HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - October 27, 2020, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL*
OCTOBER 27, 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.
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
1. Hearing on Final Metropolitan Transportation Plan - “Forward 45":
a. Resolution approving 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.
PROCLAMATION:
1. Proclamation for “Lung Cancer Awareness Month,” November 2020
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
2. Motion approving payment of claims
3. Motion approving Minutes of Special Joint City Council and Student Government meeting held
October 13, 2020, and Regular City Council meeting held October 13, 2020
4. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period October 1 - 15, 2020
5. Motion approving Class E Liquor License Premise Update - Kum & Go #1113, 2801 E. 13th
Street - Pending Final Inspection
6. Motion approving a New 12 month Class C Liquor License with a Class B Wine Permit and
Outdoor Service - Ichiban Japanese Restaurant, 117 Welch Ave - Pending Final Inspection and
DRAM Shop
7. Resolution approving Quarterly Investment Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2020
8. Resolution setting date of public hearing for December 8, 2020, regarding the Amendment to the
28E Agreement between the City of Ames and the City of Nevada pertaining the establishment
of a division line between corporate boundaries
9.Resolution approving Amendment of Aircraft Hangar Site Lease 25-year lease extension with bridge
period for Hap’s Air Service
10. 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program (Lincoln Way and Beach):
a. Resolution approving 50-year Traffic Signal Easement from Iowa State University for the
portion of signal equipment on Iowa State property and authorize City staff to approve any
de minimis changes required by the Attorney General and Board of Regents offices
b. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2019/20 Traffic Signal
Program; setting December 2, 2020, as bid due date and December 8, 2020, as date of public
hearing
11. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Inis Grove Park Sidewalk Project;
setting December 2, 2020, as bid due date and December 8, 2020, as date of public hearing
12. Resolution approving Agreement for the 2020/21 Regional Count Program (Traffic Data Service
and Analytical Platform) with StreetLight Data, Inc., of San Francisco, California, in an amount
not to exceed $64,900
13. Resolution approving contract and bond for Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul
14. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2018/19 Shared Use Path System Expansion (Trail
Connection South of Lincoln Way)
15. Resolution accepting completion of 2018/19 Water System Improvements (Burnett & Murray)
16. Resolution accepting completion of 2014/15 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation Program
(Somerset Subdivision)
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
2
time is it appropriate to use profane, obscene, or slanderous language. The Mayor may limit each
speaker to three minutes.
PLANNING & HOUSING:
17. Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue) Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Development
Proposals:
a. Resolution selecting partner on a LIHTC application and development of the site at 321 State
Avenue with affordable multi-family housing and directing staff to prepare an Agreement
18. Domani Subdivision, First Addition:
a. Resolution approving Development Agreement
b. Resolution approving Final Plat
PUBLIC WORKS:
19. Resolution approving Airport Master Plan
HEARINGS:
20. Hearing on proposed text amendments regarding the new flood plain maps, updated definitions,
and amended terminology used in Chapter 9 of the Ames Municipal Code:
a. First passage of Ordinance
21. Hearing on zoning text amendments regarding the extension of building features into required
setbacks:
a. Motion to continue hearing to November 10, 2020
22. Hearing on the Environmental Information Document for the North River Valley Well Field and
Pipeline Project:
a. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the IDNR Environmental Information Document
on behalf of the City of Ames
23. Hearing on Unit 8 Boiler Repair:
a. Motion accepting the report of bids and delaying award
24. Hearing on Baker Subdivision Geothermal Heat Pump System:
a. Motion accepting the report of bids and delaying award
25. Hearing on Amended Major Site Development Plan, which is part of the Integrated Site Plan for
3619 Stange Road:
a. Resolution approving Amended Major Site Development Plan, with stipulations
ORDINANCE:
26. First passage of ordinance repealing the following Urban Revitalization Areas, effective 12-31-
2020 for each of the following:
a. South Lincoln “Sub-Area”/Neighborhood Urban Revitalization Area, established 09-23-03
by Ordinance No. 3733
b. 405 & 415 Hayward Avenue Urban Revitalization Area, established 11-20-2007 by
Ordinance No. 3932
c. 517 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area, established 02-24-2015 by Ordinance No. 4209
3
d. Roosevelt School Site and City of Ames Park 921 9th Street Urban Revitalization Area
established 11-12-2013 by Ordinance No. 4162, and Program Policy established by
Resolution No. 13-265
And additionally by establishing a sunset date of 12-31-2021 for each of the following:
a. Walnut Ridge, 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area, established 04-26-16
by Ordinance No. 4254
b. 2700, 2702, 2718, and 2728 Lincoln Way; 112 and 114 South Hyland Avenue; and 115 South
Sheldon Avenue Urban Revitalization Area, established 12-13-2016 by Ordinance No. 4284
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
4
ITEM # AAMPO 1
DATE: 10-27-20
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO) TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 2045 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, reviewed the public input process for the plan, the “universe of
alternatives” list of potential projects, and the performance measures (scoring criteria)
for the plan.
On September 8, 2020, the Ames Area MPO Policy Committee was given a presentation
from HDR that included the performance measures and resultant project scoring. An
overview of the funding summary to show the estimated budget for the next 25 years of
federally aided transportation improvements was shown. The Policy Committee had the
opportunity to give direction to HDR and staff for any desired changes to the plan.
STATUS UPDATE: The Draft 2045 MTP was presented to the Policy Committee and was approved on September 22, 2020. A 30-day public comment period then began following the Policy Committee meeting which was closed on October 22, 2020. All comments received from ublic and oversight/partner agencies were minor and were incorporated into the final document. See attachment for a list of all comments. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Final 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2. Approve the Final 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan with Modifications ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is important to note that the development of the plan has followed Federal performance-based planning requirements. In following the Federally mandated MTP development process, these requirements provide a framework on how projects are included (or not) in the plan and the timing of those projects. Project prioritization must follow this framework and individual projects that rank lower through these performance measures cannot be randomly given a higher priority. Giving a project higher priority that is contrary to the performance-based ranking would violate Federal process causing the plan to be rejected. The Final Metropolitan Transportation Plan addresses all received feedback since the approval of the draft document. Therefore, the Administrator recommends that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above.
| 1
Forward 2045 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan
Ames Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization
OCTOBER 27, 2020
CONTENTS
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction and Goals
Chapter 6
Alternatives Development
and Evaluation
Chapter 2
Regional Trends
Chapter 7
Fiscally Constrained Plan
Chapter 3 Existing System Performance Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Chapter 4 Future Trends and Needs Chapter 9 MTP Engagement
Chapter 5 Financial Plan Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance
| ii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Population of Ames Urbanized Area by Race .................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2-2: Households with Limited English-Speaking Proficiency ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Table 2-3: Percent of Households Living Below the Poverty Level .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 2-4: Occupation by Industry for the Ames Urbanized Area ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Table 2-5: Means to Work for Residents of the Ames Urbanized Area ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2-6: Travel Time to Work for Ames Urbanized Area Residents.......................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 2-7: Student vs. Non-Student Transit Usage for Commuting ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 3-1: Summary of Functionally-Classified Roads by Peak Hour Level of Service ....................................................................................................... 30
Table 3-2: Condition of AAMPO Bridges .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 3-3: AAMPO Bridge Condition by Total Deck Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 3-4: Pavement Condition Ratings for Non-Interstate, Non-NHS Roads ...................................................................................................................... 36
Table 3-5: Pavement Condition Ratings for NHS Routes ................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 3-6: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 3-7: Transit Services in the AAMPO Region .............................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 4-1: Projected Regional Growth Trends, 2015-2045 ............................................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 4-2: System Wide Statistics for the E+C 2045 Scenario ...................................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 5-1: MPO TIP Funding ($ 1000's) by Program Source, 2010-2020 ($ 2020) ................................................................................................................. 91
Table 5-2: Historical Funding Levels ($ 1000's) from Federal Sources, 2010-2020 .............................................................................................................. 93
Table 5-3: Historical FTA Funding ($ 1000's), 2010-2020 ................................................................................................................................................................. 94
Table 5-4: Historic Local Revenue Levels ($ 1000's), 2010-2020 ................................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 5-5: City of Ames and City of Gilbert Operations and Maintenance Expenditures ($ 1000's), 2010-2020 .................................................... 96
Table 5-6: Future Year Federal Funding Level Forecasts by Time Period ($ 1000's) .......................................................................................................... 97
Table 5-7: Forecasted Local Revenue and O&M Costs ($ 1000's) for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert by Time Period ....................................... 98
Table 5-8: Historic System Improvement and System Addition Spending Breakdowns .................................................................................................. 99
Table 5-9: Formula-Based Federal Funding Levels for System Preservation and System Improvement Projects .............................................. 99
Table 5-10: Local Funding Levels for System Preservation and System Improvement Projects ................................................................................. 100
Table 6-1: Alternative Project Scoring Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 103
Table 6-2: Pros, Cons, Timeframe, and Impact of Strategies Related to Ames .................................................................................................................... 123
| iii
Table 6-3. Potential Implementation Actions ........................................................................................................................................................................................127
Table 7-1: List of Committed Roadway Projects from the AAMPO 2021-2024 TIP ............................................................................................................. 135
Table 7-2: List of Committed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects from the AAMPO 2021-2024 TIP ............................................................................... 136
Table 7-3: Committed Transit Projects for CyRide's Fixed-Route and Paratransit Systems.......................................................................................... 137
Table 7-4: Fiscally Constrained Roadway Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................ 140
Table 7-5: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ............................................................................................................................................... 142
Table 7-6: Fiscally Constrained Transit Projects ................................................................................................................................................................................. 145
Table 7-7: Summary of Revenue Levels and Project Costs for the Fiscally Constrained Roadway Plan ................................................................. 146
Table 7-8: Summary of Revenue Levels and Project Costs for the Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan .................................... 147
Table 7-9: Coordinated Roadway and Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ................................................................................................................................. 148
Table 7-10: Illustrative Roadway Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 149
Table 7-11: Illustrative Transit Projects ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 7-12: Developer-Driven and Unfunded Iowa DOT Projects .............................................................................................................................................. 152
Table 7-13: Comparison of System-Wide Performance Statistics for Existing, E+C, and E+C+P Scenarios ........................................................ 155
Table 10-1: Forward 2045 Planning Element Consistency with National Planning Factors ........................................................................................... 192
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: AAMPO Planning Area .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 3-1: Functional Classifications for the AAMPO Roadways ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 3-2: Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-3: Existing Peak Period Traffic Operations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3-4: Monthly TTTR for the AAMPO Region, 2017-2018 ......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-5: Passenger Vehicle Travel Reliability, 2018 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-6: AAMPO Bridge Locations ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3-7: Pavement Condition Ratings for AAMPO Roads .......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3-8: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2014-2018 .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-9: Fatal and Serious Crash Rates per 100 Million VMT, 2014-2018 ........................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3-10: Non-Motorized Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2014-2018 ............................................................................................................................... 40
| iv
Figure 3-11: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 3-12: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 3-13: CyRide Fall 2019 Route Network ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 3-14: Annual Fixed-Route and Paratransit Ridership, 2005-2019 ................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4-1: Projected Household Growth by TAZ, 2015-2045 ......................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 4-2: Growth of Non-Residential Land Use, 2015-2045 ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 4-3: 2015 ADTs and Forecasted E+C 2045 ADTs .................................................................................................................................................................. 67
Figure 4-4: Peak Hour Traffic Operations for the E+C 2045 Scenario ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 4-5: Ames Existing and Planned Bicycle Network and Future Land Use ................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 4-6: CyRide System and Household Density in 2045 .......................................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 4-7: CyRide System and Future Land Use ................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 5-1: Historical STBG and TAP Funding Levels ($ 1000's) for the Ames Area MPO ............................................................................................... 92
Figure 6-1: FHWA Bikeway Selection Guidance .................................................................................................................................................................................. 113
Figure 6-2: Application of Pedestrian Countermeasures by Roadway Feature .................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 6-3: Alternative Roadway Projects by Scoring Tier ............................................................................................................................................................. 119
Figure 6-4: Alternative Bike and Pedestrian Projects by Scoring Tier ..................................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 6-5: Alternative Bike and Pedestrian Crossing Projects by Scoring Tier .................................................................................................................. 121
Figure 6-6: Results of Public Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 125
Figure 7-1: Fiscally Constrained Roadway Projects by Implementation Timeframe ........................................................................................................... 141
Figure 7-2: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ............................................................................................................................................. 144
Figure 7-3: Fiscally Constrained and Alternative Roadway Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 154
Figure 7-4: Existing and 2045 E+C+P Annual ADTs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 157
Figure 7-5: 2045 E+C+P Roadway Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 8-1: Physical Environmental Constraints ................................................................................................................................................................................. 162
Figure 8-2: Human Environmental Constraints ................................................................................................................................................................................... 163
Figure 8-3: Identified Environmental Justice Populations ...............................................................................................................................................................172
Figure 8-4: Fiscally-Constrained Projects Proximity to Environmental Justice Populations ......................................................................................... 175
Figure 9-1: Most Important Transportation Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................. 178
Figure 9-2: Importance of Long-Range Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 178
| v
Figure 9-3: Overall Ames Transportation Rating ................................................................................................................................................................................ 178
Figure 9-4: Improvements to the Ames Transportation System ................................................................................................................................................. 180
Figure 9-5: Which THREE of the Following Would Encourage You to Use a Mode of Transportation Other than Driving a Personal
Vehicle to Complete Your Daily Trips? .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 182
Figure 9-6: What Method of Transportation Do You Normally Use to Go to School/Work? ......................................................................................... 182
Figure 9-7: Which THREE of the Items below Do You Think are the Most Important Transportation Issues? ..................................................... 183
Figure 9-8: Which THREE of the Following Characteristics of the Ames Area Transportation System Do You Think are Most Important
for the Future ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 184
Figure 9-9: Public Comments for Potential Roadway Strategies ................................................................................................................................................ 187
Figure 9-10: Public Comments for Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ..................................................................................................................... 188
Figure 9-11: Public Comments for Potential Transit Projects ........................................................................................................................................................ 189
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10CHAPTER 4
Chapter 1
Introduction and Goals
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 1
Chapter 1 Introduction and Goals
Introduction
Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) is a federally-mandated organization that is responsible for the
expenditures for transportation projects and programs that are based on a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing planning
process. AAMPO was designated as the MPO of the Ames urbanized area in 2003, when the population exceeded 50,000. Since its
designation, the MPO has expanded it’s boundary to include the City of Gilbert. The current MPO planning area, shown in Figure 1-1,
was approved in 2012.
In addition to the Cities of Ames and Gilbert, there are seven other member jurisdictions comprising AAMPO:
• •
• •
• •
•
Two committees govern AAMPO:
• Transportation Policy Committee (TPC): Provides policy direction for the development of regional long-range transportation
planning and selects projects within the metropolitan area for inclusion in a short-range Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The TPC consists of the City of Ames mayor and city council, Boone and Story County representatives, a CyRide
representative, and a City of Gilbert Representative. Non-voting representatives from the Iowa Department of Transportation
(DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Iowa State University are also TPC
members.
• Transportation Technical Committee (TTC): Serves as the technical advisory body to the TPC and consists of professionals
representing various transportation-related agencies within the MPO area, including the City of Ames, Story and Boone
Counties, Iowa DOT, FHWA, FTA, and Iowa State University.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 3
Metropolitan Transportation Plan
AAMPO is updating its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), Forward 2045. This Plan acts as the framework for guiding the MPO’s
transportation investments and policy decisions over the next 25 years by identifying a regional vision for the multi-modal
transportation system through stakeholder and community input. Goals and objectives, based on this vision, were developed to
articulate the actionable strategies available to the MPO for
realizing this vision. Included in Forward 2045 is a prioritized list
of multimodal system improvements that fit within the fiscal
constraints of AAMPO based on anticipated future funding.
Performance-Based Planning
Forward 2045 is a performance-based document that supports
AAMPO’s continuing system performance goals and targets
through the application of FWHA performance management
techniques. These techniques are used to inform transportation
investments and policy decisions that support national, state,
and local transportation goals. Performance-based planning
relies on the ongoing monitoring of the transportation system,
which enables AAMPO to monitor the progress made towards
its regional vision. Forward 2045 utilizes this performance-
based approach and ties the regional vision for the
transportation system to Federal planning requirements, the
conditions of the existing system, and state and local agencies.
Through the continual monitoring of the system, the AAMPO
will be able to constantly gauge progress made towards the
MTP goals and objectives.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 4
The Forward 2045 Vision
The Vision Statement for Forward 2045 was developed early in the MTP process and was based on input given by the community
during the Public Visioning Open House event (for more information on Forward 2045 public engagement, check out Appendix A).
Based on the input from community members, the vision statement for Forward 2045 is:
“The Ames area future transportation plan delivers safe, efficient and reliable solutions that
are accessible to all users. The plan focuses on preserving the existing network and
shaping the public realm through placemaking, while providing long-term sustainability.”
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 5
Related Planning Efforts
Ames Plan 2040 (Comprehensive Plan):
The Ames Plan 2040 serves as an update to the City of Ames’ current Comprehensive Plan. Ames Plan 2040 will re-focus the
City’s vision for its land use planning and decision-making as the community seeks to manage anticipated growth through the
year 2040. Under the unifying themes of Sustainability, Health, Choices, and Inclusivity, Ames Plan 2040 reinforces Forward
2045 through supporting the MTP’s goals for a financially and environmentally sustainable future transportation system that
provides safe and efficient multi-modal transportation operations.
AAMPO 2020-2024 Final Passenger Transportation Plan:
AAMPO’s 2020-2024 Final Passenger Transportation Plan (PTP) was coordinated by the MPO with the purpose of enhancing
transportation access throughout the MPO region by working to allocate public transportation resources in the most efficient
manner possible, while meeting the needs of residents who rely on public transit. A major element of the PTP is the
identification of public transit projects and strategies funded with Federal FTA funds, which are received by the MPO for
disbursement to the public transit operators in the region.
CyRide Transit Asset Management Plan (TAM):
CyRide’s TAM Plan outlines the structure in which asset
management policy and goals address public transit
equipment and facilities, as well as providing
accountability and visibility for furthering the
understanding of asset management practices to ensure
the safe and reliable provision of public transit services.
A major element of the TAM Plan is the identification
and reporting of transit operations performance and
performance targets for CyRide’s bus fleet, equipment,
and other public transit facilities per Federal
requirement.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 6
Complete Street Ames:
Complete Streets Ames formalizes a context-sensitive planning and
design approach to developing a street network that is safer, more
comfortable, and more useful for all modes. The plan shifts
transportation priorities to be more encompassing of bicycle,
pedestrians, and transit, guides design decisions, and increases
consistency in transportation design. The Complete Streets Policy
articulated in the Plan applies to all existing and future public roads, as
well as transportation projects funded by Federal, state, and/or local
sources. As such, projects presented in Forward 2045 and located
with the boundaries of the City of Ames are subject to the Complete
Streets Policy.
State Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP):
The Iowa DOT’s TAMP seeks to identify the optimal strategies for managing existing transportation infrastructure through the
most cost-effective approaches available. The TAMP inventories existing assets and presents a series of investment strategies
based on the financial plan developed for the state’s transportation assets. The goals of the TAMP include planning for the
maintenance and expansion of the transportation system more cost-effectively, improving system performance, delivering to
Iowa DOT customers the best value for each dollar spent, and enhancing Iowa DOT’s credibility and accountability in
stewardship of its transportation assets.
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP):
The Iowa DOT’s SHSP is a statewide-coordinated plan providing a comprehensive framework for improving safety on public
roads. The SHSP identifies goals, objectives, and emphasis areas for Federal, state, and local stakeholders to work towards the
vision of Zero Fatalities.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 7
Iowa State Freight Plan:
The Iowa DOT’s State Freight Plan serves as a supplement to the state’s long-range transportation plan, Iowa in Motion 2045.
The State Freight Plan provides an in-depth overview of existing and future freight conditions, strategic goals and objectives
for freight in Iowa, a freight system investment plan, and an outline of how the state’s freight plan supports national economic
goals related to freight.
Iowa In Motion 2045:
Iowa in Motion 2045 is the state’s long-range transportation
plan that addresses Federal requirements while presenting a
statewide transportation financial and investment plan. The
Plan is updated every 5 years so that trends, forecasts, and
factors effecting the transportation system are current and
best reflect the conditions of the state’s system. Iowa In
Motion 2045 sets the statewide perspective for planning
efforts, which then shapes how MPOs and Regional Planning
Affiliations shape their local planning efforts.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 8
Forward 2045 Goals and Objectives
The transportation goals and objectives presented in the MTP guide the vision for how the future multi-modal system should operate
while reflecting the values of the community. These goals and objectives were developed based on input received during the public
engagement process, FAST-Act goal areas, and the Metropolitan Planning Factors set forth under 23 U.S.C 450.306(b)(1). Table 1-1
shows the major goal areas and objectives that were identified for inclusion in this MTP.
Forward 2045 Goals and Federal Metropolitan Planning Factors
As part of the MTP update, AAMPO is federally-required to develop the plan through a performance-driven and outcome-based
approach. To guide MPO’s through a planning process that is continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, 10 Metropolitan Planning
Factors that must be met during the MTP were identified by Federal government under 23 CFR 450.306.1 Table 1-2 shows a matrix
that illustrates how the six goal areas shown in Table 1-1 align with the Metropolitan Planning Factors listed below:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and
promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system across modes, for people and
freight
7. Promote efficient system management and operation
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system
9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater
impacts of surface transportation
10. Enhance travel and tourism
23 CFR § 450.306 - Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 9
Table 1-1: Forward 2045 Goal Areas
Accessible The ease of connecting people to goods and services in the Ames area, as well as providing choices for
different modes of transportation (i.e. car, bike, bus, etc.)
Safe Reducing the risk of harm to users of the Ames transportation system
Sustainable Reducing or eliminating negative environmental impacts from the Ames transportation system and promoting
financially sustainable investments
Efficient &
Reliable Provide for the efficient and reliable movement of people, service, and goods
Placemaking Integrating the transportation system with land use to create well-designed places and complete
communities
Preservation Maintain the exisiting transportation system in a state of good repair
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 10
Table 1-2: Forward 2045 Goals and Objectives Alignment with Federal Metropolitan Planning Factors
Goal Objectives 1
-
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
V
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
2
-
S
a
f
e
t
y
3
-
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
4
-
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
t
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
P
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
5
-
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
L
i
f
e
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
6
-
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
f
o
r
Pe
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
7
-
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
8
-
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
9
-
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
;
R
e
d
u
c
e
or
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
10
-
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
T
r
a
v
e
l
a
n
d
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
Improve walk, bike, and transit system connections
Provide appropriate arterial and collector spacing
Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to CyRide routes
Provide improved access to transit for transit dependent, disabled, and disadvantaged populations
Incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-friendly infrastructure in new developments
Reduce number and rate of crashes
Reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes
Reduce number and rate of serious injury and fatal crashes
Identify strategies and projects that improve user safety for all modes
Prioritize projects that improve the Ames Area Safe Routes to School Program
Reduce transportation impacts to natural resources
Make transportation infrastructure more resilient to natural and manmade events
Limit transportation system emissions of greenhouse gases
Promote financially sustainable transportation system investments
Promote transportation decisions that follow State of Iowa Smart Planning Principles
Safe
Sustainable
Federal Planning Factors
Accessible
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Goals | 11
Table 1-2: Forward 2045 Goals and Objectives Alignment with Federal Metropolitan Planning Factors con’t.
Goal Objectives 1
-
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
V
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
2
-
S
a
f
e
t
y
3
-
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
4
-
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
t
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
P
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
Fr
e
i
g
h
t
5
-
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
L
i
f
e
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
6
-
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
f
o
r
Pe
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
7
-
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
8
-
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
9
-
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
;
Re
d
u
c
e
o
r
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
10
-
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
T
r
a
v
e
l
a
n
d
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
Efficient and Reliable
Identify context-sensitive strategies and projects that improve traffic flow in corridors with high
levels of peak period congestion.
Maintain acceptable travel reliability on Interstate and principal arterial roadways
Provide frequent transit service to high trip generation locations
Increase the regional share of trips made by walking, biking, and transit
Improve freight system reliability
Identify technology solutions to enhance system operation
Placemaking
Provide transportation strategies and infrastructure that support current adopted plans
Increase the percentage of population and employment within close proximity to transit and/or
walking and biking system
Provide transportation investments that fit within their context
Connect activity centers and adjoining developments with complete streets
Preservation
Maintain NHS routes in good condition while minimizing routes in poor condition
Maintain NHS bridges in good condition while minimizing bridges in poor condition
Federal Planning Factors
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 2
Regional Trends
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 12
Chapter 2 Regional Trends
As the Ames area continues to grow, the accompanying demographic changes could have substantial influence on how the regional
transportation system operates in the future. Continued shifts in population and employment could exacerbate the need to provide a
variety of modal options that match the needs of all residents living and working in the region. This chapter provides an overview of
the historical population and employment trends in the region as well as a snapshot of the current demographic profile of the Ames
Urbanized Area.
Historical Regional Trends
Historic Population and Employment Growth Trends
Population levels in the Ames Area increased from an estimated 50,000 in 1990 to over 68,000 in 2017. During this same time period,
the population of Story County increased by nearly 25,000 people, as shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Historical Population Growth for the AAMPO Region and Story County*
Source: US Census Bureau, Woods and Poole, HDR
*A small portion of Boone County falls within the MPO planning area
74,252 79,981
89,542 93,586 97,502
50,000 53,750
63,040 68,221 68,665
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1990 2000 2010 2015 2017
Story County Ames Area MPO
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 13
Employment in the Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area experienced steady growth between 2000 and 2018, while the unemployment
rate peaked at 4.75% in 2009 before declining to 1.61% in 2018. Figure 2-2 displays the employment and unemployment rate trends
during this 19-year period.
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
1.75%
4.75%
1.61%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Employment Unemployment Rate
Figure 2-2: Employment and Unemployment Rates for the Ames
Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2000-2018
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 14
Current Demographics
The population for the Ames Urbanized Area is estimated to be 66,511, which is an increase of roughly 6,000 people since the year
2010. The median age of Ames Area residents is 23 years old, which reflects the largest share of residents, 28.9%, that comprise the
age range of 20 to 24. Figure 2-3 below presents the proportion of Ames residents by age group. Being home to Iowa State University
(ISU), the City of Ames has a significant portion of its population who are students as enrollment at ISU in the year 2017 totaled 35,993.
This population distribution results in unique challenges and needs for AAMPO to address in its transportation planning processes.
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
3.9%3.5%3.2%
15.8%
28.9%
13.5%
7.8%7.1%
3.5%3.5%4.9%
3.1%
1.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Figure 2-3. Population Cohorts by Age, Ames Urbanized Area
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 15
Males make up 53.4% of the Ames Urbanized Area population while 46.6% are female. As previously mentioned, the largest age group
of residents is 20 years to 24 years; 27.4% of the male population falls into this age range while 30.2% of females are between 20 and
24 years. 14.9% of males in the Ames Urbanized Area are aged 15 to 19 years while 16.6% of females are in this age cohort. Figure 2-4
illustrates the population pyramid for the Ames Urbanized Area.
Figure 2-4. Population Pyramid, Ames Urbanized Area
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
3.93%
3.77%
3.35%
14.89%
27.40%
8.08%
4.81%
4.87%
2.93%
4.14%
3.56%
3.95%
3.61%
2.99%
2.52%
2.34%
1.58%
1.28%
3.9%
3.3%
3.1%
16.6%
30.2%
8.7%
5.4%
5.3%
2.6%
3.5%
3.2%
3.1%
3.5%
3.0%
1.5%
1.3%
1.1%
1.0%
40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00%0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%
Under 5
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 69
70 to 74
75 to 79
80 to 84
85+
Male Percent Female Percent
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 16
As shown in Table 2-1, 83% of the Ames Urbanized Area population identifies as White or Caucasian while 10% identifies as Asian.
Hispanic or Latino residents comprise 3.4% of the population while 2.6% identifies as Black or African American. Table 2-2 contains
the number households with limited English-speaking proficiency by language spoken at home.
Table 2-1: Population of Ames Urbanized Area by Race
55,234 83.04%
1,737 2.61%
6,719 10.10%
2,281 3.43%
157 0.24%
43 0.06%
336 0.51%
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
Table 2-2: Households with Limited English-Speaking Proficiency
Number of
Limited English-speaking households-Spanish 37 0.14%
Limited English-speaking households-Other Indo-European languages 32 0.12%
Limited English-speaking households-Asian and Pacific Island languages 1,025 3.98%
Limited English-speaking households-Other languages 116 0.45%
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 17
The median household income for Ames residents in 2017 dollars is $43,214, while the median family income is $85,833. Figure 2-5
shows the proportion of Ames households by 2017 income. Percentages of age cohorts living below the poverty level are shown in
Table 2-3.
Figure 2-5: Household Incomes of Residents in the Ames Urbanized Area
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
13.60%
5.10%
13.60%
10.30%
11.90%
13.60%
10.90%
13.30%
4.10%3.80%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$14,999
$15,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or
more
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 18
Table 2-3: Percent of Households Living Below the Poverty Level
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
Age Cohort Population for whom poverty status is determined Percent below poverty level
Under 18 years
18 to 64 years
65 years and over
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 19
41% of individuals employed in the Ames Urbanized Area are employed in the educational services, health care, and social assistance
industry. The second highest share of Ames workers are employed in the arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and
food services industry. The smallest share of Ames workers are employed in the wholesale trade industry. Table 2-4 summarizes
occupation by industry for the Ames Urbanized Area.
Table 2-4: Occupation by Industry for the Ames Urbanized Area
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
Industry Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction 3.81%
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade 1.40%
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1.89%
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 3.68%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 41.12%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
Other services, except public administration 3.20%
Public administration
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 20
69% of workers aged 16 years or older commute to work alone in a private vehicle. Walking and the use of public transit (excluding taxi
cabs) are used for commuting purposes at much higher rates when compared to the proportions of United States residents who use
these modes for commuting; the ACS 2017 5-Year data indicate that 9.6% of Ames residents walk to work while 8.1% use public
transit. For the national share of walking and public transit commuters, these figures are 2.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Table 2-5
summarizes the means of transportation to work for both Ames Area residents and national averages.
Table 2-5: Means to Work for Residents of the Ames Urbanized Area
69.1% 76.4%
5.3% 9.2%
Transportation 8.1% 5.1%
Walk
Bike
Taxi, Motorcycle,
or Other Means 0.6% 1.2%
Work from Home
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 21
For over half of the workers in the Ames Urbanized Area, it takes less than 15 minutes for their daily commute to work, while
approximately three-quarters of Ames residents have a commute that takes less than 20 minutes. Table 2-6 summarizes travel times
to work for Ames commuters. Additional data related to commuting trends in the Ames Urbanized Area show that 42% households
have 2 vehicles available while 29.5% have three or more available, as seen in Figure 2-6.
Table 2-6: Travel Time to Work for Ames Urbanized Area Residents
24.60%
28.70%
20.60%
9.10%
2.00%
3.70%
3.40%
5.90%
2.00%
Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates
Figure 2-6: Household Car Ownership, Ames Urbanized Area
3.60%
25.00%
42.00%
29.50%
No vehicle
available
1 vehicle available
2 vehicles available
3 or more vehicles
available
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 22
Socioeconomic Conditions and Transportation Planning in the AAMPO Region
The socioeconomic characteristics of Ames area residents impact current and future transportation needs and demands in the
AAMPO region. Transportation costs can be a large portion of typical household expenses, so understanding the socioeconomic
conditions of AAMPO area residents informs the required modal balance of transportation needs. From an equity perspective,
economically disadvantaged residents are often more reliant on transit, bicycling, and/or walking for their daily work or school trips to
meet their mobility needs. Additionally, the high student population is more transit-dependent, due the relative concentration of their
trip destinations on the ISU campus and limited parking and student car ownership as illustrated below.
A comparison of regional commuting patterns for fixed-route transit usage between the student and non-student population for work
commutes is shown in Table 2-7. The comparison was based on the Public Use Microdata (PUMAS) program administered by the U.S.
Census Bureau for Story and Boone Counties. According the to the PUMAS data, roughly 14.5% of students use transit to reach their
place of employment while only 1.5% of non-student workers commute via transit.
Table 2-7: Student vs. Non-Student Transit Usage for Commuting
2,376 656
13,945 45,683
16,321 46,339
14.6% 1.4%
Source: Public Use Microdata, 2018
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 23
Comparing fixed route transit usage between AAMPO’s CyRide system with transit systems for Iowa’s other major metropolitan areas
highlights the importance of this mode for residents, especially the student population, within the region. As Figure 2-7 shows,
CyRide’s average annual fixed route passenger trip level was the highest among all other public transit providers in the state during
the years 2014-2018. Iowa City’s transit provider recorded a similar level of fixed route trips during this time period; similar to Ames, the
City of Iowa City is home to a large student population who rely on fixed route transit.
Figure 2-7: Average Fixed Route Trips for Iowa's Public Transit Providers, 2014-2018
Source: National Transit Database
Ames
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Dubuque
Iowa City
Omaha
Quad Cities
Sioux City
Waterloo
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000
2010 Urbanized Area Population
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 24
Inter-City Commute Patterns
Inter-city commute patterns were obtained from the United States Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Household-Employer Dynamics
(LEHD) Program, which compiles Federal, State, and Census Bureau data on employers and employees to allow for more detailed
information pertaining to local economies.2 LEHD data for the Cities of Ames, Ankeny, and Des Moines were reviewed to identify inter-
city commuting patterns between these metropolitan areas located along the Interstate 35 Corridor.
As seen in Figure 2-8, the LEHD data indicates that the largest number of trips occurs within the boundaries of Des Moines, Ames,
and Ankeny. The city with the largest flow of inbound travel is Des Moines, likely due to its higher population and greater
concentration of economic and educational opportunities. Significant flow occurs along the Ankeny-Des Moines segment in both
directions. The Ankeny-Des Moines segment sees between 1,300-1,800 commuters and the Ankeny-Ames segment sees between
600-1,000.
2 United States Census Bureau. Longitudinal Household-Employer Dynamics Program. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/
Chapter 2: Regional Trends
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 2: Regional Trends | 25
Figure 2-8: Regional Commuting Patterns
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 3
Existing System Performance
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 26
Chapter 3 Existing System Performance
Roadway System Conditions
The evaluation of traffic operations, including peak period congestion, travel reliability, and bridge and pavement conditions was
conducted to assess the existing conditions of the AAMPO roadway system.
Roadway Classifications
Roadways within the Ames Area MPO boundary are classified according to a Federal functional classification system developed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This system is used to determine which roads are eligible for federal transportation funds.
The functional classifications for AAMPO roadways are presented in Figure 3-1.
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 27
Figure 3-1: Functional Classifications for the AAMPO Roadways
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 28
Traffic Operations
Existing traffic operations were reviewed from two different perspectives:
• Peak period travel conditions
• Passenger and freight travel reliability
Peak Period Traffic Operations
Peak period travel conditions focused on evaluating congestion levels during typical peak period conditions. These travel conditions
are described using a standard vehicular Level of Service (LOS) classification that ranges from A, or free flow traffic, to F, or complete
gridlock. Figure 3-2 provides a definition for each LOS category.
Figure 3-3 shows the existing peak period traffic operations for AAMPO.
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 29
Figure 3-3: Existing Peak Period Traffic Operations
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 30
For the existing AAMPO roadway system, over 98% of functionally-classified roads are operating at LOS C or better as shown in Table
3-1. Just over 1% are operating at LOS D, while less than half of one percent are operating at LOS F. The peak period traffic operations
analysis demonstrates that the MPO’s existing roadway system operates well during the peak period and congestion throughout the
region is limited.
Table 3-1: Summary of Functionally-Classified Roads by Peak Hour Level of Service
98.5%
1.1%
0.0%
0.4%
Travel Reliability
Passenger Vehicle Travel Reliability
Travel reliability looks at how predictable travel times are for passenger vehicles and freight trucks in a corridor. The metric used to
describe travel reliability for passenger vehicles is Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) and is used only for corridors located on the
NHS.
Within the AAMPO region, the least reliable corridors are:
• Duff Avenue: From Lincoln Way to 265th Street
• Lincoln Way: From Grand Avenue to S Dayton Avenue
• Grand Avenue: From 170th Street to 30th Street / Duff Avenue
In 2017 and 2018, 100% of the Interstate segments were considered reliable. The AAMPO non-Interstate NHS contained unreliable
road segments during this same period, but saw improvement between 2017 and 2018. For the non-Interstate NHS, the annual
percentage of person-miles traveled that are reliable were 87.8% in 2017 and 96.6% in 2018. Figure 3-5 shows the LOTTR for all NHS
routes in the AAMPO area.
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 31
Freight Travel Reliability
A metric similar to LOTTR is used to describe highway freight reliability in a corridor. This metric is referred to as Truck Travel Time
Reliability Index (TTTR); only Interstate routes are analyzed for TTTR. The most recent data for highway freight travel reliability
indicates that the AAMPO region does not have any unreliable corridors for highway freight travel, as all TTTR levels recorded were
below the target of 1.5. In 2017, the average regional TTTR was 1.10 and rose to 1.12 in 2018. TTTR peaked slightly during the winter
months of 2017-2018, but was still well below 1.5 as seen in Figure 3-4. For reference, the values 0.0 through 1.5 pertain to TTTR levels.
Lower values represent higher reliability, and any TTTR over 1.5 would be considered an unreliable corridor.
Source: NPMRDS
Figure 3-4: Monthly TTTR for the AAMPO Region, 2017-2018
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 32
Figure 3-5: Passenger Vehicle Travel Reliability, 2018
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 33
System Condition
AAMPO Bridge Conditions
There are 58 bridges in the AAMPO boundary, and 20 of these structures are located on the NHS. Table 3-2 presents the condition of
all bridges in the AAMPO region, as well as the condition of NHS structures.
For AAMPO bridges, most are in Fair condition, 37, while 2 bridges are in Poor condition and the remaining 19 reported as being in
Good condition. The locations of the bridges rated as Poor are:
• W 190th Street: Northwest of Ames, over Squaw Creek
• Ken Maril Road: Southeast Ames, over the Skunk River
Figure 3-6 shows AAMPO bridges and their conditions.
Table 3-2: Condition of AAMPO Bridges
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Table 3-3 displays conditions of Interstate and non-Interstate NHS bridges as well as non-NHS bridge by deck area (in square
meters). For those bridges located on the Interstate or non-Interstate NHS, 15% of total deck area is rated as being in Good condition
while the remaining 85% of total deck area is classified as being in Fair condition. For all AAMPO bridges, a greater share of the total
deck area is rated as being in Good condition while roughly 2/3rds of the total deck area is in Fair condition. The two bridges in Poor
condition, as identified above, make up 1% of the total deck area.
