proposal is consistent with the preliminary plat approved by City Council and that the plat
conforms to the adopted ordinances and policies of the City as required by Code.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No.1, as described above.
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Preliminary Plat (Amended)
Attachment C: Proposed Lot Layout
Attachment D: Applicable Subdivision Law
The laws applicable to this Preliminary Plat Subdivision include, but are not limited to, the
following: (verbatim language is shown in italics, other references are paraphrased):
Code of Iowa Chapter 354, Section 8 requires that the governing body shall determine
whether the subdivision conforms to its Land Use Policy Plan.
Ames Municipal Code Chapter 23, Subdivisions, Division I, outlines the general
provisions for subdivisions within the City limits and within two miles of the City limits of
Ames.
Ames Municipal Code Section 23.302(10):
(10) City Council Action on Final Plat for Major Subdivision:
(a) All proposed subdivision plats shall be submitted to the City Council for review and approval.
Upon receipt of any Final Plat forwarded to it for review and approval, the City Council shall
examine the Application Form, the Final Plat, any comments, recommendations or reports
examined or made by the Department of Planning and Housing, and such other information as it
deems necessary or reasonable to consider.
(b) Based upon such examination, the City Council shall ascertain whether the Final Plat
conforms to relevant and applicable design and improvement standards in these Regulations, to
other City ordinances and standards, to the City's Land Use Policy Plan and to the City's other
duly adopted plans.
(c) The City Council may:
(i) deny any subdivision where the reasonably anticipated impact of such subdivision will
create such a burden on existing public improvements or such a need for new public
improvements that the area of the City affected by such impact will be unable to conform
to level of service standards set forth in the Land Use Policy Plan or other capital project
or growth management plan of the City until such time that the City upgrades such public
improvements in accordance with schedules set forth in such plans; or,
(ii) approve any subdivision subject to the condition that the Applicant contribute to so much
of such upgrade of public improvements as the need for such upgrade is directly and
proportionately attributable to such impact as determined at the sole discretion of the City.
The terms, conditions and amortization schedule for such contribution may be incorporated
within an Improvement Agreement as set forth in Section 23.304 of the Regulations.
(d) Prior to granting approval of a major subdivision Final Plat, the City Council may permit the plat
to be divided into two or more sections and may impose such conditions upon approval of each
section as it deems necessary to assure orderly development of the subdivision.
(e) Following such examination, and within 60 days of the Applicant's filing of the complete
Application for Final Plat Approval of a Major Subdivision with the Department of Planning and
Housing, the City Council shall approve, approve subject to conditions, or disapprove the
Application for Final Plat Approval of a Major Subdivision. The City Council shall set forth its
reasons for disapproving any Application or for conditioning its approval of any Application in
its official records and shall provide a written copy of such reasons to the developer. The City
Council shall pass a resolution accepting the Final Plat for any Application that it approves.
(Ord. No. 3524, 5-25-99)
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 ♦ Fax 515-239-5404
September 8, 2020
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Quarry Estates Addition #2 Financial Security Reduction #3
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that certain sidewalk requirements required as a condition for approval of the
final plat of Quarry Estates Addition #2 has been completed in an acceptable manner by various
contractors. The above-mentioned improvements have been inspected by the Engineering
Division of the Public Works Department of the City of Ames, Iowa, and found to meet City
specifications and standards.
As a result of this certification, it is recommended that the financial security for public
improvements on file with the City for this subdivision be reduced to $17,709.47. The
outstanding work covered by this financial security includes stormwater management
requirements and remaining sidewalk completion.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Director
JJ/mr
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
Item No. 26
Sunset Ridge 6th Addition
December 10, 2019
Page 2
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 ♦ Fax 515-239-5404
September 8, 2020
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Quarry Estates Addition #4 Financial Security Reduction #1
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that the street lights, street base, curb and gutter and pedestrian ramp items
required as a condition for approval of the final plat of Quarry Estates #4 Addition have been
completed in an acceptable manner by various contractors. The above-mentioned
improvements have been inspected by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department
of the City of Ames, Iowa, and found to meet City specifications and standards.
As a result of this certification, it is recommended that the financial security for public
improvements on file with the City for this subdivision be reduced to $199,336.70. The remaining
work covered by this financial security includes sidewalks, street surface, street trees,
stormwater management, seeding and turf restoration as shown in attachment.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Director
JJ/nw
cc: Finance, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
Item No. 27
Sunset Ridge 6th Addition
December 10, 2019
Page 2
Staff Report
UPDATE ON DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS
RELATED TO COVID-19
September 8, 2020
BACKGROUND:
At the June 23, 2020 meeting City staff briefed the City Council on the status of the
delinquent utility accounts. While not required to do so, the City of Ames mirrored the
action required of all privately owned utilities in Iowa to temporarily cease disconnecting
any customer as a result of delinquent accounts. Therefore, the City has not issued a
disconnect notice since mid-March. This moratorium was lifted on all private utilities as
of May 27, 2020.
Therefore, at the June 23rd meeting, staff was seeking direction from the City Council as
to whether or not to continue this voluntary moratorium. At that time over 2,700 customers
had delinquent accounts totaling approximately $400,000. Staff highlighted at this
meeting the availability of certain programs that could provide financial assistance to help
our customers pay off their outstanding utility bills. These programs included:
Low-Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Low income customers needing
financial assistance with their home heating bills can apply for the LIHEAP. This
assistance will provide a one-time payment to the heating utility. Applications are
available through MICA with a deadline of June 30, 2020. MICA reports that they have
received additional funds through the CARES Act for utility assistance that allows for an
additional benefit of up to $1,000. Customer Service typically refers customers to the
LIHEAP program, as needed. However, MICA’s funds have to be distributed across 5
other counties.
City of Ames Renters and Homeowners Relief Programs: The City was notified by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that it will receive a special
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation in the amount of $354,515 to be
used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. This allocation was authorized
through the CARES Act. These funds will be used in new programs directed at assisting
renters and homeowners with rent, mortgages, and utilities. Initially, the funds could help
pay for up to three months’ utility bills to prevent a utility disconnection. HUD has recently
increased the limit to six months. The City’s Housing Division will directly administer the
program and the Housing Coordinator has developed an application process using HUD
income guidelines.
Item # 28
Other programs that customers may apply for are available through Emergency
Residence Project, Good Neighbor, MICA, Salvation Army, Story County Community
Services and Veterans Affairs, and various churches throughout the community. Some
of these non-profit organizations have also received of federal funds through the CARES
Act, therefore, have additional dollars available to address delinquent utility accounts.
However, some of these agencies are serving regional areas so Ames thereby Ames
customers are competing for these funds.
CURRENT STATUS:
The City staff had emphasized that it was not our desire to shut off any family’s
utilities, but rather to have them contact the Utility Customer Service Office to make
payment arrangements for their outstanding bills or assist them in securing grant
monies to bring their accounts current. Therefore, even though the City Council
passed a motion at the June 23, 2020 meeting for the staff to resume the issuance
of disconnect notice, the City Manager instructed the Finance Department not to
reinstitute this process until the Housing Division had a program in place to accept
applications for the new CDBG grant program. After hiring two temporary
employees to administer this new grant program and training them, the program is
being advertised and applications are being processed.
When the staff received news of this funding source it was apparent that no rules
had yet been developed for the program. In order to not delay implementation, the
staff was advised to move ahead with planning for the program in advance of
rulemaking. Unfortunately, the staff was recently informed that a City that operates
a municipal utility cannot distribute these funds to customers to be used to pay for
utilities operated by the city administering the grant. We believe this is an unfair
rule in that the funds can be used to pay a customer’s outstanding bill to a privately
owned utility. Therefore, we are pursuing a waiver from HUD that would allow the
use of these for public utilities.
WHAT TO DO NEXT:
It appears that the amount of delinquent utility bills has grown to approximately
$750,000. There is no way to know how long it will take to hear back from HUD
about our waiver. Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation that the City Council
continue to support the resumption of the disconnect process as approved in the
previous motion on June 23, 2020. This action will take effect on September 9, 2020.
If the Council delays this action, the LIHEAP rules will allow qualifying customers
to delay utility payments until April 2021 thereby further increasing the magnitude
of the outstanding bills.
The Housing staff will continue to solicit applications assuming that the CDBG
funds will be made available for utility payments to the City of Ames. However, the
staff is recommending that utility disconnections not yet be made for those
customers who have been determined to be eligible or applying for the CDBG
program. If we lose our appeal to HUD, the City Council will then have to make a
decision how to handle this hopefully small group of customers who would still
benefit from a reasonable payment schedule.
1
Item #: 29__
Staff Report
REQUEST FROM DICKSON JENSEN FOR SIDEWALK WAIVER ADJACENT
THE BRICKTOWNE DEVELOPMENT
September 8, 2020
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed the request from Dickson Jensen on August 18th to waive
sidewalks requirements or to have the City at its cost fill in drainage ditches which
necessitates constructing a storm sewer system along his frontage. The original
staff report with background on timelines and related attachments are included
with this report. In response to the August 18th meeting, City Council tabled the
request to review the cost of modifying the drainage ditch. Staff also has provided
additional information in this report regarding the irregular nature of Mr. Jensen’s
request and the City’s development standards.
DEVELOPER’S RESPONSBILTIES:
The first issue at hand is the presence of a drainage ditch and its condition along
the southern frontage of the Brick Towne project. The City’s widening project of
Highway 69 was coordinated with and approved by the Iowa DOT. The current
configuration of the ditch meets SUDAS requirements and was accepted by both
the City and IDOT in 2019. The City’s agreement for Brick Towne did not include
any specific improvement requirement for the frontage by the City. Despite this,
City staff reached out to the developer’s representatives to create a “bench” for
the developer to more easily install a sidewalk per their approved Site
Development Plan. This bench was approved by IDOT for construction of the
sidewalk originally and the developer received a permit for sidewalk construction
in September 2019. However, after the developer delayed the sidewalk
construction during the fall of 2019, the IDOT indicated that they would no longer
accept the sidewalk configuration as originally approved. This led to the developer
insisting that the City was responsible for improving the right-of-way for the
developer, despite no design deficiency of the ditch per engineering standards.
As discussed below in more detail, securing permits to complete work that
was designed by an applicant’s civil engineer is not a city responsibility and
it is the property owner’s responsibility to propose and construct
improvements in compliance with City standards. As staff has indicated to
Mr. Jensen over the past two years, we are asking for the developer to complete
the project per the plans that were submitted by the developer and approved by
the City. City staff does not have discretion to vary from adopted standards nor
have the expectations changed since the approvals. Staff can accept minor
changes consistent with the standards of the City, such as placing the sidewalk
in an easement adjacent to the right-of-way. The City did not plan for or indicate
2
that the drainage ditch would be filled by the City at any time during the project
review of Brick Towne and construction of HWY 69 widening. The developer’s
request to fill the ditch now would have been a developer requirement not
a City requirement if this had been suggested at the outset of the project.
The City expects developers to make improvements necessary to complete
infrastructure through its subdivision ordinance standards. The default
expectation is to meet urban street frontage improvement requirements that
include sidewalks/trails, curb and gutter, storm sewer, paving, water, and sanitary
sewer at the developer’s cost. However, in an effort to reduce costs for a
developer, the City generally allows for rural street sections with drainage ditches
to remain with a project when it meets a street design requirement and the
developer makes accommodations to meet other requirements.
When this situation comes up, individual project developer’s respond in a
manner that works for their project and meets City standards. Examples of
12 recent projects that range from Menards choosing at their cost to fill a
ditch to a developer providing a sidewalk easement in lieu of dedicating
right-of-way are included in Exhibit A. The fact an applicant cannot
complete a design they proposed to meet a standard does not create a
reason or an excuse for the City to waive a standard, this would allow for
applicants to continually design something they have no intention of
completing and then ask for waiver at the end of a project.
COST TO ENCLOSE DRAINAGE DITCH ALONG HIGHWAY 69:
The City’s Public Works Department reviewed the drainage conditions and road
design of Highway 69 to evaluate costs for filling the drainage ditch as requested
by City Council. Filling the ditch would require installing a piped storm sewer
system and rebuilding a portion of Highway 69 (S. Duff) to modify the profile.
Public Works estimates approximately 1,000 feet of frontage would at an
estimated cost of $480,000 to meet the drainage needs of the area. Exhibit B
is a memo from Public Works describing the work in more detail.
Staff notes that because of the need to add a storm sewer for water conveyance
if the ditch is enclosed, there would be no impact to the drainage in the area as it
would be designed to carry the same capacity needed within the ditch to connect
to the storm sewer culvert added at 3515 South Duff as part of the widening
project that then connects to a drainage channel on the east side of Duff.
3505 SOUTH DUFF AVENUE (NEW PENTECOSTAL CHURCH)
The property to the south of Brick Towne is the New Pentecostal Church, which
is in the process of completing an addition. City Council questioned impacts on
drainage and sidewalks for this site as part of the Brick Towne discussion on the
18th. The church project included approval of plat of survey for a conveyance
parcel, a three-year sidewalk deferral, and a minor site development plan in June
2017. This project was approved before final approval of Brick Towne and before
plans and specifications for the HWY 69 widening were approved. The approved
3
plans for the church designed by the applicant’s civil engineer include a sidewalk
within the HWY 69 ditch area, similar to Brick Towne. Their driveway crosses the
ditch to access Highway 69 with a culvert in place to convey water to the south.
The applicant is required to have completed the sidewalk by May 2020 and prior
to receiving an occupancy permit for their addition. It is the primary outstanding
requirement for the church to complete their addition and receive an occupancy
permit.
The church has the same options as Brick Towne to fulfill their sidewalk
construction requirements. They may construct the sidewalk per their approved
plan in the ditch, if approved by IDOT or they could route the sidewalk in an
easement in their front yard if it cannot be routed through the ditch. As discussed
above, filling the ditch would likely not be viable without adding storm sewer and
it would be the most expensive option for building a sidewalk. The sidewalk is
required to transition to and match connection points with Brick Towne to the
north, depending on the its final design.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant requests two distinct waivers. The first is for a vacant commercial
lot at the northern end of the development abutting Kum & Go. This sidewalk is
required be installed this fall to meet the City’s three-year deferral policy and to
connect to the existing sidewalk installed by Kum & Go. The second is for the
southern residential frontage that also requires completion of the sidewalk per the
approved plans and the occupancy of apartment buildings in the Brick Towne
project. Staff described four options in the original staff report that is attached.
Staff finds there is no basis for deferring the vacant commercial frontage
as it is the same as many development situations across the City.
Additionally, there is little chance the sidewalk would need to be torn up
during construction as suggested by the developer because access will
likely only come from the abutting Kum & Go property rather than an
additional driveway from South Duff.
Staff does not find that waiving the southern frontage is warranted per the
Chapter 23 requirements as a developer is responsible for implementing
improvements and adjusting projects to comply with standards as part of
the ordinary approval process.
Staff supports Option 3, which is to have the developer complete their
sidewalk improvement requirements per City standards. The cost of
constructing the sidewalk by the applicant is estimated at approximately
$10,000 for the southern frontage per correspondence with the applicant.
All of the other options include additional cost and time to compete. Staff believes
the applicant’s most efficient means of meeting the requirements along the south
frontage is to amend their site plan and place the sidewalk within five feet of
current front yard within a sidewalk easement or additional ROW. There is not
impact to the setback or front yard requirements by implementing this option.
4
Exhibit A-Recent Projects
S. 5th Street
Aldi Site-placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid ROW dedication and
changes to setbacks.
SE. 16th Street
Menards- filled in ditch along SE 16th Street and constructed sidewalk in the ROW
El Azteca- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage ditch
Fairfield Inn- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage ditch
Hampton Inn- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage ditch
Townplace Suites- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage
ditch
Kum -n- Go- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage ditch
Sherman Williams- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage
ditch
G.W Carver
Scenic Valley- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage ditch
The Irons – graded ditch and installed shared use path within the ROW
Hyde Avenue /190th Street
Hayden’s Crossing- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage
ditch
Quarry Estates- placed sidewalk on private property within easement to avoid drainage ditch
Vintage Coop-regraded site and ditch, placed sidewalk outside of right-of-way, but constructed
required crossing at intersection of 190th and Hyde within righ-of-way
5
Exhibit B
6
Exhibit C
Streetview of current conditions of Brick Towne South frontage.
1
Item #: _29_
Staff Report
REQUEST FROM DICKSON JENSEN FOR SIDEWALK WAIVER ADJACENT
THE BRICKTOWNE DEVELOPMENT
August 18, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The Bricktowne project was approved in 2017 and included a development
agreement along with subsequent Final Plat and Planned Residence District
(PRD) Major Site Development Plan approvals. (Attachment A: Location Map)
The construction of Highway 69 improvements by the City and the installation of
five-foot sidewalks by the developer are component s of the development
agreement and the project approvals. Based upon the City’s Municipal Code
standards and the associated agreements for the project, staff informed the
property owner, Dickson Jensen, in July 2020 that staff would no longer issue
building permits and grant apartment occupancy permits for the site due to the
lack of construction of the required sidewalk.
In response to the City staff comments, Mr. Jens en requests that City Council
waive the requirement for installation of the sidewalks for reasons related to
conditions of the ditch in the right-of-way and that the sidewalk does not connect
to other areas. The request describes a number of different requests related to
the two individual segments of sidewalks, one segment is for the residential area
at the south end of the site and one segment for the commercial area at the north
end of the site. (Attachment B: Developer’s Request)
Development of the site was first addressed with approval of a contract rezoning
development agreement in November 2016 when the site was rezoned from
Highway-Oriented Commercial to Residential High Density, subsequently
modified to a PRD zoning district. As part of the rezoning process the City entered
into an agreement outlining certain restrictions on use of the site, developer
obligations for public improvements and additional regional stormwater
improvements, and City of Ames obligations for Highway 69 improvements.
The agreement specifically calls out sidewalk improvements, including off-site
improvements across the cemetery frontage, as the developer’s responsibility
based upon phasing of the project or as approved by City Council. (Attachment
C-See Section III). The commercial frontage sidewalk is required within 12
months of completing the road. The agreement did not specify any specific
conditions regarding the adjacent right-of-way following the completion of the
road improvements. Section V. also notes that the plans were conceptual in
nature and subsequent approvals would conform to City standards.
2
The Developer proceeded to seek Preliminary Plat and Site Development Plan
approval for the site in July 2017. City Council approved the project plans
consistent with City Subdivision standards of Chapter 23 for sidewalk installation
and a Major Site Development Plan showing the planned improvements of front
yard landscaping and sidewalk along Highway 69 as a developer improvement.
The final plat was approved in November of 2017 and included the City’s standard
sidewalk deferral agreement (Attachment D) allowing for posting of financial
security and up to a three-year deferral, including the ability for the City to withhold
permits if the sidewalks are not completed.
The City started construction of the Highway 69 improvements in the summer of
2018. City engineering staff communicated with the developer’s representative
during the design of the project and during its construction about the ditch design
and leaving a flat “bench” along the property’s frontage to allow for sidewalk
installation. The Iowa Department of Transportation and City of Ames accepted
the highway improvements as complete in October 2019 and closed out the
project at that time. Staff responded to complaints about slope stability in the
spring of 2020. There is currently a bench that is rough graded in the right-of-way
for the sidewalk.
The developer started development of the project at the south entrance to the
project at Jade Street and received the first apartment building occupancy
approval in January 2019, with the condition that front yard landscaping and
sidewalk installation were still needed. (Attachment E-Site Plan) Subsequently,
five additional buildings have received an occupancy permit and two other
buildings are still under construction. A Kum & Go station was constructed at the
north end of the site at the Crystal Street intersection with the required sidewalk
in 2019.
The developer received a permit from DOT for the sidewalk in September 2019.
The developer later received correspondence from DOT in April 2020 stating DOT
wanted four feet of separation from the sidewalk to the top of the ditch backslope.
The developer then indicated to City staff that he felt the ditch was unsafe and
the developer would not install the sidewalk. Staff indicated the developer was
responsible for any needed improvements to meet DOT requirements and the
sidewalk was still required per the approved plans and agreements. Staff also
indicated that an alternative location would be acceptable as a sidewalk
easement or a dedication of five additional feet of right-of-way to meet all
standards.
3
OPTIONS:
OPTION 1:
Waiver of 500 feet of sidewalk at south end of the site and defer the
construction of the commercial frontage until development of that portion
of the site. (Applicant’s Request #1)
The developer takes issue with the timing and constructability of the sidewalk
installation. The developer states that the sidewalk in front of 120 Jade Street is
not constructible with the ditch in its current condition and it should be waived as
a requirement due to this condition The developer also prefers to wait to construct
the commercial sidewalk until there is development on the site
With this option the developer would not build most of the sidewalk that was
originally required. City Council would have to grant the waiver of sidewalk
construction per requirements of the Subdivision Code that it is impracticable to
construct at this time and require financial security for its future construction or
waive the improvement in its entirety.
OPTION 2:
Defer construction to coordinate with a future sidewalk in front of the
cemetery (Applicant Request #2).
The developer indicates as a separate option that all sidewalks could be deferred
until the City completes the intervening segment of sidewalk in front of the
cemetery. In the original development agreement, the Developer was also
responsible for constructing this segment as well. However, due to the lack of
right-of-way after construction of Highway 69 the developer is not required to
complete this segment as additional space is needed for the sidewalk to be
installed. The City could choose to program a future sidewalk project to fill the
gap or wait for future development on the site to trigger sidewalk improvements.
There is no CIP project for this sidewalk gap at this time to coordinate with the
developer’s requirement.
With this option the Council would need to agree to an amendment to the
agreement to outline what coordination is required and timing for performance by
the Developer. This option does not seem to address the Developer’s concern
about the right-of-way condition and DOT’s request for additional space. The
Public Works Department has no intention to modify the ditch from its current
design.