Bridge Ratings
Interstate and non-Interstate
NHS Bridges All AAMPO Bridges
Good
Fair
Poor
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 34
Table 3-3: AAMPO Bridge Condition by Total Deck Area
Rating Interstate NHS Bridges % of Total Deck Area All AAMPO Bridges % of Total Deck Area
2,239.93 15% 12,201.61 31%
13,131.21 85% 26,533.33 68%
Poor
Total
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 35
Figure 3-6: AAMPO Bridge Locations
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 36
AAMPO Pavement
The majority of pavement in the AAMPO region is in Fair or Good condition, as shown in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5. For NHS routes,
only 4% of pavement is in Poor condition while the remaining pavement is in Fair condition or better.
Table 3-4: Pavement Condition Ratings for Non-Interstate, Non-NHS Roads
Functional
Collector 13% 46% 41%
Local 22% 49% 28%
Total 21% 45% 35%
Source: AAMPO
Table 3-5: Pavement Condition Ratings for NHS Routes
Source: AAMPO
Functional
Classification
Pavement Condition
Total Poor Fair Good
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 37
Figure 3-7: Pavement Condition Ratings for AAMPO Roads
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 38
System Safety
Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Frequencies
The number of crashes resulting in fatalities on AAMPO roads has remained consistent, averaging 1 per year, while the number of
crashes resulting in serious injuries has been declining since a 2014 level of 22, with an average of 17 per year. Figure 3-8 shows the 5-
year trend for these crash types for the years 2014 through 2018.
Figure 3-8: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2014-2018
Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT)
1 1 0 1 2
22
18 19 19
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 39
Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Rates per 100 Million VMT
Fatal crash rates per 100 million VMT stayed constant during the years 2014 through 2017, then saw a slight increase in the year 2018.
The rates of serious injury crashes per 100 million VMT saw a significant decrease between 2014 and 2018, as these crash types
became less frequent during the 5-year period. Figure 3-9 summarizes the annual trend for fatal and serious crash rates per 100
million VMT between 2014 and 2018.
Figure 3-9: Fatal and Serious Crash Rates per 100 Million VMT, 2014-2018
Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT)
0.21 0.21 -0.21 0.43
4.70
3.84 4.06 4.06
1.92
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 40
Non-motorized Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Frequencies
Fatalities resulting from crashes involving a non-motorized mode have been rare in the MPO area, averaging less than 1 per year
between 2014 and 2018. Non-motorized crashes in which a serious injury occurred have fluctuated between a high of 6 in both 2014
and 2017, with a low of 2 in 2015. During 2014 to 2018, the MPO area averaged 4 non-motorized crashes per year that resulted in
serious injury. Figure 3-10 shows annual fatal and serious injuries related to non-motorized crashes between 2014 and 2018.
Figure 3-10: Non-Motorized Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, 2014-2018
Source: Iowa DOT, Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT)
0
1
0 0 0
6
2
5
6
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 41
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Conditions
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System Network
AAMPO’s existing bicycle and pedestrian system is comprised of several different types of on- and off-street facilities as shown in
Table 3-6 and on Figure 3-11.
Table 3-6: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
9
13
13
Paved sidepaths
Unpaved sidepaths
Source: AAMPO
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 42
EXAMPLES OF EXISTING ON- AND OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES IN THE REGION
The University Boulevard sidepath includes a
landscape buffer. vehicle lane.
lanes. Pictured is an example of bike lanes, which
are on S 3rd Street/S 4th Street.
Pammel Drive on the ISU campus, which are
restricted to transit, bike and pedestrian use only.
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 43
Figure 3-11: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 44
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) for the AAMPO region bicycle and pedestrian network ranked roads and intersections on a scale
of 1 to 4, with 4 being the most stressful due to a number of roadway characteristics (for more information, Appendix B).
The resulting bicycle LTS shows that the more stressful roads in the region are:
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
The intersections in the AAMPO region that considered to be more stressful for bicyclists are:
• South Dakota Avenue & Mortensen Road
• South Duff Avenue & Chestnut Street
• South Duff Avenue at US 30 westbound ramp terminal
• South Duff Avenue & 13th Street
• 13th Street & Meadowlane Avenue
Figure 3-12 shows the complete bicycle LTS for AAMPO roads and intersections
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 45
Figure 3-12: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 46
Transit System Conditions
Transit Services
CyRide is the primary transit service provider in the AAMPO region and operates local bus and paratransit services to riders
throughout the City of Ames. CyRide is a division of the City of Ames and operates in partnership with Iowa State University (ISU) and
Iowa State University’s Government of the Student Body (GSB). Additional transit services in the MPO area are presented in Table 3-7,
while Figure 3-13 shows a map of CyRide’s current fixed routes.
Table 3-7: Transit Services in the AAMPO Region
CyRide Primary transit provider in the MPO area, operating 13 fixed routes as well as
paratransit services.
East Ames Service
Extension (EASE)
On-demand, curb-to-curb service serving the eastern part of the City of Ames.
Riders are picked up at Ames City Hall and dropped off at any location in the
Moonlight Express
Fare-free service with three routes and an additional door-to-door service for
Ames residents living outside of other shuttle coverage areas. This service is
Paratransit
Door-to-door paratransit service operated by CyRide and contracted through
Heart of Iowa Transit Agency HIRTA), serving individuals with a disability who
Regional Public
Transit Service
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 47
Figure 3-13: CyRide Fall 2019 Route Network
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 48
System and Route Performance
System Level Performance
Demand for fixed-route transit service in Ames grew continually from 2006-2016; however, in recent years overall ridership has
declined as seen in Figure 3-14. Some other transit system-level trends include:
• Fixed-route service saw a 6.9% decrease in ridership in FY2019 compared to FY2018
• Dial-a-Ride service has fluctuated throughout the years but has seen a steady decrease between FY2016 to FY2019
Source: CyRide
4,234,350
4,107,339
4,251,300
4,580,411
4,938,642
5,297,937
5,371,284
5,668,282
5,812,253
6,535,171
6,629,685
6,702,144
6,588,663
6,519,386
6,112,643
9,736
10,715
11,540
10,920
10,208
9,745
9,101
10,853
9,468
10,715
11,566
11,923
9,277
8,903
8,380
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fixed Route Ridership Dial-a-Ride Ridership
Figure 3-14: Annual Fixed-Route and Paratransit Ridership, 2005-2019
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 49
Route Level Performance
• Highest ridership routes: #23 Orange, #1 Red, #3 Blue-65% of trips made during FY2018
Lowest ridership routes: #14 Peach, #5 Yellow, #12 Lilac-Less than 1% of trips made during FY2018
Figure 3-15: FY2018 CyRide Ridership per Route
Source: CyRide
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
#23 Orng.#1 Red #3 Blue #6 Brown #21 Card.#22 Gold #2 Green #11 Cherry #9 Plum Gray #7 Purple Moonlight
Express
#12 Lilac #5 Yellow #14 Peach EASE #8 Aqua # 24 Silver
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 50
Transit Level of Service
Level of Service Results
Transit level of service for CyRide’s peak period (defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays), shown in Figure 3-16,
identifies the fixed-routes that operate at the highest and lowest LOS.
• •
o o
o o
o o
o
Source: TCRP
Frequency (Minutes) Description
<10 No bus schedule needed
10 - 14 Passengers may consult schedules
15 - 20 Passengers will consult schedules to minimize wait time
21 - 30 Passengers adapt travel to transit schedule
31 - 40 Provides minimal service to meet basic travel needs
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 51
Figure 3-16: Transit Peak Level of Service
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 52
Freight
Freight activities provide a foundation for the regional economy of the AAMPO area, as several critical state and national freight
corridors are within the MPO boundary. In addition to the critical highway facilities located within the MPO area, several freight rail
lines are operated in the region. This section of the plan will present an overview of the existing highway, rail, and pipeline freight
system conditions.
Highway Freight
The efficient movement of goods is contingent upon a reliable freight network that is capable of maintaining multi-modal connections.
Within the AAMPO boundary, there are 7 major freight routes that serve the industrial and manufacturing facilities within the region:
• Interstate 35
• U.S. Highway 30
• U.S. Highway 69
• S. Duff Avenue
• S. 16th Street (east of S. Duff Avenue)
• Lincoln Way (east of S. Duff Avenue)
Rail Freight
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) operates several freight lines within the AAMPO boundary. The east-west mainline track consists of
two tracks that run through the City of Ames, north of Lincoln Way, while the north-south track is a single track that passes through
the City of Gilbert and meets the east-west line just west of Grand Avenue and Lincoln Way.
Pipelines
There are 195.12 total miles of active pipelines in Story County, with 99.23 miles dedicated to gas transmission
and the remaining 95.89 miles used for hazardous liquid mileage. In Boone County, there are 282.12 miles of
active pipelines—253.32 miles of gas transmission pipeline and 28.81 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline.3
3 National Pipeline Mapping System, Active Pipeline Database
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 53
Existing Regional Connections
While private vehicle travel is the predominate mode within the AAMPO area, the reliability of the local transportation system is
contingent upon its ability to remain balanced and maintain connections with other transportation modes. This section of the plan
discusses the existing regional connections, including rail, aviation, and waterways.
Intercity Bus Service
Several operators provide intercity bus service between the City of Ames and other communities not served by aviation services.
These intercity services are based at the Ames Intermodal Facility, located at Hayward Avenue and Chamberlain Street. Users can
then connect to destinations in the MPO area that are served by the fixed route transit system. The current intercity
bus services serving the AAMPO region are:
• Jefferson Lines: Jefferson Lines serves the I-35 corridor through the state of Iowa, offering daily bus
service to destinations north and south of the City of Ames. Jefferson Lines also offers the College
Connection service, which provides intercity bus service to college campuses across the Midwest.
• Executive Express: Executive Express provides one-way and round trip shuttle service to and from the
Des Moines International Airport, picking up users at the Ames Intermodal Facility or the Quality Inn and
Suites Starlight Village Conference Center located on E 13th Street. Executive Express also offers
professional charter services.
Passenger Rail
While Union Pacific operates several freight lines in the AAMPO region, there are currently no passenger rail lines in operation.
However, the Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad operates several seasonal passenger lines, such as the Wolf Dinner Train and the Santa
Express. These lines operate between the City of Boone and Fraser, IA.
Amtrak offers passenger rail service from their stations located in Creston, IA and Osceola IA; the Creston station is located 106 miles
south of the City of Ames while the Osceola station is located 85 miles to the south.
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 54
Aviation
Aviation services within the AAMPO boundary are provided by the Ames Municipal Airport, which is located two miles southeast of
the City of Ames. While the airport is open to the public, the only service offered is general aviation; the nearest facility offering
commercial aviation is the Des Moines International Airport, located approximately 40 miles south of the City of Ames. Executive
Express, a shuttle service operated from the Des Moines International Airport, offers regular service to and from the City of Ames.
The Ames Municipal Airport is in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), which is a biennial report developed by the
Federal Aviation Administration that plans the five-year development needs for airports within the national system.4 Due to eligibility in
the NPIAS, the Ames Municipal Airport is in consideration for being a recipient of FAA funding for facility improvements.
Airport operational statistics are available from Airnav.com. The main operational statistics for the Ames Municipal Airport include:
• 78 aircraft based on the field
53 single engine airplanes
7 multi-engine airplanes
2 jet airplanes
13 glider airplanes
3 ultralight airplanes
• 92 aircraft operations per day
56% transient general aviation
37% local general aviation
5% air taxi
1% military
4 Iowa Aviation System Plan, https://iowadot.gov/aviation/studiesreports/technicalreport/4%20-%20Chapter%201.pdf
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 55
Waterways
A notable recreational waterway located in the AAMPO region is the Skunk River Water Trail. Beginning in Story City and passing
through the City of Ames, this popular water trail provides a scenic route for paddlers of all skill levels. Numerous access points are
found within the AAMPO boundary and offers residents an outdoor recreation activity for the spring and summer months.
Alternate Mobility Providers
Travelers within the AAMPO region have a slate of mobility options to choose from in addition to public transit and the bicycle and
pedestrian network. Uber and Lyft, two popular ridehailing services, operate in Ames and allow users to connect with drivers via a
smart phone application. The carsharing service Zipcar operates on the Iowa State University campus and is aimed towards providing
students and university staff with a low-cost mobility option through providing vehicles that can be rented on an hourly basis; these
vehicles are rented at an on-campus location and must be returned to the same location. Zipcar is available to the public, but users
must be 18 years or older and hold a valid driver’s license. Cyclone Cab provides a traditional taxi service within the City of Ames.
The State of the Existing System
Existing conditions on the AAMPO roadway system reflect a network that operates efficiently, with limited recurring peak hour
congestion and reliable corridors for passenger and freight vehicles. Regional infrastructure is sound, with the majority of bridge
structures and roadway pavement in good condition. In terms of safety, the number of fatal and serious injury crashes for cars and
non-motorized modes have been steady or decreasing, while intersections with the highest crash frequencies and crash rates have
been identified and safety countermeasures for these locations have been discussed.
A number of roads and intersections in the AAMPO were determined as higher stress for bicyclists, and these locations will be further
evaluated when developing alternative projects for inclusion in the MTP. Fixed route and paratransit usage has been decreasing since
its peak ridership in 2016, while the fixed routes that have recorded the highest levels of ridership continue to be those serving the ISU
campus and central Ames. As the MPO looks to a more multi-modal future, building off the existing non-motorized facilities and
developing connections with the existing CyRide routes can help reach this goal.
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 56
System Performance and Targets
Performance-based planning and performance management became a focus of State and regional transportation planning with the
signing of the 2012 surface transportation bill Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). The Federal government
established seven national goals through MAP-21, and then maintained in subsequent Federal legislation, with the purpose of
improving decision-making through performance-based planning and programming. Federal Highway Administration has established
required performance measures in 23 CFR 490.
System and Freight Reliability
Goal: Achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System.
Performance Targets: Rather than setting its own system and freight reliability targets, the Ames Area MPO has chosen to
support the Iowa DOT’s system and freight reliability targets as submitted in the most recent baseline period performance
report (2018).
Table System and Freight Reliability Performance Measure 2018 Performance* 4 Year Target
Percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstate that are reliable 100% 99.50%
Percent of person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS that reliable 96.60% 95%
Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index 1.12 1.14
Source: AAMPO Draft Transportation Improvement Program, 2021-2024
*2018 Performance sourced from the NPMRDS
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 57
Pavement and Bridge
Goal: Maintain the condition of pavement and bridges in a state of good repair.
Performance Targets: Rather than setting its own pavement and bridge targets, the AAMPO has chosen to support the Iowa
DOT’s pavement and bridge targets as submitted in the most recent baseline period performance report (2018).
TPavement Performance Measure 2018 Performance 4 Year Target
Percent of Interstate pavements in Good condition 100% 49.40%
Percent of Interstate pavements in Poor condition 0% 2.70%
Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Good condition 87% 46.90%
Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition 4% 14.50%
Source: AAMPO Draft Transportation Improvement Program, 2021-2024; City of Ames
Bridge Performance Measures 2018 Performance 4 Year Target
Percent of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition 15% 44.60%
Percent of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition 0% 3.20%
Source: AAMPO Draft Transportation Improvement Program, 2021-2024; FHWA National Bridge Inventory
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 58
Road Safety
Goal: Significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
Performance Targets: Rather than setting its own safety targets, the AAMPO has chosen to support the Iowa DOT’s safety
targets as published in the most recent Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report.
Safety Performance Measures 2014-2018 AAMPO Performance* 2017-2021 Statewide Target
Number of Fatalities
Fatality rate per 100 million VMT
Number of Serious Injuries
Serious Injury rate per 100 million VMT
Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
Source: AAMPO Draft Transportation Improvement Program, 2021-2024: Iowa DOT ICAT Database
*2014-2018 Performance is for the Ames Area MPO only
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 3: Existing System Performance | 59
Transit Asset Management
Goal: Maintain the condition of public transit assets in a state of good repair.
Performance Targets: CyRide, the transit agency within the Ames Area MPO, has established their own TAM plan and targets
which they review and amend, if needed, each fall by October 1st. In March 2020, the Ames Area MPO adopted these transit
asset management targets that also match CyRide transit asset management targets.
TAM Performance Measure
Class
2019
Target
2019 Year-End
Results 2020 Performance Target 2021 2022 2023 2024
Rolling Stock: 40'-60' Buses 35% 38% 33% 33% 31% 33%
Rolling Stock: Cutaways 67% 67% 89% 89% 0% 0%
Rolling Stock: Minivans 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Equipment: Shop Trucks 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Facilities: Admin./Maint.
Facility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Facilities Ames: Intermodal
Facility 0% 0% 0% of facilities rated under 3.0 on 0% 0% 0% 0%
Source: AAMPO Transportation Improvement Program, 2021-2024
Transit Safety
Transit safety performance measures and targets will be required for MPO TIPs and MTPs beginning July 20, 2021. CyRide is required
to approve a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) by December 31, 2020; after the approval of the PTASP, AAMPO has
180 day to adopt MPO transit safety targets. Should the MTP be amended any time after this date, the inclusion of the Transit Safety
performance measures and targets will be required as part of the amendment.
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 4
Future Trends and Needs
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 60
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs
Future System Performance
A performance analysis of the future AAMPO transportation system was conducted to better understand how projected household
and employment growth will likely impact future year 2045 regional travel demand. This analysis was based on the Travel Demand
Model (TDM) update that uses a base year of 2015 and was developed to support the Forward 2045 plan transportation decisions and
investments.
Future Growth in the AAMPO Region
The steady growth in population and employment for the AAMPO region that was presented in Chapter 2 is consistent with the
projected future regional household and job growth through the year 2045. While the estimated job and household growth levels are
not indicative of how future land uses will be planned, zoned, and phased, they inform the travel parameters used in the future system
performance analysis presented in this chapter.
Table 4-1 shows the region-wide changes in the number of households and jobs in the region between 2015 and 2045. These
projected levels serve as the primary inputs in the AAMPO TDM, and their development is outlined in the Appendix C.
Table 4-1: Projected Regional Growth Trends, 2015-2045
26,179 68,221 43,297
33,698 88,546 56,744
29% 30% 31%
Source: Ames Area MPO, City of Ames, Woods and Poole
As shown in the table, the population and number of households in the AAMPO region are projected to increase by 30% and 29%,
respectively, between 2015 and 2045 while the number of jobs is anticipated to increase from a 2015 level of 43,297 to a 2045 level of
56,744. This marks an employment growth change of 31%.
Rather than use counts for the numbers of jobs per TAZ, the AAMPO TDM uses square footage of non-residential land uses as the
input representing employment. Employment projections were converted to non-residential building square footages for various
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 61
development types to support the TDM. Growth in household and employment levels were allocated to the AAMPO’s Traffic Analysis
Zones (TAZs), which make up the geographical units employed in the TDM. Projected household growth by TAZ is shown in Figure
4-1 while projected growth in non-residential land uses by TAZ is shown in Figure 4-2.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 62
Figure 4-1: Projected Household Growth by TAZ, 2015-2045
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 63
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 64
Travel Demand Model
The TDM is a set of mathematical procedures and parameters that simulate daily travel based on residential and employment data.
This tool is the primary method for assessing the conditions and performance of the future transportation system, which is done by
predicting the number, purpose, origin and destination, and route of trips made on the system. The underlying idea of the TDM is that
land use patterns influence the type and number of trips individuals take, with “trip” being defined as travel between two points for a
specified purpose, i.e. home to work, home to school, or work to shopping.
AAMPO’s model network is comprised of the existing roadways and their characteristics, such as number of lanes, number of turn
lanes limits, and speed limits. The geographic bounds of the AAMPO region are divided into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs), in
which population, employment, and land use data are entered. These TAZs are then connected to one another via the model network
and travel patterns are estimated.
In addition to being used to assess future traffic scenarios, TDM output is used in the alternatives development and evaluation process
to aid in the identification of projects for inclusion in the fiscally constrained Plan. Several of the scoring metrics discussed in Chapter
6 involve the TDM output.
2045 Existing plus Committed Baseline
System conditions for the year 2045 used an “existing plus committed” (E+C) network scenario. The E+C scenario is considered a
“business-as-usual” scenario in that it assumes no improvements are made to the system beyond the current Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). For this E+C scenario, the existing roadway system plus the following major roadway projects are
included:
• Grand Avenue extension, from S 5th Street to S 16th Street
• Cherry Avenue extension, from Lincoln Way to SE 5th Street
• Hoover Avenue and 30th Street to Duff Avenue and 16th Street road diet
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 65
Future Traffic Operations
Traffic volumes for the year 2045 were forecasted through comparing the volume output for the base year 2015 model with the output
of the 2045 E+C scenario. The household and population data used to update the TDM was sourced from AAMPO, Iowa DOT and
Woods and Poole Economics. The allocation of the 2045 household and employment data was based on future growth areas identified
through the scenario planning activities of the City of Ames’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
To account for deviations between 2015 base year modeled and observed traffic levels for 2015, a post-processing procedure was
applied to the 2045 E+C traffic volumes. This post-processing procedure recognizes that the difference between the base year 2015
modeled traffic levels and observed 2015 traffic levels should be applied to the 2045 E+C modeled traffic volumes to forecast future
traffic volumes. The traffic forecasts for the E+C 2045 network are compared to those for the base year 2015 network in Figure 4-3.
System-wide statistics based on the 2045 E+C model run are shown in Table 4-2. As shown in the table:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is predicted to increase by 53% during the 30-year period, which indicates that the average trip
will be longer, in terms of distance, than trips taken today.
• Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) is predicted to increase by nearly 74% under the E+C scenario, which indicates that the average
trip will be longer, in terms of time spent traveling, than trips taken today.
• The number of trips are predicted to increase by 31% during the 30-year period.
• Average trip lengths are expected to see a 16% increase, which is consistent with the anticipated growth of the urban area
especially at the fringe areas identified as future high growth locations.
• Average travel speeds are expected to see a 12.5% decrease, as consistent with the observation that VHT is expected to
outpace VMT. Decreasing average trip speeds indicate future roadway congestion.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 66
Table 4-2: System Wide Statistics for the E+C 2045 Scenario
468,226,535 714,556,026 52.6%
11,836,478 20,602,681 74.1%
154,187,813 202,555,211 31.4%
3.04 3.53 16.2%
39.6 34.7 -12.5%
Source: Ames Area MPO Travel Demand Model
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 67
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 68
E+C 2045 Traffic Operations
A planning-level assessment of peak hour traffic operations based on the E+C 2045 forecasts was conducted using the volume-to-
capacity approach described in Chapter 4: Existing Conditions. The resulting assessment is shown in Figure 4-4. The corridors that
are projected to exhibit LOS issues (level of service D or worse) under the E+C 2045 scenario are:
• S Duff Avenue, from Highway 30 to 265th Street
• I-35, south of Highway 30
• Mortensen Road, from Seagrave Boulevard to Welch Avenue
• Lincoln Way, from I-35 to 590th Avenue
• Bloomington Road, from Hyde Avenue to Hoover Avenue
• Grand Avenue, from north of Bloomington Avenue to Arrasmith Trail
• E 13th Street, from Dayton Avenue to 570th Avenue
• Dayton Avenue, from E 13th Street to USDA
The HCM approach used in the future traffic operations analysis identified intersections, in addition to roadway segments, that are
projected to exhibit LOS issues under the E+C 2045 scenario. These intersections are:
• Stange Road and 13th Street
• Grand Avenue and 6th Street
• Grand Avenue and 13th Street
• Dayton Avenue and E 13th Street
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 69
Figure 4-4: Peak Hour Traffic Operations for the E+C 2045 Scenario
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 70
Future Multi-Modal System Opportunities
Population growth, employment growth, and future developments highlight where long-term expansions to the transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian networks will be needed. New development in the City of Ames is anticipated in four key zones: North Ames, East Ames,
South Ames, and West Ames. Infill development and growth in central Ames is concentrated in the Campustown/Lincoln Way corridor
and Downtown Ames.
Active Transportation
Development of new residential neighborhoods and employment areas at the edge of the city provides opportunities to expand the
active transportation network. High-priority gaps for long-term low-stress walking and biking facilities are:
North Ames: Existing and planned biking and walking facilities on Stange Road and Hyde Avenue should continue between
Bloomington Road and W 190th Street, connecting future residential and mixed-use areas.
East Ames: Future employment and commercial centers can be served by facilities on: S 3rd Street east of Duff Avenue; 570th
Avenue north of E Lincoln Way; 220th Street east of 570th Avenue; 580th Avenue.
South Ames: Neighborhoods and Iowa State University (ISU) Research Park can be better linked to central Ames by facilities
on: State Avenue south of Mortensen Road; Cedar Lane south of Oakwood Road; Ken Maril Road; 265th Street east of US 69;
550th Avenue between Ken Maril Road and 265th Street.
West Ames: Existing and planned facilities should be extended into new neighborhoods on Mortensen Road and Ontario
Street west of Idaho Avenue. 500th Avenue between US 30 and Ontario Street is a good candidate for a new bike and
pedestrian connection.
As local roads are developed in the future growth areas, a complete streets approach should be applied to planning and design.
Figure 4-5 shows changes in land use that increase demand for walking and bicycling.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 71
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 72
Transit
CyRide’s existing network provides good coverage in the City of Ames. Student housing complexes and destinations on ISU’s main
campus will continue to generate high demand for transit. Figure 4-6 shows future household density, and Figure 4-7 shows land use
of future developments. Note that on-campus housing is not classified as households (they are classified as “group quarters”), which
explains the main campus’ low residential density shown in Figure 4-6. There are opportunities for transit investment to support future
population and employment growth in these locations and others, including the following:
North Ames: Some development will occur outside the service area and in areas with low levels of existing service, including
North Ames. Some of this development will be low density and may be difficult to serve effectively with traditional fixed-route
transit service.
East Ames: Jobs located in the eastern portion of Ames are a potential market with a limited level of existing service.
However, these locations are also less dense in terms of land use than other areas in the city and may not support traditional
fixed-route transit service.
South Ames: New commercial development will likely occur along the South Duff corridor in the form of big box retail. There
may be opportunities for improved connections from housing geared toward the general workforce to support employment
growth at ISU Research Park.
Lincoln Way will remain an important transit corridor. Given existing activity levels oriented toward ISU, new transit demand will
inevitably follow future higher-density multi-unit development anticipated for the western portion of Lincoln Way. Future demand in
this area could lead to crowding on buses and will likely require higher levels of capital investment.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 73
Figure 4-6: CyRide System and Household Density in 2045
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 74
Figure 4-7: CyRide System and Future Land Use
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 75
Emerging Transportation Trends and Technology
Transportation is entering an era of unprecedented change. Emerging technologies are coming together at a rapid pace in ways that
will shift the underlying assumptions about and operation of our transportation network. The key factors driving this change include
connected and autonomous vehicles, electrification, and the emergence of alternate mobility devices for both people and goods.
These emerging technologies are coming closer to wide spread implementation. More autonomous features are being added to new
vehicles, with highly advanced versions now testing across the country. Mobility disrupters such as e-bikes and scooters appeared in
many cities practically overnight within the past 2 years. Every year brings broader electrification of all types of vehicles in our
multimodal fleet. These may seem to be isolated examples of technology deployment, but are actually part of a greater set of trends
driving this inevitable change.
Trends
The Accelerating Growth of Technology
The rapid pace of technological change has created planning challenges. While planning horizons typically extend 20 years and longer
beyond plan adoption, the exponential growth of technological capabilities has created unanticipated disruption that would have been
difficult to foresee and is likely to accelerate even more quickly.
Understanding the rate at which technology adoption grows is a central component to planning for transportation technology, and
was first coined in 1936 by aeronautical engineer Theodore Wright5. Examining the growth of technologies throughout the last
century, this concept has been the most accurate predictor of technology growth across industries.6
Wright’s law describes exponential growth, the periodic doubling of technological progress within a given time increment. This type of
growth is deceptive, as it may start small and appear to be making little progress but eventually the doubling effects produce
tremendous growth in a relatively short amount of time. It is through the lens of exponential growth that we should be viewing the
future of transportation-related technology and how soon these technologies will need to be addressed. Today’s trends that may seem
5 Wright TP, (1936). “Factors affecting the costs of airplanes.” Journal of Aeronautical Sciences 10: 302-328.
6 Nagy B, Farmer JD, Bui QM, Trancik JE (2013) Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress. PLoS ONE 8(2): e52669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052669
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 76
linear may in fact be exponential which may lead to technologies and capabilities that seemed unimaginable emerging within a short
period of time.
New Mobility
Recent advances in technologies and business models have shaped a new category of transportation, often referred to as “new
mobility.” These new modes, services, and infrastructure hold both opportunities and risks for our transportation system and our
communities, offering greater access and more mobility options, but also creating challenges integrating these options into our
transportation system. Many of these technologies are either here already or coming soon, but there is not always a firm
understanding of how to implement them and what the full consequences will be.
The Forward 2045 plan has organized these broader new mobility technologies into four sets of trends, which are then tied to a series
of potential strategies. These “new mobility” categories and related policy areas will be based upon the following definition:
New Mobility - A service, mode, transportation infrastructure, or a combination of these,
that leverages new digital communication platforms and data to connect travelers to
mobility options to move, share and use the transportation infrastructure.
The four key new mobility technology trends that will inform the technology and strategy analysis for the Ames Area are:
Autonomous: Vehicle automation for the purpose of transporting people and goods that can navigate and operate without
assistance from a human driver or operator.
Connected: The ability to communicate real-time information between mobility modes, infrastructure, users, and any other
component critical to the movement of people and goods.
Electric: Transportation that uses stored or transmitted electricity to power a vehicle instead of traditional internal combustion
engines (ICE), usually by means of batteries, ultra-capacitors, or hydrogen fuel cells.
Shared: Transportation services and resources that are shared among users, either concurrently or one after another.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 77
These technology areas are intended to address transportation and technology trends that may present future challenges and
opportunities for the Ames Area. These technology trend policy areas are often overlapping, collaborative technologies and describe
how we might capture the best aspects in the evolving transportation practices in the region.
Chapter 6 contains a discussion of the potential strategies available to AAMPO based on the four key new mobility technologies
described above.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 78
Autonomous
What is it?
Vehicle automation for the purpose of transporting people and goods. This technology can navigate and operate
without assistance from a human driver or operator.
What are the trends?
Most major automobile manufacturers and tech companies are actively pursuing programs to develop autonomous vehicles as of
2020. These efforts are maturing rapidly. For example, it took Google’s autonomous vehicle company Waymo approximately six years
to drive a million miles, starting in 2009. Their autonomous vehicles now drive over a million miles per month, and over half of their 20
million total miles driven to date have been in
the past year.7
Automation, a suite of technologies that
enables a vehicle to operate independently of
human intervention, does not lend itself to one
form of vehicle, mode, or service model over
another. This means autonomous vehicles
could be privately-owned and operated similar
to a single occupancy vehicle, or they could be
part of a robo-taxi fleet that provides mobility
by trip or subscription. Further, these
technologies could be applied to transit
vehicles such as buses and shuttles to enable
lower operating costs and better service for
7 https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/06/waymos-autonomous-cars-have-driven-20-million-miles-on-public-roads/
Source: HDR
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 79
passengers. The future transportation opportunities and challenges from automation will depend on the forms it takes and how
consumer preference and government policies shape the technology.
Full automation will enable different service models, including a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) model, where a traveler would pay for a
service (transportation) instead of owning an actual vehicle. This trend could be to be one of the most significant advances in
transportation since the mass adoption of the automobile, with consequences extending into land use, traffic, safety, employment, and
cost of transportation. The full consequences of automation adoption will likely transform cities and regions. How these technologies
will be deployed depends largely on what government policies are in place to direct these changes to the best possible outcomes for
communities and individuals.
Several companies have begun development of technology that allows autonomous vehicles, such as scooters, to reposition
themselves without human intervention, and the ability to meet travelers at their front door 8. This technology could negatively impact
right-of-way space and visibility and conflict with pedestrians and other vehicles, posing similar challenges to robotic delivery and
MaaS curb management issues.
Autonomous vehicles will also move goods, which could present challenges for cities and regions. Delivery robots are navigating city
streets on a limited basis today, and their use will likely expand considerably. Companies such as Amazon, FedEx, and UPS have all
been developing and testing ground-based robotic delivery systems. The grocery delivery service Nuro recently received National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for fully autonomous delivery on public roads.9
8 https://www.sightline.org/2019/12/27/zombie-scooters-are-coming/
9 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nuro-exemption-low-speed-driverless-vehicle
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 80
Connected
What is it?
The ability to communicate real-time information between mobility modes, infrastructure, users, and any other
component critical to the movement of people and goods.
What are the trends?
5G and the Internet of Things are next-generation communication technologies that promise ubiquitous connectivity between all
facets of transportation. Communications standards based on new technologies, such as Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I), Vehicle to
Vehicle (V2V), and Vehicle to Everything (V2X) are forming the basis of the digital connectivity needed to support future transportation
modes and models. These technologies are being applied to a variety of applications, including transit, freight, and safety-critical
features such as forward collision warning and forward intersection assist.
Data and information play an increasingly important role in mobility, working to enable MaaS systems, ensure safety-critical functions,
and enable the system-wide management and optimization of our transportation network. Connectivity enables services and travelers
to make informed decisions based on real-time information and forms the backbone of emerging transportation technologies such as
Transportation Network Companies (TNC) and shared micromobility. Connectivity is an enabling set of technologies that can be used
to leverage better transportation outcomes and should be coordinated to enable greater functionality for alternative modes such as
micromobility or active mobility.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 81
All of the major US cellular carriers have now launched some form of 5G cellular network. 5G is predicted to improve internet speeds
20-fold compared to the fastest network widely available now, 4G LTE.10
10 https://www.networkworld.com/article/3330603/5g-versus-4g-how-speed-latency-and-application-support-differ.html
Source: United States Department of Transportation
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 82
Electric
What is it?
Transportation vehicle or infrastructure that uses stored or transmitted electricity to power a vehicle instead of
traditional internal combustion engines (ICE), usually by means of batteries, ultra-capacitors, or hydrogen fuel cells.
What are the trends?
Several key metrics will drive the adoption of battery-powered electric vehicles, which is the most popular commercialized type at this
time. Since 2010, the battery cost per kWh has fallen approximately 87%. This trend is forecast to continue, making electric vehicles
cost-competitive with ICE vehicles around 2024.11 This drop in price will likely create a strong economic incentive to adopt electric
vehicles, creating demand for charging facilities and infrastructure. The performance of batteries also continues to increase, which
gives vehicles more range, shorter charging times, and longer battery life. Research group Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)
estimates that by 2040, that 57% of all vehicle sales worldwide
will be electric vehicles.12
ICE require fossil fuels to run while electric vehicles can utilize
any number of domestic power sources to operate, including
renewables like wind and solar, carbon-free sources like
nuclear, and fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. Moving to
electrified vehicle fleets means there is flexibility to add new and
cleaner power sources as they become available, with the
added benefit of eliminating tailpipe emissions and reducing
roadway noise. However, increased demand for electric vehicles
will spur increased demand for electricity, inducing further
stress on electrical grids and related infrastructure necessary
for transmission. A second, planning-related, challenge is the
provision of charging stations. As EV fleets grow, so too will the
11 https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-as-market-ramps-up-with-market-average-at-156-kwh-in-2019/
12 https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/#toc-viewreport
Source: Electrify America
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 83
need for publicly accessible charging stations. Many communities throughout the United States have begun considering the need for
charging stations in their planning activities and are working towards ensuring these facilities are evenly distributed for all community
members.
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 84
Shared
What is it?
Transportation services and resources that are shared among users, either concurrently or one after another.13
What are the trends?
Enabled by technologies such as wireless communications and smartphones, the trend toward shared mobility has continued to gain
traction, especially in urbanized areas.14 The shared mobility trend encompasses both the sharing of vehicles and the sharing of trips
and includes transit, microtransit, TNCs, docked and dockless scooters and bicycles, and carshare. Rapid adoption of shared personal
mobility (such as bicycles or scooters) has been further accelerated by
the introduction of dockless electric scooters, accounting for nearly
45% of shared personal mobility trips in 2018 15. The trend toward a
frictionless trip planning, ticketing, routing, and payment process is a
typical feature of today’s shared mobility services and modes. The
trends toward shared mobility, however, are not occurring evenly
across regions and modes. Shared modes and services work most
efficiently in dense urban areas, which have seen the largest adoption
rates, while suburban and rural areas may require innovative
approaches and policies to develop shared mobility options.
While these modes may not be uniformly adopted, they do provide
expanded access opportunities for many places. The movement
toward shared mobility, along with other technologies such as
automation, has led to the emerging concept of MaaS. In general, this
describes the movement away from private-vehicle towards
purchasing or contracting trips. Although the MaaS market is difficult
13 https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/what-is-shared-mobility/
14 https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-shared-mobility-market
15 https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/
Source: Arlington, VA
Chapter 4: Future Trends & Needs
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 4 Future Trends & Needs | 85
to pinpoint due to inconsistent definitions and methodologies, several data points indicate a high magnitude of growth over time: the
MaaS market is projected to grow from $39 billion (2017) to $358 billion by 2025 (nearly a tenfold increase)16 and by 2025 it is expected
that 18% of Americans will use TNCs like Uber and Lyft daily.17
Other Future Modal Considerations
Impacts of emerging transportation technologies are expected to change the manner in which individuals move through urban
landscapes. While some of these technologies are starting to see implementation today, other trends have been shifting relationships
between transportation systems and land uses. The major trend leading this shift is increasing consumer demand for home delivery of
items, aka e-commerce, and the ability of distributors to meet this demand. With companies like Amazon marketing “same-day”
delivery, more and more freight vehicles are entering urban areas to deliver e-commerce goods. This is leading to increased
congestion, noise, pollution, and safety risks. Another challenge to planning posed by increased home delivery is the conflict between
designing roadways that accommodate these freight vehicles and roadways that accommodate a multi-modal system, or Complete
Streets. Further impacts stemming from same day delivery could affect aviation as increased demand for this service could incentivize
industry to turn to air freight modes in order to expand their same day delivery services. Currently, the Ames Municipal Airport does
not support air freight but future planning activities should consider the need for this service.18
Freight rail is an additional area for the MPO to consider in future planning activities. The Iowa DOT’s 2017 Freight Rail Plan predicts
annual increases of 1.1%, 1.4%, and 2.2% for outbound, inbound, and intra movements, respectively, for the dominant industries that
utilize rail for freight movements. These industries are agriculture, mining/extraction, and manufacturing, and all three are central to
the statewide economy.19 While they do not play a dominant role within the AAMPO region’s economy, increased freight rail
movements through the region could pose noise and safety impacts, especially at non-grade separated rail crossings.