OPTION 3:
Require completion of the sidewalks by the developer per the original
development agreement
Completion of sidewalks is a developer responsibility for all new subdivisions and
developments within the City. The City established an expectation of completing
4
the sidewalk concurrent with development and within 12 months of completing
the road project. Although the developer does not feel the ditch condition is
satisfactory, the project was reviewed and accepted by the City and DOT as
complete in October 2019. The developer is then responsible for completing the
north commercial segment by October 2020. Additionally, the City agreed to
allow for temporary deferral based upon the standard sidewalk agreement until
occupancy of the apartment buildings or three years, whichever comes first. Eight
apartment buildings have received final or temporary occupancy without
completion of the sidewalk along Jade. The three-year deadline will be reached
in November 2020.
Due to these agreements and City codes, the developer is responsible for
completing the improvements regardless of right-of-way conditions. The City
would accept the original sidewalk location or an adjusted location to
accommodate the DOT’s separation requirement. To enforce this option, the
City could withhold permits for non-compliance or even use the posted
financial security to complete the improvements by the City at the
developer’s expense.
OPTION 4:
Accept developer cash-in-lieu and land dedication
The City Council could accept a cash-in-lieu payment for the 500 feet of sidewalk
near Jade to be completed at the time of a future city project for sidewalks in front
of the cemetery. Additional space (approximately 5’) is also needed to allow for
the construction of the sidewalk and meet DOT guidance with dedication of an
easement or right-of-way. This option would require the City to obtain an
easement across the cemetery frontage and plan for an infill sidewalk to be
constructed, or wait for future improvements at the cemetery to match up with the
Bricktowne project. The developer has not indicated that they would support this
option at this time.
Staff believes this option would require the payment and dedication of additional
space in a relatively short time frame in order to allow the issuance of upcoming
apartment building permits. Staff would need to prepare a formal estimate and
complete agreements with the developer to accomplish this option.
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff has been in contact with the developer for at least a year and a half to have
the south segment of sidewalk installed. The granting of occupancy permits has
continually been based on the expectation of performance of constructing the
sidewalk. Staff has indicated the developer can complete the sidewalk per their
approved plans or modify the plan to place it in an easement or in additional right-
of-way. Staff has tried to be flexible in terms of phasing and timing while
maintaining compliance with City standards and agreements.
5
Upon notification to the developer in July that additional permits would not be
granted, the applicant addressed City staff about their concerns about the ditch.
The City did not specify or commit to any specific ditch condition other than
providing the bench as was discussed originally with the applicant. Neither
the developer nor staff identified any specific standards that have not been
met for the highway project and does not believe the City is responsible for
additional right-of-way work. Minor sloughing of the slopes from this past
winter has been corrected.
Staff supports Option 3 as being consistent with standard City practices.
Additional delay or waiver of the installation is not consistent with standard
policies of the City. The developer is able to achieve the desired outcome with
modifications to their plans or by implementing their own approved plans as is
expected of all development. Completing the project would likely be at a lower
cost by the applicant than by the City.
Construction of the commercial sidewalk segment should occur consistent with
the City’s standard requirements and the agreement, which is October 2020. The
commercial sidewalk can easily be connected to the existing sidewalk segment
in front of Kum & Go.
If the City Council is interested in a partial deferral, staff would support
Option 4 where the City has control and responsibility for its
implementation. Staff suggests that if this option is desirable that it would need
to be agreed upon by the developer and executed with the City in relatively short
amount of time, no later than September 22, 2020. If it is not agreed to by then,
the project would then be held to the original development timeframes for
competition of sidewalks this fall.
120 Jade Street
5' Sidewalk to be installed by Developer per Agreement.
Cemetery Frontage
5' Sidewalk to be installed by Developer.3117 S Duff Ave
´Attachment ALocation & Sidewalk Exhibit
Attachment B: Developer's Request
Attachment C: Developer's Agreement
Attachment D: Sidewalk Agreement
Attachment E: Approved Site Plan with 120 Jade St Sidewalk
Exhibit E: Continued
1
ITEM # __30__
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: VERBIO AND CITY OF NEVADA REQUEST TO
AMEND ANNEXATION MORATORIUM AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND:
On December 14, 2010, the City of Ames agreed to enter into an Annexation
Moratorium Agreement with the City of Nevada. (Exhibit A) The two cities agreed for a
period of 10 years that neither city would pursue annexation beyond 590th Street,
meaning west of 590th would only be annexed by the City of Ames and east of 590th
Street would only be annexed by Nevada. This agreement has proven to be
successful in eliminating the motivation for a rush by either party to annex up to
the city limits of the other municipality as a defensive move to protect their
growth future plans.
At the August 25th meeting, the City Council directed that the request from Verbio and
the City of Nevada be placed on a future agenda. In order to accommodate the request,
our existing 28E agreement with Nevada will have to be modified to allow Nevada to
annex the 100 acres west of 590th Street and north of the railroad tracks as requested
by Verbio. In addition to the request to modify the Moratorium Agreement to allow 100
acres previously reserved for Ames annexation to be shifted to the City of Nevada,
Nevada is offering to extend this modified agreement for an additional ten years.
(Exhibit B and C).
As Verbio explains in their request they have a desire to build a rail facility for the
transport of ethanol to work with their existing plant located at the corner of 590th/Lincoln
Way (formerly known as the Dupont Plant). The site is located north of the Union Pacific
rail line and could be annexed to either the City of Ames or Nevada, if not for the current
agreement. Verbio indicates minimal city services would be needed to serve the site
and the primary improvement would be a rail loop to service tanker cars.
ALTERNATIVES:
ALTERNATIVE #1 - Direct staff to prepare and amendment the Annexation Moratorium
Agreement to allow Verbio to annex to Nevada and extend the agreement until 2030.
With this option staff would communicate to the City of Nevada that with their formal
approval of an amendment to the 28E agreement the City of Ames would also agree to
exempt the 100 acre site and extend the Annexation Moratorium Agreement for 10
years with the requested modification.
ALTERNATIVE #2 - Decline Verbio’s request, but pursue an extension until 2030 of the
Annexation Moratorium Agreement with no boundary modification.
Verbio would be free to apply for annexation to the City of Ames under this option. The
property can be annexed to the City as it abuts Ames with annexation of the adjoining
railroad right-of-way as allowed by Iowa Code. There are currently not utilities present
to serve the site. The property owner would be responsible for ensuring adequate
infrastructure would exist to serve their needs for the rail facility.
Under this alternative, Staff would still pursue an extension of the Annexation
Moratorium Agreement for 10 additional years with the City of Nevada. The extension
would benefit both cities making it clear what annexation expectations exist in this area
to avoid disputes on future boundaries of the Cities.
ALTERNATIVE #3 - Decline Verbio’s request and the City of Nevada request for an
amendment to the agreement.
With this option City Council would take no action on the request and the current
agreement would expire on December 15, 2020. Upon expiration, a property within two
miles of Ames or Nevada could request annexation to either city. If there is a dispute
about appropriateness of annexation the issue would be resolve by the state’s City
Development Board.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Although the 100 acre site could be annexed to Ames, it is not in a critical location
related to other future residential or industrial development envisioned by the City. The
City is focused on serving industrial development on the south side of the Union Pacific
railroad line and the evaluation of East Growth Scenario for Plan 2040 did not
contemplate that development would occur up 590th Street north of the railroad during
the next 20 years. In addition, extending the agreement would benefit both cities
making it clear what annexation expectations exists in this area to avoid disputes on
future boundaries of the Cities. Finally, the stated use of the 100 acres for a rail yard will
not reflect in a significant tax revenue loss to the City if it were allowed to be annexed
into Nevada.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve
Alternative #1.
City of Ames, fowa, Resolution No. l0 - TbL
City of Nevada, Iowa, Resolution No. 3O (anrol ao;)
AGREEMENT FOR JOINT EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS
AND TO ESTABLISH A DIVISION LINE BETWEEN
CORPORATE BOUNDARY LINES
WHEREAS, it is in the pubtc interest of the CITY OF AMES (hereinafter referred to as
AMES), and the CITY OF NEVADA (hereinafter referred to as NEVADA), to establish
compatible land uses for land adjacent to and between their respective corporate boundary lines,
and encourage compatible development, and coordinate public infrastructure in these areas, to the
maximum extent possible; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest of the cities of Ames and Nevada, to establish an
annexation Division Line (hereinafter referred to as Division Line), between their respective
corporate boundary lines;
NOW THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. Because of their close proximity leading to common corporate
boundaries in the future, and their colnmon desire to enhance the land use in the area adjacent to
and between their respective corporate boundaries, it is in the pubtic interest for Ames and
Nevada to respectively pass resolutions to establish this AGR-EEMENT FOR JOINT EXERCISE
OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND TO ESTABLISH A DryISION LINE BETWEEN
CORPORATE BOUNDARY LINES (hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT), to provide for
communication and cooperation in developing each city's comprehensive plan in their respective ,.territories adjacent to the Division Line, and to establish a Division Line more particularly I
identified in Section 2.
SECTION 2. DIVISION LINE. The aforementioned cities hereby agree upon theestablishment of a Division Line, between the presently established corporate-bo.rnd*i", of thetwo cities, which is legally describes as follows, all located in story county, Iowa:
A line extending from the northem county line of Story County at the center line of 590th
Avenue and extending south along the center line of 590ft Avenue, and along the center
line of 590'n Avenue extended, toihe southem county line of Story County.
A map of this description is attached as Extribit A and made part ofthis agreement.
SECTION 3. ANNEXING MORATORIUM. In accordance with Iowa Code Chapter
368 (2009) and as defined thereiq Ames and Nevada agree to an annexing moratorium as
follows:
A. Ames agrees not to annex voluntarily or involuntarily, or otherwise incorporate
within its boundaries, all or any part of the territory located to the east of the
Division Line.
B. Nevada agrees not to annex voluntarily or involuntarily, or otherwise incorporate
within its boundaries, all or any part of the territory located to the west of the
Division Line.
SECTION 4. APPLICABILITY. This Agreement is applicable to all annexation
proceedings, both voluntarily and involuntary, andpending annexations as well as any that maybe
commenced in the future, to the fullest extent allowed and as provided by Iowa Code Chapter 368
(2009). All such proceedings which have been initiated but not completed are hereby amended to
conform to this agreement, and any portion of any petition for annexation, whether voluntary or
involuntary, in conflict herewith is hereby terminated and withdrawn. Completion is hereby
defined as being approved by the City Development Board and duly recorded prior to the date of
the second City's approval and signature on this Agreement.
Both cities agree not to annex territory in violation of this Agreement. Each city, and their
officials, agents and representatives acting in their official capacities, agree not to aid or support in
any way' any person, patty, agency, or governmental body who may oppose, enjoin, or obstruct
the other in the pursuit of any annexation that conforms with this Agreement. Terminology used
in this Agreement shall be defined in the same nxrnner as it is defined and used in Iowa Code
Chapter 368, unless specifically defined herein.
SECTION 5. JOINT COORDINATION AND COOPERATION. The Cities agree tocoordinate long range planning and zoning of development along the Division Line. The Citiesshall coordinate their comprehensive plans for the tenitory located within 600 feet ofthe DivisionLine to the end that the uses proposed by one City may bi compatible with the uses proposed bythe other city; corridors are developed for future streeis that would bisect the annexation line withthe proposed classification of those streets; proposed corridors for pedestrian and bicycle trafficare identified; and any other matters agreed to by the Cities. This is not intended to establish thatone City has control over the other City's legislative powers; rather it is intended to establish thatthe two Cities will coordinate and cooperate with each other in their planning and legislativepowers for the land along the Division Line to the extent deemed acceptableiby the iespectiveCities.
Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 354.9(3), Ames and Nevada agree that the subdivision standardsand review authority granted by state law to the cities for the two miles from their respective andoverlapping limits shall be handled as follows:
Ames shall have extra tenitorial review and approval authority west of the above-described Division Line.
Nevada shall have extra territorial review and approval authority east of the above-
described DMsion Line.
SECTION 6. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Within one-eighth mile of the Division Line,
the design and location of collector streets and other major thoroughfares, and major pedestrian
and bicycle systems, which are or should be constructed in a stze larger than customary for local
service to adjoining property owners; or which should be continuous between the two Cities for
the convenience of the public and the welfare of their citizens, shall be coordinated with both
Cities.
Wherever practical, new streets and other public improvements shall not be located on or along
the Division Line. Where such situations cannot be avoided or already exist, construction,
reconstruction, or expansion of such public improvements shall be subject to the approval of each
City and shall be jointly planned.
SECTION 7. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. This Agreement creates rights and
obligations only between these two parties as govemmental entities, and is to be interpreted,
applied, and enforced by these entities only. It is not intended and shall not be interpreted to
create any rights, title, or interest in any other person, firm, corporation, or entity, whether or not
resident or taxpayer of either City, and whether directly or as a third party beneficiary.
SECTION 8. STATUTORY AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into by Ames
and Nevada pursuant to Iowa Code Section 368.4, and is joint exercise of governmental powers,
pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 28E. It does not create a separate legal entity; grants no power
to purchase, own, or mortgage real or personal property; creates no goveming board; and does
not have an operating budget.
SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION. The effective date of this
Agreement shall be the later of approval dates of the two Cities. This Agreement shall.be in fuIl
force and effect for a period of ten years after the aforementioned effective date, and thereafter as
provided by any agreement to extend this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any
time upon approval ofboth City Councils.
SECTION 10. SEPARABILITY. If any section, provision, or part of this Agreement
shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validiff of
this Agreement as a whole or any section, provision, or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
CITY OF AMES,IOWA
AMES CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION
REsoLUTIoN lC -6fu 2
. ./
l, D tdrrreuV0€6 city clerk of the city of
Ames, Story County, Iowa, do hereby certifr that the
notice ofthe public hearing on the foregoing Agrgement
was published at least on"cq ln tne kvnrg I mE*vw
@l f $#Luy ".*gp49e1, Wioe
ggneral circulation in Amep, Iowa, on th{f"Z, "llday of
LJOII . ,2010 ,r(S?r.h\4qrarhich publication date was
not less than four nor more'than twenty dap before the
date of the hearing. . Furttrer, following the hearing which
was held onthe 11 dayof D!{'. , JDIO ,the
Resolution approving the Agreement was duly approved
and accepted by the City Council pf said City of Ames, by
Resolutiolr No.l0 -562on the /tt dayof
T)e .ewt?wr-;uot('.
CiryClerk
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, ss:
ontne 14 aayot DLoervtbe-tr ,zoto,
before mg the undersigrrd a Notary Public in and fgr the
State of Iowa" personally appeare aftnn lj C'tn?befi nt 6
D r ar'K, VoSs . to *" poro*[yknowrL whb,-being
byme dulyswom, did sayttrattlrcyarethe Mayor andCity
Clerk ofthe City ofAmes, Iowa, a municipal corporation;
that the seal afixed to the above and foregoing instument is
the corporate seal of said mruricipal corporation, and that said
instrument was signed and contained in the Resolution
adopted bythe CityCouncil ofAmes, Iowa, on the /4
aaiot . Dt.cx-'vrbc-t-2Q10, andthe said\tLy oL l) ( .cK) Y \vr-4 , LutLvr'dJl
ball_l4lr$hiland Dra.nz rVosc
acknowledged the execution of said instument to be their
voluntaryact and deed and the voluntaryact and deed ofsaid
mwricipal corporation, by it and bythem voltntarily
executed.
CITY OF NEVADA,IOWA*, o'u'fu#?
Attest:
"r, Jr*,. [. $J',."^. \o^*t
City Clerk
NEVADA CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION
RESOLUTION 8OC:roluf aol)
I, Teres6-Blcss^f
i&ty Ct"rt of ttre City of
Nevada, Story County, Iowa, do hereby certi$ that the
notice of the public hearing on the foregoing Agreement'
was published at least once in the
Nctazlrl(tt^un*l aweeklynewspaperhaving
ffialiitclation in Nevada,Iowa, on theASlL day of
Nttg$.bo./ , &oio , which publication date was
not less than four nor more than twenty day6 beforc thc
date of the hearing. Further, following the hearing which
was held on the l3f\ day of
-S
ce\-qlnlL, &O-!-s-, the
Resolution approving the Agreement was duly approved
and accepted by the City Council of said City ofNevada,
by Resolution No. 3o on the lJ"l-\day of
Seett^k-. , ,aqtu
I n N, Cr r
.. 4., :.r^ R . t L-t.t.. =).*'t4\
CityClerk
STATE OF IOWA, COIJNTY OF STORY' ss:
Onthelvi\ dayof\pu*h* - ,2010,
before me, the undersigned a NotaryPublic in and for the
State of Iow4 persona,lly appeared&esilAGs$-!!- and
T+srrii &.:r.t'Ib me personally known, who, being by
me dulysworn, did saythat theyare the Malor and CityClerk
ofthe Cif ofNevada, Iowa, a municipal corporation; that the
seal afixed to the above and foregoing instument is the
corporate seal ofsaid municipal corporatioq and that said
instrument was sigred and contained in the Resolution
adopte! by tire City Council ofNevada, Iowa, on the /J ts\
day of D.l- ,:;. * U , - . 20 I 0, and the said
kssf{gl*tl-S- and Tr,..rc L P"t".-,. n -9-f,c)crowledged
the execution of said instument to be their voluntary act and
deed and the voluntary act and deed ofsaid municipal
corporatioq by it and by ttrem voluntarily executed.
By:
Diane Voss, City Clerk
. ,)al1.
lic in and for the State oflowa
...-'.i(q. .llLL L RIPFET
; ?Co-mmbdon ifrta,'',u*i} MY
This Agreement was duly filed and recorded in the Office of the Secretary of State of the
State of Iowa on this day of 2010.
Secretary of State
I II o
C+#+ffi]-
f \
--l
F r t E:9-.9 t=]a
T
\
1 'l k a
I
I t ,
I
I /
dr-v*"rk
at ne o=
I'J 1'I
-c
o
E
o-9
ci.
30
f
*L trrlE J t ' |
t .
I I \-I
h {
E (
I
J J_
a IJ'
!l il \
F I +L
I
I I t L
I I I tL
ExhibitA
ITEM # ___31__
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PRIVATE WATER MAIN AGREEMENT WITH HARVESTER LAND
HOLDINGS LC AND DICKSON & LUANN JENSEN
BACKGROUND:
Beginning in the 1990’s, the City granted permission to rural water districts to provide
service to land within two miles of the City’s corporate boundary with the understanding
that the right to provide service to those properties would revert to the City as growth
occurred. However, when such growth eventually occurred Xenia did not allow the City
to provide water service to that land unless major “buy-out” payments were made to
Xenia. This was true even when the land had been annexed into the City.
To address this issue and reserve the right to serve customers in areas adjacent to the
City’s corporate limits, the City Council adopted provisions in Chapter 28 - Division II of
the Municipal Code that allows for the City to deliver water service to land outside the
corporate limits but within two miles of the City. This right to serve is provided in Iowa
Code Sec 357A.2, which provides that in responding to the rural water service request,
the City may waive its right to serve or may reserve the right to provide service. The City
must then provide water service within three years if the right to serve is retained.
Where current City infrastructure is not present, a temporary water main may be extended
to such areas. That temporary main would then be replaced with a larger main as adjacent
property is incorporated into the City. Under Section 28.202 of the Municipal Code, the
costs for temporary and future water infrastructure needed to serve such
properties and any applicable permit/connection fees are the responsibility of the
requesting property owner. Additional provisions in Chapter 28 - Division II include
requirements for metering, back-flow prevention, and rural water rate structure.
Harvester Land Holdings LC, and Dickson and Luann Jensen, the owners of seven (7)
properties west of US 69 (South Duff Ave) and outside of City limits have requested
permission to install a rural water connection off the City’s public water main (see
Attachment A). Each private residential water service will be metered individually and
charged the City rural water rate fees. The intent of this rural water connection is to
initially serve three (3) residences (two of which are under construction) and potentially
additional future homes as those properties are developed.
City Council may recall that a request to amend the Urban Fringe Plan to Rural
Residential for this same area was withdrawn by the applicant in June 2020. City Council
received a memo from staff dated June 19th discussing options and that staff
recommended the properties be annexed in accordance with future planning of Plan
2040, rather than support addition rural development. It should be emphasized that
approval of the requested rural water service is not indicative of any support for
future subdivision and rural development beyond the use of each of existing seven
lots while remaining in the County.
With multiple services, this rural water connection will function as a private water main,
but it will not be constructed to City standards. Therefore, an agreement (see Attachment
B) has been created to address the following:
1. Operation, repair, and maintenance of the private water main (Owner’s
responsibility).
2. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations (Owner’s responsibility).
3. Water flows, water pressures, and fire protection (City not responsible nor liable).
4. Future annexations (Owner is responsible for installing new public main).
This agreement will protect the City from potential disputes over these issues and allow
the City to discontinue or disconnect water service if the owner fails to comply with the
terms of the agreement. Staff has received and reviewed construction plans for the private
water main, but the construction of the private water main should not commence until this
agreement has been approved by City Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the private water main agreement with Harvester Land Holdings LC and
Dickson and Luann Jensen for uses on the seven existing lots.
2. Direct staff to make modifications to the agreement and continue to allow
construction of the rural water connection to commence.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By approving this agreement, construction of the rural water connection can move forward
with a clear understanding of the Owner and City responsibilities associated with this
private water main. Approval of the agreement does not indicate future support for
additional rural subdivision or development beyond the use of the current seven lots
identified by the applicant. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager
that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
JADE ST
S DUFF AVE
EMERALD DR
GARDEN RD
£¤69
Properties (7 total) owned byHarvester Land Holdings LC and Dickson & Luann Jensenintended to be served by a private water main N 1 inch = 500 feetDate: 6 /26/2020
Proposed private watermain and services
Ames City Limits
Attachment A
Ames City Limits
ITEM #: 32
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
REQUEST: REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO PLANNED RESIDENCE
DISTRICT (F-PRD), A PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND A MAJOR SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOMANI AT 2200 OAKWOOD ROAD
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Pinnacle Properties Ames, LLC, requests the rezoning of a parcel
comprising 23.784 acres. The parcel is addressed as 2200 Oakwood Road. It also has
frontage along street stubs for Suncrest Drive and Cottonwood Road (in two places).
The site was annexed to the City in 2019 and is zoned Agricultural (A). The applicant
is requesting rezoning to Planned Residence District (F-PRD) with a Residential
Low Density (RL) base zone to allow for a single-family residential development
with mostly zero-lot-line homes. (See Attachment A for Location and Existing Zoning
Map and Attachment C for Proposed Zoning Map.) There will be 63 residential lots: 51
zero-lot-line lots and 12 custom-built sites at the south end. The proposed plan also
includes a resident clubhouse with swimming pool, five common area outlots, and one
subdivision sign outlot at the corner of Oakwood Road and Green Hills Drive.
The land for Domani is primarily used as a farm field, with a small amount as farmyard,
adjacent to an old farmhouse on Oakwood Road. The City’s Christofferson Park abuts
the property along most of the development’s eastern edge. The western edge is
primarily bordered by single-family homes developed as part of the Suncrest
Subdivision during 2002-2006. Several of the abutting properties along the western
edge of the site have extended their rear yard use onto the subject property.
The proposed rezoning to a PRD allows for the developer to propose different
housing types than allowed by standard zoning and request variations to base
zone standards in support of the different housing types. PRDs are also intended
to include open space and/or amenities not typical of a standard base zone
development. The zero-lot-line homes are not typical of a standard base zone nor is the
proposed reduction in lot size, thereby necessitating the PRD.
Of the 51 zero-lot-line homes, 27 will be smaller than 6,000 square feet, the minimum
lot size for the comparative base zone of RL. Although smaller than typical detached
single-family home lots, the lot sizes are larger than single-family attached minimum lot
sizes that would be permissible under FS-RL zoning. The zero-lot-line homes will be
placed at one side lot line, then be setback at least 10 feet on the opposite side to
create a “courtyard,” or private patio space for the homeowner. Homes abutting the
external boundaries of the development will comply with standard setbacks
requirements. Attachment “I” depicts the house layout plan for the courtyard homes of
the subdivision. Although, house layouts and designs are not depicted for the custom
home lots, the applicant requests setback variations as well for reduced front yards to
15 feet and side yards at zero feet. Staff has included conditioned that since no house
designs have been proposed that the individual homes are subject to Planning Director
approval for reduced setbacks.
The Major Site Development Plan (MSDP) (Attachment G) for Domani contains the site
layout, including placement of the non-residential buildings, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, stormwater detention/retention, open space and amenities, and
landscaping. The MSDP accompanying the PRD request will be the controlling plan for
development of the site and its specific uses upon approval of the PRD. The Preliminary
Plat controls for lot layout and public improvements.
The project includes common open space of approximately 32% (outlots and the
clubhouse lot, excluding right-of-way and residential lots). Combined with the patio and
usable yard areas of the homes, the overall open space is 41%. This exceeds the 40%
open space standard of the PRD.
Due to the developer’s concept of smaller lots with common area maintenance, the plan
includes a proposed reduction in front and rear yard setbacks. Typical front yard
setbacks would be 20 feet for a house and 25 feet for its garage in the FS-RL zoning
district. The applicant proposes front yard setbacks of 20 feet or more for most homes
and 8 feet for five lots at the south end of the development. The proposed clubhouse is
approximately 10 feet from Green Hills Drive and 15 feet from Suncrest. Based upon
past PRDs, setbacks along public streets within a new development may be reduced as
proposed.
Side and rear setbacks at the development perimeter will be the same as those of the
base zone, RL. This includes a minimum of 6 feet for a one-story home, 8 feet for a two-
story home, and 20 feet for a rear yard. Much of the perimeter of the development is
drainage outlots or street (along Christofferson Park) and a minority of lots are situated
along the perimeter of the site abutting other developed property. Two lots on the west
side of the development on Suncrest Drive have 8-foot setbacks, one lot on Cottonwood
Road on the east side has an 8-foot setback, six lots at the north end have 20-foot rear
setbacks, and one lot (Lot 35) has a setback of 20 feet affecting its easternmost corner.
Domani will extend and connect an existing street (Green Hills Drive) and three street
stubs (Suncrest Drive and, in two places, Cottonwood Road). The development will
create a new street stub at the south end, oriented for a future extension to Cedar Lane.
An extension to the south was not required due to the location of an existing pond south
of the site. The extended Green Hills Drive will border Christofferson Park and will
provide pedestrian connections to the park from the west and south. The
Christofferson Park parking lot will be modified to accommodate the extended
Green Hills Drive. Modifications to the Park were reviewed by Parks and
Recreation staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission. A condition requires
an agreement with the developer prior to final plat approval on completing these
improvements at the developer’s cost.
Domani’s extension of the street stubs for Cottonwood Road and Suncrest Drive will
create pedestrian access from existing neighborhoods to move eastward through this
site. In addition to pedestrian crossings at the street intersections, the applicant is
providing mid-block connections across Green Hills Drive between Cottonwood Road
and Suncrest Drive and between Suncrest Drive and Oakwood Road. The applicant has
also designed connections to Christofferson Park that currently can only be accessed
off Oakwood Road.
The development of Domani will be broken into three phases (See Attachment G – Site
Plan – Phasing Plan). The first phase will include the northern part of the property, plus
several drainage outlots. It will also include a temporary sales trailer at the east side of
the property, at the end of the current street stub for Cottonwood Road. This structure
will serve as the sales office for the development until the clubhouse is constructed,
which will then serve as the sales office. The second phase of development will
complete the zero-lot-line homes and the final phase will be the 12 custom home lots.
The Clubhouse is required through a proposed condition to be under
construction prior to development and construction of homes in the 2nd phase
and completed prior to initiation construction of homes in the 3rd phase.
The Domani site sits between developed stormwater systems to the west and east.
Water flows from the west through the site to the east, primarily towards the Wessex
Apartment development. The City has mandatory stormwater management design
requirements to control water quality and quantity related to new development. The
City’s standards are part of Chapter 5B of the Municipal Code. City staff, the
applicant, and the applicant’s engineer worked extensively to address regional
drainage in relation to the site for drainage to Christofferson Park and the
neighborhood to the west. The overall design includes conveyance of water from
development to the west through to a detention pond on the east side of the site
where it is then released to east. There is a separate detention pond in the north
part of the development that diverts water to a storm sewer that goes north. This
north pond design is beneficial to managing stormwater in the City’s park. Off-
site improvements with the park also benefit the connection of the system along
the south side of the Wessex Apartment development.
A drainage lot west of the subject property, south of homes along Cottonwood, has
experienced problems with drainage in the past, based upon neighborhood input to the
developer and previously to City staff. The City commissioned a study of the area in
2013 to review the performance of stormwater measures. The homes on the south side
of Cottonwood Drive have been particularly affected by drainage problems. The
drainage lot takes water from the nearby Ringgenberg neighborhood and conveys it
east to the subject property where is connects to a field tile line. The applicant’s
engineer has analyzed the existing conditions and determined that the homes on the
south side of Cottonwood Road are generally either at or below the modeled 100-year
flood elevation of the current storm water conveyance measures on that lot. This system
was designed and built with the prior subdivisions and does not meet current standards.
The proposed Domani stormwater plan creates a new conveyance channel in Outlot D
to pass water through to the east and then further downstream and off site. The
applicant’s design facilitates water conveyance improvements through the Domani site
and meets the Chapter 5B requirements to treat and detain water, as well as provide for
protection of homes in relation to the water surface elevations of the storm water
features. This is of particular concern for the lot abutting the site at 2218 Cottonwood
Road where the current code will require 3 feet of protection between the home and the
new storm water feature. The applicant accomplishes this through the excavation of the
channel and a berm along the common property line. The proposed stormwater design
does not change the flood elevation of any other property that is upstream of the
Domani property impacted by water flowing into and through the adjacent drainage lot
as it is not directly connected to the Domani site due to diversionary berm on that lot.
Therefore, the proposed storm water management plan satisfies the Code
requirements for addressing the impacts of the new development it does not, nor
is it required to, eliminate the storm water issues that currently exist for some of
the properties along Cottonwood.
On-street parking will be provided throughout the neighborhood. As part of the
extension of Green Hills Drive, the developer is redesigning the parking lot for
Christofferson Park to provide for greater safety. Enhanced on street parking
bays are proposed near the clubhouse. Each home will have a minimum of two
required garage parking spaces. Homes with at least 20 feet of front yard setback can
accommodate additional driveway parking. The proposed clubhouse is viewed as an
accessory use and no off-street parking is recommend by staff for the use. The site is
centrally located and walkable by the residents. There is on street parking adjacent to
the site.
A complete analysis of the development with the F-PRD Development principles,
supplemental development standards, and Major Site Development Plan criteria and
other zoning standards is included in the Addendum and Attachments. See Attachment
D, Findings Regarding Planned Residence District (F-PRD) Development Principles;
Attachment E, Findings Regarding Planned Residence District (F-PRD) Supplemental
Development Standards; and Attachment F, Findings Regarding Major Site
Development Plan Criteria.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on August 19th and reviewed the proposed
project and a presentation of the concept by the developer. The Commission discussed
site drainage, design of the homes and mix of housing plans for one story, two-story,
and basements, open space, and parking. The Commission also heard comments
concerning open space and perimeter setbacks along the east edge of the
development. The Commission voted 6-0-0 to recommend that the City Council approve
the project for 2200 Oakwood Road subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Conditions are included with the proposed Alternative #1 that are remaining for the
project and reflective of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the following three requests for the property at 2200 Oakwood Road:
A. Rezoning of the properties from Agricultural (A) to Planned Residence District
(F-PRD) with a base zone of Residential Low Density (RL).
B. Approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions:
i. Adjust trees where the sidewalk has shifted at the Cottonwood Road &
Green Hills Drive intersection;
ii. Add exterior setback lines for lots on Suncrest Drive (Lots 23 & 36),
Cottonwood Road (Lot 1), Green Hills Drive (Lots 58-63), Green Hills
Drive and Oakwood Road (Oakwood side of Lot 63), and Green Hills
Drive (Lot 35 starting at the common lot line of Outlot C and
Christofferson Park);
iii. Remove striping for the parallel spaces along the northbound (east)
side of Green Hills Drive;
iv. Prior to final plat of each addition, provide a street tree, streetlight, and
driveway plan to ensure adequate space exists for on street parking
and trees;
v. Prior to final plat, enter into a development agreement with the City
addressing improvements on City property and right-of-way, including
timing, specifications, and developer’s financial obligations.
C. Approval of the Major Site Development Plan, subject to the following
conditions:
i. Include the 20-foot setback line, as measured from the shared property
line with Christofferson Park, to Lot 35;
ii. Remove striping for the parallel spaces along the northbound (east)
side of Green Hills Drive;
iii. Note that no additional access to the Park is permitted that is not
shown on the plan;
iv. Staff approval of final lighting plans consistent with standards of Article
IV for the Common Area and Clubhouse site;
v. The phasing plan allows for staff approval of temporary sales office in
conjunction with the first phase of development;
vi. The clubhouse and pool are to begin construction as part of phase one
and prior to the start of phase two. The clubhouse and pool must be
completed prior to the construction of a home in the third phase, unless
an extension is granted by the City Council.
vii. Add note that custom lots (Lots 46-57) are permitted to have a reduced
setbacks subject to the Planning Director approval of home designs
addressing façade architectural interest, massing ,and proportions with
the following limitations: side yard of zero feet, rear yard of 10 feet, and
front yards minimum of 15 feet measured to the building façade for all
street frontages and 25 feet for garages. Full projections approved by
the Planning Director are permitted for features such as decks,
porches, etc. within the reduced front yards. All lots must comply with
perimeter base zone setbacks.