16 https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/mobility-as-a-service-maas-market-size-will-reach-35835-billion-usd-by-the-end-of-2025-2019-10-17
17 Previous HDR research for Florida DOT
18 Urban Freight Challenges with the Rise of E-Commerce. https://carolinaangles.com/2019/03/21/urban-freight-challenges-with-the-rise-of-e-commerce/
19 Iowa State Rail Plan. https://iowadot.gov/iowainmotion/railplan/2017/IowaSRP2017_Ch2.pdf
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 5
Financial Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 86
Chapter 5 Financial Plan
Time Frames
For the purpose of forecasted future costs and revenues, three distinct time frames are identified for categorizing future year dollars:
• Short-Term: Years 2025-2029
• Mid-Term: Years 2030-2037
• Long-Term: Years 2038-2045
Federal, State, and Local Funding Programs
Federal Funding Programs
The MPO has frequently received funding from two formula-based Federal funding programs to fund transportation projects within the
region:
• Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program: provides funding for roadway projects on Federal-Aid routes, bridges,
transit capital improvements, and transportation planning activities.
• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funding for Transportation Alternatives (STBG-TAP or TAP): provides
funding for projects that provide “transportation alternatives”, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, trails, safe routes to
schools, historic preservation, and environmental mitigation.
• STBG-TAP Flex: Additional STBG funds that are available to MPO’s on a per capita basis. The MPO is responsible for
determining how much TAP Flex funding is used in local projects funded using TAP dollars.
Discretionary Federal funding sources that have been included in the previous TIP documents for the AAMPO include:
• National Highway Performance Program (NHPP): Funding support for the condition and performance of the National
Highway System (NHS), as well as for constructing new facilities on the system. This funding is directed by the Iowa
Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) for use on the NHS system in the Ames area.
• Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Program: Funding for State and local governments for transportation projects
and programs that help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The state of Iowa uses its CMAQ funding for the Iowa
Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP), which is a competitive grant program described below in state funding programs.
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 87
• Emergency Relief (ER) Program: Funding dedicated to reconstruction and/or repair of Federal-Aid routes that suffered
extensive damage from a natural disaster. The most recent year that the MPO received ER funds was in FY2011.
• Federal Demonstration Funds: Funding for “demonstration” projects that used new or innovative construction, funding, or
other techniques.20 These projects leveraged earmarked funds designated by Congress; under Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century (MAP-21), this funding source and other transportation earmarks were eliminated. These funds will not be
considered in projecting future funding levels.
• Metropolitan Planning Funds (PL): Federal funds available to all MPOs to carry out Federal requirements, including
metropolitan transportation planning process, and transportation improvement programs.
Several state funding sources were identified while reviewing the TIP documents for the previous 11 fiscal years. These state funding
sources include:
• Primary Roads Fund: The major state funding source for supporting the primary road system within the State of Iowa. A
proportion of the overall receipts from the Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) are deposited into the Primary Roads Fund on an annual
basis.
• State Grants: Grants administered by the Iowa DOT and other state agencies used to fund transportation projects throughout
the state.
• TIME-21: Funding created by the State legislature in 2008 to create a dedicated revenue stream for the maintenance and
construction of projects on Iowa’s primary highway system.
• Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP): Competitive funding source administered by the Iowa DOT for projects that
demonstrate potential for reducing transportation-related congestion and air pollution. Roadway, bicycle and pedestrian,
transit, and railroad projects are eligible for ICAAP funds. While this is a state of Iowa program, ICAAP funding is sourced
Federal CMAQ monies. Historically, the MPO has received ICAAP funds for traffic signal enhancement and transit projects.
Federal Transit Funding Programs
While the majority of Federal funding received by the MPO is reserved for highway and bicycle and pedestrian projects, a substantial
amount of funding for transit projects was awarded to the regional transit agency, CyRide, during our financial analysis period of TIPs.
20 Federal Highway Administration, Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.pdf
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 88
Federal transit funds are administered by the Federal Transit Agency (FTA), which oversees a number of funding programs such as:
• Section 5303-Metropolitan and Statewide Planning and Non-Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Funds and
procedural requirements for multi-modal transportation planning in metropolitan areas and states.
• Section 5305-Statewide Transportation Planning Program: Funds and procedural requirements for statewide multi-
transportation planning.
• Section 5307-Urbanized Area Formula Program: Funds for transit activities (capital, planning access to employment,
operating expenses) in urbanized areas exceeding 50,000 in population.
• Section 5309-Capital Investment Program: Funds to assist in completing transit capital improvements such as new or
expanded bus transit service.
• Section 5310-Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program: Funding program designed to meet
the needs of certain transit-dependent populations in rural and/or urbanized areas.
• Section 5339-Bus and Bus Facilities: Funds for purchasing replacement transit equipment and to construct transit facilities.
Local Funding Programs
A number of local funds are drawn upon to assist in funding Federal-aid transportation projects within the AAMPO region. These local
funding sources fall into two categories—Bond Proceed Funds and City Funds—and comprise a significant share of the annual funds
that are used for transportation projects. Note that these Local funding figures reflect only amounts programmed for matching
Federal-aid projects. Additional local funds have been used on local transportation projects not reflected in past TIPs.
• Bond Proceed Funds: General obligation and TIF-abated general obligation bonds make up the local bond proceed funds for
the MPO.
• City Funds: City funds consists of road use taxes, local option sales tax (LOST) revenues, local transit fund, parking reserve
fund, airport construction fund, and utility water, electrical, sewer, stormwater) funds.
• Miscellaneous Funding Sources: City assessments and similar sources
Other Funding Programs Available to AAMPO
In addition to the Federal, state, and local programs that AAMPO has historically received funding from, there are other sources that
provide funding that is available to the MPO. These sources include:
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 89
Federal Sources:
• Recreational Trails Program (Federal): Federal funding to provide and maintain motorized and non-motorized recreational
trails and trail-related projects.
• STBG-Highway Bridge Program (STBG-HBP): Federal funding for the replacement or rehabilitation of a structurally-deficient
or functionally obsolete bridge on a public roadway. This program is funded through a set-aside of the state’s annual STBG
funding.
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): Federal funding for projects that aim to reduce traffic fatalities and serious
injury crashes on all public roads, including non-State owned roads and roads on tribal lands.
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 90
State Sources:
• Revitalize Iowa’s Sound Economy (RISE): State funding to promote economic development through the construction or
improvement of roads and streets. Funding is disbursed to any Iowa city or county through the form of either a grant, loan, or
combination of both. Projects funded under RISE program must involve the construction or improvement of a public road.
• Recreational Trails Program (State): State funding to fund public recreational trails.
• Traffic Safety Improvement Program (TSIP): State funding for traffic safety improvement or safety study projects on any
public road, including county roads, city streets, state highways, state parks, and institutional roads.
• Urban-State Traffic Engineering Program (U-STEP): Funding to assist in solving traffic operation and safety problems on
primary roads in Iowa cities. Eligible projects must involve a municipal extension of a primary road. The match is 45% local and
55% state.
• Statewide TAP: State-administered funding for regional projects that address regional priorities. This funding source uses a
portion of the state’s annual STBG-TAP funding and disburses it to local jurisdictions while removing some of the requirements
that come with STBG-TAP funding, thus allowing for a more flexible source of funding.
Federal and State Swap Programs
Iowa DOT administers a Federal-aid swap program, in which Federal transportation dollars are swapped with the state’s Primary Road
Funds, for all MPO road and bridge projects eligible under the program policy 21. The swap program does not require a local match and
these funds can be spent on roads classified as rural minor collectors. The Federal programs for which funds can be swapped are:
• Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG)
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) / Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP)
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• County Bridge Program
• City Bridge Program
21 Iowa Department of Transportation, Federal-Aid Swap Policy. https://iowadot.gov/local_systems/Federal-aid-swap-policy.pdf
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 91
All MPOs and Regional Planning Affiliations (RPA’s) are assumed to be participants of the swap program, unless their policy board
declines. AAMPO is a participant in the swap program.
MPO Roadway and Bicycle/Pedestrian Historical Funding Levels
Projects programmed in the 2010 through 2020 TIP documents were reviewed and categorized by funding source in Table 5-1. The
funding levels shown in the table were normalized to 2020 dollars based on an assumed 4.5% increase in annual construction costs.
These funding levels were normalized to account for changes in transportation construction costs over time, and to allow for a better
understanding of historical funding levels in the context of current year dollars.
Spending for federal-aid eligible roadway and bicycle/pedestrian projects totaled almost $104 million over the 11-year period while the
average total funding level for each year was $4.9 million. The non-STBG/TAP funding sources presented in Table 5-1 are considered
“discretionary” programs and are not guaranteed annually. The forecasted future funding levels discussed in this section are based on
historical averages and it is possible that actual future funding from these discretionary sources may not reflect the projections
presented below.
Table 5-1: MPO TIP Funding ($ 1000's) by Program Source, 2010-2020 ($ 2020)
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020
*TE/TAP includes TAP Flex monies received during the period
Program Federal Local State Total
STP/STBG
TE/TAP*
NHPP/NHS
ER
Primary Roads
Demonstration/Earmarks
ARRA
CMAQ
Illustrative Regional Projects
Total
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 92
Historical Federal Funding Levels
Based on the review of past AAMPO TIP documents, historic STBG and TAP funding levels were identified for the years 2010-2020.
These funding levels are presented in Figure 5-1, and are based on the STBG and TAP targets published in the corresponding year’s
TIP document.22
Figure 5-1: Historical STBG and TAP Funding Levels ($ 1000's) for the Ames Area MPO
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020 and Iowa DOT
22 Historic funding levels shown in YOE assume a 1.5% compounded annual budget increase.
$1,159
$1,321 $1,361 $1,299
$1,551 $1,570 $1,554 $1,607 $1,592
$1,752 $1,795
$86 $91 $103 $99 $87 $88 $87 $90 $90 $89 $87
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
STBG Funding TAP Funding
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 93
Table 5-2 contains the total amounts of funding received from Federal programs between 2010 and 2020. The table includes the
average annual funding level in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars as well as the annual average normalized to 2020 dollars. Table 5-3
shows the historic levels of Federal funding sourced from FTA programs.
Table 5-2: Historical Funding Levels ($ 1000's) from Federal Sources, 2010-2020
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020
*CMAQ funding includes ICAAP funds received by AAMPO during this time period
**TAP-Flex funding was not available until 2014
Year
Formula-Based Discretionary
STBG TAP TAP-Flex** NHPP CMAQ*
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average YOE
Average 2020 $
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 94
Table 5-3: Historical FTA Funding ($ 1000's), 2010-2020
$28 $1,500 $34,823 $179 $160
$30 $1,528 $28,638 $182 $0
$20 $1,700 $5,545 $183 $0
$31 $1,700 $5,785 $184 $0
$0 $2,000 $2,550 $223 $2,958
$0 $2,100 $430 $231 $5,984
$0 $2,100 $0 $245 $3,094
$0 $2,100 $600 $381 $3,557
$0 $2,184 $4,300 $390 $4,730
$0 $2,406 $0 $268 $3,354
$0 $3,455 $0 $268 $5,962
$** $2,070 $7,515 $249 $2,709
$** $2,210 $8,558 $265 $2,828
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020
*Data for 2018 based on FY 2017-2020 TIP.
**Note that funding for Section 5303 ended after 2013.
Historic Local Funding Levels
Table 5-4 presents historical funding levels for non-Federal road funds received by the Cities of Ames and Gilbert. These funds include
the Local receipts from the RUTF, Other Road Monies, and Bond Proceed Funds. Note that the local funds shown in Table 5-4 do not
reflect all local funds for transportation investments, just those funds shown in past TIPs for Federal-aid projects.
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 95
Table 5-4: Historic Local Revenue Levels ($ 1000's), 2010-2020
$4,422 $5,400 $4,893 No Data Available
$5,013 $5,488 $5,990
$5,547 $4,780 $6,500 $103 $3 $0
$5,717 $4,032 $5,988 $104 $17 $0
$5,860 $4,598 $6,200 $108 $15 $0
$6,283 $4,291 $9,240 $113 $13 $0
$7,229 $8,531 $9,939 $134 $30 $0
$7,535 $6,555 $5,195 $134 $34 $0
$7,322 $8,476 $7,521 $138 $15 $0
$7,664 $5,548 $6,850 $140 $23 $0
$7,430** $5,770* $8,320 $146* $24* $0
$6,366 $5,770 $6,967 $124 $19 $0
$6,813 $6,190 $7,476 $132 $20 $0
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs (2010-2021), City of Ames Program Budgets (2010-2021), City of Ames Capital Improvements
Plans (2010-2020)
*2020 Revenue levels were projected based on 2019 levels at an assumed growth of 4%
**Based on 2019-2020 Adjusted Budget from 2020-21 Program Budget Document
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) is an annual expenditure for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert that is funded with STBG monies in
addition to the RUTF, LOST, and GO funds. Table 5-5 shows the historical O&M expenditures for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert for
both the Federal-Aid and Non-Federal-Aid systems.
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 96
Table 5-5: City of Ames and City of Gilbert Operations and Maintenance Expenditures ($ 1000's), 2010-2020
City of
Ames
Federal-Aid
Operations $486 $403 $296 $448 $498 $467 $324 $600 $662 $847 $881 $537 $572
$927 $1,175 $1,110 $889 $1,084 $1,075 $1,142 $1,530 $1,330 $1,565 $1,628 $1,223 $1,309
$1,585 $1,312 $964 $1,360 $1,513 $1,429 $977 $1,787 $1,967 $2,448 $2,546 $1,626 $1,736
$3,021 $3,834 $3,621 $2,700 $3,292 $3,293 $3,445 $4,561 $3,952 $4,521 $4,701 $3,722 $3,991
City of
Gilbert
Federal-Aid
Operations
No Data
Available
$1 $1 $2 $2 $1 $8 $9 $5 $5 $4 $4
$12 $15 $23 $11 $13 $8 $8 $6 $6 $11 $12
$6 $6 $11 $8 $8 $42 $48 $26 $32 $21 $22
$69 $76 $120 $65 $73 $46 $47 $34 $42 $64 $68
Total O&M Spending $6,070 $6,759 $6,079 $5,495 $6,543 $6,350 $5,983 $8,582 $8,023 $9,452 $9,842 $7,216 $7,723
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020
*2020 O&M levels were projected based on 2019 levels at assumed growth of 4%
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 97
Future Year Forecasts
Federal Funding Programs
The amounts of federal funding—formula-based and discretionary—available to the MPO between 2010 and 2020 were forecasted out
to the year 2045 and categorized into the three time periods discussed in the beginning of this report, based on an assumed annual
growth of 1.5% beyond the 2020-2023 TIP. Table 5-6 presents the resulting forecasted funding levels by time period.
As seen in the table, STBG funding is estimated to total $47 million between 2025 and 2045 while TAP funds are anticipated to equal
just over $2 million. Based on the annual average of $33,000 in STBG funding that is flexed to TAP, it is estimated the MPO will flex a
total of $870,000 between 2025 and 2045. AAMPO is anticipated to receive almost $8.5 million in NHPP funds and $12 million in
CMAQ funding during the 20-year planning period.
Table 5-6: Future Year Federal Funding Level Forecasts by Time Period ($ 1000's)
2021-2024 $6,783 $348 $132 $15,637 $2,647
2025-2029 $9,780 $485 $183 $1,784 $2,519
2030-2037 $17,245 $855 $323 $3,145 $4,442
2038-2045 $19,426 $964 $364 $3,543 $5,004
$46,451 $2,304 $870 $8,472 $11,965
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020
*Totals only reflect Short-, Mid-, and Long-Term projections as funds in the current TIP are programmed
Local Funding Programs
Local non-Federal aid revenues and O&M costs were forecasted through the planning horizon year 2045, based on an assumed
annual 1.5% growth factor. For non-Federal aid revenue sources, the amount received in FY2020 was used as the basis for the forecast
except for the Bond Proceed fund. This revenue source forecast used the historic average for the years 2010-2020 normalized to 2020
dollars, to account for the historic volatility associated with it.
The resulting forecasts in Table 5-7 show that the estimated amount of non-Federal aid revenue (comprised of the RUTF, City funds,
and Bond Proceed funds) for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert is expected to total over $570 million during the 20 year period, while total
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 98
O&M costs are anticipated to be around $200 million over this same period. Based on these projections, the local revenue in excess of
local O&M costs is anticipated to be roughly $374 million between 2025 and 2045.
Table 5-7: Forecasted Local Revenue and O&M Costs ($ 1000's) for the Cities of Ames and Gilbert by Time Period
$130,992 $120,389 $212,273 $239,123 $571,785
$15,210 $29,003 $51,139 $57,607 $137,749
$15,168 $12,649 $22,304 $25,125 $60,078
Revenue in Excess of O&M $100,613 $78,737 $138,833 $156,391 $373,958
*Totals shown only reflect the Short-, Mid-, and Long-Term forecasted revenues and costs
System Preservation and Improvement Spending Comparison
To allocate projected future funds to meet the needs of both preserving and improving the transportation system, a review of the
historical spending breakdowns of preservation and improvement projects was conducted. The TIP documents for the years 2010
through 2020 were reviewed to establish a basis for the funding requirements for AAMPO’s roadway and bicycle and pedestrian
systems. Program costs were delineated into two main project categories:
System Preservation: Projects that improve existing infrastructure, such as reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, and
operations and maintenance.
System Improvements: Projects that expand the existing system through the construction of new corridors, bridges, lane
widenings, turn lanes, etc.
This historical analysis was supplemented with an understanding of the future pavement and bridge preservation requirements on the
system to meet system performance requirements. This will require a greater portion of future roadway funding to go towards system
preservation. Table 5-8 presents the historic breakdown of funding for project categories by mode.
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 99
Table 5-8: Historic System Improvement and System Addition Spending Breakdowns
60% 40%
23 80% 20%
20% 80%
30% 70%
Source: Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Programs, 2010-2020
The resulting Federal funding levels for preservation and improvement projects are shown in Table 5-9. The local funding levels for
local preservation and improvement projects (including the improvement spending by Federal-Aid and Local system roads) are shown
in Table 5-10. The table shows local funding for roadway and bicycle and pedestrian projects based on the breakdowns in Table 5-9,
and assumes 90% of available local funds are spent on roadway projects while the remaining 10% is spent on bicycle and pedestrian
projects.
Table 5-9: Formula-Based Federal Funding Levels for System Preservation and System Improvement Projects
2025-2029 $5,868 $3,912 $97 $388 $37 $146
2030-2037 $10,347 $6,898 $171 $684 $65 $258
2038-2045 $11,656 $7,770 $193 $771 $73 $291
$27,871 $18,580 $461 $1,843 $175 $695
23 Of the locally-funded roadway projects, 60%of funding went to the Federal-aid roads and 40% of funding went to non-Federal-aid roads.
Chapter 5: Financial Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 5: Financial Plan | 100
Table 5-10: Local Funding Levels for System Preservation and System Improvement Projects
Time Period/Years
Non-Federal Aid Revenue*
Bike / Pedestrian Funding Roadway Funding
System System System Fed Aid
2021-2024 $68,417 $19,318 $12,878
2025-2029 $2,362 $5,512 $56,691 $8,503 $5,669
2030-2037 $4,165 $9,718 $99,960 $14,994 $9,996
2038-2045 $4,692 $10,947 $112,602 $16,890 $11,260
$11,219 $26,177 $269,253 $40,387 $26,925
*Revenues shown are based on the Revenues in Excess of O&M Spending in Table 5-7
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 6
Alternatives Development
and Evaluation
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 101
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Public input received during the engagement activities for this MTP and projects presented in past plans and studies for the AAMPO
region served as the basis for the development of project and policy alternatives for inclusion in Forward 2045. The past plans and
studies that were reviewed include:
• Ames Mobility 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan
• 2020-2024 Transit Development Plan
• 2018 Lincoln Corridor Plan
• 2020 Passenger Transportation Plan
• 2018 Complete Streets Plan
Projects screened during the alternatives development process were categorized by mode—roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and
transit—before being reviewed for consistency with the MTP’s goals and objectives, and how well they align with the prioritization
metrics shown in Table 6-1. An additional factor considered in the screening process was context, meaning how well the project
would perform in the providing desired transportation service levels, as well as how well the project fits into the surrounding built and
natural environment.
Strategy Development and Prioritization Process
The initial phase of the strategy development and prioritization process was to evaluate potential projects against the goals and
objectives presented in Chapter 1. After this evaluation, the projects were screened against the project-level metrics shown in Table
6-1, which were developed under a performance-based approach tied to the MTP’s goals and regional performance measures.
In addition to the public input and connection the MTP goals and objectives, the project scoring metrics were developed to reflect the
planning efforts of the Iowa DOT in the State Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), the Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), and the State Freight Plan (SFP).
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 102
• The State TAMP is supported in the alternative project scoring process through the promotion of financially sustainable
projects as well as prioritizing projects that minimize impacts on the environment and natural resource areas of the region. The
MPO has also set aside sufficient funding levels to continue investing in current transportation assets to maintain them within
established performance measures. In addition to bridge and pavement investments, CyRide proactively plans for vehicle
replacements through the MPO’s annual Transportation Improvement Program process. Future updates to the AAMPO MTP
will need to incorporate the goals and objectives of the MPO’s forthcoming Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP),
which establishes safety planning for public transit agencies who receive Federal funding. The compliance deadline for the
PTASP has been extended from July 20, 2020 to December 31, 2020 due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
• Consideration of the SHSP performance measures, which included a reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes and crash
rates, were integrated into this process by giving higher scores to projects that addressed both vehicular and non-motorized
safety at the top crash intersections discussed in Chapter 3.
• The alternatives scoring metrics address the SFP through the prioritization of projects that have potential to improve freight
reliability on Interstate corridors. The specific measure related to the SFP looks at existing Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR)
indexes on the Interstate system; any project that has potential to improve future TTTR receives a higher project score.
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 103
Table 6-1: Alternative Project Scoring Criteria
Goal Objective
Scoring Approach
Accessible
Improve walk, bike, and transit system
connections Creates or improves connection
between two or more modes
Creates or improves
connections for non-motorized or
transit modes
No impact on connectivity for
non-motorized or transit modes
Non-motorized or
transit connection is
removed, or barrier to
non-motorized or transit
modes is created Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to
CyRide routes
Provide appropriate arterial, collector,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit corridor
spacing
New Multimodal network
connection where a gap of ½ mile
or more existing before.
Provides a new connection
between two existing facilities, or
an extension of an existing facility
- -
Provide improved access to transit for transit
dependent, disabled, and disadvantaged
populations
Improves transit accessibility in
identified EJ area - Does not impact transit
accessibility in identified EJ area
Removes or creates
barriers to transit
accessibility in identified
EJ area
Incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-
friendly infrastructure in new developments
transit corridor closer to an
identified future development - pedestrian, or transit corridor
closer to an identified future
Reduces facility
connectivity.
Safe
Reduce number and rate of crashes Has the potential to improve
safety at top crash frequency or
crash rate intersection
Has the potential to improve
safety at any intersection
Does not impact safety at top
crash frequency or crash rate
intersection
Has the potential to
negatively impact safety Reduce number and rate of serious injury
and fatal crashes
Reduce the number of bicycle and
pedestrian crashes
Has the potential to improve
non-motorized safety at top crash
frequency or crash rate
intersection
Has the potential to improve
non-motorized safety at any
intersection
Does not impact non-
motorized safety at top crash
frequency or crash rate
intersection
Has the potential to
negatively impact non-
motorized safety
Prioritize projects that improve the Ames
Area Safe Routes to School Program
Creates or improves connection
to Safe Route to School network
for two or more modes
Creates or improves connection
to Safe Route to School network
No impact on connectivity to
Safe Routes to School network
Removes or creates
barrier to Safe Routes to
School network
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 104
Table 6-1. con’t.
Goal Objectives
Scoring Approach
Sustainable
Reduce transportation impacts to natural
resources
Is not located in an identified
natural resource area - Is located in an identified
natural resource area -
Limit transportation system emissions of
greenhouse gases
Provides a significant reduction
system-wide in VMT and VHT system-wide in either VMT or Does not significantly impact
system-wide VMT or VHT
Increases system-wide
VMT and VHT
secure, and resilient to natural and Project would reduce flooding
risk for corridor. - Project would have no impact
on flooding risk for corridor. flooding risk for
Promote financially sustainable
transportation system investments
Technology or management
strategies on existing
infrastructure
existing infrastructure (e.g. turn
lanes, protected bike lanes/side
Major system enhancements to
existing infrastructure or new
trails (e.g. roadway widening)
New transportation
infrastructure (e.g. new
corridor)
Identify context-sensitive strategies and
projects that improve traffic flow in
corridors with high levels of peak period
Improves LOS in corridor
estimated to have LOS D or
worse in 2045
Improves LOS Does not impact LOS Degrades LOS a letter
grade or worse
Maintain acceptable travel reliability on
Interstate and principal arterial roadways
reliability on an NHS corridor
identified as having reliability
Has potential to improve
reliability on an NHS corridor Does not impact LOTTR Worsens LOTTR on a
NHS corridor
Provide frequent transit service to high
trip generation locations
Improves transit frequency in
identified high trip location - frequency in identified high trip frequency in identified
Increase the regional share of trips made
by walking, biking, and transit for walking, biking, and/or for walking, biking, and/or Does not impact mode share for
walking, biking, or transit for walking, biking,
Improve freight system reliability reliability on Interstate corridor
identified as having freight
Has potential to improve freight
reliability on Interstate corridor
No expected impact to freight
reliability on Interstate corridor
worsen freight
reliability on Interstate
Identify technology solutions to enhance
system operation that more effectively manages - Does not include technology
element -
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 105
Table 6-1 con’t.
Goal Objectives
Scoring Approach
Placemaking
Increase the percentage of population and
employment within close proximity to transit
and/or walking and biking system.
Creates new, multi-modal
connection between highest tier
of dense / diverse land use.
connection between second
highest tier of dense / diverse
land use.
Does not create new, multi-modal
connection to dense / diverse
land use.
Removes multi-modal
connection to dense /
diverse land use.
Provide transportation strategies and
infrastructure that support current adopted
plans
Project is proposed by other plan
or would support neighborhood
or district development goals.
-
Project is not included in other
plans and is neutral in relation to
neighborhood or district
development goals.
other plans and would
negatively impact
neighborhood or district
development goals.
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 106
Potential Alternatives
Alternative projects identified through public feedback, input from AAMPO staff, and the technical analyses described in Chapter 4
and 5 covered a range of strategies for the roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and transit systems within the region. Examples of these
strategies for each mode are described below.
Roadway Projects
Roadway projects were primarily developed to address areas with higher potential for future traffic congestion, improve vehicular and
non-motorized safety, reduce environmental impacts, and encourage greater multi-modality. The roadway alternatives were developed
to adequately balance system preservation projects with system improvement projects while remaining within the funding levels
identified in Chapter 5. Examples of roadway projects identified through the alternatives development process include:
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 107
New Corridors: These projects would construct new roadways.
Source: FHWA
Widenings: These projects would add additional lanes to existing
roadways, i.e. convert a 2-lane road to 4 lanes.
Source: Omaha World Herald
Turn Lanes: These projects would construct turn lanes (either left or
right) at intersections to facilitate improved through traffic flow due to
the removal of vehicle queuing.
Source: FHWA
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 108
Road Diet: Road diets remove a travel lane from a 4-lane, undivided
roadway and convert it to 3-lane roadway with 2 through lanes and a
center turn lane. This roadway configuration improves safety while
sometimes offering opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian and
transit facilities.
Source: Virginia DOT
Grade Separation: Grade separations construct an underpass or
overpass that separates vehicular traffic from barrier such as an
Interstate or railroad. These projects reduce travel delay as conflicts
at these barriers are removed.
Source: UPPR
Traffic Signals: These projects would install traffic signals at higher-
volume intersections that are currently uncontrolled, or upgrade
existing traffic signals to leverage new technologies that facilitate
improved traffic management solutions.
Source: FHWA
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 109
Roadway System Management Strategies
In addition to the alternative strategies for the roadway system discussed above, several operational and management strategies
could be pursued by the AAMPO to maximize operational abilities of the existing roadway system while improving safety and mobility.
These strategies, referred to as Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO), are more cost-effective than traditional
projects that add capacity to the system and aim to address congestion issues beyond recurring peak hour congestion. TSMO
strategies fall into three categories:
• System Performance Monitoring: Use of real-time data and information to guide regional transportation decision making
based on data analytics and information management systems. Examples of system performance monitoring include
Transportation Management Centers (TMCs), and Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) that provide travelers real time information
to help with trip planning.
• Management of Recurring Issues: Strategies that addresses recurring, and thus, predictable congestion issues in the region.
These include freeway and arterial management strategies, traffic signal operational planning, and demand management for
bicycle and pedestrian users.
• Management of Non-Recurring Issues: Non-recurring issues are not easy to plan for as they are typically unpredictable. To
best prepare for them, the AAMPO can consider strategies such as Traffic Incident Management (TIM), Road Weather
Management, Work Zone Management, and Special Event Management.
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 110
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Bicycle and pedestrian projects screened during the alternatives development process sought to provide improved connections
between existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities while strengthening the multi-modal nature of the AAMPO region, improving non-
motorized safety, reducing environmental impacts, and providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in areas with denser, and more
diverse land uses. Some of the project types screened were:
Crossing Improvements: Examples of crossing improvement
projects include improved intersection markings, pedestrian signals,
and treatments to improve visibility.
Source: San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Bike lanes: These projects would construct dedicated lanes in the
roadway for exclusive use by bicyclists.
Source: City of Fort Lauderdale, FL
Protected bike lanes: Protected bike lanes provide an exclusive lane
for bicyclists within the roadway while using a physical barrier to
separate bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic.
Source: City of Burlington, VT
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 111
Bicycle Boulevards: Bicycle boulevard projects would install
signage, markings, and traffic calming measures so low volume and
low speed roads can give priority use to bicyclists.
Source: City of Berkeley, CA
Shared-Use Path: These projects would construct new off-street
trails, or extend existing off-street trails, for use by bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Source: Iowa DOT
Shared streets/pedestrian mall: Shared street projects would
convert existing roadway cross sections to a more informal setting for
vehicles and pedestrians on roads with low volumes and speeds.
Shared streets prioritize pedestrian movements and limit/prohibit
through vehicle movements.
Source: NACTO
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 112
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Selection
Bike Facilities
There are many types of bikeways, including bike lanes, routes, and off-street paths. The appropriate type of bikeway for a given street
depends on the characteristics of the roadway and the desired level of comfort for people bicycling.
Conventional guidance recognizes three general types of potential riders based on their likelihood to utilize a particular type of bicycle
facility. These rider types are:
• Strong and Fearless: Confident and comfortable riding intermixed with other modes in all contexts
• Enthused and Confident: Comfortable riding in many contents, prefers designated bikeways
• Interested, but Concerned; Would like to ride, but primarily concerns about safety and therefore rides less often or not at all.
The Interested, but Concerned group includes children, older adults, people new to riding a bicycle, and those who prefer as much
separation as possible between themselves and motor vehicles. The national best practice for creating a comfortable and appealing
bike network is to design for “All Ages and Abilities”—in other words, to design facilities so that Interested, but Concerned riders will
feel comfortable using them. Building bicycle infrastructure that meets this criteria is an essential strategy for cities seeking to improve
traffic safety, reduce congestion, improve air quality and public health, provide better and more equitable access to jobs and
opportunities, and bolster local economies.
Bikeway Selection Guidance
National guidance on selecting bike facilities to achieve a network suitable for All Ages and Abilities is available from several sources.
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide
• The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities
• The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide includes All Ages and
Abilities facility selection and design guidance
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 113
Recommended bike facilities in Forward 2045 are based on FHWA guidance, which uses the daily volume of motor vehicle traffic and
posted speed limit of the street to determine the appropriate bike facility, as illustrated in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1: FHWA Bikeway Selection Guidance
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 114
Pedestrian Crossings
Improvements to intersection design and the addition of mid-block crossings can go a long way to making walking a more
comfortable and viable transportation option. A variety of proven countermeasures may be applied to increase safety for pedestrians
crossing the street, including:
• High-visibility crosswalk markings
• Raised crosswalks
• Signs
• Curb extensions
• Pedestrian refuge islands
• Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
• Road diets
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Countermeasure Selection Guidance
The FHWA PEDSAFE Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System provides a broad suite of information and tools
to improve pedestrian safety and mobility. Forward 2045 uses the Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations as the basis for selecting potential design treatments for uncontrolled crossings in Ames. Figure 6-2 shows the
countermeasure options recommended by FHWA based on the posted speed limit, number of lanes, and average annual daily traffic of
the street. These countermeasures are proven to reduce the number and severity of collisions involving people walking. The guide
does not necessarily recommend applying all of the potential countermeasures listed in the corresponding cell of the table for any
given location, but rather selecting those countermeasures that best fit the specific location.
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 115
Figure 6-2: Application of Pedestrian Countermeasures by Roadway Feature
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 116
Transit Projects
Forward 2045 was developed through a multimodal approach, where interactions among the various modes of transportation in the
MPO region were assessed and deficiencies identified. While the MTP presents specific candidate projects for the roadway and
bicycle and pedestrian modes, the transit projects are aimed at describing capital and operational improvements that can further build
upon the region’s multi-modal connections while improving accessibility and mobility for residents.
Transit projects evaluated in the alternatives development process were based on the unique needs and funding programs of CyRide’s
fixed-route and paratransit systems. In addition to these needs and funding requirements, transit projects were assessed on their
potential to improve transit access, especially for disadvantaged populations, and connectivity with other modes. Due to the nature of
transit planning in the AAMPO region, fiscally constrained projects for the fixed-route and paratransit systems will not be identified but
potential transit improvements will be. These improvements are described below:
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 117
Transit Signal Priority: Improve signal timings for transit vehicles to allow
increased transit reliability and travel time.
Source: New York City Department of Transportation
Facility Improvements: Improvements for the Ames Intermodal Facility.
Source: Iowa State University Facilities Planning and Management
Transit-Oriented Development
Development (TOD) in future redevelopments. TOD is a diverse mix of
commercial, residential, office, and entertainment land uses located within
close proximity to transit services.24
Source: Metro Transit (MN)
Technology-Based: Vehicle location tracking, passenger counting, and
other technological solutions for improving transit planning and decision-
making capabilities.
Source: Cincinnati Metro Transit
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 118
Alternatives Scoring Results
The alternative roadway and bicycle and pedestrian projects were scored based on how well they met the criteria shown in Table 6-1
and ranked into three tiers—High, Medium, and Low. Projects receiving “High” scores are considered to best meet the current needs
of the AAMPO transportation system, however, projects receiving “Low” scores are not considered to be poor projects. While “Low”
scoring projects still address needs of the regional transportation system, they fail to meet a wide range of the goals and objectives of
Forward 2045 relative to the higher scoring projects. Figure 6-3 shows the resulting scores for the alternative roadway projects while
Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 show the scores for the alternative bicycle and pedestrian projects. Refer to the Appendix D for the
complete list of roadway and bicycle and pedestrian alternative projects.
For alternative roadway projects, the higher scoring projects were those that have the most potential to improve traffic operations and
safety in areas that are projected to have congestion issues under the 2045 E+C scenario or are experiencing current safety issues,
while minimizing impacts on the environment and remaining financially sustainable. The highest scoring bicycle and pedestrian
projects were those that extended and/or connected the existing bicycle and pedestrian system with areas of denser, more diverse
land uses while also minimizing environmental impacts and being financially sustainable. For bicycle and pedestrian projects, project
numbers starting with “ON” refer to on-street facilities, while project numbers starting with “OFF” refer to off-street facilities. Crossing
projects begin with “CR.”
24 Federal Transit Administration, https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 119
Figure 6-3: Alternative Roadway Projects by Scoring Tier
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 120
Figure 6-4: Alternative Bike and Pedestrian Projects by Scoring Tier
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 121
Figure 6-5: Alternative Bike and Pedestrian Crossing Projects by Scoring Tier
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 122
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Strategies and Treatments
The following is a list of potential influencing strategies and treatments that are likely to have the greatest impact in the coming years
throughout the reach of the AAMPO:
• Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Facilitate an integrated mobility platform, capturing trip planning and payment across multiple
modes to increase transportation access and decrease per-mile cost.
• MaaS Parking Strategy: Establish a “futureproofing” strategy for parking, considering autonomous vehicle impacts of
decreased future parking demand and gained efficiencies based on self-parking vehicles.
• Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs): Prepare for the coming shift to autonomy by considering strategies
encouraging shared mobility, reduction of vehicle miles travelled due to induced demand, and finding more efficiencies in the
existing roadway network.
• Autonomous Shuttles: Establish autonomous shuttle pilot projects to test coordination with real-world roadway conditions
and to familiarize the public with AV operations.
• Smart Traffic Signal Controls and System Management: Move traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit vehicles more
efficiently on existing streets by coordinating traffic signals through vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle
communication.
• Electrification / Charging Stations: Accelerate the shift to low-emissions vehicles by providing access to a region wide
system of charging stations.
• 5G / Communications: Establish the communication backbone needed for the function of connected and autonomous
vehicles and the links to smart infrastructure.
• Micromobility: Provide additional transportation options to complement the changing mobility network, particularly improving
first-last mile access as well as opportunities for underserved populations.
• Curb Management: Anticipate the growing competition for limited curb space resulting from increases in shared mobility and
urban freight delivery due to e-commerce and automation.
• Robotic Delivery: Respond to the rapidly growing e-commerce sector and prepare our roadway and sidewalk networks to
accommodate ground-based robotic drone delivery vehicles.
Table 6-2 presents greater detail on these ten strategies, including their pros and cons, timeframe, and impact on Ames.