2. Approve with modified conditions the request for Rezoning and approval of the
Preliminary Plat and Major Site Development Plan for the property at 2200 Oakwood
Road.
3. Deny the request for Rezoning and approval of the Preliminary Plat and Major Site
Development Plan for the properties at 2200 Oakwood Road, if the Council finds that
the City’s regulations and policies are not met.
4. Defer action on this request and refer it back to City staff and/or the applicant for
additional information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed Planned Residence District (F-PRD) rezoning is consistent with Land Use
Policy Plan (LUPP) as a specialized zoning tool for encouraging innovate and mixed
housing types. The proposed density of development 5.21 units per acre does not
exceed the low density residential minimum density standards of 7.26 units per acre.
The proposal also exceeds the LUPP minimum density expectations of 3.75 dwelling
units per acre for Village/Suburban designated areas.
The applicant has chosen the F-PRD process due to the proposed mix of housing
types. The smaller lots enable the developer to provide a viable number of homes while
providing for stormwater improvements that will benefit nearby properties, including
Christofferson Park. The development connects existing street stubs, extends and
existing street, and provides a new connection at the south end of the property. The
new streets will benefit not just the new residents of Domani, but also the residents of
nearby neighborhoods who will have improved access to the park.
In a F-PRD, the Major Site Development Plan (MSDP) establishes zoning requirements,
including building height, maximum number of units, bedrooms and density, site layout,
and landscape design. Due to minimum width of the lots and the reduced size, the
placement of homes and driveway location are critical to the success for the project.
The proposed plans provide for definition of the character of the zero-lot-line homes with
an expectation for house placement. It allows for minor variations in house plan and
aesthetics based upon buyer preference. The custom lots at the south end of the site
will be individually designed and allow for reduced setbacks subject to Planning Director
approval.
The alternative approach of the PRD differs from conventional development in allowing
for additional detached single-family dwellings. The site could be developed under FS-
RL with a combination of detached and attached housing using a similar street layout
and potentially a greater density of development. However, the PRD design allows for
all detached housing product and includes additional common area open space and
amenities of a clubhouse, which meets the overall intent for the district and its design
principles. The proposed layout introduces a slightly smaller lot size option to the
housing market in Ames creating some additional diversity of choices which is viewed
as beneficial to the City’s housing goals.
With the conditions of approval, staff finds that the project meets the design principles of
the F-PRD and complies with the standards of the MSDP. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council act in accordance with
Alternative #1, which is to approve the request for Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and
Major Site Development Plan for Domani with the noted conditions.
ADDENDUM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing a single-family development with 63 dwellings and amenity
space of a clubhouse and pool for the residents. Fifty-one of the dwellings will be on
zero-lot-line lots where one of the sides of the house abuts a side lot line. The applicant
refers to these zero-lot-line homes as courtyard or patio homes due to the design
featuring this private space for each home rather than a traditional yard. The remaining
12 lots will have custom-built homes. Of the 51 zero-lot-line dwellings, 27 will be on lots
smaller than 6,000 square feet – the minimum in the base zoning district of RL. All lots
exceed the minimum width requirement of 50 feet.
The development of Domani will be divided into three phases. The first phase will
include the northern zero-lot-line home lots and most of the stormwater outlots along
with a temporary sales trailer at the end of the Cottonwood Road street stub on the east
side of the property. The second phase will finish the zero-lot-line lots and outlots. The
third phase will be for the non-zero-lot-line homes.
The PRD standards for low density residential development require that the density not
exceed 7.26 dwelling units per acre. The density for Domani will be 5.21 units per acre,
calculated by excluding outlots and the clubhouse lot.
Building Design
The applicant intends to build the homes in a “modern farmhouse” style. Common
architectural features include gable rooves, dormer windows, board and batten siding,
and covered porches. There are several house plans for the courtyard homes while the
large lots are intended for custom homes. The courtyard homes have multiple façade
options with the design intent (See Attachment J). The zero-lot-line homes will abut one
of the property lines and will have at least a 10-foot setback on the other side. The zero-
lot-line side of the home will have no windows or only windows compliant with the Fire
Code (such as glass block). The intent is to create a private space for one of the homes.
These homes will occupy most of the lots, leaving little to no rear yard. The homes will
be one story with an option for some lots to have a second floor or “half” story.
The temporary sales trailer will be a premanufactured modular trailer, which is
anticipated to be in place for less than a year. Parking will be provided on a temporary
basis to the trailer and removed during the second phase.
The Clubhouse is approximately 2,000-square-foot one-story building of a similar design
to that of the homes.
Setbacks and Yards
The proposed new homes have reduced setbacks for front, side and rear yards. The
proposed variations from base standards allows for all detached homes rather than
creating attached single-family homes. Five lots along Cottonwood and Green Hills
have a reduced front yard setback of eight feet. The applicant proposed this to allow for
lots to be created where there are size constraints related to common area lots and the
orientation of other lots. The clubhouse also includes reduced front yard setbacks of
approximately 10 feet and 15 feet. The other homes will meet a front setback of at least
20 feet. Typical requirements of FS-RL zoning are 20 feet to a facade and 25 feet to a
garage for front loaded single-family homes. Rear loaded homes can be as close as a
10-foot setback within FS-RL zoning.
The proposed front yard setback reduction is atypical for projects with public streets.
The proposed design features are more common with private streets. Although the PRD
standards call out a limitation to reduction in setbacks along the perimeter of the
development and public streets, the precedent with Ringgenberg was to allow reduced
setbacks along the internal public streets. Staff believes that this approach allowing for
reduced front yard setbacks along internal public streets is consistent with intent of the
PRD to consider variations with diverse housing types. Reduction in front yard setbacks
changes the look and feel of the streetscape with homes closer to the street and it does
affect the functionality of space to some degree if there is not room for driveway parking
and street tree maturity. There is no requirement for front yard trees on private property
so there is no direct impact to private landscaping options. Staff supports the proposed
reduction for five lots to a minimum of eight feet believing the overall impact to the
streetscape will be minimal and that allowing for 20 feet on the remaining home lots is
similar to FS-RL standards. The clubhouse with reduced setbacks will include front yad
landscaping to enhance its appearance.
Side setbacks are zero on one side of each lot to facilitate the creation of the private
patio spaces. A minimum of ten feet will exist on the opposite side. Rear setbacks
abutting the common area lots will be zero in most circumstances. Note that lots along
the perimeter of the development boundary will comply with PRD standards for
setbacks to match that of the underlying zone.
The applicant proposes custom home design for a handful of homes with 52-foot lot
widths and larger lots along the southern perimeter. The developer desires reduced
setbacks to allow for custom homes with design features that approach the street and
may provide additional architectural interest and creativity. Typically such an approach
would require a pattern book or design detail to allow for custom homes to fit a design
intent while being truly custom and individual to the builder. This is what has been done
for the courtyard homes. However, no specific pattern book or layout design is proposed
by the applicant for the custom lots. Therefore staff has included a condition that only
allows for reduced setbacks if approved by the Planning Director and the designs meet
the stated intent for the reduction. Staff would review architectural features and
massing, not design style, to ensure that reduced setbacks are facilitating high quality
design features and not just more efficient and bulky houses that could be typically
placed in conformance with normal setback requirements. Alternatively, Council could
request more clarity on the custom home design and layout prior to final plat approval.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Setbacks at the development perimeter will be the reflect those of the base zone, RL.
Much of the perimeter of the development is drainage outlot or street (along
Christofferson Park) and a minority of lots are affected. Two lots on the west side of the
development on Suncrest Drive have 8-foot setbacks, one lot on Cottonwood Road on
the east side has an 8-foot setback, six lots at the north end have 20-foot rear setbacks,
and one lot (Lot 35) has a setback of 20 feet affecting its easternmost corner. In addition
to mirroring the setbacks of the base zone, RL, the setbacks on Suncrest Drive,
Cottonwood Road, and the west side of Green Hills Drive match the setbacks of the
neighboring zoning districts (RL, FS-RM, and A respectively).
Infrastructure
The site will be fully served by City infrastructure, except for electricity, which is
provided by Alliant. Sanitary sewer and water extensions and easements are included
as part of the development.
Access & Circulation
Vehicular access will come from the extension of Green Hills Drive and the completion
of the existing street stub for Suncrest Drive and the two street stubs for Cottonwood
Road. Both Suncrest Drive and Cottonwood Road will be extended to intersect with
Green Hills Drive. Green Hills Drive will extend to the south, where it will turn westward
creating a new street aimed at Cedar Lane. On-street parking will be available as all
streets are residential streets. Due to small lot width incorporated into the design staff
and the applicant have taken care to design driveway placements to maximize the
amount of on street parking. A condition is included to verify these driveway locations
with other streetscape components to ensure adequate space for parking, driveways,
and street trees.
Sidewalks will be installed on both sides of all streets. In addition to pedestrian
crossings at street intersections, midblock crossings will be placed between Cottonwood
Road and Suncrest Drive and between Suncrest Drive and Oakwood Road. A sidewalk
across Outlot C will extend from the midblock crossing between Cottonwood Road and
Suncrest Drive to the park to the east. The sidewalk along Green Hills Drive will widen
and enter the park, where an existing gravel path will be paved. Other paths in the park
will remain as unpaved trails per Parks and Recreation Department standards. Access
to the park is limited to only the locations identified on the Site Development Plan.
Parking
After researching parking for clubhouses in other development in Ames, staff concluded
that the parking for a neighborhood clubhouse should be treated as an accessory use to
the development much like a clubhouse in an apartment complex. The clubhouse is
centrally located and walkable for the residents. No on-site parking is therefore
proposed. The developer proposes providing five enhanced, public, on-street spaces
adjacent to the clubhouse on Suncrest Drive. In addition to on-street parking on one
side of each street, there will be public spaces on Green Hills Drive next to
Christofferson Park.
The distance between the curbs has been widened on Suncrest Drive by the clubhouse
to provide five striped spaces, including one handicap space. The distance between the
curbs has been widened on Green Hills Drive to provide parking on the northbound
(east) side of the street, where parking would otherwise be prohibited. Staff has
included a condition to leave these unmarked as parallel parking spaces, this is
consistent with typical residential parking specifications.
Parking for sales trailer is based on the size of the building, 720 square feet. The Zoning
Ordinance requires one space per 300 square feet for office use. The applicant is
providing 3 spaces, one of which will be ADA compliant.
Each single-family home will have a minimum of a two-car garage. One home plan
would allow for a three-car garage. Due to the request for reduced front yard setbacks
for five lots, these homes will not have a driveway that is long enough for parking of
vehicles without obstructing a public sidewalk. Obstructing a sidewalk is prohibited by
the Ames Municipal Code. The sidewalk design currently is proposed to move sidewalk
closer to the street to minimize the potential obstructions. The other lots will all have
driveways of at least 20 feet to allow for parking of vehicle between the garage door and
the sidewalk.
See Attachment G, Site Development Plan
Landscaping
The neighborhood will comply with the street tree requirements of Sec. 23.402. The
street tree requirement is intended to have overstory trees planted approximately every
50 feet. There is also diversity of tree species requirement for street trees. The City
Forester reviews and approves street tree plantings. Homes with reduced front yard
setbacks will likely have smaller tree plantings due to the reduction in space. Final tree
selections will be verified as part of a final plat of an addition. As noted earlier there is
condition to coordinate final driveway designs with street tree plantings.
Landscaping, including shrubs and trees, will be installed around the clubhouse
consistent with commercial front yard planting requirements. Due to the reduced
setbacks there will be smaller ornamental trees rather than over-story trees that are
typically required in front yard landscaping. Changes to the typical standards are
permissible as part of the PRD review.
See Attachment G, Site Development Plan
Open Space
The open space improvements and amenities have been designed with the residents of
the community in mind. As a “Life-Care” community, there are a variety of users and
range of abilities/limitations to be considered. The open space and amenities are
intended to provide both an active (i.e. walking, running) and passive (i.e. sitting,
viewing, listening) experience. A minimum landscaped open space requirement of 40%
is required for the F-PRD zone. The site includes 41% open space. The outlots and
7.579 acres or about 32% of the site, including right-of-way. The home lot area occupies
12.095 acres or about 51% of the site. The rest of the site, 4.09 acres or about 17% of
the site, is right-of-way.
Neighborhood Signage
The developer is proposing two subdivision signs:
- One at the southwest corner of the intersection of Oakwood Road and Green
Hills Drive
- One at the north side of Cottonwood Road on the east side of the development
The applicant has proposed the following standards:
- 6-foot high
- Reflected light for illumination
- White brick background
- Black lettering
- Square D in the middle of the sign cut into rusted metal
The clubhouse will a minor amount of wall signage identifying as the Domani
Clubhouse along with directional signage.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) Related Goals and Objectives.
GOAL 4. It is the goal of Ames to create a greater sense of place and connectivity,
physically and psychologically, in building a neighborhood and overall community
identity and spirit. It is the further goal of the community to assure a healthier, safe, and
attractive environment.
Objectives. In achieving an integrated community and more desirable environment,
Ames seeks the following objectives.
4.A. Ames seeks to establish more integrated and compact living/activity areas (i.e.
neighborhoods, villages) wherein daily living requirements and amenities are provided
in a readily identifiable and accessible area. Greater emphasis is placed on the
pedestrian and related activities.
GOAL 6. It is the goal of Ames to increase the supply of housing and to provide a wider
range of housing choices.
Objectives. In increasing housing opportunities, Ames seeks the following objectives.
6.C. Ames seeks to establish higher densities in existing areas where residential
intensification is designated with the further objective that there shall be use and
appearance compatibility among existing and new development.
Future Land Use Map.
The Land Use Policy Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as Village /
Suburban Residential, the designation given upon annexation for land designated in the
Ames Urban Fringe Plan (AUFP) as Urban Residential.
See Attachment B, LUPP Future Land Use Map.
Proposed Zoning.
Ames Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 15007, Zoning Text and Map Amendments,
includes requirements for owners of land to submit a petition for amendment, a
provision to allow the City Council to impose conditions on map amendments,
provisions for notice to the public, and time limits for the processing of rezoning
proposals.
The proposed zoning is Planned Residence District (F-PRD) which is permissible with
any underlying LUPP Future Land Use Map designation for residential. See Attachment
C, Proposed Zoning Map.
Ames Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 1203, Planned Residence District, includes
development principles, uses that are permitted, and supplemental development
standards that apply to properties in this zone. See Attachment D, Findings Regarding
F-PRD Development Principles, and Attachment E, Findings Regarding F-PRD
Supplemental Development Standards.
Property developed according to the F-PRD requirements allows for innovative housing
types and creates a development pattern that is more aesthetic in design and sensitive
to the natural features of the site and to surrounding uses of land than would
customarily result from the application of the requirements of other residential zoning
districts. Development is to include a mix of housing types, integrated design, open
space, site amenities, and landscaping that exceeds the requirements that exist in other
residential zone development standards.
Planned Residence District (F-PRD) Development Principles.
Property that is zoned F-PRD must adhere to the development principles in Ames
Municipal Code Section 29.1203(2). See Attachment D, Findings Regarding F-PRD
Development Principles.
Planned Residence District (F-PRD) Supplemental Development Standards.
Property that is zoned F-PRD must also be developed according to the supplemental
development standards in Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1203(5). See Attachment
E, Findings Regarding F-PRD Supplemental Development Standards.
Major Site Development Plan Design Standards.
The F-PRD rezoning requires an accompanying major site development plan. This plan
describes all aspects of the site. See Attachment G, Site Development Plan. Additional
criteria and standards for review of all Major Site Development Plans are found in Ames
Municipal Code Section 29.1502(4) (d). See Attachment F, Findings Regarding Major
Site Development Plan Design Standards.
Development Agreement.
A development agreement is required between the developer and the City for work
inside Christofferson Park and for work to be done in public rights-of-way.
Meetings/Public Notice.
The developer held a virtual neighborhood meeting early in the process of developing
plans for the site. The developer indicated that concerns about the project included the
lot layout and house design, drainage design, and location of common areas.
Public noticing requirements are included in Ames Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section
1500(2)(d). Notice was mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject site and
a sign was posted on the subject property. Staff has received no direct comments at this
time.
Due to the proposed changes to the City’s park, the project was reviewed by the City’s
Parks and Recreation Board in July of 2020. The Board recommend allowing for the
proposed changes at the developer’s expense. City Council will consider this
recommendation with the PRD review.
Attachment A
Aerial and Existing Zoning Map
The existing zoning of the property is Agricultural (A).
Attachment B
Land Use Policy Plan Future Land Use Map &
Ames Urban Fringe Plan
Attachment C
Proposed Zoning Map
The proposed zoning for the subject property is Planned Residence District (F-PRD).
Attachment D
Findings Regarding Planned Residence District (F-PRD)
Development Principles
Property that is zoned F-PRD shall be developed in accordance with the Zone
Development Principles listed in Section 29.1203(2). Each principle is addressed below.
1. Provide for innovative and imaginative approaches to residential
development that would not occur as a result of the underlying zoning
regulations.
Domani will have zero-lot-line placement of single-family houses on 51 of the 63
lots. The diminished setback on one side of the lot will be balanced with a large
setback of at least 10 feet on the opposite side to create a wide side yard,
described by the applicant as a “courtyard,” though the space will not be
enclosed on all sides by building. Of the 51 zero-lot-line lots, 27 of them will be
smaller than 6,000 square feet, the minimum for the base zoning district of RL.
The community will also have a clubhouse with a pool.
2. Result in a more efficient, aesthetic, desirable and economic use of land
and other resources while maintaining density of use, as provided for in
the Land Use Policy Plan and the underlying zoning.
The Domani property was annexed to the City in 2019 when the LUPP
designation Village / Suburban Residential was applied.
The proposed development provides for smaller lot sizes and compact
development on a site that has a large area devoted to drainage. The drainage
features have accounted for the recurring problems in the area and serve to
adequately mitigate flooding. The development also provides for numerous
pedestrian connections to the park from the south and the west.
The open space percentage for the development is 41%. The proposed density
is 5.21 dwelling units per acre.
3. Promote innovative housing development that emphasizes efficient and
affordable home ownership and occupancy.
The Domani development is following an existing model of zero-lot-line homes.
The homebuilder, Epcon, has several developments in Iowa, mostly in the Des
Moines area, and numerous other developments around the country with the
same home models.
The zero-lot-line homes will be primarily one story with small yards requiring little
maintenance.
4. Provide for flexibility in the design, height, and placement of buildings that
are compatible with and integrate with existing, developed neighborhoods
and the natural environment.
The development will have two pieces: 51 zero-lot-line and 12 custom home
sites. The zero-lot-line homes will be on a mix of lot sizes: 27 smaller than 6,000
square feet, the minimum for the base zoning, RL, and 24 larger. The zero-lot-
line lot sizes are not uniform, but most will be under 60 feet in width. The lots for
the custom-built homes are larger: five are less than 8,000 square feet and seven
are greater than 20,000 square feet.
The development will abide by the PRD requirements that the perimeter setbacks
comply with the base zoning, RL in this case. The setbacks will be 8 feet along
the west perimeter on Suncrest Drive (side lot line), 8 feet along the east
perimeter on Cottonwood Road (side lot line), 20 on west perimeter adjacent to
2212 Oakwood Road (rear lot line), and 20 feet on the east perimeter adjacent to
Christofferson Park for Lot 35. The applicant has indicated that the zero-lot-line
homes will be single-story.
The applicant intends for the architectural style of the zero-lot-line homes to be
“modern farmhouse.”
5. Promote aesthetic building architecture, significant availability of open
space, well designed and landscaped off-street parking facilities that meet
or exceed the underlying zone development standards, more recreation
facilities than would result from conventional development, and pedestrian
and vehicular linkages within and adjacent to the property.
The applicant intends for the zero-lot-line homes to have a “modern farmhouse”
aesthetic. The development will meet the minimum open space requirement of
40%; Domani has 41% open space overall. There will be no off-street parking
lots.
Recreational facilities are to be found primarily in the community clubhouse, with
accompanying swimming pool. Outlot C will have a pedestrian path connecting to
Christofferson Park.
The new neighborhood will also connect the existing street grid, providing access
to Christofferson Park for the neighborhoods to the west and southeast.
(See Attachment G, Site Development Plan)
6. Provide for the preservation of identified natural, geologic, historic and
cultural resources, drainage ways, floodplains, water bodies, and other
unique site features through the careful placement of buildings and site
improvements.
The development will account for natural stormwater drainage at the southern
portion of the site that flows across the lot from the west and onto Christofferson
Park to the east. The site will have five drainage / stormwater outlots containing
three ponds to manage the water. The Public Works Department has reviewed
the proposed design and is satisfied that it will not increase stormwater runoff
onto adjacent properties, nor adversely affect drainage in nearby neighbors or
the City park. The proposed design meets all quality, quantity, and protection
requirements of the Chapter 5b.
7. Provide for a development design that can be more efficiently served by
existing and proposed infrastructure, including: street, water, sewer, and
storm water infrastructure, than would be otherwise required as a result of
conventional development.
The design of the neighborhood will connect existing street stubs (one for
Suncrest Drive, two for Cottonwood Road) to complete the street grid via the
spine of Green Hills Drive. Domani will have five street outlets, including the
extension of Green Hills Drive to the south, which becomes Lunetta Drive when it
turns to the west.
The stormwater infrastructure is designed to meet City standards.
All utilities will be able to be extended to serve Domani in an efficient manner.
Attachment E
Findings Regarding Planned Residence District (F-PRD)
Supplemental Development Standards
Property that is zoned F-PRD shall be developed in accordance with the Zone
Development Standards listed in Table 29.1203(5). Each standard is addressed below.
1. Area Requirement. A minimum of two (2) acres shall be required for all
areas developed as F-PRD.
The subject site includes 23.764 acres.