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 123
Table 6-2: Pros, Cons, Timeframe, and Impact of Strategies Related to Ames
Mobility as a Service
• Decreased cost of mobility when paired
with autonomous technology
• Innovative approaches to personal
mobility
• Benefits to land use/housing/density
• Better access to transit with a larger
catchment area through mobility hubs
• Uncoordinated implementation
• Unintended impacts to existing system
(curbs, traffic flow, pedestrian access)
• Induced demand if costs to consumers
drop
Near to mid-term High
MaaS Parking Strategy
• Reuse of well-located existing structures
paired with autonomous vehicle
technology
• More efficiency (added spaces) in existing
structures
• Allows temporary use of surface parking
• Many current structures will become
obsolete
• Transition to MaaS will not be uniform, so
triggers must be determined
Near to mid-term High
Connected and
Autonomous Vehicles
• Decreased cost of mobility
• Enabling of MaaS at substantial scale
• Greater development density/less parking
•
• Induced demand/negative impacts on
system
• Inability to regulate/coordinate
effectively
Mid to long-term High
Autonomous Shuttles
• Lower cost/increase effectiveness of
transit with better first mile/last mile
connectivity
• More efficient - fewer trips to serve same
number of people when compared to
privately owned vehicles
• Introduce AV technology to broader
• Integration with other modes on
roadways
• Initial tests limited to fixed routes
Near to mid-term Moderate
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 124
Strategy Pros Cons Timeframe Impacts
Smart Traffic Signal
Controls and System
Management
• Increased situational awareness (vehicles
and pedestrians)
• Improved corridor throughput
• Reduced emissions
• Long-term potential to reduce or
eliminate signal infrastructure if CAV
•
traditional detection methods and
emerging technologies
• Uncertainty about adoption time horizons
and communication protocols
• Increased efficiency could be at the
Near-term Significant
Electrification / Charging
Stations
• No tailpipe emissions and lower carbon
emissions than internal combustion
engine
• Price for consumers is rapidly declining
• Overall cost of ownership for travelers is
typically less than a comparable internal
• Insufficient supporting infrastructure for
power distribution and charging
• Transportation system reliant upon
power grid
Near-term Moderate to high
5G / Communications
• Data-based decision-making and insights
• Creation of backbone infrastructure that
enables advanced safety and traffic
management capabilities
• Real-time system conditions and ability to
•
• No access to proprietary data
• No transparency in public
access/ownership of data
• Too much data/inability to draw
Immediate to near-
term High
Micromobility
• Expansion of mobility options
• Better access to transit with a larger
catchment area through mobility hubs
and short-range mobility options
•
• Conflicts with other modes
• Lack of “slow lane” options in ROW
• Conflicts with sidewalk uses -
pedestrians
Immediate to near-
term Moderate
Curb Management
• Coordination of curb access with
increasing competition
• Shared mobility pick-up / drop-off
• Urban freight delivery designation
• Conflicts with on-street parking
• Enforcement challenges
• Reconfiguration of curb lane
Near to mid-term Moderate
Robotic Delivery
• “Right-size” trip options per delivery
• E-commerce efficiency
• Reduce truck delivery trips
• Greatly increased number of individual
deliveries
• Overwhelm ROW or sidewalks
Near to mid-term Moderate
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 125
Implementation Strategies
Public reaction to the identified technologies was gathered as part of the public open house process discussed in Chapter 9. Figure
6-6 shows the results of the public questionnaire. The smart traffic signal controls and system management strategy had the highest
number of respondents that indicated this as most important, while robotic delivery received the highest amount of least important
scores.
Figure 6-6: Results of Public Questionnaire
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 126
Potential implementation actions were developed and are shown in Table 6-3. These projects and policies are split into three
timeframes: near-term (NT) or the present, mid-term (MT) or the implementation phase, and long-term (LT) or full adoption of these
technologies.
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 127
Table 6-3. Potential Implementation Actions
Co
El
e
NT “Slow lanes” / shared lanes
tactical test
• Select key corridors for slow lane test
deployment
• Implement test deployment
• Record results to inform permanent strategy
X X X X X X X
NT Smart parking
• Create app-based parking for tracking of
parking availability and payment: onstreet, city-
owned lots/garages, agreements with private
owners
• Install linked meters that communicate data to
parking app, adjust fare, and accept app-based
payment
• Install meters / fareboxes that relay usage and
capacity data to app
• Create wayfinding displaying linked parking
data
X X X X X
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 128
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
El
e
NT Integrate parking and transit
data
•
including arrival times
•
X X
NT Microtransit pilot
•
downtown/campus
•
X X X X
NT Expand electric charging
capabilities
•
Hall and Bandshell Park
• Identify key locations that integrate with other
mobility strategies of micromobility and smart
parking
• Identify key regional locations in conjunction
X X
NT Smart traffic signal controls
•
• Signal priority on congested arterials
•
X X X
NT Standards for alternate
micromobility options
•
bikes, etc., using the models borrowed from X X X
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 129
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
El
e
NT Guidelines for autonomous
ground-based delivery
•
• Look to other communities for emerging X X
MT 5G connected vehicle test
corridor
•
implement and test CV technology for V2X
•
X X X
MT Adaptable streets strategy
•
whether for peak hours or throughout the day
•
X X X X X
MT Parking requirements
revisions/strategy
• Determine remote parking policies and
locations for self-parking vehicles
• Determine CAV adoption triggers to reduce or
eliminate parking requirements
X X X
MT Site development standards
• Revise site development standards to reflect
reduced parking demand, preference from
front-door drop off, etc.
X X X X X X
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 130
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
El
e
MT Curb management policy
•
hotspots
• Create and implement policies that manage
how curb access will be provided as mobility
X X X X X
MT Land use and zoning
standards update
•
• Freight-warehousing
•
X X
LT Thoroughfare plan revision
•
priorities based on impacts of new mobility X X X X X X
LT Conversion of roadway
network to full CAV
•
full functionality of connected and autonomous X X X X X
LT Parking demand change
strategy
• Develop a real estate and redevelopment
strategy to capture underutilized parking areas X X X X X
LT New lane use policies
•
autonomous driving and delivery, based on a X X X
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 131
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
El
e
NT Microtransit pilot
•
downtown/campus
•
X X X X
NT Expand electric charging
capabilities
•
Hall and Bandshell Park
• Identify key locations that integrate with other
mobility strategies of micromobility and smart
parking
• Identify key regional locations in conjunction
X X
NT Smart traffic signal controls
•
• Signal priority on congested arterials
•
X X X
NT Standards for alternate
micromobility options
•
bikes, etc., using the models borrowed from X X X
NT Guidelines for autonomous
ground-based delivery
•
• Look to other communities for emerging X X
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 132
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
El
e
MT 5G connected vehicle test
corridor
•
implement and test CV technology for V2X
•
X X X
MT Adaptable streets strategy
•
whether for peak hours or throughout the day
•
X X X X X
MT Parking requirements
revisions/strategy
•
locations for self-parking vehicles
• Determine CAV adoption triggers to reduce or X X X
MT Site development standards
•
reduced parking demand, preference from X X X X X X
MT Curb management policy
•
hotspots
• Create and implement policies that manage
how curb access will be provided as mobility
X X X X X
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation | 133
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
El
e
MT Land use and zoning
standards update
•
• Freight-warehousing
•
X X
LT Conversion of roadway
network to full CAV
•
full functionality of connected and autonomous X X X X X
LT Parking demand change
strategy
• Develop a real estate and redevelopment
strategy to capture underutilized parking areas X X X X X
LT Thoroughfare plan revision
•
priorities based on impacts of new mobility X X X X X X
LT New lane use policies
•
autonomous driving and delivery, based on a X X X
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Chapter 7
Fiscally Constrained Plan
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 134
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Fiscal constraint is a Federal requirement for MTPs and means the MPO has identified a list of future transportation projects whose
costs are within the anticipated revenues forecasted for the region. Through the development of a fiscally constrained plan, the MPO is
able to demonstrate that identified projects considered for future implementation are financially feasible.
Selection of Projects for the Fiscally Constrained Plan
Candidate projects were selected for inclusion in the fiscally constrained plan based on how they scored against the project scoring
criteria shown in Chapter 6, and the forecasted year-of-expenditure costs associated with their planning, design, and construction in
relation to the available Federal and local revenue levels that were projected.
2020-2045 Fiscally Constrained Plan
The fiscally constrained plan is presented in the time bands described in Chapter 5 and includes the estimated costs in 2020 dollars,
Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) dollars, potential funding source, and potential funding sponsor in addition to a brief description of each
project.
2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program
The current Transportation Improvement Program covers the years 2021 through 2024 and the projects presented in the current TIP
document reflect those that are considered to be committed for purposes of developing the fiscally constrained plan. Fiscally
constrained projects that are to be considered for implementation beyond the current TIP will start in the year 2025, or the Short-Term
time band.
The committed roadway projects identified in the 2021-2024 TIP are in Table 7-1 while the committed bicycle and pedestrian projects
are shown in Table 7-2.
Table 7-3 shows the committed transit projects identified by CyRide for the fixed-route and paratransit systems.
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 135
Table 7-1: List of Committed Roadway Projects from the AAMPO 2021-2024 TIP
Cherry Ave from Lincoln Way to SE 5th Street - Add New Road New Road
Grand Ave from S 3rd St to S 16th St - Add New Road New Road
Duff Ave & S 16th Street - Add Turn Lanes Turn Lanes
Hoover Ave & 30th St to Duff Ave & 13th St - Road Diet to 3 Lanes Road Diet
Duff Ave from 13rd St to Crystal St - Add Adaptive Signal Control Technologies Signal Upgrades
C6 Lincoln Way from Beach Ave to Hyland Ave - Add Adaptive Signal Control
Technologies Signal Upgrades
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13 th
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 136
Table 7-2: List of Committed Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects from the AAMPO 2021-2024 TIP
C 1 Intersection of Dayton / S 16th - Improve visibility for crossing Crossing
C 2 Intersection of Duff / S 16th St - Improve crossing visibility, median refuge. Part of project 44A. Crossing
C 3
C 4 S 16th midblock trail crossing near Vet Med - High visibility treatment for trail cross - over Crossing
C 5
C 6
C 7
C 8 North Duff Bike Lanes Bike Lane
C 9
C 10
C 11
C 12
C 13
C 14
C 15 Stange Road to Bloomington Trl Shared-use path
C 16 Squaw Creek Trail Shared-use path
C 17
C 18 S 5th sidepath from Walnut to Duff Ave Shared-use path
C 19
C 20
C 21
C 22 Grand Avenue extension sidepath Shared-use path
C 23 Shared-use path
C 24 Shared-use path
C 25
C 26
C 27
C 28
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 137
Table 7-3: Committed Transit Projects for CyRide's Fixed-Route and Paratransit Systems
1 Vehicle Replacement/Expansion - 3 buses per year Equipment
2 Building Improvements and Expansion Capital
3 Real-Time Passenger Information Technology
4 Passenger Amenity Improvements Operations
5 Battery Electric Buses Vehicles
6
7
8 Light Duty Vehicles Vehicles
9
10 Install Benches & Shelters Operations
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 138
Fiscally Constrained Projects
The fiscally constrained projects are presented by time band (Short-, Mid-, and Long-Term), but the projects selected for
implementation beyond the Short-Term may be implemented sooner. A list of illustrative projects, which are projects that are priorities
for the MPO but are unable to be selected for the fiscally constrained plan due to their cost, is also included in this section. Projects
identified as illustrative could be implemented within the planning horizon of 2045 should additional funding resources be identified.
Short-Term Projects
Projects to be implemented in the Short-Term are considered to have an implementation timeframe of 2025 through 2029 and were
identified as being critical to addressing the current needs of the system. Total costs (in YOE dollars) by mode for the Short-Term
period are:
• Roadway: $14,930,000 in roadway expansion and improvements
• Bicycle and Pedestrian: $5,780,000 in bicycle and pedestrian expansion and improvements
• Transit: $18,870,000 on transit vehicles and capital improvements
Mid-Term Projects
Projects to be implemented in the Mid-Term are considered to have an implementation timeframe of 2030 through 2037 and were
identified as being a high priority in furthering the operational efficiency and safety of the system. Total costs (in YOE dollars) by mode
for the Mid-Term period are:
• Roadway: $31,430,000 in roadway expansion and improvements
• Bicycle and Pedestrian: $10,660,310 in bicycle and pedestrian expansion and improvements
• Transit: $36,630,000 on transit vehicles and capital improvements
Long-Term Projects
Projects to be implemented in the Long-Term are considered to have an implementation timeframe of 2038 through 2045, and
address the remaining high and medium priority needs that remain for the system. Total cost (in YOE dollars) by mode for the Long-
Term period are:
• Roadway: $33,710,000 in roadway expansion and improvements
• Bicycle and Pedestrian: $11,820,000 in bicycle and pedestrian expansion and improvements
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 139
• Transit: $46,400,000 on transit vehicles and capital improvements
Table 7-4 through Table 7-6 show the fiscally constrained projects by mode while Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 present the fiscally
constrained projects for the roadway and bicycle and pedestrian systems by time band.
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 140
Table 7-4: Fiscally Constrained Roadway Projects
Time Potential Federal Potential Local Funding Potential
Sh
o
r
t
-Te
r
m
(2
0
2
5
-20
2
9
)
40 16th Street, Grand Avenue, and Dayton Avenue
Traffic Signal Network (Phase 6) $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 $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 – Lincoln Way 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
-
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
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 141
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 142
Table 7-5: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Time Project Potential Potential Funding Potential
Sh
o
r
t
-Te
r
m
(2
0
2
5
-
2
0
2
9
)
CR 42 - Protected intersection. Roadway $750,000 $950,000 $0 $950,000 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 1 $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 20 $650,000 $830,000 $102,090 $727,910 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 29 $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
ON 15 Clark / Walnut Bike Route, South 3rd to
S 5th Street $90,000 $110,000 $13,530 $96,470 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
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 Route, current bike lane
end to Lincoln Way $80,000 $130,000 $15,990 $114,010 TAP / Local City of Ames
Time Frame Total $6,970,000 $11,090,000 $1,031,970 $10,058,030
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 143
Time
Project Potential Potential Funding Potential
Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
(
2
0
3
8
-20
4
5
)
OFF 31 $1,850,000 $3,880,000 $477,240 $3,402,760 TAP / Local City of Ames
OFF 55 Stange Rd Pedestrian Crossing $110,000 $230,000 $28,290 $201,710 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 between North Dakota and Iowa State $350,000 $730,000 $89,790 $640,210 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 41 $130,000 $270,000 $33,210 $236,790 TAP / Local City of Ames
ON 44 Ave from Harrison Rd to 6th St - Bike $380,000 $800,000 $98,400 $701,600 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
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 144
Figure 7-2: Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 145
Table 7-6: Fiscally Constrained Transit Projects
Time Project
-Te
r
m
-2
0
2
9
)
1 $9,200,000
Total $18,870,000
Mi
d
-
Te
r
m
-20
3
7
)
1 $17,860,000
Total $36,630,000
Lo
n
g
-Te
r
m
-20
4
5
)
1 $22,620,000
Total $46,400,000
Grand Total $101,900,000
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 146
Project costs shown in the tables above include all funding sources, including Federal formula-based, Federal discretionary, and local
funds. Table 7-7 and Table 7-8 below provides a summary of MPO revenue levels and project costs to demonstrate fiscal constraint.
Table 7-7: Summary of Revenue Levels and Project Costs for the Fiscally Constrained Roadway Plan
Carry Over From Revenue
Short-Term
(2026-2029)
Federal Sources $1,903,943 $8,215,000
Mid-Term
(2030-2037)
Federal Sources $14,485,000
Local Sources $14,993,820
Total $3,692,323 $29,478,820 $31,430,000
Long-Term
(2038-2045)
Federal Sources $16,317,000
Local Sources $16,889,940
Total $1,741,143 $33,206,940 $33,710,000
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 147
Table 7-8: Summary of Revenue Levels and Project Costs for the Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Short-Term
(2026-2029)
TAP $245,758 $534,000
Local $0 $5,511,590
Total $245,758 $6,045,590 $5,780,000
Mid-Term
(2030-2037)
TAP $942,000
Local $9,718,310
Total $511,348 $10,660,310 $11,090,000
Long-Term
(2038-2045)
TAP $1,062,000
Local $10,947,370
Total $81,658 $12,009,370 $11,820,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Tied to Roadway Projects
Several bicycle and pedestrian projects were identified as priorities that could be implemented in coordination with roadway
improvement projects. These bicycle and pedestrian projects that are anticipated to be implemented at the time of roadway project
construction are shown in Table 7-9.
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 148
Table 7-9: Coordinated Roadway and Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
CR 8 Intersection of Stange / 13th St -
Improvements for trail crossing visibility Tied to Roadway Project 14
CR 14 Intersection of 20th / Grand - Crossing /
Signal improvements Tied to Roadway Project 38
CR 41
Intersection of Grand Ave / 13th St -
Improvements for crossing visibility and safety Tied to Roadway Project 16
OFF 10 East 13th Street separated bikeway -
Ridgewood Ave to Grand Ave. Tied to Roadway Project 16
Illustrative Projects
Due to limitations on Federal and local funding levels, not all projects that meet the needs of the MPO region can be included in the
fiscally constrained plan. These projects, termed illustrative projects, are retained in the event that additional funding becomes
available in the future. The roadway projects identified as illustrative are listed in Table 7-10. They are also shown in Figure 7-3. The
transit projects identified as illustrative are listed in Table 7-11.
Developer-Driven Projects
Several of the candidate roadway and bicycle and pedestrian projects are expected to be “developer-driven,” meaning that their
funding and implementation is the responsibility of the developer and will not be considered in the fiscally constrained plan or
illustrative list because AAMPO will not need to source Federal or local funds for their implementation. Developer-driven projects are
listed in Table 7-12 and shown in Figure 7-3.
Potential Iowa DOT Projects
The Iowa DOT has identified several projects for implementation on the NHS in the AAMPO region, but these projects currently do not
have a funding source identified. These projects consist of roadway widenings and interchange reconstruction. Potential Iowa DOT
projects are listed in Table 7-11 and shown in Figure 7-3.
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 149
Table 7-10: Illustrative Roadway Projects
520th Ave & W 190th St - Roundabout $1,500,000
E Riverside Rd to from Grand Ave to N Dayton Ave - Widen to 3 Lanes $12,920,000
E Riverside Rd from N Dayton Ave to 570th Ave - Add New 3-Lane Road & I-35 Overpass $7,950,000
E Riverside Rd & I-35 - New Interchange (remove 190th St/I-35 Interchange) $15,000,000
Bloomington Rd from Hyde Ave to Hoover Ave - Widen to 4 Lanes $3,210,000
580th St and UPPR Grade Separation $2,830,000
Duff Ave & 16th/20th/24th St Roundabout/Traffic Circle $1,500,000
N Dakota from Ontario St to UPRR - Widen to 3 Lanes $840,000
17 13th St from Dayton Ave to 570th Ave - Widen to 6 Lanes/Reconstruct Interchange to 4 lane
Diverging Diamond Interchange $11,880,000
21
29
33
34
35
36 265th from University Ave to Duff Ave & University Ave from 265th to Collaboration Pl - Pave
to 3 Lanes (coordinate with Airport Master Plan) $9,660,000
45
53
1a
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 150
Table 7-11: Illustrative Transit Projects
1 Lincoln & Beach - Add Transit Signal Priority Way from Beach Ave to Hyland Ave traffic signal
project. Funding would be coordinated with City of 2 Lincoln & Welch - Add Transit Signal Priority
3 Stange & Bruner - Add New Signal New Signal
4 Stange & Blankenburg - Add Pedestrian Crossing
5 South Dakota & Steinbeck - Add Pedestrian Crossing
6 Ames Intermodal Facility Improvements Facilities resurfacing are anticipated by 2045. Costs will be
7 Iowa State Center (ISC) - Implement Transit-Oriented
Development in Conjunction with Redevelopment
Transit Oriented
Development participation not certain, and impacts to service will
8 South 16th Street - Add Innovative Transit Service Zone Service
9 North Ames (Somerset/Northridge/Valley View) - Add
Innovative Transit Service Zone Service Weekdays 7am-7pm (year-round)
10
11 Stange Road from Bloomington to University - Corridor
Service Improvements Service Daily 20-minute service (school year only)
12 University Blvd from ISU/ISC to ISU Research Park -
Corridor Service Improvements Service Daily 20-minute service (school year only)
13 South Duff from Lincoln to Crystal - Corridor Service
Improvements Service
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 151
MTP ID Project Description Project Type Notes
14 Airport Road from South Duff to University - Corridor
Service Improvements Service Weekdays 7am-7pm (year-round)
15 Ames to Ankeny and Des Moines Intercity/Commuter
Service Service Would likely not be funded by CyRide
16 Amtrak Thruway from Ames to Osceola
Intercity/Commuter Service Service Two trips per day; would likely not be funded by CyRide
17 ISU to College of Veterinary Medicine - Corridor Service
Improvements Service Weekdays 7am-7pm (school year only)
18
19
20
21
22 Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) for Full Fleet to
Collect Stop-Level Ridership Data Technology remaining vehicles in peak fleet (total of 80 large
23 Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Technology Upgrades
- Future Technology Technology
24 Real-Time Passenger Information System - Information
to Customers on Vehicle Location and Passenger Loads Technology
25 On-Demand Trip Booking App for East Ames Service
Extension (EASE) and Moonlight Express Technology
26 Electronic Farebox System Fares
27
28 Regional Commuter Study (North Ames, Nevada,
Gilbert, Boone, etc.) Planning Planning funds would be requested from Ames MPO
29
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 152
MTP ID Project Description Project Type Notes
30 Install Benches & Shelters
31 Add Passenger Information at Bus Stops
32 Add LED Signage and Real-Time Passenger Information
at Major Bus Stops
Passenger
Amenities Would be installed in high-demand and transfer stops
33 Transit and Bicycle Integration - Roadway Improvement
Projects
Multimodal
Integration when road diets are implemented. Project funding
Table 7-12: Developer-Driven and Unfunded Iowa DOT Projects
MTP ID Project Description Cost
12 550th Ave from 265th to Ken Maril Rd - Pave 2 Lanes $5,600,000
18
26 Y St from Lincoln Way to Mortensen Rd including Mortensen Rd Extension to Y St - Pave 3 Lanes $3,200,000
27 Freel Dr from Lincoln Way to Dayton Ave - Add New Road $4,500,000
32 Duff Ave from Airport Rd to 265th St - Widen to 5 Lanes $16,020,000
43 George Washington Carver from Weston Dr to 190th St - Widen to 3 Lanes $5,650,000
46 Dayton Ave from 13th St to Riverside Rd - Widen to 3 Lanes $9,870,000
48 Stange Rd Extension North to Cameron School Rd - Pave 3 Lanes $2,700,000
49 Lincoln Way from Thackery Rd to Y Ave - Widen to 4 Lanes $5,800,000
51 Y Ave from Lincoln Way to Ontario St - Widen to 3 Lanes $4,070,000
52
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 153
54
Unfunded Iowa DOT Projects
MTP ID Project Description
I-35 Widening-From 13th St south to MPO Boundary
101 US 30 Widening-From I-35 to Duff Ave
US 30 Widening-From Duff Ave to University Ave (coordinate with Illustrative Project #29)
103 US 30-X Ave / W Ave interchange reconstruction and reconfiguration
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 154
Figure 7-3: Fiscally Constrained and Alternative Roadway Projects
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 155
Future Planned System Performance
An additional scenario that incorporates the roadway projects identified in the fiscally constrained plan was analyzed to evaluate
system performance under the Existing plus Committed and Planned network (E+C+P). The same regional growth levels presented in
Chapter 4 are retained for this scenario, with the only change being the addition of the planned (fiscally constrained) roadway
projects. The same post-processing procedure outlined in Chapter 4 was applied to the 2045 E+C+P scenario traffic volumes, which
are shown in Figure 7-4.
A comparison of system-wide statistics for the Existing, 2045 E+C, and 2045 E+C+P scenario are shown in Table 7- below:
Table 7-13: Comparison of System-Wide Performance Statistics for Existing, E+C, and E+C+P Scenarios
468,226,535 714,556,026 713,740,563 52.6% 52.4%
11,836,478 20,602,681 19,921,382 74.1% 68.3%
154,187,813 202,555,211 202,555,211 31.4% 31.4%
3.04 3.53 3.52 16.2% 16.0%
39.6 34.7 35.8 -12.5% -9.4%
Source: Ames Area MPO Travel Demand Model
As shown in Table 7-13, when comparing the E+C+P network to the 2015 base year:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is predicted to increase by 52% during the 30-year period, which indicates that the average trip
will be longer, in terms of distance, than trips taken today.
o Compared to the E+C scenario, the E+C+P scenario is expected to have 0.1% less VMT.
• Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) is predicted to increase by nearly 68%, which indicates that the average trip will be longer, in
terms of time spent traveling, than trips taken today.
o Compared to the E+C scenario, the E+C+P scenario is expected to have 3.3% less VHT.
• The number of trips are predicted to increase by 31% for both the E+C and E+C+P scenarios.
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 156
• Average trip lengths are expected to see a 16% increase, consistent with the anticipated growth on the urban fringe areas
identified as future high growth locations.
o Compared to the E+C scenario, the E+C+P scenario is expected to have 0.1% shorter trip lengths.
• Average travel speeds are expected decrease 9.4%, consistent with the observation that VHT is expected to outpace VMT.
o Compared to the E+C scenario, the E+C+P scenario is expected to have 3.3% higher travel speeds.
o Decreasing average trip speeds indicate future roadway congestion, but at a lower congestion level than the E+C
network.
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 157
Figure 7-4: Existing and 2045 E+C+P Annual ADTs
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 158
E+C+P 2045 Traffic Operations
A planning-level assessment of peak hour traffic operations based on the E+C+P 2045 forecasts was conducted using the volume-to-
capacity approach described in Chapter 4: Existing Conditions. The resulting assessment is shown in Figure 7-5. The corridors that
are projected to exhibit LOS issues (level of service D or worse) under the E+C+P 2045 scenario are:
• S Duff Avenue, from Ken Maril Rd to 265th Street (assumed developer-driven)
• I-35, south of Highway 30
• Mortensen Road, from Seagrave Avenue to Welch Avenue
• Lincoln Way, from I-35 to 590th Avenue (assumed developer-driven)
• Bloomington Road, from Hyde Avenue to Hoover Avenue
• E 13th Street, from Dayton Avenue to 570th Avenue (assumed developer-driven)
• Dayton Avenue, from E 13th Street to USDA (assumed developer-driven)
The HCM approach used in the future traffic operations analysis identified intersections, in addition to roadway segments, that are
projected to exhibit LOS issues under the E+C+P 2045 scenario. The only intersection is:
• Grand Avenue and 6th Street
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 159
Chapter 7 Fiscally Constrained Plan
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 7: Fiscally Constrained Plan | 160
Regional Policy Options & Strategies
The Forward 2045 plan is a regional document that sets priorities and identifies future projects and programs for implementation. The
plan has focused mainly on specific infrastructure projects for implementation, but to augment those projects there are a specific set
of regional-based policy options, strategies, and corridors that have been identified as priorities. Those include the following:
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan: Specific bicycle/pedestrian projects are included in this plan update. It is recommended
that a detailed Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan be developed to identify the appropriate bicycle/pedestrian treatments.
• Emerging Trends & Technologies: The Alternatives Development and Evaluation chapter includes potential influencing
strategies and treatments that are likely to have the greatest impact in the coming years throughout the Ames area. It is
recommended that the MPO develop a committee in order to identify specific implementation actions in regards to emerging
trends and technologies. It is also recommended to develop a Transportation System Management & Operations (TSMO)
Concept of Operations for the region.
• Duff Avenue from S. 16th Street to Airport Road: This project is included in the mid-term constrained plan as a 6-lane facility
which includes modifying the interchange configuration. A corridor study is recommended to better identify the lane
requirements, interchange configuration and traffic control in order to better identify the overall project cost.
• 13th Street & Grand Avenue Corridor (9th Street to 24th Street): Projects 16 and 38 are included in the short-term
constrained plan. A detailed study is recommended to evaluate traffic operations and develop context-sensitive solutions in
order to address the traffic operations deficiencies.
• 13th Street & Stange Road Intersection: This project is included in the long-term constrained plan. A detailed study is
recommended to evaluate the traffic operations and develop context-sensitive solutions in order to address the traffic
operations deficiencies.
• Lincoln Way Corridor Study: The Grand Avenue Extension to S 16th Street will divert traffic off of Lincoln Way between Grand
Avenue and Duff Avenue. The amount of diversion is unknown at this point. It is recommended to conduct a detailed traffic
and concept study of Lincoln Way after the Grand Avenue Extension is open. This corridor study would evaluate the traffic
operations and identify the operational lane configuration for this corridor.
• 190th Street Corridor Study (520th to US 69): A detailed study is recommended to evaluate traffic operations and develop
context-sensitive solutions in order to address the traffic operations deficiencies.
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 8
Environmental Mitigation
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 161
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Environmental Analysis
The transportation alternatives in Forward 2045, particularly the candidate roadway projects, were evaluated as a part of the
alternatives assessment for how well they fit within the natural and built environment. State and local agencies responsible for land
use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation were also consulted during
MTP development draft plan phase of the study.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Federal agencies are required to consider environmental resources and
potential impacts on them during the planning design phase of any project receiving Federal monies. As such, this analysis highlights
potential environmental resources that could require further consideration as the alternative projects reach implementation phase in
the future.
Environmental Screening / Considerations
Environmental resources that could potentially be affected by transportation projects included in Forward 2045 are discussed in this
section. The MTP process included the screening of environmental characteristics for each alternative. Forward 2045 is a regional-
scale assessment, and projects included in the MTP would require additional project development prior to implementation. As those
project details are developed, more detailed environmental review would be conducted in the future phases of study.
Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2 show some of the environmentally sensitive natural and human-built areas in the study area. Discussion
regarding the resources shown in the figures, such as historic resources and waters of the United States, are detailed below.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 162
Figure 8-1: Physical Environmental Constraints
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 163
Figure 8-2: Human Environmental Constraints
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 164
Archaeological and Historical Resources
The consideration of impacts on cultural resources is subject to several federal laws, regulations and guidelines. Principal among
these are NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 requires federal agencies (and agencies
receiving federal assistance for projects) to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places). Through
the consultation process among agency officials and other parties, the effects of the undertaking on historic properties are considered,
beginning with the earliest stages of project planning. The goal is to identify historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE)
as early as possible in project development, evaluate the historic significance of the properties, assess the expected project impacts,
and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects.
Archaeological and historical data from the “I-Sites” public access website, maintained by the Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist
were reviewed to determine the number of historic sites within close proximity of roadway alternatives. Several roadway alternatives
are within areas with several archaeological sites nearby. As roadway alternatives continue to evolve throughout the project
development process, an APE for the project would be proposed by sponsoring agencies (Iowa DOT and local governments).
Coordination with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would confirm the APE. Records of known historic sites would
be searched to determine the presence of historic resources within the APE. The potential for unknown archaeological sites would be
determined through site specific cultural resource surveys. Through consultation with Iowa SHPO, the potential for projects to affect
historic resources would be determined: No Historic Properties Affected, No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties, or an Adverse
Effect on Historic Properties (when a historic resource cannot be avoided). In the event of an adverse effect on historic properties,
FHWA must contact the Advisory Council to advise it of the situation, and offer an opportunity for participation in the consultation with
SHPO and others to plan measures to minimize harm and, ultimately, to mitigate the adverse effects. The agency sponsoring the
project would consult with SHPO and other interested parties to formulate a mitigation plan which would become the basis for a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) drawn up and executed between FHWA, SHPO, and the DOT or local agency. Execution of the
MOA completes consultation under Section 106 unless there are changes or additions to the project.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 165
Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources
The Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 included a provision, Section 4(f), which is intended to protect any publicly-
owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance or any land of an
historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the
park, area, refuge, or site). U.S. Department of Transportation agencies, including FHWA, cannot approve any program or project
which requires the use these lands unless:
• There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the program or project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use; or
• FHWA determines that the use of the property, including any measures to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization,
mitigation, or enhancement measures), would have a de minimis impact (a determination that the project would not adversely
affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying a park, recreation area, or refuge for protection under Section 4(f) or a
Section 106 finding of no adverse effect or no historic properties affected on a historic property).
There are three types of Section 4(f) impacts: direct use, temporary occupancy, and constructive use. A direct use would be the
conversion of public park land into a transportation use and may include de minimis impacts. Temporary occupancy is the temporary
use of Section 4(f) land for construction operations. Constructive use is proximity impacts, such as noise, of a proposed project that is
adjacent, or nearby, to a Section 4(f) property resulting in a substantial impairment to the property’s activities, features, or attributes
that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). Several roadway alternatives are located near parks and other Section 4(f)-
protected properties. These alternatives would be further evaluated in the project planning phase.
Section 6(f), which was created as a part of the Land and Water Conservation Act, protects state- and locally-sponsored projects that
were funded as part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). These lands cannot be converted to non-park/recreation use
without the approval of the National Park Service. Conversion of these lands is allowed if it is determined that there are no practicable
alternatives to the conversion and that there would be provision of replacement property. Mitigation for Section 6(f) lands impacted by
a project must include replacement with land of at least the same fair market value, and reasonably equivalent usefulness and location
relative to the impacted land. The potential for roadway alternatives to impact Section 6(f) lands was evaluated by determining the
proximity of alternatives to public parks, recreation areas, and refuges using GIS data from the city of Ames and Iowa DNR. A few
alternatives may be located near Section 6(f)-protected lands; further evaluation would be needed in the project planning phase.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 166
Regulated Material Sites
Regulated materials are hazardous substances that are regulated by federal, state, or local entities based on their potential to result in
environmental contamination and potentially affect public health. The purpose of an initial regulated materials review is to identify
properties that are, or may be, contaminated with regulated materials along the alternatives within the corridor study area so that the
presence of these properties may be factored into subsequent alternative selection and design considerations. It is preferable to avoid
highly contaminated sites in order to minimize potential additional costs, liability, or schedule delays due to site remediation.
Roadway alternatives were evaluated using GIS data from Iowa DNR to determine the proximity of any national priority sites, non-
national priority sites, contaminated sites, and leaking underground storage tanks as defined by Iowa DNR and U.S. EPA. Several
roadway alternatives are located near regulated material sites. More detailed assessments of projects moving forward in the planning
process would be needed in future environmental reviews.
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
For purposes of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implementing regulations, the term ‘‘waters of the United States’’ means: all waters
which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters
which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; the territorial seas; all
impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States (U.S.) in the CWA; and all tributaries, as defined in the
CWA. Waters of the U.S. are subject to the CWA and are under the jurisdiction of the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE). A
permit from USACE is necessary for all projects that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including
wetlands.
For Forward 2045, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and aerial photography were reviewed within the Ames Area MPO study
area to determine potential project impacts on wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Several roadway alternatives would potentially
affect wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Wetland delineations are recommended in the initial stages of these roadway
improvement project to determine the boundaries of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. within the project area and to coordinate
with USACE to determine if USACE has jurisdiction over these areas.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 167
Floodplains
Development in floodplains is regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Iowa DNR. Iowa DNR
floodplain regulations affect only those roadway projects in the floodplains of streams draining over 100 square miles in rural areas
and two square miles in urban areas. Projects on streams with drainage areas below these thresholds are regulated by cities and
counties. A floodplain permit from Iowa DNR or city or county is required for most projects within a floodplain. A hydraulic review must
be completed for projects within floodplains to determine the effect of the project on the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood.
FEMA regulations prohibit encroachments in regulated floodways unless it is accompanied by a no-rise analysis that demonstrates
the project would cause no increase in the 100-year flood level.
Roadway alternatives for Forward 2045 were reviewed to determine the extent that they would occur within the 100-year floodplain
using the latest Flood Insurance Rate Maps showing the extent of the 100-year floodplain in Story County. Several alternatives are
located in floodplains and would need to be further evaluated.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) would need to be considered for each
project. The State of Iowa also maintains a list of state-listed threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern.
Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Iowa DNR would be required to determine which listed species have the
potential to occur within each project area and the potential for the project to affect each species present.
Roadway alternatives were reviewed for their potential to affect protected species by assessing the potential habitat affected by each
alternative. Potential habitat does exist along various alternatives. Projects moving forward in the planning process would need further
review for their potential to affect species by completing habitat surveys and potential consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Iowa DNR.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 168
Environmental Justice Assessment
Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including the interrelated social and economic effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Order 5610.2(A) and FHWA Order 6640.23A define an adverse effect as the totality of significant individual or cumulative
human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to:
• Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death;
• Air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination;
• Destruction or disruption of human-made or natural resources;
• Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values;
• Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality;
• Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services;
• Vibration;
• Adverse employment effects;
• Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations;
• Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community
or from the broader community; and
• The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities.
In accordance with FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, minority and low-income populations were identified in the area affected by the MTP. Projects identified as part of the
Forward 2045 were analyzed to determine if they would potentially disproportionately highly and adversely affect minority and low-
income populations in the Ames Area MPO. The City would engage all populations, including minority and low-income populations, in
the Long Range Transportation Plan public involvement process to obtain public comments during the planning process. The
AAMPO’s Public Participation Plan is the basis for the public engagement efforts for the Long Range Transportation Plan update, and
provides the direction with the intent of involving all populations within the community.
NEPA documentation for any MTP projects would analyze these populations at a more detailed level, address potential
disproportionate impacts to these populations, document efforts to inform minority and low-income populations of proposed road
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 169
improvement activities and engage them in the public involvement process, and document efforts to minimize and avoid
environmental impacts on the environmental justice populations.
Minority Populations
FHWA defines a minority population as any readily-identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if
circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be
similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity. FHWA defines a minority as:
• Black: a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa
• Hispanic or Latino: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin,
regardless of race
• Asian American: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian
subcontinent
• American Indian and Alaskan Native: a person having origins in any of the original people of North America, South America
(including Central America), and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or
other Pacific Islands.
The smallest unit for minority groups, which is preferred for analysis, is the census block 25. Census block data is gathered at the
decennial censuses which is currently underway for the year 2020. To account for changes since the 2040 LRTP, which used the 2010
decennial data, data from the 2013-2018 American Community Survey [ACS) was used to determine the number and percentage of
minority populations in Ames Area MPO. The ACS is a Census Bureau product that is updated annually but the smallest geographic
unit from the 2013-2018 ACS is the census block group which is one grouping larger than the census block 26. Per FHWA guidance,
25 Census blocks are statistical areas bounded by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by non-visible boundaries, such as selected property lines and city, township, school
district, and county limits. Generally, census blocks are small in area; for example, a block in a city bounded on all sides by streets. Census blocks in suburban and rural areas may be large, irregular, and bounded
by a variety of features, such as roads, streams, and transmission lines. While there are no defined populations within blocks, they typically contain from 0 to 100 people.
26 Block Groups (BGs) are statistical divisions of census tracts, and are generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people. A block group consists of clusters of blocks within the same census tract that
have the same first digit of their four-digit census block number.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 170
readily identifiable groups of minority persons and clusters 27 of minority populations were identified. A group of minority persons was
identified as any census block group with a substantial minority population: where the percentage of minority population was at least
one standard deviation (34%) higher than the mean of a typical normal data distribution curve as compared to the percentage of the
minority population within the Ames Area MPO boundary. Clusters were identified where a minority population is not substantially
greater than the Ames Area MPO average, but due to the large population, the minority population is great enough to be potentially
disproportionately and highly adversely affected by the proposed actions of the MTP.
Clusters identified in the Forward 2045 MTP were compared to current data to verify that the clusters identified at the block level were
not diluted in the block group level. It is assumed that clusters identified in the 2040 LRTP but not in the current analysis are still
present and not identifiable by the block group ACS data. The minority population of the AAMPO area is 22% of the total population;
the threshold value used to determine a substantial minority population is 30% (22% multiplied by 1.34). Figure 8-3 shows the
Environmental Justice populations identified.