2. Density. Densities shall comply with the densities provided for in the Land
Use Policy Plan and the underlying base zone regulations. In the case of
more than one base zone designation, each area of the PRD project shall
comply with the density limitation that is established for the base zone of
that area. Density transfer from one area of a PRD project to another area
of the same project with a lower base zone density is not permitted.
Underlying Base Zone: Suburban Residential Floating Zone – Residential Low
Density
Proposed Density: 5.21 Dwelling Units / Acre
Maximum Density: 7.26 Dwelling Units / Acre
3. Height Limitations. Structures proposed to be developed in areas zoned
PRD shall be compatible with the predominant height of the structures in
adjacent neighborhoods.
The applicant has not stated that the maximum height will differ from the base
district (RL) where the maximum is 40 feet or 3 stories, whichever is lower. This
restriction mirrors or is more restrictive that the adjacent districts where the
maximum height is:
- RL – mirrors PRD
- RL – same as base district in PRD
- A – mirrors PRD
- FS-RM – PRD is more restrictive
- S-GA – district assigned to government property (city, county,
state): no limit given
4. Minimum Yard and Setback Requirements. There are no specified yard and
setback requirements in areas zoned PRD, except that structures
constructed adjacent to public right-of-way and adjacent to the exterior
boundary of an area zoned PRD shall comply with setback standards of the
underlying base zoning regulations, unless there are physical features on
the site that would justify a different setback than provided for in the base
zone.
The exterior of Domani will have 8-foot setbacks for two lots at the western edge
of the development on Suncrest Drive, 8-foot setbacks for one lot at the eastern
edge of the development on Cottonwood Road, 20-foot setbacks for fix lots at the
north end of Green Hills Drive abutting property to the west, and a 20-foot
setback from Christofferson Park, affecting Lot 35.
Staff researched reduced setbacks in previous PRDs, including Ringgenberg
Park where the base zoning district is RL and the setbacks were reduced to 20
feet along public streets. Domani proposes to have minimum front setbacks 8
feet to the public right-of-way for specified lots and for the clubhouse.
5. Parking Requirements. Parking for uses permitted in areas zoned PRD
shall comply with the parking standards in Section 29.406.
The PRD requirements stipulate that parking must comply with the minimums
listed in Sec. 29.406. Staff has determined that the private, community clubhouse
is no different than the clubhouse for an apartment complex, which does not
require parking in excess of that required for the individual apartment units. As
such, there will be no off-street parking. The developer has agreed to widen the
roadway and provide five, on-street, spaces adjacent to the clubhouse.
All homes will meet minimum parking requirements with at least a two-car
garage. Homes with setbacks less than 20 feet will not have permissible
driveway parking as extra parking for a household.
6. Open Space Design Requirements. Open Space shall be designed as a
significant and integrated feature of the entire area to be developed as a
PRD project.
The open space for Domani consists primarily of drainage and stormwater
ponds. The development does, however, provide pedestrian connections to
Christofferson Park.
7. Open Space Area Requirement. The area devoted to open space in a PRD
project shall meet the landscape and open space requirements as set forth
in the base zone standards.
A minimum open space requirement of 40% is required for the F-PRD zone,
given its base zone of Residential Low Density (RL). The development will be
41% open.
8. Open Space Improvements and Amenities.
The open space improvements include improved access to Christofferson Park
for Domani residents and the neighborhoods to the west. The primary Domani
amenity is the clubhouse and swimming pool.
9. Maintenance of Open Space and Site Amenities.
All maintenance of Open Space and Site Amenities will be provided by the
Domani Homeowners’ Association.
Attachment F
Findings Regarding Major Site Development Plan Criteria
Additional criteria and standards for review of all Major Site Development Plans are
found in Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1502(4)(d) and include the following
requirements.
1. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provisions for
surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of
surface water to adjacent and downstream property.
The proposed expansion includes development of new stormwater detention
facilities to meet the City’s Municipal Code requirements to capture specified
quantities of water and treat it for water quality before releasing it from the site. The
treatment facilities are located on five outlots, spread throughout the development.
The outlots contain three stormwater retention / detention ponds.
2. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for
connection to water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and other utility lines within
the capacity limits of those utility lines.
The provision and extension of utilities was reviewed and found adequate to support
the anticipated load of the proposed development.
3. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for
fire protection through building placement, acceptable location of flammable
materials, and other measures to ensure fire safety.
The fire inspector has reviewed access and fire truck circulation and found that the
needs of the fire department are met. Upon completion, the site will have four street
connections and a stub for a fifth.
4. The design of the proposed development shall not increase the danger of
erosion, flooding, landslide, or other endangerment to adjoining and
surrounding property.
The proposed development is not anticipated to create a danger. Stormwater
facilities are located on five outlots containing three stormwater ponds.
5. Natural topographic and landscape features of the site shall be incorporated
into the development design.
There are no notable topographic features of the site. Most of the site is farm field
and is mostly devoid of existing landscaping and trees.
6. The design of the interior vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall provide for
convenient flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall prevent
hazards to adjacent streets or property.
The proposed development connects all existing streets stubs currently terminating
at the property line of the site. The street grid will be extended at the southern end
with a new street stub to the west, towards Cedar Lane. Sidewalks are provided on
both sides of all streets with crossings at street intersections. Two midblock
pedestrian crossings across Green Hills Drive are located between Oakwood Road
and Suncrest Drive and between Suncrest Drive and Cottonwood Road.
7. The design of outdoor parking areas, storage yards, trash and dumpster
areas, and other exterior features shall be adequately landscaped or screened
to minimize potential nuisance and impairment to the use of adjoining
property.
Landscaping will be provided around the clubhouse. The general development
standards of the zoning ordinance have been met, including street trees in
accordance with Sec. 23.402.
8. The proposed development shall limit entrances and exits upon adjacent
streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent and surrounding streets
and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement.
The development complies with development standards for connecting existing
street stubs and providing for the projection of future streets to the southwest.
9. Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in
order to maintain adequate security, while preventing a nuisance or hardship
to adjacent property or streets.
Lighting details will be provided at the time of building permit. The lighting plan will
be required to meet the City’s standards for “dark sky” protection.
10. The proposed development shall ensure that dust and other forms of air
pollution, noise disturbances, odor, glare, and other nuisances will be limited
to acceptable levels as prescribed in other applicable State and City
regulations.
The proposed development is not expected to generate any nuisances as a
residential development.
11. Site coverage, building scale, setbacks, and open spaces shall be in
proportion with the development property and with existing and planned
development and structures, in adjacent and surrounding property.
The site layout and proposed buildings are of a scale compatible to the surrounding
uses. The neighborhoods to the west are single-family, as will Domani. The
residential areas to the east are of a higher density.
Attachment G
Site Development Plan Package
Site Layout
Phasing Plan
Phase Plan – Detail of Sales Trailer
Site Plan – North
Site Plan – South
Site Plan – Clubhouse
Site Plan – Clubhouse Landscaping
Attachment H
Preliminary Plat Package
Site Layout
Preliminary Plat Layout – North
Preliminary Plat Layout – South
Street Trees – North
Street Trees – South
Attachment I
Home Placement on Lots
Housing Key
Home Placement - North
Home Placement - South
Home Placement – All
Attachment J
Model Homes – P Series
Attachment K
Additional Material Submitted by the Applicant
1
ITEM#: 33
DATE: 09-08-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2017/2018 MAIN STREET PAVERS (CLARK – BURNETT)
BACKGROUND:
This project provides for the replacement of the pavers in the Main Street corridor. These
pavers were installed with the Main Street Reconstruction project in 1999. At that time,
the pavers were an aesthetic upgrade to traditional concrete sidewalks. Over time, the
pavers have proven to be difficult to maintain. Uneven pavers appear every year, and
Public Works Operations crews spend a considerable amount of time to level or replace
pavers. Individual replacement pavers are now in short supply as the original pavers are
not produced anymore. Winter ice control chemicals applied by adjacent businesses have
led to accelerated deterioration of the pavers, especially on the southern side of Main
Street where the building provides continuous shade in the winter and no sunlight reaches
the sidewalk to aid in melting the snow and ice.
This is the first phase of the Main Street Pavers replacement program, which will remove
and replace pavers along both sides of Main Street between Clark Avenue and Burnett
Avenue. Staff has worked closely with Ames Main Street and the Public Art Commission
to finalize details such as paver colors and patterns. Staff received direction from City
Council at the July 28, 2020 Council meeting regarding these items and also regarding
City Council’s desire to deaccession and remove the wall at Tom Evans Plaza.
On September 2, 2020 bids were received as follows:
Bidder Base+Alt A Base+Alt B
Amount Amount
Engineer’s estimate $165,068.00 $180,638.00
Pillar, Inc $169,571.46 $175,408.46
Day Construction Services $173,399.58 $178,484.90
Minturn, Inc $184,269.00 $194,649.00
Staff has completed plans and specifications for this contract which include a Base Bid
(removal of pavers, concrete repair, etc.), an Alternate Bid A (straight line paver pattern),
and an Alternate Bid B (curved line paver pattern). Based on the bids received, staff
recommends the award of the Base Bid plus Alternate B, which aligns with the
desire of Ames Main Street to match the existing colors and pattern along Main
Street.
2
The plans and specifications prepared do not include the removal of the Tom Evans
wall and associated items. However, staff will evaluate the proposed costs to add
these items by change order into the project once a successful bidder is under
contract.
The table below indicates estimated expenses and funding sources:
Funding Source
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
2017/18 Main Street Pavers (Clark to Burnett) $171,000
2018/19 Main Street Pavers (Burnett to Kellogg) 171,000
2019/20 Main Street Pavers (Kellogg to Douglas) 190,000
Return to Road Use Tax Fund for COVID-19 Shortfall (165,697)
2020/21 Main Street Pavers (Douglas to Duff) 88,000
Public Art Commission Wall Demolition Support 1,500
Removal of Wall and Replacement of Pavers at Tom Evans Plaza (est.) $ 24,445.00
2017/2018 Main Street Pavers (Clark to Burnett) Base Bid + Alt B 175,408.46
Engineering $ 5,000.00
$455,803 $204,853.46
In response to the COVID-19 related shortfall in Road Use Tax revenues in FY 2019/20,
$165,697 in funds allocated to this project were returned to the fund balance (as shown
in the table above). Depending on the bids received for future phases of the Paver
Replacement project, additional revenues may need to be allocated in a future CIP to
address funding for the overall Paver Replacement Program.
Staff has been in contact with adjacent businesses to discuss the project and
associated access issues to minimize business impact during construction.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2017/2018 Main Street Pavers (Clark to
Burnett) project.
b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project.
c. Award the 2017/2018 Main Street Pavers (Clark to Burnett) project Base
Bid plus Alternate B to Pillar, Inc of Huxley, IA in the amount of $175,408.46
2. Award the contract to one of the other bidders.
3. Do not proceed with this project.
3
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The pavers along Main Street are beginning to fail at an accelerated rate. Removal and
replacement are necessary to ensure the sidewalks are safe for pedestrian usage and to
enhance the visual aesthetic along the Main Street corridor. The replacement paver
details have been coordinated with Ames Main Street, Public Art Commission, and the
City Council. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.