Low-Income Populations
FHWA defines a low-income population as any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and,
if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be
similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity. FHWA defines low-income as a person whose median household
income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) poverty guidelines. The best approximation for the
number of people below the DHHS poverty guidelines in a particular area is the number of persons below the Census Bureau poverty
thresholds in that area. In this analysis, 2013-2018 ACS was used to determine low-income data for the AAMPO area. The smallest
geographical unit available for ACS data is the census block group. Similar to the minority population, a readily identifiable group of
low-income population was identified as any census block with a substantial low-income population: where the percentage of low-
income population was at least one standard deviation (34%) higher than the mean of a typical normal data distribution curve as
compared to the AAMPO area percentage of the low-income population. The low-income population of the AAMPO area is 26% of the
total population; the threshold value used to determine a substantial low-income population is 35%.
27 Clusters are discussed in the December 16, 2011 FHWA memo “Guidance on Environmental Justice and NEPA. The analysis of environmental justice is to include any readily identifiable group or cluster of
minority or low-income population.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 171
Figure 8-3 shows the Environmental Justice populations identified. It should be noted that the location of University students has an
effect on the results for the Ames area. The student population tends to be younger, and those living away from home have limited
income and can heavily influence the low-income population results.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 172
Figure 8-3: Identified Environmental Justice Populations
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 173
Fiscally Constrained Projects and Environmental Justice Evaluation
The roadway and bicycle and pedestrian projects selected for the fiscally constrained plan were screened against the environmental
justice populations shown in Figure 8-3. The purpose of this screening was to assess the potential benefits and impacts these
projects could have on neighborhoods with high proportions of minority and/or low-income residents. While the full benefits and
impacts related to the fiscally constrained projects are not known at this time, this high-level evaluation provides insight into the
relationship between the environmental justice populations and the projects selected for implementation over the next 25 years.
Projects screened through this process are evaluated based on their potential benefits, such as improved access and mobility, and
their potential impacts, such as degradation of environmental resources or adverse effects on the adjacent populations. Examples of
projects that would impart benefits would be reconstructions, system management, and rehabilitation projects while projects that
would impart impacts would be road widenings, new corridors, and grade separations.
Regional Households within Environmental Justice Populations
To better understand the distribution of households that are located within census blocks identified as environmental justice
populations, an analysis was performed using the 2015 household totals associated with the TAZs in the AAMPO travel demand
model. The analysis found that 54% of the AAMPO households are located within the EJ census blocks while 46% are outside of the EJ
census blocks.
Project Proximity to Environmental Justice Populations
The fiscally constrained plan includes 13 roadway projects and 37 bicycle and pedestrian projects. These projects were screened for
proximity to environmental justice populations based on a ¼ mile buffer around each project. Project buffers were compared to
environmental justice populations of minority and/or low-income residents; project buffers that overlapped EJ geography was
considered to have proximity to EJ populations.
• Roadway Projects: 11 of the 13 fiscally constrained projects, or 85%, were contained within the ¼ mile buffer.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: 23 of the 25 fiscally constrained bicycle and pedestrian projects were contained within the
¼ mile buffer. Thus, 92% of the fiscally constrained bike and pedestrian projects are accessible to EJ populations.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 174
Project Benefits and Impacts
For fiscally constrained roadway projects, nine (9) are lower-impact, non-widening projects that were considered to provide mobility
benefits. Four (4) projects include some sort of widening or reconfiguration of facilities that have the potential to be higher-impact
projects. There was a higher proportion of “benefit” projects adjacent to EJ population than “impact” projects: 89% of the roadway
projects providing benefits are adjacent to EJ populations, while 75% of the potentially higher-impact projects are located in proximity
to EJ populations. All of the bicycle and pedestrian projects were considered beneficial, as they have limited impacts to private
property and increase overall accessibility and recreational opportunities. The high proportion of bicycle and pedestrian projects (92%)
adjacent to EJ populations represents a disproportionate benefit to EJ populations.
Overall, there are a relatively high number of fiscally constrained projects located in proximity to environmental justice populations.
However, the majority of these projects are lower-impact and provide benefits in terms of enhanced mobility and access for
neighborhoods with higher proportions of minority and/or low-income residents. Thus, these projects are considered to be
investments in the EJ population areas. Direct impacts on environmental justice populations should be limited to the extent practical
during the project development phase.
Figure 8-4 illustrates which of the fiscally constrained projects are adjacent to environmental justice populations.
Chapter 8 Environmental Mitigation
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 8: Environmental Mitigation | 175
Figure 8-4: Fiscally-Constrained Projects Proximity to Environmental Justice Populations
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 9
MTP Engagement
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 176
Chapter 9 MTP Engagement
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
The AAMPO strives to make the creation and development of the Forward 2045 MTP a community-driven process. The overall goal for
Forward 2045 MTP public engagement was to educate the public and stakeholders on the Forward 2045 effort and allow audiences
ample opportunities for engagement and input on the planning of
Ames’ future transportation network. The engagement process was
conducted in accordance with the AAMPO’s Public Participation Plan,
which can be found at:
http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=27726.
To solicit feedback from Ames area residents, the AAMPO utilized a
variety of outreach methods and events to provide opportunities for
idea sharing, collaboration, awareness and consensus in the planning
process. In addition to the public outreach, Federal and state agencies
that have potential to be impacted by the Plan were contacted. Public
engagement materials and the Federal and state agency contact
materials for the Forward 2045 MTP can be found in Appendix A.
Website
The project website, www.cityofames.org/forward45, served as the
primary means for interested individuals to learn more about the
Forward 2045 MTP effort and participate in input opportunities. The
website page included:
• Two videos. The first video provided an overview of what an
MTP is and why it is important to the Ames community. The
second video provided a brief overview of the goal areas that were used to guide the Forward 2045 MTP.
• Project schedule.
• Links to open house and online meeting materials.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 177
Social Media & Email
The AAMPO used the City of Ames’ existing Facebook and Twitter platforms to create awareness of the MTP process and promote
input opportunities, such as open house events and online meetings. The AAMPO also partnered with other organizations, such as
CyRide, to share posts on their social media feeds to maximize the audience. These outreach methods supplemented traditional
methods such as press releases and direct mail invitations to stakeholders.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 178
Statistically Valid Regional Travel Survey
The AAMPO conducted a regional transportation survey of residents during
fall 2019 in support of the Forward 2045 MTP update. 404 people
participated in a statistically-valid survey regarding multi-modal
transportation issues and opportunities relating to transportation planning
and improvements within the region. Survey results revealed how Ames
residents feel about the current state of the transportation system and
hopes for the future of the transportation system. The figures on this page
illustrate some of the key findings from this survey.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 179
In-Person and Online Events
The AAMPO hosted open house events to solicit feedback at key milestones during MTP development. All open houses were
advertised through traditional means, such as press releases and direct mail invitations, in addition to the AAMPO’s website and social
media channels.
Visioning Open House
On November 14, 2019, the AAMPO hosted a
Visioning Open House for the public to
contribute ideas to establish a transportation
vision and goals for the Forward 2045 MTP.
The open house was held in the Ames Public
Library in Ames, Iowa.
The open house utilized the following
interactive activities to engage the public and
stakeholders in sharing their thoughts and
ideas:
• Mapping Exercises: Attendees were
encouraged to identify the issues they
faced when traveling on the Ames
transportation system, including roads,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
transit, using color-coded stickers on
large plot maps of the Ames
metropolitan area.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 180
• Vision Priorities Exercise: A large board presented potential transportation priorities that could be reflected in the Forward
2045 MTP. Attendees were provided three stickers and asked to choose their top three priorities.
• Transportation Improvement Station: This station provided the opportunity for attendees to provide their input on what they
would do to improve the Ames transportation system through an online survey tool. Results from this exercise can be found in
Figure 9-4.
Figure 9-4: Improvements to the Ames Transportation System
Online Visioning Open House
In conjunction with the in-person Visioning Open House event, the AAMPO hosted an online event at
amesgisweb.city.ames.ia.us/forward45 to provide an additional input opportunity during this important planning milestone. The online
Visioning Open House replicated information and activities from the in-person meeting.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 181
Online Community Transportation Assessment Survey
During the visioning phase, the AAMPO conducted an online survey to gain a better understanding of transportation behavior in
Ames. The survey was open from November 5, 2019 through November 27, 2019, and during that time 182 individuals responded to the
survey. The survey was promoted primarily through City of Ames social media pages, on the website and at the in-person and online
Visioning Open House.
As shown in Figure 9-6, the results of the survey indicate that the majority of respondents commute to work or school in a car or
vehicle alone, while 9.85% of respondents use public transit and 8.33% commute via bicycle.
When asked what would encourage respondents to use a mode of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle to complete
daily trips, respondents indicated that expanded transit service coverage, more bicycle and pedestrian connections or nothing would
change their mode of transportation. Figure 9-5 summarizes the breakdown of responses.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 182
The survey also asked respondents to choose the top three transportation issues in Ames. The top three issues, as shown in Figure
9-7 were roadway-centric, with respondents indicating that flow of traffic on area streets during peak times, ease of north/south travel
in Ames and ease east/west travel in Ames were issues.
77.27%
Carpool,
0.76%
Vanpool,
0.00%
Walk, 1.52%
Taxi/Ride hail
(Uber, Lyft,
etc.), 0.00%
8.33%
9.85%
Motorcycle/Moped,
0.00%
Other (please
specify), 2.27%
Car/Truck - drive alone Carpool
Vanpool Walk
Taxi/Ride hail (Uber, Lyft, etc.)Bicycle
Public transit (CyRide)Motorcycle/Moped
Other (please specify)
Figure 9-6: What Method of Transportation Do
You Normally Use to Go to School/Work?
43.95%
19.75%
43.31%
21.66%22.29%
32.48%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Expanded
transit service
coverage
More
inexpensive
transit service
More bicycle
and/or
pedestrian
connections
(trails, bike
lanes) to
employment
and
commercial
destinations
Wider
availability of
emerging
transportation
options likebike
sharing,
ridesharing
(Uber, Lyft),
and electric
scooters
Higher costs to
operate a
personal
vehicle or less
parking
availability
None of the
above
Figure 9-5: Which THREE of the Following Would
Encourage You to Use a Mode of Transportation
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 183
Figure 9-7: Which THREE of the Items below Do You Think are the Most Important Transportation Issues?
Respondents were then asked to focus on the future by identifying the top three characteristics they thought were most important for
the future of the Ames area transportation system. The top three most important characteristics were ease of connecting to
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Ease of
north/south
travel in the
Ames area
Ease of
east/west
travel in the
Ames area
Ease of
traveling to
work,
shopping, and
recreational
activities in
the Ames
Area
CyRide (public
transit in
Ames) service
"On street"
bicycle
facilities (e.g.
bike lanes,
sharrows,
cycle tracks)
"Off street"
shared use
paths/trails
Pedestrian
facilities
Traffic safety,
including
automobiles,
bicycle, and
pedestrian
safety
Flow of traffic
on area
streets during
peak times
("rush hours")
Physical
condition of
roadways
Physical
condition of
shared use
paths and
trails
None of the
above
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 184
destinations, reliable and efficient travel, and safe transportation options. These characteristics are shown in Figure 9-8 and were
reflected in the goal areas for the Forward 2045 MTP.
Figure 9-8: Which THREE of the Following Characteristics of the Ames Area Transportation System Do You Think
are Most Important for the Future
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Provides safe
transportation
options
Facilitates
reliable and
efficient travel
Ease of
connecting to
destinations
Supports the
economic
vitality of the
Ames Area
Maintains and
preserves the
existing
transportation
system
A sustainable
transportation
system
A
transportation
system that
supports
quality of life
Active
transportation
options that
support public
health
Equitable
access to
transportation
options
None of the
above
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 185
Alternatives & Strategies Virtual Open House
The AAMPO planned a second in-person open house for March 2020 to allow the public and stakeholders a chance to review,
comment and provide ideas on potential alternatives and strategies within the Ames transportation system. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the AAMPO cancelled the in-person event as a precautionary measure and opted to host a virtual meeting at
amesgisweb.city.ames.ia.us/forward45 from March 31, 2020 through April 14, 2020.
The virtual meeting utilized the following interactive activities to engage the public and stakeholders in sharing their ideas for
alternatives and strategies:
• Mapping Exercises:
Participants were asked to
select their preferred
proposed roadway, bicycle
and pedestrian and transit
strategies and map them on
an interactive online mapping
tool. Participants could learn
more about each proposed
strategy by clicking on a
reference sheet that provided
an overview and pros and
cons for each strategy. The
purpose of this exercise was
to solicit input on which
strategies participants would like implemented in the Ames area.
• Emerging Technologies Prioritization: Participants were provided a reference sheet to learn more about the ten proposed
emerging trends and technologies. They were then asked to rate how important it was to them that each technology is
incorporated in Ames.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 186
The virtual meeting received approximately 400 views while it was open for input. From the mapping exercises and surveys, AAMPO
received over 200 unique comments.
Online Alternatives and Strategies Open House Results
The resulting input from the public during the Online Alternatives and Strategies Open House are shown in Figure 9-9, Figure 9-10,
and Figure 9-11. Figure 9-9 shows the results for the roadway strategies exercise. As indicated in the figure, roundabouts and signal
timing projects were popular selections by the public. Figure 9-10 displays the public comments for potential bicycle and pedestrian
projects in the region; bike lanes, high-visibility crossings, and new/improved sidepaths were the most common responses from the
public. Figure 9-11 shows public comments for improvements to CyRide’s fixed-route system. Most responses for this part of the
online open house highlighted areas for new transit routes or extensions of current routes, especially in the Campustown and
Southwestern areas of the City of Ames.
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 187
Figure 9-9: Public Comments for Potential Roadway Strategies
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 188
Figure 9-10: Public Comments for Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 189
Figure 9-11: Public Comments for Potential Transit Projects
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 9: MTP Engagement | 190
Transportation Policy Committee Meetings
The AAMPO is governed by the Technical Policy Committee (TPC), which provides policy direction for the development of regional
long-range transportation planning. The TPC is composed of representatives from the City of Ames, City of Gilbert, Boone County,
CyRide and Story County. The Iowa DOT, FHWA, FTA and Iowa State University serve as advisory, non-voting members. The MTP
team met with the TPC to provide updates at key milestones:
July 14, 2020
• Issues/Visioning Process
• Vision, Goals, & Objectives Development
• Performance Based Planning Approach
•
September 22, 2020
• Present draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan
• Alternative Evaluation
• Draft Fiscally Constrained Plan
October 27, 2020
• Adopt Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Meeting agendas and minutes for TPC updates can be found at: https://www.cityofames.org/government/aampo/about-the-
mpo/transportation-policy-committee.
HOME | CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10
Chapter 10
FAST Act Compliance
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance | 191
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance
Metropolitan transportation plans are Federally-required to be developed through a performance driven, outcome-based approach.
The Forward 2045 plan has adopted this approach throughout, framing the overall vision through a combination of Federal, state, and
locally-tailored performance objectives. This chapter demonstrates how the Forward 2045 plan supports the national transportation
planning factors and the Federal requirements for Metropolitan Transportation Plans.
As noted in Chapter 1, there are 10 Federal metropolitan transportation planning factors. These planning factors were considered in
the Forward 2045 planning process. Table 10-1 shows how each of these planning factors into the Forward 2045 planning process
from different perspectives:
• Plan Goals and Objectives: a detailed summary of how each plan objective fits with the national planning factors is provided
in Table 10-1
• System Performance Measures: these are the Federal system performance measures the MPO reports and are included in
this document, and the locally-developed system performance measures summarized for the fiscally constrained plan in
Chapter 7; these are the scoring criteria outlined in Chapter 6 that were used to identify those projects that best fit with the
overall goal areas of the plan.
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance | 192
Table 10-1: Forward 2045 Planning Element Consistency with National Planning Factors
National Planning Factor
Forward 2045 Planning Element
Plan Goals
and Performance Scoring
Safety
Security
Accessibility and Mobility for People and
Freight
Environment, Energy Conservation,
Quality of Life and Economic Development
System Integration and Connectivity for
People and Freight
Efficient Operation and Management
Preserve the Existing Transportation
System
System Resiliency and Reliability; Reduce
or Mitigate Stormwater Impacts
Enhance Travel and Tourism
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance
Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Chapter 10 FAST Act Compliance | 193
The planning approach for this document supports 23 CFR § 450.322 Metropolitan transportation planning process for developing a
Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Specific to those requirements, this document provides the Ames area with:
• A 20-Year planning horizon with both long-range and short-range multimodal strategies and actions.
• Forecasts of future person and goods demand.
• Congestion Management Strategies.
• Identification of existing and proposed multimodal facilities.
• Support for transportation and traffic management systems.
• Capital investment measures to preserve the transportation system and enhance regional mobility.
• Proposed transportation strategies and improvements in sufficient detail for cost estimates.
• A multimodal evaluation of the plan’s transportation, socioeonomic, environmental, and financial impacts.
• Identification of projects that require further study.
• Consideration and reflection of local comprehensive plans and other national, state, and local plans, goals and objectives.
• Identification of transportation enhancement activities.
• A financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and
projected sources of revenue.
• Consultation with state and local agencies responsible for other planning activities.
• Safety element that discusses priorities, goals, and countermeasures.
Public/Agency Comment
Comment Action Status:
ISU
Comment
16th Street from University Blvd to Apple Place should be
shown as a committed project.
Add this project to committed project table and map.
(Table 7‐1, Figure 7‐1, Figure 7‐3)Addressed
CyRide
Comment
The Intermodal Facility is not funded by CyRide (students,
ISU & City). Just ISU and the City fund the Intermodal fyi.
Can you change the text on #6? From:
Facility is new in 2012, but some improvements like lot
resurfacing are anticipated by 2045. Assume some cost
sharing with City. To:
Facility is new in 2012, but some improvements like lot
resurfacing are anticipated by 2045. Costs will be divided
between the City of Ames and Iowa State University. Update text in Transit Plan (Table 7‐11)Addressed
CyRide
Comment
Transit Asset Management Plan: Also, CyRide will be
updating its TAM Plan numbers for its fleet & equipment on
9/23/00. We will forward the TAM Plan to the AAMPO
shortly after 10/1/2020 fyi. It is up to the AAMPO whether
to adopt these new percentages or not. Do you want those
new percentages for the MTP? The board will likely
approve the following on 9/23.
Update the TAM numbers (pg 59). Upon further
discussion with AAMPO, it was decided to leave the
targets as is since they have not been adopted by the
AAMPO Policy Board yet. Addressed
Where did you get the pavement management data used in
Chapter 3 (page 37)?Send pavement management data that was provided. Sent
Update some Figure and Table numbers that need
corrections.Review and updated figure and table numbers. Addressed
Locations of schools shown on Figure 8‐2 is outdated. Update current location of schools in the area. Addressed
Chapter 4, Page 79, paragraph2, line 2 – incorrect word ‐
“…themselves without human intervention, and (t)he ability
to meet travelers at their front door.”Corrected misspelling Addressed
Chapter 6, Page 109 – Grade Separation – Should this box
also include a definition for grade separation for roadways,
as well
Grade separation definition revised to apply to both
railroads and roadways Addressed
Chapter 6, Page 117 – Transit‐Oriented Development –
Most of the boxes look like they contain definitions.
However, this TOD box doesn’t define the term. Should a
definition of the term be included? There is a nice, simple
definition of the term at this location:
www.transit.dot.gov/TOD Added TOD definition to box Addressed
Chapter 6, Page 119, Figures 6‐3 – You might want to
choose a different color for either the county boundary or
the medium scoring projects. The lines look identical at first
glance. County boundary color changed Addressed
Chapter 6, Page 119, Figures 6‐3 thru 6‐5 – I think these
figures would benefit from more description in the text on
page 118. I found myself trying the project that matched
the project numbers on the maps. I think the numbers
match up with the fiscally constrained projects in the
Chapter 7 tables. If this is correct, it would be nice if Figures
6‐3 thru 6‐5 contained a reference to the corresponding
table in Chapter 7. Reference to FC plan added to this section Addressed
Chapter 6, Page 125 – Should this section reference Chapter
9 – MTP Engagement?Reference to chapter 9 added Addressed
Chapter 7, Page 137, paragraph2, line 1 – I think the tables
are incorrectly referenced. I think the short‐term projects
are in Tables 6‐4 thru 6‐6.References corrected Addressed
Comments on the Draft MTP ‐ 9/18/2020
FTA 10/2
City of Ames
Comment
Comments Received from 9/18/2020 to 10/22/2020
Comment Action Status:
Good description on how alternative roadway and bike‐
ped projects were analyzed, scored and prioritized.general comment‐no edits No edit
Page 119 – Project 41 on the map: Without looking at a
list, I would not be able to tell where the project is located
or if it is a high, medium, or low scoring tier. Is it missing? Project was removed‐map updated with 41 removed Addressed
Page 120 – Some readers may not know what ON and OFF
refers to here on this map. Please add more context for
ON and OFF to the legend or as a footnote.Clarification was added on page 115 Addressed
Page 121 – Same here for CR. I agree with Gerri’s
comment.Reference to tables added Addressed
Excellent discussion on emerging trends and technologies,
especially the way it is conveyed on pages 123‐124. It can
be quite difficult to discuss these topics any less broadly
when we do not confidently know if (some of) the
technology will be making significant changes to the
planning, project selection, etc. next week or in 10 years.
The pros, cons, timeframe and impact are nice touches on
this piece. I find myself wanting to know what the
definitions are for the timeframe and impacts in relation
to their scale. I am not suggesting you add them but my
perception of near‐term or significant is probably
different than this plan. Providing a definition here would
help me key into what you want to be telling me.
Definitions added Addressed
I am having some difficulty reading the text on Figure 6‐6.
Either making it darker or bigger would help me read it
better.Picture made larger Addressed
Perhaps I missed it, and if so, never mind. If not, please
add a discussion of resource agency consultation with
applicable Federal, State, and Tribal management,
wildlife, and regulatory agencies such as the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, State Archeologist,
County Conservation Boards, etc. It is important to have
discussions with these folks on the types of potential
activities that may have the greatest potential to restore
and maintain the environmental functions affected by the
regional transportation plan. So please add any
examples/discussion about notifying agencies early on in
the update or asking for their review and comment on
draft sections could be added to either the environmental
or MTP engagement section.
Will be added as appendix Addressed
Most of the road widening projects in the Forward 2045
Plan are unnecessary. Sizing roads for peak loads is
financially unsustainable.
If vehicle drivers feel that their route during peak use is
congested, the vehicle driver has the option to: 1) start
their trip earlier; 2) start their trip later; 3) seek an alternate
route; 4) seek an alternate mode; or 5) a combination of the
previously mentioned.
Iowa DOT
10/5
Comment Action Status:
Adding lanes to a road is the equivalent of adding rooms to
a house. In a home scenario, adding rooms will increase the
yearly heating, cooling, and maintenance costs due to the
additional cubic footage. This 2045 transportation plan does
not factor in the financial sustainability of increased yearly
costs associated with maintaining more cubic footage of
vehicle pavement. Decreasing vehicle congestion is not
accomplished by adding lanes. Decreasing vehicle
congestion is accomplished by creating more favorable
conditions for alternative transportation modes; it’s about
converting more vehicle trips to carpooling, transit, walking,
and bicycling. The cost of constructing shared use paths is
dirt cheap compared to road projects. Increased levels of
walking and bicycling has health benefits.
Decreasing vehicle congestion is not accomplished by
adding lanes. Decreasing vehicle congestion is accomplished
by creating more favorable conditions for alternative
transportation modes; it’s about converting more vehicle
trips to carpooling, transit, walking, and bicycling. The cost
of constructing shared use paths is dirt cheap compared to
road projects. Increased levels of walking and bicycling has
health benefits.
On document page 179, the largest word in the word cloud
for “What would you do to improve the Ames
transportation system” is “sustainable”. Adding car lanes is
not sustainable for the environment or the city’s finances.
The Ames Bicycle Coalition appreciates the thorough
approach to developing this plan. Our overriding vision for
the plan is that it achieves transportation equity for cyclists,
pedestrians, and transit. We prioritize increasing the ease
and safety for getting around Ames by something other
than personal motorized vehicles.
We are seeing significant increases in alternate
transportation in the form(s) of walking, bicycling, electric
skateboards and scooters, and expect these trends to
continue as younger generations face economically and
socially destructive challenges caused by COVID, climate
change, etc.
To reiterate our priorities for transportation planning,
financing and implementation:
•Priori ze mul‐modal transporta on.
•Require, incen vize, and reward accommoda on of mul‐
modal transportation options such as bikes, pedestrians,
buses, electric vehicles, and car‐sharing.
•Connect and expand bike and pedestrian trail and
commuter networks.
•Encourage Ames to limit further geographic sprawl.
oSprawl o en creates condi ons ‐‐ such as proximity to
high volume, high speed vehicle traffic; unsafe or poorly
designed intersections; minimalist bike and walking
facilities, and streetscapes empty of people and places –
that discourage folks from healthy habits of riding and
walking.
oSprawl creates longer distances that increase the cost
for services such as school buses, ambulances, city water
services, and travel in general.
•Ongoing project imple+A32:A33menta on should con nue
to prioritize evaluation and adaptions that increase safe and
efficient travel for all modes.
Ames Bicycle
Coalition
Comment
10/22
Note: This is all on comment.
Comment was documented
in public engagement
appendix
Public
Comment
10/20
Note: This is all one comment. Comment was
documented in the public engagement appendix. As
required, a performance‐based planning process was
used to identify projects for the constrained plan.
The performance‐based planning project was based
of off Federal performance measures along with local
performance measures developed from the goals &
objectives.
Comment was documented
in public engagement
appendix
Comment Action Status:
Thank you for your efforts to develop a balanced, well‐
rounded 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan in Ames.
Because the climate crisis urgently needs to be addressed at
all levels of planning, we urge you to build medium and long‐
term solutions into transportation planning to reduce
greenhouse gases and integrate climate adaptation
solutions as much as possible, whenever possible.
A few examples that we would like to emphasize support
for include:
•Priori ze mul‐modal transporta on.
•Require, incen vize, and reward accommoda on of mul‐
modal transportation options such as bikes, pedestrians,
buses, electric vehicles, and car‐sharing.
•Connect and expand bike and pedestrian trail and
commuter networks.
•Encourage Ames to limit further geographic sprawl. Longer
distances make cycling harder and less viable. Sprawl causes
longer distances that increase the cost for services such as
school buses, ambulances, city water services, and travel in
general.
Ames
Climate
Action Team
Comment
10/22
Note: This is all one comment.
Comment was documented
in public engagement
appendix
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 13, 2020
The Special Joint Meeting of the Ames City Council and Iowa State University Student Government
was called to order by Mayor Haila at 6:00 p.m. with the following Council members participating:
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 Joint Meeting due to the Governor
of Iowa declaring a public health emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, limits
have been placed on public gatherings, and this meeting is being held as an electronic meeting as
allowed by Section 21.8 of the Iowa Code.
Student Government Vice-President Schrader explained to save time he will not be doing role call
tonight and will make note of who is online.
2020 ELECTION: Jacob Schrader, Student Government Vice-President asked if anyone within the
City would like to speak about what the City is doing regarding civic engagement. Mayor Haila
noted that this election is more of a County organized election. There are no City elections this time,
but there are County elections that will be on the November 3, 2020, ballot. The Mayor mentioned
that it is very important to exercise your right to vote and hopes students are already registered and
ready to vote. Council Member Corrieri stated that if there are any students that are interested in
working on Election Day, the County Auditor is looking for volunteers to help, due to the Pandemic,
they are trying to keep the older population safe and away from working at the polls. Council
Member Junck explained there is a form on the Story County Auditors website that anyone can fill
out to apply to help. Council Member Betcher noted that there were some satellite absentee voting
locations at the Public Library and at the Scheman Building. Ms. Betcher commented that she is
working with the NAACP and the League of Women Voters to help with answering phones, and if
anyone is looking to help, to let her know. The Iowa League is helping at all the voting locations and
Ms. Betcher noted that you can also drop off your absentee ballots in a secure location at those
locations.
Mr. Schrader asked Senator Sehba Faheem to give an update about what is happening on Campus
regarding what the Student Government’s efforts are with the Catt Center and working with other
organizations. Senator Faheem explained that the Civic Engagement Committee recently had a
seminar on voter information for students. She noted that in the past they had created the
vote.iastate.edu website and encouraged students to go to the site for further voting information.
They have placed voter registration forms and absentee ballot requests around Campus and in every
residence hall on Campus. Senator Faheem mentioned they were currently working on getting the
students excused absences on Election Day; this way the students can go out and vote.
Council Member Betcher stated it is important for the students to be a part of Ames and reminded
students to claim Ames on the current Census.
Senator Abigail Schulte wanted to know if the Council had any recommendations on how to promote
engagement in future elections. She pointed out that they always see a low turnout rate from students
on local elections, and she wanted to know how to continue to make sure students and citizens of
Ames vote in the future. Council Member Betcher stated the Council is continuing to work on
outreach and improving public engagement. Part of the public engagement will be trying to reach
out to students. The City is currently partnering with the Community and Regional Planning Class
to look at different methods of engagement for different populations in the community. Ms. Betcher
stated that Karen Kedrowski, Director of the Catt Center, is committed to getting students involved
in voting and working on how to get students more committed to vote. She is hoping that Ms.
Kedrowski will be reaching out to the Council and the Student Government with ideas. Senator
Mason Zastrow mentioned that he voted earlier at the Scheman building and it was busy all day. He
noted to try to give yourself 45 minutes when going to vote. Mayor Haila stated it is an excellent
question about student engagement and recommended broadening the question to how to get students
engaged in the community year-round. Within the last year, the Council has talked about how to get
more exposure on what is happening in the community to the students on Campus. They Mayor
thought if that could be accomplished it would help students to get out and vote.
Council Member Junck thanked the Civic Engagement Committee for all the work they have done
with providing resources to students. She noted from her experience about getting students involved
in elections is voter contact. She mentioned that having the Civic Engagement Committee put flyers
on everyone’s dorm doors may be helpful.
Ex officio Whitlock mentioned that a lot of students feel that when they are on Campus, they have
their own little community and don’t see the need to go anywhere else around Ames. She noted that
she came from a small town and it is a little scary to venture out. She recommended providing a list
to the students of things that are available to do in Ames as she didn’t think the students would
Google that information.
Vice-President Jacob Schrader stated he worked for the Census as a numerator and it was hard to get
the information needed. He reminded students to vote.
COVID-19: President Morgan Fritz mentioned that she had worked all summer long with the
academic continuity work group regarding to Campus, which was a working group that set up how
classes would go. She noted that a lot of mitigation efforts have been done and she listed a few.
Student Government President Fritz explained there is COVID-19 testing happening at the Hilton
Coliseum. Recently, ISU implemented randomized testing and a significant number of students have
been contacted to take part in the random testing. The Student Government provided some funding
for incentives to get students to stop in and get tested.
Vice-President Schrader asked for someone on Council to speak about what efforts the City of Ames
had taken with COVID-19. Mayor Haila stated he was impressed by the communication and
collaboration between ISU and the City of Ames. The Mayor mentioned that the City was brought
in early on with the “Cyclones Care” campaign. They have worked with partners in the community
2
to get the message out. He explained that in late March, he organized a meeting with Story County
Emergency Management where they had weekly meetings to get updates and to understand what was
happening in the community. The City of Ames Police Chief and ISU’s Chief Newton have been
working closely with mass gatherings. ISU and the City of Ames have worked together to make sure
the same message about face coverings is given to all students and citizens of Ames. He noted that
there are very few citizens in Ames that have been in the ICU at the hospital. Mayor Haila pointed
out that the City has no influence on the Governor, and he had reached out to her on multiple
occasions to get information on face coverings, but has never received a phone call or email back.
He noted that he is not saying that to be critical of the Governor, but just more or less she is not
responding to anyone.
Council Member Betcher stated that a constituent wanted her to reach out to the Student Government
about having large parties with no face coverings as those are very disconcerting to neighbors. Ms.
Betcher noted that the constituent was not complaining about the party itself as they are used to
them, but because of the mask mandate, any large gatherings should be social distancing and have
face masks. The Story County Board of Supervisors had approved the Story County Board of
Health’s face covering mandate, and she noted it was the same as the City of Ames.
Senator Advait stated that he did hear about the mandate not having any penalties and wanted to
know if the City had any data about compliance. City Manager Steve Schainker stated there is not
any surveying being done as it is all antidotal, but if you are looking around town you will see people
are abiding the face covering mandate. The amount of complaints coming into the Police Department
have lessened. Mr. Schainker commented that he believes there are not a lot of large gatherings
happening and people are trying. He noted he went to the football game the other day and everyone
was in compliance. He wanted to encourage people to have fun, but still practice safety. Mayor Haila
stated that if a resident calls in a complaint of a nuisance parties to law enforcement and the party
is being hosted by some students; those students names are given to Iowa State law enforcement and
Administration. ISU Administration has been taking action on students that are not complying. ISU
had asked the City to turn into the names of those responsible if they happen to be students.
Council Member Betcher stated in regards to data, she is on the Ames Visitor and Convention
Bureau and they are not collecting data, but many members on the Board are happy with the mask
mandate as it allows them to refer to the City when people complain. It takes some pressure off some
of the hotels and businesses.
OPEN FORUM: Mayor Haila stated one way to get student engagement is for students to serve on
the City’s Boards and Commission. He noted that he has an immediate opening for a student renter
to serve on the Property Maintenance Appeals Board (PMAB). The PMAB is an ad-hoc board that
meets only when needed. The Mayor explained it would be a great education opportunity. Mayor
Haila mentioned that the only qualification is that you have to be a student and renting off Campus.
He requested anyone who is interested to email him. Mr. Schrader asked for the website for more
information about the Boards and Commissions. Mayor Haila asked for ex officio Whitlock to send
the website address to Mr. Schrader.
3
City Manager Steve Schainker provided an update on Welch Avenue. He noted that they are hoping
to have the project completed by November.
Senator Faheem inquired to when the application deadline would be for the Boards and Commission
position. Mayor Haila mentioned that the application period will remain open until the position has
been filled. The Mayor then explained the normal Boards and Commission application process.
Senator Advait questioned a few construction projects and wanted to know about the extension of
Grand Avenue and the status of the project. Mayor Haila stated it is actively under construction and
it is anticipated by this time next year it will be ready. City Manager Schainker explained that there
is still a big bridge that needs to be built. Mayor Haila noted that the bike path that is just south of
Hy-Vee that goes to the ISU Research Park will be paved.
Senator Advait inquired about the area by US 30 and South Dakota and noted there are traffic lights
there now and he wanted to know about the traffic flow. Mr. Advait mentioned that anecdotally those
lights have been slowing traffic down. Mr. Schainker explained that there is any current data, but
previous data showed there was a need for a light at that intersection to help avoid back-ups onto
Highway 30 during rush hour.
Senator Mason Zastrow stated that the bridge has been out for a while on the trail from Oakland
Avenue to McCarthy Lee Park. He wanted to know if the bridge is scheduled to be fixed. Mr.
Schainker explained that the Council just approved the work to have the bridge redone, but there was
a delay as the City was waiting to see if would be able to get federal funding. Council Member
Martin stated that there is some construction equipment down around the missing bridge and this
should be done around November. Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham stated that they
are still awaiting to hear back from FEMA about some additional funding, but the goal is to have the
project proceed. Henkel Construction was awarded the contract and hoping to start later this month
and to have the bridge completed by the end of this month. Mr. Abraham noted that, from the
parking lot to the bridge on the McCarthy Lee side, they will be asphalting the path. Director
Abraham noted they are upgrading the sanitary sewer in Munn Woods, and they will be installing
some steppingstones from Munn Woods to the north side of the creek to McCarthy Lee Park. This
will make a continuous path on City property.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know what the students’ perceptions were about ridership with
CyRide. He noted that thankfully the City had received some federal funding to help get over the
impacts that COVID-19 has had on CyRide. Mr. Gartin wanted to know if students are riding the bus
as much as they did before COVID-19 or less. Mr. Schrader stated the numbers show about 40% for
this year, but explained that it feels like there are a lot fewer people riding the bus. Mr. Gartin hopes
that the ridership will rebound.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen was appreciative of the Joint Meeting. She told the student
government to always feel free to reach out to the City Council if there were any questions or if
anyone wishes to provide input on City topics.
4
Council Member Betcher wanted to say thank you to Senator Zastrow for helping with the National
Town and Gown’s webinar series that was discussed the student perspective regarding COVID-19.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Betcher to adjourn the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
5
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 13, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor John Haila called the Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council,
which was being held electronically, to order at 6:07 p.m. with the following Council members
participating: 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, limits have been placed on public gatherings, and 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.
The Mayor announced that the Council was working off an Amended Agenda. City staff had added
a Resolution approving a Plat of Survey for 235 Alexander Avenue to the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to approve the following items on
the Consent Agenda.
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving Minutes of Special Meetings of September 15, 2020, and September 29,
2020, and Regular Meeting of September 22, 2020
3. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period September 16 - 30, 2020
4. Motion approving New 12-month Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and
Sunday Sales - Dollar General Store #22303, 3407 Lincoln Way - pending final inspection
5. Motion approving 5-day (October 27 - October 31) Class C Liquor License - Christiani’s
Events LLC, 2601 E. 13th Street
6. Motion approving Class Beer Permit with Sunday Sales Ownership Change for Doc Stop 5,
2720 E. 13th Street - pending satisfactory background check
7. Motion approving premises update for Levy @ Scheman Building to allow ISU Dining to
serve alcohol on October 15, 2020, for special event to be held at Scheman Building
8. Motion approval renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor Licenses:
a. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - North Grand Cinema, 2801 Grand
Avenue
b. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout
Beer), and Sunday Sales - Target Store T-1170, 320 S. Duff Avenue
c. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - London Underground, 212 Main Street
d. Class B Beer with Sunday Sales - Chicha Shack Ames, 131 Welch Avenue
e. Class C Beer Permit with Sunday Sales - Docs Stop 5, 2720 E. 13th Street
9. RESOLUTION NO. 20-524 Approving and Adopting Supplement No. 2020-4 to the Ames
Municipal Code
10. RESOLUTION NO. 20-525 approving Revisions to the Personnel Policies effective October
19, 2020
11. RESOLUTION NO. 20-526 approving increase in authorized FTE count for Public Safety
Dispatchers from 11 to 12 for period between November 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021
12. RESOLUTION NO. 20-527 appointing Neil Upadhyay to serve on ASSET
13. RESOLUTION NO. 20-528 appointing Leslie Ginder to serve on Human Relations
Commission
14. RESOLUTION NO. 20-529 appointing Patti Engelmann to serve on Property Maintenance
Appeals Board
15. Amendments to 2020 Commission On The Arts (COTA) Fall Special Project Grant
Contracts:
a. RESOLUTION NO. 20-530 approving Amendment to Octagon Center for the Arts’ Fall
2020 Grant for the “Chalk the Block” community event to extend the contract term to
December 31, 2021
i. RESOLUTION NO. 20-531 approving a carry-over of $738 in funding from FY
2020/21 to FY 2021/22 for the “Chalk the Block” community event
b. RESOLUTION NO. 20-532 approving Amendment to Ames Town and Gown Chamber
Music Association’s Fall 2020 Grant for the outreach event by the Merz Trio to extend
the contract term to June 30, 2021
c. RESOLUTION NO. 20-533 approving Amendment to Story Theater Company’s Fall
2020 Grant for the production of “Frozen, Jr.” to extend the contract term to June 30,
2021
d. RESOLUTION NO. 20-534 approving Amendment to Story Theater Company’s Fall
2020 Grant for the production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” to extend the
contract term to December 31, 2021
i. RESOLUTION NO. 20-535 approving a carry-over of $700 in funding from FY
2020/21 to FY 2021/22 for the production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown”
16. RESOLUTION NO. 20-536 approving Conflict of Interest Waiver for Ahlers & Cooney Law
Firm to represent Ames Community School District regarding a cost-sharing agreement for
path lighting at Furman Aquatic Center
17. RESOLUTION NO. 20-537 approving Encroachment Permit for a sign and lights at 316
Main Street
18. RESOLUTION NO. 20-538 setting date of public hearing for November 24, 2020, on
proposed changes to the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area and Plan
19. RESOLUTION NO. 20-539 approving Amended Intergovernmental/Agency Agreement to
Fund Administrative Services for the ASSET Process
20. RESOLUTION NO. 20-540 approving renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement for
Tobacco, Alternative Nicotine, and Vapor Product Enforcement between the Police
Department and Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division
21. RESOLUTION NO. 20-541 approving financial support as a sponsor for the 2020
Symposium on Building Inclusive Organizations in the amount of $2,500
22. RESOLUTION NO. 20-542 approving Professional Services Agreement for 2020/21 Arterial
Street Pavement Improvements with WHKS & Co., of Ames, Iowa, in an amount not to
exceed $143,800
23. RESOLUTION NO. 20-543 approving Memorandum of Understanding with Ames
Community School District to utilize the Furman Aquatic Center parking lot, sidewalks, and
2
paths while new High School is being built
24. RESOLUTION NO. 20-544 accepting the 2020 Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, and Bureau of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant Program and authorizing Police Department to participate in the Program
25. RESOLUTION NO. 20-545 approving extension of the Service Agreement with RFID
Library Solutions for the automated materials handling system in the total amount of $82,500
for a five-year period
26. RESOLUTION NO. 20-546 approving Emergency Purchase Order for the tree removal from
the August 10, 2020, windstorm damage to Weiss Tree Service, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, for
Electric Services Department, in the amount of $142,898.50 inclusive of sales tax
27. RESOLUTION NO. 20-547 approving bid due date and project completion date changes for
the Baker Subdivision Geothermal Heat Pump System, setting October 21, 2020, as new bid
due date and June 1, 2021, as the new project completion date
28. RESOLUTION NO. 20-548 awarding contract to Blade Runner Turbomachinery Services,
LLC, of Navasota, Texas, for Unit 8 Turbine Generator Overhaul in the amount of $699,800
for base bid plus Alternate #10
29. RESOLUTION NO. 20-549 approving contract with Burke Corporation of Nevada, Iowa,
for hauled waste disposal at the Water and Pollution Control Facility
30. RESOLUTION NO. 20-550 approving contract and bond for 2017/18 Main Street Pavers
(Clark to Burnett)
31. RESOLUTION NO. 20-551 approving Change Order No. 1 for Scaffolding and Related
Services and Supply Contract for Electric Services with HTH Companies, Inc., of Union,
Missouri, in the amount of $20,000 (plus $1,400 sales tax)
32. RESOLUTION NO. 20-552 approving Change Order No. 1 for Specialized Wet Dry
Vacuum, Hydro Blast, & Related Cleaning Services for Electric Services with HTH
Companies, Inc., of Union, Missouri, in the amount of $100,000 ($7,000 sales tax)
33. RESOLUTION NO. 20-553 accepting completion of CyRide 2020 Pavement Improvements
Middle School Turnaround Project
34. RESOLUTION NO. 20-554 approving Plat of Survey for 2740 Ford Street and 505 Bell
Avenue
35. RESOLUTION NO. 20-557 approving Plat of Survey for 235 Alexander Avenue
36. RESOLUTION NO. 20-555 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Birch Meadows Subdivision, 1st Addition
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.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING GUEST LODGING: Planning and Housing Director Kelly
Diekmann stated that on June 29, 2020, Governor Kim Reynolds signed House File 2641 into law
which impacted the local regulation of short-term rentals. The terminology that the City of Ames
uses for short-term rentals was guest-lodging. Director Diekmann noted that based on the State’s
3
action, staff has very limited options on what it can do. The new law does allow local governments
to “regulate, prohibit, or limit if enforcement is performed in the same manner as enforcement
applicable to similar properties that are not short-term rentals” for such things as the “protection of
public health and safety related to fire and building safety, sanitation, or traffic control,” and
“residential use and zoning purposes related to noise, property maintenance, or nuisance issues.”
This would mean that short-term rentals are still subject to zoning as a residential use and are
included under the purview of Chapter 13 of the Rental Housing Code. Mr. Diekmann stated that
staff would like to know what the Council would recommend doing with owner-occupied homes.
He asked if the City would default to the current Code (meaning anyone that has more than a roomer
in an owner-occupied home would need to register as a rental and subject to the Rental Code). The
other two options that were described in the Staff Report were different versions of what exceptions
may be acceptable to the City. Staff is asking for the Council to help determine how to fit owner-
occupied homes into the regulatory structure.
Council Member Gartin asked Director Diekmann if he knew what other communities were doing
regarding the change made by the State. Mr. Diekmann stated he had only reached out to Des
Moines, and they have not moved forward on anything yet. He pointed out that Des Moines had a
more restrictive Code than the City of Ames had.
Council Member Betcher questioned if each current guest-lodging home would fall under the Rental
Code if the Council did nothing. Director Diekmann stated about two dozen property owners
received different versions of Guest-Lodging licenses last year. The way the Rental Code is
structured is if a property-owner has a Guest-Lodging Permit, they are exempt from the Rental Code.
All the guest-lodging properties would continue to be exempt from the Rental Code while they have
the Permit, but when it expires next year, the property would need to come into compliance with the
full Rental Code. Any new applicants would be told they would have to comply with the Rental
Code. Ms. Betcher commented that the current Guest-Lodging Permits would have a grace period
if the Council did nothing. Director Diekmann noted that would be correct. Mayor Haila inquired
if the guest-lodging homes would have to comply with all the parking requirements. Mr. Diekmann
explained that the Guest-Lodging Permits have higher parking requirements than which the Rental
Code.
Council Member Martin stated that he was interested in Option 3, would allow property owners to
voluntarily adopt a different set of rules that would exempt them from the Rental Code. Mr. Martin
commented that he was worried about any legal issues with choosing Option 3. He wanted to make
sure the Council followed the State law change. Council Member Martin mentioned he was
concerned that if a property owner opted into the guest-lodging requirements and then did not uphold
their part of the Permit and allowed the tenants to stay longer than 30 days. He asked if it would
affect the City’s regulations that apply to only short-term rentals. City Attorney Mark Lambert stated
that in response to Mr. Martin’s first question about having an exemption from the Rental Code and
if it would be legal his answer would be “yes.” The City is making it easier for the property owner
as opposed to making it more strict. Mr. Lambert noted that regarding Mr. Martin’s second question
about having a property owner follow the 30-day rule, it would be a legitimate concern. He asked
4
if Director Diekmann had any concerns. Mr. Diekmann stated that with guest-lodging, the owners
were given an exception from the Rental Code. Attorney Lambert stated that if the City states that
a property owner violates the Guest-Lodging Permit, that would violate the Rental Code. Council
Member Martin inquired if any action was being taken tonight on bed and breakfasts. Mr. Lambert
stated that bed and breakfasts do not fall under this category; it is a separate part of the Code. Mr.
Diekmann stated that the exception would be from the Rental Code, and the question would be if
the property owner was violating the Rental Code, not Chapter 35. He explained until staff knew
what they were permitting, he is not sure he could answer the question. Director Diekmann noted
that he wanted to be clear that the only two versions of owner-occupied; one was called hosted-
homeshare and the other was a homeshare. Mr. Martin inquired if any action needed to be taken to
fix bed and breakfast establishments. Attorney Lambert explained that bed and breakfast
establishments are not covered under the language that the Legislature passed.
Council Member Gartin stated that the landlord-tenant statue provides great protection for tenant and
if there was a default back to that, it would be helpful. He asked the City Attorney to explain how
the relationship changes when the Iowa Landlord Tenant Statue kicks in. Mr. Gartin wanted to know,
on the enforcement side, if there are any factors that the Council should be thinking of. Mr. Lambert
stated in terms of the landlord-tenant law, he didn’t believe anyone staying in a short-term rental or
Airbnb would fall under the language of the landlord-tenant statue. Attorney Lambert felt the
landlord-tenant statue was put in place to address long-term residential situations. Mr. Lambert
explained that he will look at the landlord-tenant statue again and will have that done before anything
is drafted. Director Diekmann stated in terms of enforcement, since the Council had already adopted
all the different standards and rules, he didn’t believe that enforcement would change. If anything,
an Airbnb was easier to police, since Airbnb’s advertise what they are offering. Director Diekmann
noted that if they carve out an exception for someone from the Rental Code; the code enforcement
issue would only be a loophole for a regular rental property getting licensed. He noted that the only
exception they would be talking about is for the 28 properties that are currently licensed as guest-
lodging.
Council Member Betcher commented that the landlord-tenant law may not apply, but the City has
always said the Rental Housing Code was designed to protect those who are renting from safety
issues. Mayor Haila asked if it was possible for only the hosted-homeshares to be carved out.
Director Diekmann explained that the homeshare was always the hardest to monitor with the 90-day
limit of guest stays and the hosted-homeshare fits into the vein of the owner-occupied exemption that
is already in the Rental Code. He noted that the Council could separate them out.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know how to get public input on the options. Director Diekmann
commented that staff did not seek any input for the options provided tonight, because the options
that were suggested are continuing with the current Code or default to the more stringent Code.
There were not a lot of options to discuss with the public. Director Diekmann stated that at this time,
staff’s opinion were the only options presented. Mayor Haila commented that if any changes were
made it would only affect about 28 people. Mr. Diekmann mentioned that staff would reach out to
the 28 properties that have licenses to let them know about any changes that will be made.
5
Mayor Haila questioned if the Council decided to have everything but hosted homeshares fall under
the Rental Code, it would require property owners to make significant investments in their properties
in order to become compliant with the Rental Code. Director Diekmann noted that when looking at
the map from the Staff Report there is only one homeshare that was licensed and seven hosted-
homeshares. The rest of the properties were already subject to the Rental Code because they were
vacation lodging or were something else that had to comply with the Rental Code. Council Member
Betcher explained that if there was a house that needed to have a lot of work done to it, in order to
meet the Rental Code, but filed for a Guest-Lodging Permit would the Council deem the property
safe. If that is the case, she wanted to know why they wouldn’t apply the Rental Code to all
properties. Mr. Diekmann stated that based on what was adopted in Chapter 35, the City Council
already did exempt, under the hosted-homeshare, full compliance with the Rental Code.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it when no one asked to comment.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Option 3to give optional licensing of owner-
occupied homes as exempt from the Rental Code; which maintains current standards for owner-
occupied homeshares.
Council Member Martin explained that he didn’t really see how the state law change had
meaningfully affected the risk profile decisions that the Council had previously discussed at length
and made decisions on. The question is if the Council still had an interest in allowing people to use
their properties in a way that extends a different hospitality to visitors in town than what is available
through hotels. Mr. Martin noted that he still has concerns about the legality, but if staff had any
issues, he believed that would be brought to the Council’s attention.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Betcher. Motion declared carried.
2020 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS: Public Relations Officer Susan
Gwiasda presented highlights from the 38th Annual Residential Satisfaction Survey. Assistance was
received from the Institute for Design Research and Outreach (IDRO), College of Design. Surveys
were mailed to 1,350 randomly selected utility users and emailed to randomly selected Iowa State
University students. This year they offered the option to take the survey online instead of by paper,
and 55 citizens opted to take the survey online. There were 844 returned surveys. Ms. Gwiasda
pointed out that the survey went out in April and was due in Mid-May. It was noted that the
timeframe was during the early stages of COVID-19, before the George Floyd incident and the
derecho. She explained that those three events were significant in 2020, and are probably not
reflected in the Survey results. The survey is done yearly prior to kicking off the budget. The Survey
is done as a benchmark for City services, but also to provide the Council with some direction as they
go into the budgeting process.
Two new additional questions were added this year; 1) Added a Sense of Community Section, and
2) Replaced “What would make Ames cool?” with “What would make Ames a fun, vibrant,
6
community?” The completed Survey results will be placed on the City of Ames website under the
City Manager’s Office. In the report, 96% of those surveyed ranked the service quality as “good” or
“very good.” The “very good” ranking saw a notable increase of 7% over the 2019 survey, and there
was a small increase in the “poor” ranking. Ms. Gwiasda went over the ongoing service priorities
and noted that 56% to 86% of respondents said to spend the same amount of money as in previous
years. The trends in Preferred Property Tax Adjustments showed similar results to the previous five
years where the majority recommended no changes in property taxes. Capital Improvement Priorities
rated the same as they have been for the past ten years.
Ms. Gwiasda explained that with the new question of “Sense of Belonging” almost 80% of the
community felt they were valued as an individual in the Ames community. She noted that it is hard
to know what to do with the numbers since this is the first year this question had been asked, but they
will be digging a little bit deeper into the data. Council Member Gartin inquired if it was possible
to be able to drill down and to see how different cross-sections of the Survey responded to the
question. Mr. Gartin mentioned he brought up that question as previously there had been a Campus
climate survey regarding their satisfaction, and they would love to have African Americans to have
a greater sense of connection within the community. Ms. Gwiasda explained that question had
previously been asked and she tried to drill down further. She was able to see that white women
between the ages of 26-34 expressed some concern about not belonging. Ms. Gwiasda mentioned
she was hesitant with the data as she just received it and has not had any time to analyze the data
further. Mr. Gartin noted that the Survey is a great tool, and if additional insights could be provided,
it would be helpful for the Council.
The health question now has two years’ worth of data, and this year 21% of responsdents said they
had excellent health, while in 2019, it was 13%. Ms. Gwiasda explained that 390 responses were
received regarding the “What would make Ames a fun, vibrant community” and she didn’t believe
the responses were that different than the previous question that was asked about “What makes Ames
cool.” It was pointed out that 51 respondents (11%) indicated that Ames is already a fun, vibrant
community. Ms. Gwiasda noted that overall, it was a good report and she didn’t see anything that
jumped out as a major concern.
Council Member Betcher asked if there had ever been any comparisons done on the overall
satisfaction with the City from when the Survey started 38 years ago. She noted that the Council
sees the five-year comparisons, but wanted to know if the City has come a long way in the past 38
years or has the City remained the same. Ms. Gwiasda explained she would not have a lot of great
information, and noted that when she started with the City it was in the middle of a Survey and the
Survey was done by a consultant. She explained that the City worked with the ISU Extension for
about five years before the survey was moved over the ISU’s College of Design. Regarding bench-
marking, the scales have changed throughout the years, and she isn’t sure the data would be correct.
Ms. Gwiasda explained that they could do a longitude study from when the College of Design took
over and probably when ISU Extension did the Surveys, as they were digitized; anything earlier than
that she would not be able to get.
7
The Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when there was no one wishing to speak.
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE’S REQUEST FOR FUNDING: Assistant City Manager Deb
Schildroth explained that Primary Health Care (PHC) operates dental clinics in its Des Moines and
Marshalltown locations. In late Spring 2020, Mid-Iowa Community Action (MICA) approached
PHC about taking over the dental clinic services. MICA’s dental clinic is financially supported
through the ASSET process. Council had budgeted funding for MICA’s dental clinic in the amount
of $95,000 for FY 2020/21; however, due to the pending transition of the dental clinic from MICA
to PHC, the FY 2020/21 MICA contract approved by Council on August 25, 2020, did not include
the $95,000 for dental clinic services. PHC has requested that the funds that were originally intended
for MICA’s dental clinic service be given to them. PHC has initiated similar requests to Story
County and United Way of Story for the funds they had initially allocated to MICA’s dental clinic.
PHC has been approved as an ASSET agency and has submitted a budget request for the FY 2021/22
funding cycle.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know if there was a cost comparison of running the dental clinic
through PHC instead of MICA. Ms. Schildroth mentioned that the figures were comparable, and
MICA provided PHC with the data regarding the clients and types of dental services provided. The
starting cost will be a little bit higher for PHC, but they do have projections for the number of clients
they will see through 2024. She pointed out that, with PHC, they qualify as a federally qualified
health center and they are able to receive enhanced Medicare rates, and have access to other federal
funds.
Marissa Conrad, Director of Marketing and Communication with PHC, commented that she was
available to answer any questions.
Council Member Betcher asked if all the operatories would be in the same location. Ms. Conrad
explained that they would be as they are co-locating with its medical clinic. It will be a great
integration between medical and dental.
Mayor Haila wanted to know if the same number of people will be served as opposed to how many
MICA served. Ms. Conrad stated they are projecting to see more patients then MICA did, because
MICA had four operatories while PHC will have six operatories. The Mayor inquired if there was
any data from previous years to how many patients MICA served per year. Ms. Schildroth
commented that she does not have that data available, but could look it up and provide it to the
Council. She noted that when the dental clinic first started through MICA, the dental clinic was
staffed by dentists in the area who volunteered their time, which made the hours very limited. Over
time the dental clinic did acquire enough funds to hire a full-time dentist. There were two hygienists
on staff with MICA. Mayor Haila asked Ms. Conrad how many dentists and staff would be employed
by PHC. Ms. Conrad noted that PHC will have one dentist and two dental hygienists, but they have
more dentists on staff at their other locations who could help, if needed. Mayor Haila mentioned that
the letter from Kelly Huntsman, CEO, showed a snapshot of the number of uninsured, Medicaid, or
insured patients that PHC was expecting to serve, and he wanted to know why the number of patients
8
would increase each year. Ms. Conrad noted that it takes a couple years to establish a business, and
when they hire more dental hygienists, they can get more kids in for cleanings, etc., and will be able
to see more patients in a different capacity.
Mayor Haila inquired if MICA served only uninsured patients and Medicaid or were there others.
Ms. Schildroth explained that the uninsured and Medicaid patients were their primary population
group, but MICA also would serve insured patients. Ms. Schildroth mentioned that MICA served
around 1800 - 2000 individuals, and 80% of those were Story County clients.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it after no one came forward to speak.
Council Member Gartin noted that he has worked with citizens who have had dental emergencies
and have not been able to afford to have the work done. He commented that this would be a huge
service to the community.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-556 approving Primary
Health Care’s request for funding for the opening of a dental clinic at its Ames clinic location, in the
amount of $95,000 and direct staff to draft a contract to be approved by Council at a future date.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila explained that the first
item was a memo from Mark Gansen P.E., Civil Engineer II with Public Works, regarding the
Council’s request about contacting the Union Pacific Railroad regarding a new 24th Street sidewalk
crossing.
Council Member Gartin explained that he had brought up this request and understands waiting until
next year to have the project started due to the budget, but he is disappointed about the Union Pacific
Railway’s additional collaboration cost. The City of Ames works with the Railroad in a variety of
different capacities and the City doesn’t try to stick the fees on them.
No action was taken on this item as the Council agreed that the project can wait until it is budgeted.
The second request was a Staff Report on a citizen’s request for the City of Ames to purchase Rose
Prairie property.
Council Member Betcher mentioned that the Council may have gotten a few emails, that there are
a few statistics in the Staff Report that are not reflecting what others have seen regarding nitrates.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to place the Staff Report on a future agenda.
Council Member Martin stated the Staff Report made a very convincing case as to the reasons of the
current trajectory, and if that is all the information that the Council had to consider, then he would
9
not want to move forward. On the other hand, the City does have a good relationship with the
Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park and felt they had some wisdom to share with the Council. Mr.
Martin felt that they could spend some time to discuss the request further.
Council Member Gartin stated his reservation is because the area is a critical piece of potential
property to provide housing in the community. He thought this would be a neat project to add, but
he is having trouble understanding how the Council would embrace the project given the need for
housing. If the land is taken away from the options for housing, it will diminish the amount of
buildable lots.
Council Member Martin explained that by having this item on an agenda it would start the
conversation to find out if there was more improvement that could be deployed that will not abandon
all the development possibilities for the property. Council Member Betcher mentioned that her intent
was to get something out of a conversation to see what possibilities there were and an in-depth
conversation can’t be held during Dispositions.
Council Member Betcher stated her motion was to put the Staff Report on a future agenda and invite
the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park to speak during open forum.
Council Member Gartin would like to hear what Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann’s
thoughts would be regarding this area with the Ames 2040 Plan.
City Manager Steve Schainker stated that if anything was to be done, it would take a bond issue and
there would have to have willing seller and price. A bond issue would need to be done to obtain the
land and then to develop the wetlands. Mr. Schainker mentioned that they would need a vote of 60%
of the people.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Martin explained he was thinking about the Policing
in Ames Report and the recommendations, and it was his understanding that the topic would not be
discussed again until November, but thought it would be wise to reach out to Ames Human Relations
Commission (AHRC) to see if they could provide some written comments on the recommendations.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to ask the Ames Human Relations Commission to
provide written comments on the recommendations as they find appropriate and submit them to the
Council by the first week in November.
Council Member Martin mentioned that the AHRC has a meeting scheduled on Thursday, October
22, and that should give the Commission time to have a good discussion and be able to write up and
circulate a draft. Mayor Haila wanted to clarify that the intent of the motion was to get AHRC
opinion, in their context of the role, as to what they have seen, heard, and experienced. Mr. Martin
stated that he is not asking the AHRC to take on a public outreach program; however, he is interested
10
in their perspective on the recommendations on the report.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Betcher commented that she will be participating in a virtual career fair for high
school students. She noted there is also a career fair for Story County that is not virtual, and there
is information regarding the career fair on the Chamber of Commerce’s website. Ms. Betcher
explained she was happy about the outcome of the Joint Meeting with the Student Government and
glad to hear there is interest in getting more students involved in politics, voting, and engaging in
the Ames community.
Mayor Haila mentioned that the Property Maintenance Appeals Board has an opening for a long-term
non-student renter. He noted that the long-term renter has to have been renting for the past five
continuous years or longer. The Mayor can be emailed directly if anyone is interested in serving on
the Board. It was pointed out that it is not a big time commitment. Mayor Haila stated that the Board
is also looking for a student renter who lives off Campus.
Mayor Haila stated that back in March he had weekly Thursday night meetings regarding COVID-19
and due to low numbers, they will be meeting twice a month now. He mentioned that Story County
is working on getting vaccines, but has not received anything yet. Mayor Haila explained that he was
honored to have been elected to the Executive Committee on the Iowa League of Cities Board. He
will represent the City of Ames and will make the City’s needs known. He will also continue to serve
on the Iowa League of Cities Legislative Committee.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Junck to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
11
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Public Works 2018/19 Traffic Signal
Program
Pavement Improvements
(14th & 15th Street)
Shelter
Period:
Item No. 4
License Application (Applicant
Name of Applicant:Kum & Go LC
Name of Business (DBA):Kum & Go Store 1113
Address of Premises:2801 E 13th St
City
:
Ames Zip:50010
State
:
IA
County:Story
Business
Phone:
(515) 233-0359
Mailing
Address:
1459 Grand Avenue
City
:
Des Moines Zip:50309
)
Contact Person
Name
:
Jody Deiter
Phone:(515) 457-6249 Email
Address:
licenses@kumandgo.com
Status of Business
BusinessType:Limited Liability Company
Corporate ID Number:XXXXXXXXX Federal Employer ID
#:
XXXXXXXXX
Effective Date:05/19/2020
Expiration Date:03/29/2021
Classification
:
Class E Liquor License (LE)
Term:12 months
Privileges:
Ownership
Class E Liquor License (LE)
Kyle Krause
First Name:Kyle Last Name:Krause
City:Waukee State:Iowa Zip:50263
Position:CEO
% of Ownership:0.00%U.S. Citizen: Yes
Charley Campbell
First Name:Charley Last Name:Campbell
City:Urbandale State:Iowa Zip:50323
Position:Secretary
% of Ownership:0.00%U.S. Citizen: Yes
Krause Group LTD
First Name:Krause Group Last Name:LTD
City:Des Moines State:Iowa Zip:50309
Position:Shareholder
LE0002122 Item No. 5
Insurance Company Information
Policy Effective Date:03/29/2020 Policy Expiration
Date:
01/01/1900
Dram Cancel Date:
Outdoor Service Effective
Date:
Outdoor Service Expiration
Date:
Temp Transfer Effective
Date:
Temp Transfer Expiration Date:
Bond Effective
Continuously:
2
Insurance Company:Merchants Bonding Company
% of Ownership:100.00%U.S. Citizen: Yes
License Application (Applicant
Name of Applicant:Guan Wang
Name of Business (DBA):Ichiban Japanese Restaurant
Address of Premises:117 Welch Avenue
City
:
Ames Zip:50014
State
:
IA
County:Iowa
Business
Phone:
(515) 450-7252
Mailing
Address:
2412 Ridgetop Circle
City
:
Ames Zip:50014
)
Contact Person
Name
:
Guan Wang
Phone:(515) 450-7252 Email
Address:
guan.wang92@gmail.com
Status of Business
BusinessType:Sole Proprietorship
Corporate ID Number:XXXXXXXXX Federal Employer ID
#:
XXXXXXXXX
Insurance Company Information
Policy Effective Date:Policy Expiration
Date:
Dram Cancel Date:
Outdoor Service Effective
Date:
Outdoor Service Expiration
Date:
Temp Transfer Effective Date Temp Transfer Expiration Date:
Bond Effective
Continuously:
Insurance Company:Farm Bureau Financial Services
Effective Date:09/12/2020
Expiration Date:01/01/1900
Classification
:
Class C Liquor License (LC) (Commercial)
Term:12 months
Privileges:
Ownership
Class B Wine Permit
Class C Liquor License (LC) (Commercial)
Outdoor Service
Guan Wang
First Name:Guan Last Name:Wang
City:State:Iowa Zip:50014
Position:Owner
% of Ownership:100.00%U.S. Citizen: Yes
Item No. 6
Temp Transfer Effective
Date:
Temp Transfer Expiration Date:
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5119 main
-5320 fax
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to present a report summarizing the performance of
the City of Ames investment portfolio for the quarter ending September 30, 2020.
Discussion
This report covers the period ending September 30, 2020 and presents a summary of
the investments on hand at the end of September 2020. The investments are valued at
amortized cost; this reflects the same basis that the assets are carried on the financial
records of the City. All investments are in compliance with the current Investment Policy.
Comments
The Federal Reserve maintained the federal fund rate at 0-0.25 percent in the last
quarter. The yield curve is flat, making shorter maturities pay the same rates as longer
maturities. Future investments will be made at the lower interest rates and future interest
income will decrease. We will continue to evaluate our current investment strategy,
remaining flexible to future investments while the Federal Reserve evaluates the target
rate.
Item No. 7
BOOK MARKET UN-REALIZED
DESCRIPTION VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS)
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT 34,000,000 34,000,000 0
FEDERAL AGENCY DISCOUNTS 3,995,939 3,999,107 3,168
FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES 52,047,010 52,332,684 285,674
INVESTMENT POOLS 0
COMMERCIAL PAPER 5,994,146 5,981,723 (12,423)
MISC COUPON SECURITIES 0
PASS THRU SECURITIES PAC/CMO 133,095 133,095 0
MONEY FUND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 292,515 292,515 0
CORPORATE BONDS 0
US TREASURY SECURITIES 54,301,886 55,193,822 891,936
INVESTMENTS 150,764,591 151,932,946 1,168,355
CASH ACCOUNTS 33,922,817 33,922,817
ACCRUAL BASIS INVESTMENT EARNINGS YR-TO-DATE
GROSS EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS:575,469
INTEREST EARNED ON CASH:35,099
AND THE ACCUMULATED YEAR-TO-DATE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
CASH AND INVESTMENTS SUMMARY
AND SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT EARNINGS
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
YTM
365
Page 1
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2020
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2020-2021
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Certificates of Deposit
2.490Bankers Trust13017497 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 02/15/20212.49004/16/2019 1,000,000.00 2.45613017497 137
2.490Bankers Trust13444568 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 02/26/20212.49004/16/2019 1,000,000.00 2.45613444568 148
1.670Bankers Trust13487203 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/30/20211.67010/15/2019 1,000,000.00 1.64713487203 302
1.730Bankers Trust13518474 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 12/15/20201.73010/15/2019 1,000,000.00 1.70613518474 75
1.690Bankers Trust13716374 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 06/01/20211.69010/15/2019 2,500,000.00 1.66713716374 243
1.720Bankers Trust13945546 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 01/29/20211.72010/15/2019 1,000,000.00 1.69613945546 120
1.690First National Bank50941 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 08/13/20211.69010/16/2019 1,000,000.00 1.66750941 316
1.690First National Bank50942 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 12/15/20211.69010/16/2019 1,500,000.00 1.66750942 440
1.590First National Bank50971 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 01/30/20211.59011/21/2019 1,000,000.00 1.56850971 121
1.590First National Bank50972 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/30/20211.59011/21/2019 1,000,000.00 1.56850972 302
2.660Great Western Bank144303455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 06/01/20222.66004/16/2019 4,000,000.00 2.624144303455 608
2.700US Bank433071437 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 06/01/20212.70004/24/2018 4,000,000.00 2.663433071437 243
2.990US Bank433071659 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 06/01/20222.99005/24/2018 6,000,000.00 2.949433071659 608
1.710US Bank795014295 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/01/20221.71010/16/2019 3,000,000.00 1.687795014295 608
1.780US Bank795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/01/20231.78010/16/2019 5,000,000.00 1.756795014296 973
34,000,000.00 2.18034,000,000.0034,000,000.0034,000,000.00Subtotal and Average 2.210 486
Money Market
0.300Great Western Bank4531558874B 292,515.39 292,515.39 0.300292,515.39 0.296SYS4531558874B 1
292,515.39 0.296292,515.39292,515.39292,514.65Subtotal and Average 0.300 1
Passbook/Checking Accounts
0.150Wells Fargo6952311634B 133,095.11 133,095.11 0.150133,095.11 0.148SYS6952311634B 1
133,095.11 0.148133,095.11133,095.11133,094.77Subtotal and Average 0.150 1
Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing
0.213Barkleys0942-20 1,500,000.00 1,498,670.01 03/02/20210.21009/17/2020 1,486,336.50 0.21006945LQ27 152
0.205Bank Tokyo Mitsubishi0938-20A 1,000,000.00 998,694.44 05/24/20210.20008/31/2020 998,690.00 0.20262479LSQ9 235
0.205Bank Tokyo Mitsubishi0938-20B 1,000,000.00 998,694.44 05/24/20210.20008/31/2020 998,690.00 0.20262479LSQ9 235
0.205Bank Tokyo Mitsubishi0938-20C 1,000,000.00 998,694.45 05/24/20210.20008/31/2020 998,690.00 0.20262479LSQ9 235
0.183Sheffield Receivables0941-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,392.50 12/21/20200.18009/17/2020 1,499,316.00 0.18082124LMM1 81
5,994,145.84 0.1995,981,722.506,000,000.004,394,888.22Subtotal and Average 0.202 176
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
2.178Federal Farm Credit0849-18 1,000,000.00 1,000,091.52 11/12/20201.65612/20/2018 1,000,187.00 2.1493133EH2K8 42
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.5
YTM
365
Page 2
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2020
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2020-2021
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
1.902Federal Farm Credit0869-19A 1,500,000.00 1,500,837.87 11/30/20202.25007/03/2019 1,505,248.50 1.8763133EKNQ5 60
1.902Federal Farm Credit0869-19B 1,000,000.00 1,000,558.58 11/30/20202.25007/03/2019 1,003,499.00 1.8763133EKNQ5 60
1.590Federal Farm Credit0874-19 1,000,000.00 1,004,597.72 04/29/20212.40008/16/2019 1,013,224.00 1.5683133EKJP2 210
1.721Federal Farm Credit0886-19 1,500,000.00 1,505,776.79 04/29/20212.40009/13/2019 1,519,836.00 1.6973133EKJP2 210
1.455Federal Farm Credit0913-20 1,000,000.00 1,017,603.18 11/15/20213.05002/20/2020 1,032,586.00 1.4353133EJT74 410
1.470Federal Farm Credit0914-20 1,000,000.00 1,003,306.46 11/29/20211.76002/20/2020 1,018,754.00 1.4503133EGL60 424
1.458Federal Farm Credit0916-20 1,000,000.00 1,002,032.74 12/27/20211.62502/20/2020 1,018,339.00 1.4383133ELFR0 452
0.300Federal Farm Credit0925-20 1,500,000.00 1,502,119.89 06/16/20210.50004/15/2020 1,504,033.50 0.2963133ELTP9 258
0.360Federal Farm Credit0930-20 1,500,000.00 1,503,304.41 01/18/20220.53004/15/2020 1,507,524.00 0.3553133ELTN4 474
0.570Federal Farm Credit0932-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,684.17 10/20/20210.55004/20/2020 1,500,321.00 0.5623133ELWK6 384
0.140Federal Farm Credit0945-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,046.67 12/09/20210.14009/17/2020 1,500,046.67 0.1383133EL6P4 434
1.856Federal Home Loan Bank0791-17 1,135,000.00 1,135,239.45 11/29/20211.87510/13/2017 1,157,799.88 1.8303130AABG2 424
2.523Federal Home Loan Bank0859-19 1,000,000.00 998,529.66 01/15/20212.00003/08/2019 1,005,300.00 2.4893132X0MT5 106
1.620Federal Home Loan Bank0871-19A 1,000,000.00 1,000,568.90 03/12/20211.75008/16/2019 1,007,332.00 1.598313382K69 162
1.620Federal Home Loan Bank0871-19B 1,000,000.00 1,000,568.90 03/12/20211.75008/16/2019 1,007,332.00 1.598313382K69 162
1.544Federal Home Loan Bank0877-19 1,000,000.00 1,002,251.91 06/11/20211.87508/16/2019 1,012,177.00 1.523313379RB7 253
1.734Federal Home Loan Bank0884-19 2,000,000.00 2,007,019.73 06/11/20212.25009/13/2019 2,029,558.00 1.7103130A1W95 253
1.750Federal Home Loan Bank0892-19 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 10/28/20221.75010/28/2019 2,002,346.00 1.7263130AHEN9 757
1.604Federal Home Loan Bank0901-19 1,000,000.00 1,007,124.75 09/10/20212.37511/21/2019 1,021,119.00 1.582313378JP7 344
1.601Federal Home Loan Bank0905-19 1,500,000.00 1,517,929.18 12/10/20212.62511/21/2019 1,544,313.00 1.579313376C94 435
1.475Federal Home Loan Bank0915-20 1,000,000.00 1,013,466.77 12/10/20212.62502/20/2020 1,029,542.00 1.455313376C94 435
0.402Federal Home Loan Bank0931-20A 1,500,000.00 1,537,923.35 02/08/20222.28004/15/2020 1,543,308.00 0.397313376Y74 495
0.402Federal Home Loan Bank0931-20B 1,000,000.00 1,025,282.24 02/08/20222.28004/15/2020 1,028,872.00 0.397313376Y74 495
0.204Federal Home Loan Bank0935-20A 1,000,000.00 1,029,487.80 03/11/20222.25005/15/2020 1,030,394.00 0.201313378CR0 526
0.204Federal Home Loan Bank0935-20B 1,500,000.00 1,544,231.71 03/11/20222.25005/15/2020 1,545,591.00 0.201313378CR0 526
0.128Federal Home Loan Bank0944-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.45 09/10/20210.12509/17/2020 1,499,998.96 0.1263130AK5A0 344
0.134Federal Home Loan Bank0947-20 1,500,000.00 1,577,390.98 06/10/20222.75009/17/2020 1,578,914.58 0.1323130AEBM1 617
2.677Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0850-18 1,000,000.00 999,007.02 11/17/20201.87512/20/2018 1,002,249.00 2.6403137EAEK1 47
1.571Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0876-19 1,000,000.00 1,001,476.64 05/28/20211.80008/16/2019 1,011,051.00 1.5503134G45K0 239
1.440Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0917-20 1,000,000.00 1,011,790.21 01/13/20222.37502/20/2020 1,028,609.00 1.4203137EADB2 469
0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0929-20A 1,500,000.00 1,538,622.61 01/13/20222.37504/15/2020 1,542,913.50 0.3553137EADB2 469
0.360Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0929-20B 1,000,000.00 1,025,748.41 01/13/20222.37504/15/2020 1,028,609.00 0.3553137EADB2 469
0.350Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co.0936-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,019.44 05/13/20220.35005/15/2020 1,000,219.44 0.3453134GVTG3 589
2.693Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0848-18 1,000,000.00 1,000,141.10 10/30/20202.87512/20/2018 1,002,219.00 2.6563135G0U84 29
1.510Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0907-20A 500,000.00 500,544.13 10/30/20202.87502/20/2020 501,109.50 1.4893135G0U84 29
1.510Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0907-20B 500,000.00 500,544.13 10/30/20202.87502/20/2020 501,109.50 1.4893135G0U84 29
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
YTM
365
Page 3
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2020
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2020-2021
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
1.510Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0907-20C 1,000,000.00 1,001,088.26 10/30/20202.87502/20/2020 1,002,219.00 1.4893135G0U84 29
1.520Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0908-20 1,500,000.00 1,501,270.65 12/28/20201.87502/20/2020 1,506,381.00 1.4993135G0H55 88
1.499Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0919-20 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 11/30/20201.50002/24/2020 2,004,540.00 1.4793135G0F73 60
0.240Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0927-20 1,500,000.00 1,513,266.10 08/17/20211.25004/15/2020 1,514,731.50 0.2373135G0N82 320
0.319Federal Nat'l Mtg. Assoc.0928-20 1,500,000.00 1,516,515.55 10/07/20211.37504/15/2020 1,519,227.83 0.3143135G0Q89 371
52,047,010.03 1.14352,332,684.3651,635,000.0051,304,778.02Subtotal and Average 1.159 327
Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing
0.268Federal Home Loan Bank0923-20 1,500,000.00 1,498,548.34 02/12/20210.26004/15/2020 1,499,608.50 0.264313385BU9 134
0.268Federal Home Loan Bank0924-20 1,500,000.00 1,498,396.67 02/26/20210.26004/15/2020 1,499,568.00 0.264313385CJ3 148
2.749Resolution Funding Corp0847-18 1,000,000.00 998,993.68 10/15/20202.58812/20/2018 999,930.00 2.71176116FAE7 14
3,995,938.69 0.8763,999,106.504,000,000.003,994,582.27Subtotal and Average 0.888 109
Treasury Coupon Securities
1.627U.S. Treasury0769-17 2,000,000.00 1,996,777.63 05/31/20211.37504/20/2017 2,016,562.00 1.605912828R77 242
2.963U.S. Treasury0835-18 2,500,000.00 2,457,409.14 05/31/20221.87510/15/2018 2,572,265.00 2.923912828XD7 607
2.964U.S. Treasury0836-18 2,500,000.00 2,452,486.26 05/31/20221.75010/15/2018 2,567,187.50 2.923912828XR6 607
2.488U.S. Treasury0858-19 1,000,000.00 1,000,026.72 12/31/20202.50003/08/2019 1,005,781.00 2.4549128285S5 91
2.459U.S. Treasury0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,937,074.80 05/31/20231.62503/08/2019 3,117,657.00 2.426912828R69 972
1.615U.S. Treasury0870-19 1,000,000.00 1,001,094.79 01/15/20212.00008/16/2019 1,005,469.00 1.5939128283Q1 106
1.600U.S. Treasury0872-19A 1,500,000.00 1,497,440.67 03/31/20211.25008/16/2019 1,508,437.50 1.578912828Q37 181
1.600U.S. Treasury0872-19B 1,000,000.00 998,293.78 03/31/20211.25008/16/2019 1,005,625.00 1.578912828Q37 181
1.580U.S. Treasury0873-19 1,000,000.00 1,004,190.79 04/15/20212.37508/16/2019 1,012,031.00 1.5589128284G2 196
1.772U.S. Treasury0883-19 1,000,000.00 998,700.29 01/31/20211.37509/13/2019 1,004,063.00 1.747912828N89 122
1.719U.S. Treasury0887-19 1,000,000.00 995,659.30 06/30/20211.12509/13/2019 1,007,344.00 1.695912828S27 272
1.711U.S. Treasury0888-19 1,000,000.00 1,007,033.99 07/15/20212.62509/13/2019 1,019,688.00 1.688912828Y20 287
1.540U.S. Treasury0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,187,259.08 05/31/20232.75011/04/2019 6,414,378.00 1.5199128284S6 972
1.607U.S. Treasury0898-19 1,000,000.00 1,000,542.31 12/15/20201.87511/21/2019 1,003,750.00 1.5859128283L2 75
1.600U.S. Treasury0899-19 1,000,000.00 1,009,836.40 08/15/20212.75011/21/2019 1,022,813.00 1.5789128284W7 318
1.602U.S. Treasury0900-19 1,000,000.00 999,078.80 08/31/20211.50011/21/2019 1,012,500.00 1.580912828YC8 334
1.594U.S. Treasury0902-19 1,000,000.00 995,416.49 09/30/20211.12511/21/2019 1,009,844.00 1.572912828T34 364
1.600U.S. Treasury0903-19 1,000,000.00 1,012,970.10 10/15/20212.87511/21/2019 1,028,438.00 1.5789128285F3 379
1.586U.S. Treasury0904-19 1,500,000.00 1,521,273.17 11/15/20212.87511/21/2019 1,545,937.50 1.5649128285L0 410
1.496U.S. Treasury0909-20 1,500,000.00 1,502,164.42 01/15/20212.00002/20/2020 1,508,203.50 1.4759128283Q1 106
1.480U.S. Treasury0910-20 1,500,000.00 1,506,593.75 04/30/20212.25002/20/2020 1,518,516.00 1.459912828WG1 211
1.481U.S. Treasury0911-20 4,000,000.00 4,013,564.46 05/31/20212.00002/20/2020 4,050,000.00 1.460912828WN6 242
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
YTM
365
Page 4
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
September 30, 2020
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
Investments FY 2020-2021
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Treasury Coupon Securities
1.474U.S. Treasury0912-20 1,500,000.00 1,511,981.76 06/15/20212.62502/20/2020 1,526,484.00 1.4549128284T4 257
1.441U.S. Treasury0918-20 1,000,000.00 1,014,644.61 10/15/20212.87502/20/2020 1,028,438.00 1.4219128285F3 379
0.122U.S. Treasury0933-20 1,500,000.00 1,511,206.66 06/30/20211.12505/15/2020 1,511,016.00 0.120912828S27 272
0.160U.S. Treasury0934-20A 1,000,000.00 1,024,177.53 02/28/20221.87505/15/2020 1,024,531.00 0.158912828W55 515
0.160U.S. Treasury0934-20B 1,500,000.00 1,536,266.31 02/28/20221.87505/15/2020 1,536,796.50 0.158912828W55 515
0.175U.S. Treasury0937-20A 1,000,000.00 1,002,982.56 03/31/20220.37505/19/2020 1,003,438.00 0.173912828ZG8 546
0.175U.S. Treasury0937-20B 1,500,000.00 1,504,473.83 03/31/20220.37505/19/2020 1,505,157.00 0.173912828ZG8 546
0.101U.S. Treasury0939-20 4,000,000.00 4,073,776.51 05/31/20212.00009/15/2020 4,073,387.98 0.100912828WN6 242
0.122U.S. Treasury0943-20 1,500,000.00 1,522,061.79 06/30/20211.62509/17/2020 1,522,926.68 0.1209128287A2 272
0.133U.S. Treasury0946-20 1,500,000.00 1,505,427.25 03/31/20220.37509/17/2020 1,505,157.00 0.131912828ZG8 546
54,301,885.95 1.37755,193,822.1654,000,000.0051,762,523.65Subtotal and Average 1.396 433
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
2,140,820.85Subtotal and Average
1.414148,023,202.42 150,060,610.50 1.434 388151,932,946.02 150,764,591.01Total and Average
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Page 1
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2020
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2020-2021
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Certificates of Deposit
BT13017497 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.002.49002/15/202113017497 02/15 - At Maturity04/16/2019 1,000,000.002.4902.456
BT13444568 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.002.49002/26/202113444568 02/26 - At Maturity04/16/2019 1,000,000.002.4902.456
BT13487203 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.001.67007/30/202113487203 07/30 - At Maturity10/15/2019 1,000,000.001.6701.647
BT13518474 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.001.73012/15/202013518474 12/15 - At Maturity10/15/2019 1,000,000.001.7301.706
BT13716374 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.001.69006/01/202113716374 06/01 - At Maturity10/15/2019 2,500,000.001.6901.667
BT13945546 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.001.72001/29/202113945546 01/29 - At Maturity10/15/2019 1,000,000.001.7201.696
FN50941 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.001.69008/13/202150941 08/13 - At Maturity10/16/2019 1,000,000.001.6901.667
FN50942 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.001.69012/15/202150942 12/15 - At Maturity10/16/2019 1,500,000.001.6901.667
FN50971 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.001.59001/30/202150971 01/30 - At Maturity11/21/2019 1,000,000.001.5901.568
FN50972 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.001.59007/30/202150972 07/30 - At Maturity11/21/2019 1,000,000.001.5901.568
GWB144303455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.002.66006/01/2022144303455 06/01 - At Maturity04/16/2019 4,000,000.002.6602.624
USB433071437 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.002.70006/01/2021433071437 06/01 - 12/0104/24/2018 4,000,000.002.7002.663
USB433071659 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.002.99006/01/2022433071659 06/01 - 12/0105/24/2018 6,000,000.002.9902.949
USB795014295 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.71006/01/2022795014295 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 3,000,000.001.7101.687
USB795014296 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.001.78006/01/2023795014296 12/01 - 06/0110/16/2019 5,000,000.001.7801.756
34,000,000.00Certificates of Deposit Totals 34,000,000.000.002.18034,000,000.00 2.210
Money Market
GWB4531558874B 292,515.39 292,515.390.300SYS4531558874B 07/01 - Monthly 292,515.390.3000.296
292,515.39Money Market Totals 292,515.390.000.296292,515.39 0.300
Passbook/Checking Accounts
WF6952311634B 133,095.11 133,095.110.150SYS6952311634B 07/01 - Monthly 133,095.110.1500.148
133,095.11Passbook/Checking Accounts Totals 133,095.110.000.148133,095.11 0.150
Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing
BARCAP0942-20 1,500,000.00 1,498,670.010.21003/02/202106945LQ27 03/02 - At Maturity09/17/2020 1,498,547.510.2130.210
BTMUFJ0938-20A 1,000,000.00 998,694.440.20005/24/202162479LSQ9 05/24 - At Maturity08/31/2020 998,522.220.2050.202
BTMUFJ0938-20B 1,000,000.00 998,694.440.20005/24/202162479LSQ9 05/24 - At Maturity08/31/2020 998,522.220.2050.202
BTMUFJ0938-20C 1,000,000.00 998,694.450.20005/24/202162479LSQ9 05/24 - At Maturity08/31/2020 998,522.230.2050.202
SRCPP0941-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,392.500.18012/21/202082124LMM1 12/21 - At Maturity09/17/2020 1,499,287.500.1830.180
5,994,145.84Commercial Paper Disc. -Amortizing Totals 5,993,401.680.000.1996,000,000.00 0.202
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.5
Page 2
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2020
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2020-2021
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
FFCB0849-18 1,000,000.00 1,000,091.521.65611/12/20203133EH2K8 02/12 - Quarterly Received12/20/2018 1,001,510.002.1782.149
FFCB0869-19A 1,500,000.00 1,500,837.872.25011/30/20203133EKNQ5 11/30 - 05/30 Received07/03/2019 1,507,200.001.9021.876
FFCB0869-19B 1,000,000.00 1,000,558.582.25011/30/20203133EKNQ5 11/30 - 05/30 Received07/03/2019 1,004,800.001.9021.876
FFCB0874-19 1,000,000.00 1,004,597.722.40004/29/20213133EKJP2 10/29 - 04/29 Received08/16/2019 1,013,550.001.5901.568
FFCB0886-19 1,500,000.00 1,505,776.792.40004/29/20213133EKJP2 10/29 - 04/29 Received09/13/2019 1,516,275.001.7211.697
FFCB0913-20 1,000,000.00 1,017,603.183.05011/15/20213133EJT74 05/15 - 11/15 Received02/20/2020 1,027,232.641.4551.435
FFCB0914-20 1,000,000.00 1,003,306.461.76011/29/20213133EGL60 05/29 - 11/29 Received02/20/2020 1,005,054.611.4701.450
FFCB0916-20 1,000,000.00 1,002,032.741.62512/27/20213133ELFR0 06/27 - 12/27 Received02/20/2020 1,003,040.001.4581.438
FFCB0925-20 1,500,000.00 1,502,119.890.50006/16/20213133ELTP9 06/16 - 12/16 Received04/15/2020 1,503,499.890.3000.296
FFCB0930-20 1,500,000.00 1,503,304.410.53001/18/20223133ELTN4 07/18 - 01/18 Received04/15/2020 1,504,479.000.3600.355
FFCB0932-20 1,500,000.00 1,499,684.170.55010/20/20213133ELWK6 10/20 - 04/2004/20/2020 1,499,550.000.5700.562
FFCB0945-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,046.670.14012/09/20213133EL6P4 12/09 - 06/09 46.6709/17/2020 1,500,000.000.1400.138
FHLB0791-17 1,135,000.00 1,135,239.451.87511/29/20213130AABG2 11/29 - 05/29 Received10/13/2017 1,135,851.251.8561.830
FHLB0859-19 1,000,000.00 998,529.662.00001/15/20213132X0MT5 07/15 - 01/15 Received03/08/2019 990,570.002.5232.489
FHLB0871-19A 1,000,000.00 1,000,568.901.75003/12/2021313382K69 09/12 - 03/12 Received08/16/2019 1,002,000.001.6201.598
FHLB0871-19B 1,000,000.00 1,000,568.901.75003/12/2021313382K69 09/12 - 03/12 Received08/16/2019 1,002,000.001.6201.598
FHLB0877-19 1,000,000.00 1,002,251.911.87506/11/2021313379RB7 12/11 - 06/11 Received08/16/2019 1,005,900.001.5441.523
FHLB0884-19 2,000,000.00 2,007,019.732.25006/11/20213130A1W95 12/11 - 06/11 Received09/13/2019 2,017,633.561.7341.710
FHLB0892-19 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.001.75010/28/20223130AHEN9 04/28 - 10/2810/28/2019 2,000,000.001.7501.726
FHLB0901-19 1,000,000.00 1,007,124.752.37509/10/2021313378JP7 03/10 - 09/10 Received11/21/2019 1,013,640.001.6041.582
FHLB0905-19 1,500,000.00 1,517,929.182.62512/10/2021313376C94 12/10 - 06/10 Received11/21/2019 1,530,885.001.6011.579
FHLB0915-20 1,000,000.00 1,013,466.772.62512/10/2021313376C94 06/10 - 12/10 Received02/20/2020 1,020,404.191.4751.455
FHLB0931-20A 1,500,000.00 1,537,923.352.28002/08/2022313376Y74 08/08 - 02/08 Received04/15/2020 1,550,850.000.4020.397
FHLB0931-20B 1,000,000.00 1,025,282.242.28002/08/2022313376Y74 08/08 - 02/08 Received04/15/2020 1,033,900.000.4020.397
FHLB0935-20A 1,000,000.00 1,029,487.802.25003/11/2022313378CR0 09/11 - 03/11 Received05/15/2020 1,037,200.000.2040.201
FHLB0935-20B 1,500,000.00 1,544,231.712.25003/11/2022313378CR0 09/11 - 03/11 Received05/15/2020 1,555,800.000.2040.201
FHLB0944-20 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.450.12509/10/20213130AK5A0 03/10 - 09/10 36.4609/17/2020 1,499,962.500.1280.126
FHLB0947-20 1,500,000.00 1,577,390.982.75006/10/20223130AEBM1 12/10 - 06/10 11,114.5809/17/2020 1,567,800.000.1340.132
FHLMC0850-18 1,000,000.00 999,007.021.87511/17/20203137EAEK1 05/17 - 11/17 Received12/20/2018 985,170.002.6772.640
FHLMC0876-19 1,000,000.00 1,001,476.641.80005/28/20213134G45K0 11/28 - 05/28 Received08/16/2019 1,004,000.001.5711.550
FHLMC0917-20 1,000,000.00 1,011,790.212.37501/13/20223137EADB2 07/13 - 01/13 Received02/20/2020 1,017,430.111.4401.420
FHLMC0929-20A 1,500,000.00 1,538,622.612.37501/13/20223137EADB2 07/13 - 01/13 Received04/15/2020 1,552,500.000.3600.355
FHLMC0929-20B 1,000,000.00 1,025,748.412.37501/13/20223137EADB2 07/13 - 01/13 Received04/15/2020 1,035,000.000.3600.355
FHLMC0936-20 1,000,000.00 1,000,019.440.35005/13/20223134GVTG3 11/13 - 05/13 19.4405/15/2020 1,000,000.000.3500.345
FNMA0848-18 1,000,000.00 1,000,141.102.87510/30/20203135G0U84 04/30 - 10/30 Received12/20/2018 1,003,260.002.6932.656
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0
Page 3
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2020
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2020-2021
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
FNMA0907-20A 500,000.00 500,544.132.87510/30/20203135G0U84 04/30 - 10/30 Received02/20/2020 504,690.781.5101.489
FNMA0907-20B 500,000.00 500,544.132.87510/30/20203135G0U84 04/30 - 10/30 Received02/20/2020 504,690.781.5101.489
FNMA0907-20C 1,000,000.00 1,001,088.262.87510/30/20203135G0U84 04/30 - 10/30 Received02/20/2020 1,009,381.551.5101.489
FNMA0908-20 1,500,000.00 1,501,270.651.87512/28/20203135G0H55 06/28 - 12/28 Received02/20/2020 1,504,498.411.5201.499
FNMA0919-20 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.001.50011/30/20203135G0F73 05/30 - 11/30 Received02/24/2020 2,000,000.001.4991.479
FNMA0927-20 1,500,000.00 1,513,266.101.25008/17/20213135G0N82 08/17 - 02/17 Received04/15/2020 1,520,235.000.2400.237
FNMA0928-20 1,500,000.00 1,516,515.551.37510/07/20213135G0Q89 10/07 - 04/07 458.3304/15/2020 1,523,340.000.3190.314
52,047,010.03Federal Agency Coupon Securities Totals 52,214,784.2711,675.481.14351,635,000.00 1.159
Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing
FHLB0923-20 1,500,000.00 1,498,548.340.26002/12/2021313385BU9 02/12 - At Maturity04/15/2020 1,496,717.510.2680.264
FHLB0924-20 1,500,000.00 1,498,396.670.26002/26/2021313385CJ3 02/26 - At Maturity04/15/2020 1,496,565.840.2680.264
RFCSP0847-18 1,000,000.00 998,993.682.58810/15/202076116FAE7 10/15 - At Maturity12/20/2018 952,200.002.7492.711
3,995,938.69Federal Agency Disc. -Amortizing Totals 3,945,483.350.000.8764,000,000.00 0.888
Treasury Coupon Securities
US TRE0769-17 2,000,000.00 1,996,777.631.37505/31/2021912828R77 05/31 - 11/30 Received04/20/2017 1,980,000.001.6271.605
US TRE0835-18 2,500,000.00 2,457,409.141.87505/31/2022912828XD7 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2018 2,407,100.002.9632.923
US TRE0836-18 2,500,000.00 2,452,486.261.75005/31/2022912828XR6 11/30 - 05/31 Received10/15/2018 2,396,362.132.9642.923
US TRE0858-19 1,000,000.00 1,000,026.722.50012/31/20209128285S5 06/30 - 12/31 Received03/08/2019 1,000,195.002.4882.454
US TRE0860-19 3,000,000.00 2,937,074.801.62505/31/2023912828R69 05/31 - 11/30 Received03/08/2019 2,899,980.002.4592.426
US TRE0870-19 1,000,000.00 1,001,094.792.00001/15/20219128283Q1 01/15 - 07/15 Received08/16/2019 1,005,350.001.6151.593
US TRE0872-19A 1,500,000.00 1,497,440.671.25003/31/2021912828Q37 09/30 - 03/31 Received08/16/2019 1,491,615.001.6001.578
US TRE0872-19B 1,000,000.00 998,293.781.25003/31/2021912828Q37 09/30 - 03/31 Received08/16/2019 994,410.001.6001.578
US TRE0873-19 1,000,000.00 1,004,190.792.37504/15/20219128284G2 10/15 - 04/15 Received08/16/2019 1,013,000.001.5801.558
US TRE0883-19 1,000,000.00 998,700.291.37501/31/2021912828N89 01/31 - 07/31 Received09/13/2019 994,609.381.7721.747
US TRE0887-19 1,000,000.00 995,659.301.12506/30/2021912828S27 12/31 - 06/30 Received09/13/2019 989,531.251.7191.695
US TRE0888-19 1,000,000.00 1,007,033.992.62507/15/2021912828Y20 01/15 - 07/15 Received09/13/2019 1,016,445.311.7111.688
US TRE0893-19 6,000,000.00 6,187,259.082.75005/31/20239128284S6 11/30 - 05/31 Received11/04/2019 6,251,220.001.5401.519
US TRE0898-19 1,000,000.00 1,000,542.311.87512/15/20209128283L2 12/15 - 06/15 Received11/21/2019 1,002,820.001.6071.585
US TRE0899-19 1,000,000.00 1,009,836.402.75008/15/20219128284W7 02/15 - 08/15 Received11/21/2019 1,019,580.001.6001.578
US TRE0900-19 1,000,000.00 999,078.801.50008/31/2021912828YC8 02/29 - 08/31 Received11/21/2019 998,210.001.6021.580
US TRE0902-19 1,000,000.00 995,416.491.12509/30/2021912828T34 03/31 - 09/30 Received11/21/2019 991,450.001.5941.572
US TRE0903-19 1,000,000.00 1,012,970.102.87510/15/20219128285F3 04/15 - 10/15 Received11/21/2019 1,023,750.001.6001.578
US TRE0904-19 1,500,000.00 1,521,273.172.87511/15/20219128285L0 05/15 - 11/15 Received11/21/2019 1,537,617.191.5861.564
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0
Page 4
Par Value
Stated
Rate
September 30, 2020
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
Investments FY 2020-2021
YTM
365
YTM
360
Payment
DatesCUSIPInvestment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Treasury Coupon Securities
US TRE0909-20 1,500,000.00 1,502,164.422.00001/15/20219128283Q1 07/15 - 01/15 Received02/20/2020 1,506,738.281.4961.475
US TRE0910-20 1,500,000.00 1,506,593.752.25004/30/2021912828WG1 04/30 - 10/31 Received02/20/2020 1,513,593.751.4801.459
US TRE0911-20 4,000,000.00 4,013,564.462.00005/31/2021912828WN6 05/31 - 11/30 Received02/20/2020 4,026,120.001.4811.460
US TRE0912-20 1,500,000.00 1,511,981.762.62506/15/20219128284T4 06/15 - 12/15 Received02/20/2020 1,522,425.001.4741.454
US TRE0918-20 1,000,000.00 1,014,644.612.87510/15/20219128285F3 04/15 - 10/15 Received02/20/2020 1,023,300.001.4411.421
US TRE0933-20 1,500,000.00 1,511,206.661.12506/30/2021912828S27 06/30 - 12/31 Received05/15/2020 1,516,933.590.1220.120
US TRE0934-20A 1,000,000.00 1,024,177.531.87502/28/2022912828W55 08/31 - 02/28 Received05/15/2020 1,030,703.120.1600.158
US TRE0934-20B 1,500,000.00 1,536,266.311.87502/28/2022912828W55 08/31 - 02/28 Received05/15/2020 1,546,054.690.1600.158
US TRE0937-20A 1,000,000.00 1,002,982.560.37503/31/2022912828ZG8 09/30 - 03/31 Received05/19/2020 1,003,720.000.1750.173
US TRE0937-20B 1,500,000.00 1,504,473.830.37503/31/2022912828ZG8 09/30 - 03/31 Received05/19/2020 1,505,580.000.1750.173
US TRE0939-20 4,000,000.00 4,073,776.512.00005/31/2021912828WN6 11/30 - 05/31 23,387.9809/15/2020 4,053,720.000.1010.100
US TRE0943-20 1,500,000.00 1,522,061.791.62506/30/20219128287A2 12/31 - 06/30 5,232.6809/17/2020 1,517,695.310.1220.120
US TRE0946-20 1,500,000.00 1,505,427.250.37503/31/2022912828ZG8 09/30 - 03/31 Received09/17/2020 1,505,566.410.1330.131
54,301,885.95Treasury Coupon Securities Totals 54,285,395.4128,620.661.37754,000,000.00 1.396
150,764,591.01Investment Totals 150,864,675.2140,296.14150,060,610.50 1.414 1.434
Portfolio 2021
AC
Run Date: 10/13/2020 - 15:37 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.0
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2020
0.28%
46.07%
53.64%
Portfolio by Asset Class
Cash and Equivalents
Long Term
Short Term
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2020
5.00%1.00%2.00%10.00%
15.75%
4.33%3.00%6.33%
2.86%0.67%
1.00%
35.99%
12.00%0.09%
Par Value by Issuer Graph
BT
BRKLY
BTMSB
FFCB
FHLB
FHLMC
FNB
FNMA
GWB
RESFUND
SHEFF
UST
USB
WF
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2020
0.19%0.09%
22.55%
3.98%
34.52%
2.65%
36.02%
Book Value By Investment Type
Money Market
Passbook/Checking Accounts
Certificate of Deposit
Commercial Paper
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
Federal Agency Disc.-Amortizing
Treasury Coupon Securities
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2020
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Investment Yield by Type
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5105 main
5142 fax
Ave.
MEMO
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: John A. Haila, Mayor
DATE: October 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Appointment to Fill Vacancy on Property Maintenance Appeals
Board
Nathan Joens, previous member of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board,
term of office had expired on April 1, 2019. An appointment needs to be made to
fill this vacancy.
Therefore, I request that the City Council approve the appointment of Dawson
Weathers to fill the opening on the Property Maintenance Appeals Board.
JAH/alc
Additional Item
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
ITEM # 8
DATE: 10-27-20
SUBJECT: SETTING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ANNEXATION MORATORIUM AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF NEVADA
BACKGROUND:
On December 14, 2010, the City of Ames entered into an Annexation Moratorium
Agreement with the City of Nevada. 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.
In August 2020, the City Council received a request from Verbio for the City of Ames to
allow Nevada to annex their 100 acres west of 590th Street and north of the railroad tracks.
In order to accommodate the request, the existing 28E agreement with Nevada will have
to be modified. In addition to the request to modify this Annexation Moratorium
Agreement, the City of Nevada indicated support for extending the agreement for an
additional ten years.
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.
On September 8, 2020, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the
existing Annexation Moratorium Agreement to satisfy Verbio’s request as well as extend
the agreement for an additional ten years.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve a resolution setting the date of hearing for December 8, 2020 to consider an
amendment to the Annexation Moratorium Agreement with the City of Nevada that
satisfies Verbio’s request and extends the agreement until December 14, 2030.
2) Decline Verbio’s request to alter the existing Annexation Moratorium Agreement
thereby requiring the company to pursue annexing their 100 acres into the City of Ames.
3) Decline Verbio’s request, but inquire if the City of Nevada would support extending the
existing Annexation Moratorium Agreement an additional ten years.
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 by making it clear what
annexation expectations exist 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 of Ames 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 and thereby approving a resolution setting the date of hearing for
December 8, 2020 to consider an amendment to the Annexation Moratorium
Agreement with the City of Nevada that satisfies Verbio’s request and extends the
agreement until December 14, 2030.
.
ITEM#: 9
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: TWENTY-FIVE YEAR AMENDMENT TO AIRPORT LAND LEASE WITH
HAP’S AIR SERVICE
BACKGROUND:
The current lease with Hap’s Air Service was approved in December of 1992 and has a
provision to extend the lease period for another 25 years. Rates for this lease are adjusted
every five years based on the market and other economic factors affecting the Ames
Airport.
On July 31, 2018, the City Council approved a two-year extension with Hap’s service to
allow on going land lease rate discussions to occur with our land lease tenants at the
airport. At the time, the City had just begun the update to the Airport Master Plan and
issues such as making our land lease rates more competitive with surrounding airports
were being investigated. While past practice for the Ames Airport was to base lease rates
according to the land area, it was found that current lease arrangements for the majority
of other airports is for the lease rate to be based on the square footage of the
hangar/buildings. Starting with FY 2022/23, staff plans to have all lease renewals and
new leases follow the current standard practice of establishing lease rates based on the
footprint of the buildings. This will allow all private land leases at the airport to start
together under a new competitive market lease rate structure.
This amendment to Hap’s lease establishes starting the new building footprint-based rate
calculation in FY 2022/23. Thus, a retroactive “bridge period” is included with this lease
amendment to hold constant the last year of their previous 25-year lease for three fiscal
“bridge” years (FY 19/20, FY 20/21, and FY 21/22). The draft lease amendment is
attached to the Council Action Form. The following table summarizes the bridge period
and the first five years of the proposed lease:
Fiscal Year Annual Amount
Bridge Period Totals
1st 5-Year Period Totals
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Amendment of Aircraft Hangar Site Lease 25-year lease extension
with bridge period for Hap’s Air Service.
2. Reject the proposed lease and direct staff to renegotiate the lease.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approving this lease amendment will support the operation of a long-time local business
at the airport. This also begin standardizing all leases at the Ames Airport to offer lease
rates that are competitive with other airports, reflect the state of current practice, and
provide the opportunity to attract new hangar growth at the Ames Airport, as shown in the
2020 update to the Airport Master Plan.
While this new methodology for determining lease payments based on building
footprint rather total leased land area initially will result in less revenue from each
building owner, it is anticipated that this new competitive rate model in the long
run will generate new growth and more associated revenue to the Airport.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM # 10
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2019/20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (LINCOLN WAY & BEACH AVE)
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Signal Program is the annual program that replaces older traffic signals and
constructs new traffic signals to improve visibility, reliability, and maintenance of signals.
This program also provides upg rading to the traffic signal system technology and includes
radar detection systems instead of in-pavement loop detection systems that had
previously been used (frequently a point of vehicle detection failure). Another advantage
of the radar detection system is that it detects bicycles in addition to vehicles. This
project will install a new signal and new pedestrian ramps at the intersection of
Lincoln Way & Beach Avenue.
WHKS of Ames, Iowa, developed plans and specifications with an estimated budget as
shown below:
Revenues Expenses
Road Use Tax $370,750 Administration $5,000
Design $21,400
Construction
$258,084
Signal Cabinet $31,868
Signal Poles $35,320
Total $370,750 Total $351,672
Staff has coordinated with Iowa State University to prepare the attached traffic signal easement
documents for this intersection. These documents are scheduled for approval at the November
18, 2020 Board of Regents meeting. Easement approval will be verified before report of
bids and a recommendation of award, scheduled for the December 8, 2020 City Council
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Approve the 50-year Traffic Signal Easement with Iowa State University for the
portion of signal equipment on Iowa State property and authorize City staff to
approve any de minimis changes required by the Attorney General and Board of
Regents offices.
b. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2019/20 Traffic Signal Program
(Lincoln Way & Beach Ave) project and establish December 2, 2020, as the date
of letting with December 8, 2020, as the date for report of bids.
2. Do not approve this project.
2
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By approving this easement and the plans and specifications, the upgrades will provide
increased safety for the residents using this intersection. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as
described above.
Legal Description: See pages 7-9
Return document to: 3550 Beardshear Hall, Iowa State University, 515 Morrill Road, Ames, Iowa 50011
Document prepared by: Office University Counsel, 3550 Beardshear Hall, Iowa State University, 515 Morrill
Road, Ames, Iowa 50011
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY – CITY OF AMES
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT
AT LINCOLN WAY AND BEACH AVENUE
This Traffic Signal Easement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into December 1, 2020, by and between
the Board of Regents, State of Iowa for the use and benefit of Iowa State University of Science and
Technology (“Grantor”) and City of Ames, Iowa (“Grantee”).
A. The State of Iowa holds title to the following real property located at the intersection of
Lincoln Way and Beach Avenue in the City of Ames, Story County, Iowa for the use and
benefit of Iowa State University of Science and Technology under the jurisdiction of the
Board of Regents, State of Iowa:
THE NORTH 115' OF THE WEST 70' OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 83 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST
OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF AMES,
STORY COUNTY, IOWA; and
THE SOUTH 85' OF THE WEST 60' OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 83 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST
OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF AMES,
STORY COUNTY, IOWA; and
THE SOUTH 60' OF THE EAST 60' OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 83 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST, OF
THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF AMES,
STORY COUNTY, IOWA.
(collectively, the “Property”).
B. Grantee desires to install a traffic signal and supporting equipment and cabling (“Traffic
Signal”) on and across a portion of the Property, and Grantor supports the installation of
the Traffic Signal on the Property and is willing to grant Grantee an easement across the
2
Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
TERMS
1. Location: Pursuant to Code of Iowa§ 262.9(8) and subject to the terms of this Agreement,
Grantor grants Grantee an easement that shall be located upon and limited to the tract
depicted in the Map of Easement, which is attached as Exhibit A and made part of this
Agreement (“Easement Area”).
2. Use: Grantee shall use the Easement Area for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing
installing, operating, maintaining, and repairing the Traffic Signal and for no other purpose.
3. Access: Grantee's entrance upon Grantor's Property to access the Easement Area shall be
over reasonable routes designated by Grantor.
4. Installation Requirements:
a. Installation Coordination: Grantor and Grantee shall coordinate prior to and during
the installation of the Traffic Signal. Grantor and Grantee shall each designate at least
one representative to serve as its liaison to the other party regarding the installation of
the Traffic Signal.
b. Installation Plans: Grantee shall submit to Grantor for Grantor’s approval a copy of
Grantee’s plans for the installation of the Traffic Signal. Grantor’s approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld. Grantee shall ensure that the Traffic Signal is installed in
accordance with the approved plans.
c. Installation Dates: Grantor and Grantee shall mutually agree on the dates during
which the installation activities may occur in order to diminish any adverse impact on
Grantor’s activities on or near the Property.
d. Utilities Crossings: All crossings of existing sewers, water lines, electric lines, tile
lines, telecommunication lines or other existing facilities shall be according to
specifications and details of the engineer or other official of Iowa State University of
Science and Technology in charge of such installations.
e. Restoration: Grantee shall restore the Easement Area not utilized for the installation
of the Traffic Signal to its natural grade and previous condition, including reseeding.
All ditches, trenches and other excavations shall be firmly filled and maintained in
such manner as to present no hazard or obstacle to Grantor's use of the Property for
other purposes. Grantee shall submit to Grantor for Grantor’s approval a copy of
Grantee’s restoration plans. Grantor’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Grantee shall ensure that the restoration is in accordance with the approved plans.
f. Liens: Grantor’s property shall not be subjected to liens of any nature by reason of
Grantee’s installation, maintenance or repair of the Traffic Signal or by reason of any
other act or omission of Grantee, including, but not limited to, mechanic’s and
materialman’s liens. Grantee has no power, right or authority to subject Grantor’s
property to any mechanic’s or materialman’s lien or claim of lien.
3
5. Liability.
a. Damage to Grantor Property. Grantee shall promptly notify Grantor of any damage to the
Easement Area, Property or other real or personal property of Grantor occurring while
Grantee is installing, maintaining or repairing the Traffic Signal or otherwise using the
Easement Area or temporary easement area. At Grantor’s request, Grantee shall either
repair or replace the damaged property, reimburse Grantor for reasonable, documented
expenses incurred by Grantor to repair or replace the damaged property, or compensate
Grantor for the loss of the property.
b. Maintenance and Repair. As between Grantor and Grantee, Grantee shall be solely
responsible for maintaining and repairing the Traffic Signal and the Easement Area, except
that Grantor shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Grantee shall provide to
Grantor contact information for the individual Grantor may contact if Grantor believes
maintenance or repairs are needed and to whom Grantor may refer inquiries received from
members of the public about the traffic Signal.
c. Third Party Claims. To the extent permitted by Chapter 670 of the Iowa Code and other
applicable law, Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless Iowa State University of
Science and Technology, the Board of Regents – State of Iowa, the State of Iowa and their
respective officers, employees and agents harmless from any claims, liabilities, damages,
fines and expenses arising from the Traffic Signal, use of the Easement Area by Grantee,
or from any tort (as defined in Chapter 670 of the Iowa Code) arising from the acts or
omissions of Grantee or its officers or employees.
d. Insurance. Grantee shall maintain appropriate insurance coverage or self-insure for
liabilities that may arise from the activities set forth in this Agreement.
6. Rights Reserved: Grantor reserves to itself the right to use of Easement Area for any purpose
that does not interfere with the Traffic Signal or Grantee's rights granted in this Agreement.
7. Relocation: Grantor may request relocation of all or a portion of the Traffic Signal and
Easement Area, provided that it does not impede the use of traffic signals at the intersection
of Lincoln Way and Beach Avenue. If requested, Grantor and Grantee shall identify a
mutually acceptable location to be provided by the Grantor. If the relocation occurs in the
first five years of this Agreement, Grantor shall pay the actual cost of relocation, not to
exceed the depreciated value of the Traffic Signal at the time of relocation and assuming a
useful life of twenty-five years. After five years from the date of this Agreement, Grantor
shall have no obligation to pay for the cost of relocation unless mutually agreed otherwise.
8. Consideration: The consideration for this easement, Grantee shall pay Grantor $1.00 upon
execution of this Agreement. The benefits the Traffic Signal provides to Grantor, including
providing safe passage across the intersection at Lincoln Way and Beach Avenue for
students, faculty, staff, and visitors, serve as additional consideration for this easement. No
cost of the facilities to be constructed within this Easement Area shall be assessed or charged
to the Grantor.
9. Duration: This easement is granted, and all rights hereunder shall endure, for a period of fifty
years so long as the Grantee continues to use the Easement Area for a Traffic Signal in
accordance with this Agreement. Grantor and Grantee may mutually agree in writing to
renew this Agreement. Upon expiration of the easement term or discontinuation of Grantee’s
use of the Easement Area for a Traffic Signal in accordance with this Agreement: (i) all rights
granted to Grantee shall terminate and revert to Grantor and (ii) Grantee shall remove the
4
Traffic Signal and restore the Easement Area to pre-easement conditions at no expense to
Grantor unless otherwise agreed by Grantor and Grantee.
10. Assignment Prohibited: The grant of this easement is to Grantee only and cannot be assigned
in whole or part to any other party without written consent of Grantor.
If Grantee fails to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, Grantor shall serve a written notice to
Grantee specifying its defaults. Grantee shall have 30 days to provide a written response to the Grantor and
plan of action and schedule for Grantor’s approval. If approved, Grantee shall comply with the plan of
action and schedule. If Grantee fails to comply with approved plan of action and schedule, all its rights,
title and interest hereunder shall cease and terminate and the Grantor shall be entitled to full possession of
the Easement Area.
Grantor and Grantee execute this Traffic Signal Easement Agreement by their lawfully designated officials
as of the date first written above.
Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow.
5
BOARD OF REGENTS, STATE OF IOWA
By: ______________________________
Mark Braun
Executive Director
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF POLK, SS.:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2020, by Mark
Braun as Executive Director of the Board of Regents, State of Iowa.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires: _____________________
6
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
Passed and approved on , 2020, by Resolution No. 20- ,
adopted by the City Council of Ames, Iowa.
Attest: By:
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF STORY, SS.:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2020, by Diane
R. Voss and John A. Haila, as City Clerk and Mayor, respectively, of the City of Ames, Iowa.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires:______________________
1
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: INIS GROVE PARK SIDEWALK PROJECT PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
BACKGROUND:
This project is to construct a sidewalk on the north side of 24th St. and north of 24th St.
along Duff Ave adjacent to Inis Grove Park, 2500 Duff Ave. As part of the approved
Miracle Project site plan the sidewalk was included due to fact that there is currently not
a sidewalk that provides access to the Park. Attachment A shows the location of the
sidewalk. The FY 2020/21 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) included $200,000 for the
project.
Plans and specifications were developed by the Public Works Department and include an
eight-foot wide concrete sidewalk to be installed with accompanying pedestrian ramps
along the north side of 24th Street, east of Duff Ave, that will connect into the sidewalk
currently in place adjacent to the Miracle Field in the park. Also, an eight-foot wide
concrete sidewalk will be installed on the east side of Duff Avenue, north of 24th Street,
all the way to the northernmost entrance into the west parking lot. Also included in the
plans are concrete pads for the two bus stops located on Duff Avenue.
The engineer’s cost estimate is below which includes the base bid, engineering,
construction inspection, fire hydrant relocation necessary as part of the project, and a five
percent contingency.
Engineer’s Estimate: Amount
Base Bid $197,587
Engineering & Construction Inspection $ 10,000
Fire Hydrant relocation $ 2,817
Contingency (5% of base bid) $ 9,880
Bid Project Estimate $220,284
As noted, there is $200,000 allocated in the current FY 2020/21 CIP for the project which
leaves a shortfall of $20,284. Funds to cover the overage could be used from the
Homewood Golf Course Sidewalk project which will be installed in the summer of 2021.
The Homewood Golf Course Sidewalk project has two components, 1) installing a five-
foot wide sidewalk from 20th Street to the new clubhouse (complete), and 2) installing a
five-foot wide sidewalk along the east side of Duff Ave. from 20th Street north to the
existing sidewalk. The designated funding for this project is $150,000. As shown below,
there will be an estimated $82,369 available to be used for the Inis Grove sidewalk
2
project.
Homewood Golf Course Sidewalk Project: Amount
Funds Available $150,000
Sidewalk from 20th St. to new Clubhouse (Actual) $ 25,881
Sidewalk Along east side of Duff Ave. (Estimate) $ 36,750
Engineering & Construction Inspection (Estimate) $ 5,000
Estimated Expenditures $ 67,631
Estimated Funds Available for Sidewalk on 24th St. $ 82,369
The Ames Foundation received a Community Attraction and Tourism Grant (CAT) grant
to complete the Miracle project, but contingent on receiving all the grant money, the
sidewalk needs to be completed by June 30, 2021. Construction will take place the spring
of 2021 and a required completion date is set for May 31, 2021.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Plans and Specifications for the Inis Grove Park Sidewalk Project and
set the bid due date for December 2, 2020 and December 8, 2020 as the date
of hearing and award of contract.
2. Do not approve the plans and specifications at this time, delaying the Inis Grove
Park Sidewalk Project
3. Refer back to staff.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Miracle Project in Inis Grove Park will be accessible for all and ensure access for
pedestrians and bicyclists to access, not only the Miracle Project, but the entire Park.
Also, in order to be compliant with the guidelines outlined in the awarded CAT grant, it is
necessary for this project to proceed. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1 as stated above.
ITEM # 12
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNT PROGRAM (TRAFFIC
DATA SERVICE & ANALYTICAL PLATFORM)
BACKGROUND:
This program provides transportation-related data in the Ames regional area. Data from
this program will be used to track critical transportation system performance measures
which are used to analyze and forecast transportation system needs and priorities. This
traffic data service and analytical platform includes providing transportation data and
analytic capabilities across the Ames regional area.
This contract involves providing a traffic data and analytics platform. This cloud-
based platform will provide access to transportation data and analytics for a variety of
data types including: Origin/Destination, Trip Attributes, Segment Travel Times and
Speeds, Segment Traffic Volumes, Intersection Traffic Volumes, Truck/Commercial
Truck Data, and Vehicle Route Choices. The source of the data is primarily from mobile
devices and fleet/navigational devices. This data is completely anonymized and covers
both historical and current time periods.
Proposals for this data and analytics platform were received from two providers and were
evaluated according to the following criteria: Data Coverage, Anonymized Data,
Interactive Interface, Multiple Traffic Data Types, and Estimated Cost. Listed below is the
ranking information based on this evaluation:
Provider Criteria Met Fee For FY 2020/21
Given the above rankings, Staff has negotiated a contract with the highest-ranked
provider, StreetLight Data, Inc., of San Francisco, California.
The budget for this project is programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan with
$70,000 in Road Use Tax funds. Ongoing licensing costs in future years will be
included in the Ames MPO’s Transportation Planning Work Program, which allows
80% of the costs to be reimbursed through the State (MPO = $47,200; Local =
$11,800). The local match will be budgeted for in the annual Regional
Transportation Count Program.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the agreement for the 2020/21 Regional Count Program (Traffic Data Service
and Analytical Platform) with StreetLight Data, Inc., of San Francisco, California, in an
amount of $64,900.
2. Direct staff to negotiate an agreement with another provider.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on staff’s evaluation using the above criteria, StreetLight Data, Inc. will provide the
best value to the City in providing this traffic data service and analytical platform.
Therefore, the City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1
as noted above.
Smart Choice
MEMO
515.239.5105 main
fax
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: City Clerk’s Office
Date: October 27, 2020
Subject: Contract and Bond Approval
There is/are no Council Action Form(s) for Item No(s). 13 and 14. Council approval of
the contract and bond for this/these project(s) is simply fulfilling a State Code
requirement.
/alc
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2018/19 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS – (BURNETT AVENUE
AND MURRAY DRIVE)
BACKGROUND:
The Water System Improvements program provides for replacing water mains in areas
that are experiencing rusty water problems. It also provides for installing larger distribution
mains in areas that have a high concentration of 4” supply lines, transferring water
services from 4” water mains in streets where larger water mains exist, and abandoning
4” water mains. Eliminating duplicate water mains, where possible, improves water flow
and helps reduce rusty water and enhances fire-fighting capacity.
On August 13, 2019, City Council awarded the contract to Keller Excavating, Inc., of
Boone, Iowa, in the amount of $1,194,492.10. Three change order were administratively
approved by staff and later the City Council. Change Order No. 1 was approved to extend
the completion date due to COVID-19 restrictions. Order No. 2 was approved by City
Council in the amount of $78,589.00 for transferring 6 water services from the 4” water
main to 8” water main, extending 8” water main beyond the contract quantity to
abandoned more 4” water main, and additional pavement patching. Change Order No. 3
(balancing) was a reduction in the amount of ($5,430.06) to reflect the actual measured
quantities completed during construction. Construction was completed in the amount
of $1,267,651.04.
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2018/19 Water System Improvements – (Burnett Ave. and Murray Dr.)
project as completed by Keller Excavating, Inc. of Boone, Iowa, in the amount of
$1,267,651.04.
2. Direct staff to pursue modification to the project.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM # 15
DATE: 10-27-20
ITEM#: 16
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2014/15 STORM WATER FACILITY REHABILITATION PROGRAM
(SOMERSET SUBDIVISION)
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements at the time that Somerset Subdivision was built,
new developments within the community were required to provide management for
storm water quantity control. However, it was standard practice in the developers’
agreements that the City of Ames would be responsible for the long-term maintenance
of these facilities in residential areas. As these facilities age, sediment accumulates,
volunteer vegetation becomes more prevalent, erosion occurs, and structures need to
be improved. This annual program addresses those concerns.
On August 13, 2019, City Council awarded the contract to Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames,
Iowa in the amount of $322,997. Three change order were administratively approved by
staff. Change Order No. 1 was in the amount of $1,323.00 for adding temporary straw
mulch to protect disturbed area over the winter. Change Order No. 2 was savings in the
amount of ($6,241.30) to reflect actual measured quantities. Change Order No. 3, in the
amount of $4,685.00, was to change the seeded area of native prairie grasses to a
Kentucky bluegrass lawn mix; this request came from Somerset Property Owners
Association. Construction was completed in the amount of $322,763.70.
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
2018/19 Storm Water Quality Improvement $ 100,000
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2014/15 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation Program (Somerset
Subdivision) project as completed by Con-Struct, Inc., of Ames, Iowa, in the
amount of $322,763.70.
2. Direct staff to pursue modification to the project.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM #: _ 17_
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue) Low Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Development Proposals
BACKGROUND:
City Council provided direction at its July 28th meeting to staff on preparing a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for a LIHTC housing project located at 321 State Avenue (Attachment
A Location Map). The City described in the RFP an interest in receiving proposals that
address the following objectives: 1) family based affordable housing, 2) development of
15-50 housing units, 3) compatible design elements with the surrounding residential
homes, and a 4) highly competitive project per the Iowa Finance Authority’s (IFA) scoring
system. The RFP described an evaluation of proposals based upon developer experience
and capacity, project design, property management experience, and requested financial
incentives.
The City received seven proposals in response to the RFP. All seven proposals are
available for review in their entirety on the Housing Division’s website at:
www.cityofames.org/housing under the “What’s New” box. Included as Attachment B to
this report is a matrix summarizing project attributes and excerpts of their proposed
design.
A staff evaluation committee assessed the responsiveness of all seven proposals to the
RFP in relationship to the RFP objectives as outlined above. Initially, the committee
determined that three of the seven proposals best met the objectives for the project and,
therefore, interviewed these three groups to review their proposals in greater detail. In
addition, the City’s Development Review Team completed an initial assessment of the
design features related to zoning, building, and fire codes.
After reviewing the proposals, it became clear to City staff that a competitive project will
likely need to score 155 or more points in the LIHTC program to qualify for tax credit
incentive. This conclusion is based upon consultation with the developers and the past
year’s project scoring where a score of 155 was needed to competitively receive the tax
credits. It should be noted that there are a wide range of design variety in terms of layouts
and the number of units that have been submitted in the seven proposals to generate a
competitive LIHTC score. In addition, six out of seven of the proposals requested HOME
funds to assist financing the project and one proposal is seeking a new tax abatement
incentive from the City.
A brief assessment of the Developers’ proposals follows.
MVAH Partners-Family Housing- 50 Units-Projected LIHTC Scoring: 155 points
MVAH is a multi-state affordable housing developer with recent Iowa LIHTC projects
including Clinton, Grimes, Des Moines, and Altoona. They own and manage their housing
developments. The project has the most dwelling units of all the proposals with 90% (45
units) as affordable. It has two building types, one 3-story 36-unit apartment building and
two “townhome” style apartment buildings totaling 14 units all situated around centralized
parking. The conceptual design includes building articulation reflecting a townhome type
proportioning, high-quality materials, and a traditional residential appearance. The design
concept can feasibly meet the City’s development standards. The developer is requesting
$400,000 in HOME funds with the project. Overall staff is impressed with the quality
of the proposal, experience as a developer and a manager, building variety and
design, and competitive LIHTC scoring.
Prairie Fire Development Corporation- Family Housing-36 Units-Projected LIHTC
Scoring: 154 points
Prairie Fire is an Affordable Housing developer from Kansas City area with experience in
Iowa, including LIHTC awards in 2020 for two projects. Prairie Fire would form a joint
venture with a non-profit developer (Builder’s Development Corporation). This partnership
will allow them to compete in the non-profit pool as well as the general pool. The partners
would contract with a property management firm for ongoing operations. Their project
includes two housing types, one 3-story 23-unit apartment building and two “townhome”
style buildings totaling 13 units. Approximately 87% (31 units) are affordable. The
concept places the building along Tripp Street with parking situated to the rear of the site.
The design concept is contemporary in its appearance with the use of massing and angles
that is different than most buildings in Ames. The project concept appears to meet the
City’s development standards. However, the location of the 3-story building may need to
be shifted to the east. The developer is requesting a $250,000 of HOME funds. Their
preliminary score is 154, but the developers believe a 155 LIHTC score is achievable in
final design based on adjustments to the LIHTC construction cost category. Overall staff
finds the design to be interesting with its unique exterior style compared to many
projects in Ames and staff supports the variety of building types. The LIHTC
scoring projection was adjusted down during the review to reflect family housing
scoring at 154 points and would need to increase to 155 during refinements on
costs to be competitive in LIHTC.
Newbury Living-Family Housing-40 units- Projected LIHTC Scoring: 155 points
Newbury is an affordable housing developer with experience throughout Iowa, which also
includes properties operated within Ames. The developer owns and manages its
properties. The proposal indicates 90% (36 units) are affordable. The concept includes 2
“townhome” style buildings (16 units) with garages and a separate apartment building (24
units) oriented around a “street presence” design. Although the mix of housing is
desirable, the site concept likely needs to be overhauled to meet fire access and
circulation needs as well as relocating garage access from Tripp Street to the rear. It is
not clear what level of changes are needed for the concept to meet design standards and
its impact on the design concept. The developer is requesting $225,000 of HOME funds.
Overall staff likes the concept of the multiple buildings and the streetscape with
individual garage parking, but the feasibility as proposed is questionable after the
City’s Development Review Team’s assessment. The overall experience and
quality of the proposal submittal is good.
Hatch Development-Senior Housing-42 units- Projected LIHTC Scoring: 156 points
Hatch Development is an Iowa affordable housing developer with experience in multiple
locations across Iowa. The proposal includes 88% (37 units) as affordable. The
apartments are primarily one-bedroom units with some two bedrooms due to the senior
designation. The design concept is a single three-story building fronting upon Tripp Street
with parking in rear. The units are a mix of walk up units with exterior access and internal
corridor access. The design is primarily brick with elements of a rowhouse appearance
Although not identified as an option in the RFP, the developer uniquely requested
property tax abatement valued at $250,000 with a 10-year abatement. The projected
LIHTC scoring includes one extra point as a senior project compared to a family project.
Overall staff finds the proposal to not address the purpose of the RFP for family
housing. The request for tax abatement in lieu of HOME funds was not identified
as an option in the RFP. The focus on senior housing limits providing other
building types and housing options. The building design is high quality with the
use of primarily brick.
Sand Companies- Family Housing- 37 units- Projected LIHTC Scoring: 155 points
Sand Companies are an experienced company based in Minnesota that has completed
work in multiple state, including projects in Iowa (Iowa City, Coralville, and Johnston). The
project concept is a single three-story building located along Tripp Street with parking in
the rear. The proposal calls for 89% (32 units) as affordable. The building design includes
a flat roof contemporary design style with façade modulation, contrasting materials for
aesthetic enhancements and walkout decks. The relationship to Tripp street is
emphasized with the proposed building location. The project design concept is readily
feasible. The Developer is requesting $219,000 of HOME funds. Overall, the project
design as a single building works well for the site and creates an interesting design
but does not provide housing diversity. Staff finds the proposal to not be as robust
as others in background and detailed information.
The Commonwealth Companies- Family- 40 Units-Projected LIHTC Scoring-146
The Commonwealth Companies have completed or has projects underway in 18 states
with numerous federal housing projects. One project has been completed in Iowa in
Johnston which is a 62-unit senior housing project. The Commonwealth Companies
submitted a proposal for 40 units within a single three-story multi-family building located
along the west side of the site with a mix of surface and underground parking. The building
façade featured a contemporary design approach with a flat roof, façade relief, and
walkout decks. A total of 90% (36 units) would be affordable. The applicant projected a
score of 146 points. The developer is requesting $500,000 in HOME funds. Overall, the
quality of materials in the proposal was lacking and the proposal does not project
to have a competitive LIHTC score.
Excel Development- Family- 48 Units-Projected Scoring- Project LIHTC Scoring-
not estimated
Excel Development has a track record of doing affordable housing projects in Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa. The applicant has completed six projects in smaller Iowa
communities (Orange City, Panora, Lamoni, Dunlap, Odeboldt, and Mason City). This
proposal features a total of 48 units spread among 4 separate three-story apartment
buildings with parking located between the buildings. The design was basic in its
approach and style. The applicant did not provide a self-scoring breakdown for IFA points
nor did they include a percentage of affordable housing or a construction budget. The
developer is requesting $500,000 in HOME funds. Overall, the proposal is lacking in
detail and the design was not compelling.
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Direct staff to work with either MVAH Partners Incorporated or Prairie Fire
Development Corporation to prepare an agreement to partner on a LIHTC
application and development of the site at 321 State Avenue with affordable multi-
family housing
Note this recommendation requires no material changes to the design of either
project, but is predicated on Prairie Fire being able to achieve a projected minimum
score of 155 points in the LIHTC system.
2.Direct staff to work with a different development proposal in response to the RFP
to prepare an agreement to partner on a LIHTC application and development of
the site at 321 State Avenue with affordable multi-family housing.
3.Request additional information before making a final selection on November 10,
2020.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The conceptual design within each proposal was evaluated as it was presented to staff
with no major assumptions of changes in the concept. However, once a developer is
selected the project will be refined in consultation with the City and with their design teams
in preparation of the LIHTC application deadline. Actual Site Development Plan and
building permit applications will not be prepared unless the selected developer receives
an award of tax credits. All the projects had a similar timeline based upon the LIHTC
process and schedule. Award of tax credits is expected in August 2021 and then
developers would complete design and site acquisition in the winter with a plan for
construction to begin spring of 2022 and a plan for occupancy to begin in the summer of
2023.
Within the RFP the City identified that HOME Funds may be available to assist in
development of the project, no specific amount was identified to be provided by the City
in the RFP. Most of the proposals requested HOME Funds ranging from $219,000 to
$500,000. HOME funds are separate from CDBG funds and can be used to directly assist
in the construction of affordable housing. To date, the City has been allocated three years
(2018-2021) of HOME funding, which has an approximate balance of $1.2 million dollars
(not including program administration). The City can consider utilizing up to approximately
$500,000 of HOME Funds for this LIHTC project without compromising use of the funds
for the construction of single-family homes on the north side of the subdivision. Developer
assistance with HOME funds would occur until after award and closing on the acquisition
of the property in 2022. With the selection of a partner developer more project details will
be determined, in order to refine the application for IFA submittal. The exact amount of
HOME funds request may be adjusted as we move forward based upon design features
and the need to keep maximum points available for a project. The developers indicated
that with additional HOME funds it would also assist in making rents more affordable
overall.
After reviewing the proposals, staff finds that the MVAH Partners and Prairie Fire
Development proposals best address the RFP overall by providing for our target
objectives of family housing, diverse housing types, feasible development
concepts, strong development experience, and property management experience.
MVAH has a slightly stronger track record and property management history, but they
also have a greater amount of HOME funds requested compared to Prairie Fire and total
development costs due to the larger project size. The project designs are also
fundamentally different in site layout and architectural style, but both have merit overall
as a design approach for the site. Both groups indicated willingness to work on refining
the concepts and tailoring it to the City’s interests for the site. Staff believes the Prairie
Fire Development design concept is the more interesting design and site layout for the
site.
There are two key distinctions for the two current proposals, one being the design
differences and the second is current projected LIHTC score of 155 for MVHA and 154
for Prairie Fire. For Prairie Fire to be selected. staff believes they would need to verify
that adjustments in construction estimating would support a score of 155 points. The other
top proposals have already taken full credit for the construction cost category.
Staff believes that either of these two development proposals best meet the City’s
objectives for development of affordable family housing on the site. Therefore, the
City Manager recommends Alternative 1 whereby City Council directs staff to work
with either MVAH Partners or Prairie Fire Development to finalize a development
agreement for a partnership on submitting a LIHTC application and development
of affordable housing at 321 State Avenue.
Because of the narrow timelines involved with the LIHTC application deadline, it is
imperative that the City Council give direction regarding a preferred developer at
the October 27th meeting.
Location Map- Attachment A
Applicant Proposal Facts:
MVAH Partners Newbury Living
155 154 155 156 155 146 Did not provide
*Note Scoring Updated Per Staff's review of proposals
Type & Style of Units:50 units - Family 36 units - Family 40 units - Family 42 units - Senior 37 units - Family 40 units - Family 48 units - Family
Notable Features:Playground Proposed Playground Proposed Playground Proposed w/ walking paths No Playground. Sidewalks & Garden Proposed
Percent of Affordable Housing:90%87%90%88%89%90%Did not provide
Construction Schedule:April 2022 - 6-1-2023 Jan 2022-May 2023 Const March 2022, begin March 2022-March 2023 July 2022-July 2023 April 2022-April 2023 6 mos after award
Projected Project Costs:$10,397,373 $7,902,934 $9,479,427 $8,984,410 $8,363,555 $10,539,514 $6,777,209
Proposed Project Financing:
LIHTC $7,307,269 $5,391,696 $6,300,000 $7,140,000 $6,104,370 $7,265,273 $5,321,269
City Requests:
HOME $400,000 $250,000 $225,000 No Request $219,429 $500,000 $500,000
Land provided at $0 cost $2,500 provided at $0 cost provided at $0 cost provided at $0 cost provided at $0 cost No Request
Other ------100% tax abatement for 10 yrs ------
Construction Financing $2,562,806 $2,118,583 $2,250,000 $1,594,310 $2,039,756 $2,571,000 $955,940
Construction Budget $7,570,942 $5,625,000 $7,070,000 $7,019,687 $6,740,044 $7,703,930 Did not provide
Project Locations:
LIHTC Developers in Partnership with the City of Ames for Baker Subdivision
MVAH Partners
MVAH Partners
MVAH Partners
MVAH Partners
Prairie Fire
Prairie Fire
Prairie Fire
Newbury Living
Newbury Living
Newbury Living
Newbury Living
Newbury Living
Hatch Development Group
Hatch Development Group
Hatch Development Group
Sand Companies
Sand Companies
Sand Companies
Commonwealth Development Corp.
Commonwealth Development Corp.
Commonwealth Development Corp.
Excel Development
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Excel Development
ITEM: 18___
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVAL
RELATED TO THE DOMANI SUBDIVISION, FIRST ADDITION
BACKGROUND:
The City’s subdivision regulations are included in Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code. The
Subdivision Code includes the process for creating or modifying property boundaries and
specifies whether any improvements are required in conjunction with the platting of
property. The creation of new lots is classified as either a major or minor subdivision, with
a major subdivision requiring a two-step platting process to finalize the creation of new
lots. The “Preliminary Plat” is first approved by the City Council and identifies the layout
of the subdivision and any necessary or required public improvements.
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.
FINAL PLAT:
Pinnacle Properties Ames, LLC is requesting approval of a Major Final Plat for
Domani Subdivision, First Addition. The Domani Subdivision is located on the south
side of Oakwood Road between the Christofferson Park to the east and the Suncrest
Subdivision to the west (Attachment 1– Location Map). The First Addition is at the north
end of the development; two more later additions are planned as part of its phasing. The
Domani Subdivision is also a Planned Residence District (PRD) authorizing certain
deviations from zoning standards that would normally apply, such as lot size and
setbacks.
The proposed 1st Addition includes 27 single-family lots, one outlot for drainage (Outlot
A – 1.578 acres), one lot for the future clubhouse (Lot 19, Clubhouse – 0.257 acres) and
the remainder of the property, Outlot ZZ (16.183 acres). The right-of-way (Lot A) occupies
1.663 acres. The entire Domani Subdivision is 23.784 gross acres.
Street extensions connect with existing streets and will not require additional temporary
access and turnaround areas on the end of the streets during the construction phase of
the development.
The Public Works Department confirms that existing public utilities, including water,
sanitary sewer, and storm water are currently being installed in the proposed subdivision
in compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Easements are provided with the final
plat for stormwater.
An Agreement for Public Improvements, and an Agreement for Sidewalk and Street Trees
have been prepared for City Council approval with the Final Plat. The Agreement for
Public Improvements identifies the need for financial security for the completion of certain
improvements and utilities including: erosion control (COSESCO), water mains, sanitary
sewers and drains, storm sewers and drains, manhole adjustments, pavement,
pedestrian ramps, street lights, landscaping, and subgrade preparation. Financial
security, in the form of a Letter of Credit, has been submitted to the City in the amount of
$903,629.50, which covers the cost of the remaining improvements, in the event the
developer does not install the required improvements. Sidewalks and street trees must
be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for an individual lot;
however, within three years after final plat approval, all sidewalks within the addition must
be installed. Financial security can be reduced by the City Council as the required
infrastructure is installed, inspected, and accepted by the City. The proposed letter of
credit also includes financial security related to the improvements proposed within
Christofferson Park that are discussed below.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Prior to approval of the Final Plat there is condition for the developer to enter into a
development agreement concerning two issues: 1) subdivision improvements within the
City’s Christofferson Park and 2) the phasing of the PRD. (Attachment 5)
Improvements within the City’s park include changes to the parking lot and driveway
accessing the park due to the extension of Green Hills Drive, grading and revegetation
within the south quarter of the park to improve storm water drainage, and the construction
of eight-foot walkways in lieu of sidewalks. The developer has provided financial security
for these improvements as part of the Letter of Credit included for the 1st Addition. The
developer is subject to indemnity and insurance requirements as well as providing for a
two-year warranty on the work completed within the Park. The financial security can be
released upon completion of the improvements to the City’s satisfaction.
The phasing of the PRD addresses the timing of development in regards to a temporary
sales office and a model home. Importantly, the agreement identifies when the proposed
clubhouse, temporarily used as a sales office, and swimming pool amenities are required
to be completed. The improvements are required prior to starting development the 3rd
phase of the project. In the event the developer does not complete the amenities and
improvements as described, the City may withhold future permits and approvals.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve:
a. Development Agreement as satisfying the condition of approval of the
Domani PRD and Preliminary Plat.
b. Final Plat of Domani Subdivision, First Addition based upon the findings
that the Final Plat conforms to relevant and applicable design standards,
ordinances, policies, and plans with a signed Agreement for Public
Improvements and Agreement for Sidewalk and Street Trees.
Note: The signed development agreement must be returned to the City Clerk
prior City Council approval of the Final Plat on Tuesday night.
2. Defer action on the Final Plat and direct staff to modify the Development Agreement
prior to approval of the Final Plat.
3. Deny the Final Plat for Domani Subdivision, First Addition if the City Council 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 Final
Plat for Domani Subdivision, First Addition conforms to the adopted ordinances and
policies of the City as required by Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code. The proposed
development agreement provides assurances to the City for the completion of
improvements affecting Christofferson Park. Additionally, the proposed agreement
addresses the phasing of the PRD development and providing the planned amenities
commensurate with development.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
accept Alternative #1, thereby approving the Development Agreement and the Final
Plat for Domani Subdivision, First Addition.
ATTACHMENT 1: LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 2: DOMANI PRELIMINARY PLAT (OVERALL SUBDIVISION PLAN)
Subject Area
ATTACHMENT 3: DOMANI SUBDIVISION, 1ST ADDITION
ATTACHMENT 4: APPLICABLE LAWS AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Adopted laws and policies applicable to this case file include, but are not limited to, the following:
Ames Municipal Code Section 23.302
(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)
1
ITEM # 20
DATE 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FLOOD PLAIN ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT TO
ADOPT THE NEW FLOOD INSURANCE REATE MAPS, UPDATE
DEFINITIONS, AND AMEND TERMINOLOGY USED IN CHAPTER 9 OF
THE AMES MUNICIPAL CODE.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Ames participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Because
of this, property owners in the City are eligible to purchase flood insurance to protect their
structures and contents. To participate in the NFIP, the City is obligated to regulate
development so as to reduce the risks of loss of life, personal injury, and property
damage. The City has adopted an ordinance, Chapter 9 Flood Plain Zoning, that
regulates development in the flood plain and maps that identify the flood plain for
waterways throughout the City. Some of the more significant standards of the City’s
ordinance are requirements to have new buildings protected/constructed three feet above
the base flood elevation when located in the floodway fringe, restrict development within
the floodway, and under certain circumstances requiring improvements to existing
nonconforming buildings to current flood protection requirements.
Chapter 9 incorporates by reference the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) prepared
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Floodplains within the City
include Skunk river, Squaw Creek, Clear Creek, College Creek and Worle Creek. (Map-
Attachment B) Additionally, several Unnamed small streams including the Tea Garden
outlet stream were included. The current Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and FIRMs were
adopted in 2008 and a focused update study for College Creek and Worle Creek was
adopted in 2014. A new study that updates the topography of the area within Ames
with new FIRMs have been prepared and are slated to become effective on January
15th 2021. Therefore, the City must adopt these maps in order to remain in
compliance with the NFIP. Note that meteorological event changes are not part of this
update by DNR and FEMA.
The new Flood Insurance Study has resulted in more accurate Flood Insurance Rate
Maps depicting Base Flood Elevations (BFE). The new topographic data is from LIDAR
analysis from 2009. These more accurate maps will help the community plan for and
better regulate development activities in the flood plain. It will also help affected
homeowners and businesses to obtain the proper level of flood insurance coverage at the
best price. The new study also updates the City’s vertical datum it uses to determine base
flood elevation (BFE) from the NGVD1929 standard to the NAVD1988 standard. This
scale of measuring elevations was used in the existing FIRMs, but the new maps establish
elevations for the study area in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88). The
map update also brings with it some text amendments to the floodplain development
2
standards in Chapter 9 in order to maintain compliance with DNR and FEMA standards.
A more detailed explanation of the proposed text amendments and map change is
discussed in the addendum below.
The process of updating the maps was initiated by FEMA and DNR in 2018. Notice was
provided in March 2019 to property owners within the flood plain about the impending
changes and how to review and comments on the proposed changes to DNR. The City
created a web map viewer for the public to easily identify changes as part of this process,
which can be found on the City’s Planning Division website.
The FIRM update brings a total of 70 new parcels, including 39 buildings, into the
100-year floodplain. Nine parcels are being removed. The boundaries of the
floodway did not change. Of the new buildings being added, the vast majority of
those are non-residential. Staff mailed out follow up letters in October 2020 as a
reminder to the 70 property owners that the FIRMS are changing and City Council
would review the proposed changes to our local ordinances on October 27th.
PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATION:
At the September 16th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting the Commission voted 5-
1 to recommend approval of the new FIRM map and associated text amendments
including eliminating the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit in General Floodplain
Overlay areas.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed and asked questions about what
eliminating the Conditional Use Permit Requirement would cause the City to lose. Staff
replied that we believe there is no loss of oversight as City and DNR standards still apply.
The extra step of having a Board review a project subject to precise performance
standards is seen as duplicative of the Administrative review process already in place.
General Flood Plain overlay is only found in two areas of the community, east of I-35 and
north Ames near Ada Hayden.
One change has occurred since the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommendation is upon further consultation with the DNR staff has discovered
that ‘development’ was not required to replace ‘use’ in Section 9.8(1-3) (Non-
conforming uses). As a result staff has chosen to leave ‘use’ in place in this
particular section. DNR views this sections reference to the term ‘use’ as a zoning
matter and not directly tied to floodplain development regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can amend Chapter 9 of the Ames Municipal Code as shown in the
attachment, including the optional language removing the requirement for a
Conditional Use Permit in General Floodplain Districts in Section 9.6 and approve on
first reading an ordinance making these changes.
3
2. The City Council can amend Chapter 9 of the Ames Municipal Code with only the
required amendments and approve on first reading an ordinance making these
changes.
3. The City Council can choose not to approve the proposed amendments.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The new Flood Insurance Study has resulted in more accurate Flood Insurance Rate
Maps depicting Base Flood Elevations (BFE). These more accurate maps will help the
community plan for and better regulate development activities in the flood plain. It will also
help affected homeowners and businesses to obtain the proper level of flood insurance
coverage at the best price.
The new FIRMs, as finalized by FEMA and the Iowa DNR, are required to be adopted to
be in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The new maps must
be adopted, and the published Ordinance submitted to Iowa DNR no later than January
15th, 2021. The associated text amendments accompanying the map updates are minor
in nature and do not have substantive effects on specific standards. The change to
eliminate the ZBA Conditional Use Permit process does not affect the actual flood
protection standards that would apply to the General Floodplain Overlay District.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council act
in accordance with Alternative #1, which is to amend Chapter 9 of the Ames
Municipal Code as shown in the attachment and adopt the new proposed FIRM.
4
Addendum
The floodplain is divided into two main areas called the Floodway which is the most
restrictive to development and the Floodway Fringe which is the 100 year floodplain area
which has a 1% chance of flooding each year. Development in this area must meet
minimum flood protection standards. The new mapping updates the flood area for 100-
year storm events, which is consistent with NFIP.
There are some areas that are designated as 500-year floodplain on the FIRM map
panels. These areas have a 0.2% chance of flooding each year. The City does not
regulate 500- year floodplain, although it is still recognized by FEMA and DNR for
insurance purposes.
In November 2018 FEMA delivered preliminary FIRM’s to the City for our review and
comment. Once draft maps were prepared, City staff conducted an open house in
January 2019, and published an invitation to the community. In March 2019 City staff
mailed notices to all property owners with property currently within the flood plain or new
properties coming within the new boundaries of the floodplain to make all property owners
potentially affected by this update aware of what is happening. A public comment and
review period began in January 2019. The City created a web map viewer for the public
to easily identify changes as part of this process, which can be found on the City’s
Planning Division website. The comment and review period for both the public and the
City ended in December of 2019.
The FIRM update brings a total of 70 new parcels, including 39 buildings, into the 100-
year floodplain. Nine parcels are being removed. The boundaries of the floodway did not
change. Of the new buildings being added, the vast majority of those are non-residential.
Staff mailed out follow up letters in October 2020 as a reminder to the 70 property owners
that the FIRMS are changing and City Council would review the proposed changes to our
local ordinances on October 27th.
During the City’s review staff looked at the proposed new FIRM to determine if past flood
events coincided with the proposed new 100-year floodplain boundaries and if there were
any areas staff felt should be included that weren’t or if staff had any concerns about new
areas being included. Staff determined the proposed boundaries reflected where water
could be expected to rise to during an event of the particular magnitudes predicted for.
However, one area staff did disagree with that was proposed to be placed within the 100-
year floodplain is the land abutting Ada Hayden Lake. Staff appealed that section of the
map and submitted engineering data that staff believes supports not placing the land
immediately adjacent to the lake within the floodplain boundaries. FEMA reviewed the
appeal and granted changes to the map which removed the 100 year flood plain on much
of the land immediately abutting the lake and limited it to just the surface of the water and
5
a wetland area along the west side of the lake. The City has control of an outlet structure
that empties water from the Skunk River into Ada Hayden Lake. As this can be controlled
and with the engineering of the lake FEMA ultimately agreed with the City of Ames it is
not a flood hazard.
One additional area that does not match existing conditions is in south Ames in the Tea
Garden drainage area. Although a flood plain is still depicted for a waterway near
Highway 69 and the Mucky Duck, the City as a separate process is pursuing a map
amendment to remove the piped area from the flood plain.
Much of the expansion of floodplain is occurring along the Skunk River in the southeast
portion of the City east of Duff and south of Lincoln Way. Minor areas of increase in
floodplain are found along other areas near the Skunk River, Squaw Creek and Clear
Creek. Most of College Creek and Worle Creek areas remain unchanged as those areas
were remapped and updated in 2014. There are marginal decreases occurring as well.
The majority of decreases occur in the Skunk River area and in some areas along Squaw
Creek. These areas are isolated or found very near to the boundaries of the 100-year
floodplain indicating a small alteration in boundary location. The map showing where
changes to the 100-year flood plain boundary are located on the Planning Division
website and can be accessed via the following links:
Map of Changes
Additional Firm Update information
Proposed Text Amendments
This FIRM update also includes text amendment updates to the Chapter 9 development
standards. These are required updates that are primarily minor in nature and affect the
terms ‘Building’ and replacing with ‘Structures’ and replacing ‘Use/Uses’ with the term
‘Development’. Additional items being added include minor language dealing with
subdivision review proposals and reformatting a small section of the section dealing with
Substantially improved structures. The sections affected are sections 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7
and 9.8. The text amendment also makes changes to some existing definitions while
adding some new definitions. The definitions are divided into current definitions being
amended and new definitions. Regardless of whether a community uses the terminology
in it’s general standards the new definitions are required by FEMA to be inserted into the
definitions section. Some of the new definitions are not used yet in our standards.
The new map number and associated FIRM panels and their adoption date must be
added into the ordinance as a part of this process. The text amendments included in this
update are required by the Iowa DNR and FEMA to be in compliance with federal and
state floodplain regulations. The text amendments can be found below in Attachment A.
Optional Model Ordinance Items from DNR
The Iowa DNR has also given the City optional ordinance language we can adopt if the
City believes it is necessary to enforcing our Floodplain Ordinance. The DNR is giving
6
cities the option of no longer requiring Conditional Use Permits in floodplain areas that
have not been delineated between floodway and 100-year floodway fringe areas known
as General Floodplain. Currently, General Floodplain Districts are treated all as floodway.
The new language would eliminate Zoning Board of Adjustment review of the placement
of structures, fill, factory built homes, excavation, storage of materials and obstructions
within General Floodplain areas, but not the city’s development standards and protection
measures. Currently if a project involving one of the items listed above is proposed in a
General Floodplain within the City, a Conditional Use Permit must be requested from the
Zoning Board of Adjustment in addition to concurrent approval from the DNR. The
process of having to obtain a Condition Use Permit could be viewed as burdensome to
an applicant when the applied standards are the same and as such the DNR is providing
the option of eliminating this process. Development in the general flood plain is very rare
and in Ames as they are areas on the perimeter of the City. Currently there are only 2
areas in the City where General Floodplain exists. (See Attachment A)
Based on how subdivisions and site developments are currently permitted in the City no
site development or subdivision would be able to occur without City review and approval
by multiple departments. This includes review of floodplain development. Given the
review requirements already in place the process of developing in a General Floodplain
would always be subject to review by the City and DNR. Eliminating the Zoning Board of
Adjustment review is not viewed as change or elimination of flood protection standards
themselves.
7
Attachment A- Proposed Text Amendment
Highlights are text changes
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Attachment B- Existing Floodplain Areas
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 9
SECTION 9.1(3)(b)(c), 9.2(2)(4), 9.3(3), 9.4(2)(b)(e)(g),
(3)(a)(b)(c)(e), 9.5(2)(b)(c)(h)(i)(k)(i)(c), 9.6 (1)(g)(2),
9.7(1)(b)(iii)(2)(v)(vi),(e), (3)(e)(ii)(a)(7)(8)(9), 9.7(3)(e)(ii)(b)(5)(h),
9.8 (1)(a)(e)(2)(d(3)(a)(e), 9.11 (2)(12)(14)(16)(27)(29) AND
ENACTING A NEW SECTION 9.6 (4)(a)(b)(c)(1)(2), (5)(a)(b),
9.11(34)(35)(36)(37)(38) THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ADOPTING NEW FLOOD MAPS, UPDATE DEFINITIONS
AND AMEND TERMINOLOGY; REPEALING ANY AND ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING A
PENALTY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby
amended by enacting Chapter 9 as follows:
“Sec. 9.1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND PURPOSE.
. . .
(3) Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare by minimizing those flood losses described in Section 9.1(2) with provisions designed to:
(b) Restrict or prohibit development which is dangerous to health, safety or property in times of
flood or which cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities.
(c) Require that development vulnerable to floods, including public utilities which serve such
development, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction or substantial
improvement.
Sec. 9.2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
. . .
(2)Establishment of Official Flood Plain Zoning Map. The Story County, Iowa and
Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), City of Ames, Panels 19169C0135F, 0137G,
0139G, 0141G, 0142G, 0143G, 0144G, 0155F, 0161F, 0162F, 0163G, 0164F, 0168F, 0170F, 0256G,
0257G, 0276F, 0277F, dated January 15 2021, which were prepared as part of the Flood Insurance Study
for Story County and digital FIRM equivalent are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be the
Official Floodplain Zoning Map.
. . .
(4) Compliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be
located, extended, converted or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter
and other applicable regulations.
Sec. 9.3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
. . .
(3) General Flood Plain Overlay District – The General Flood Plain Overlay District includes the
areas shown as “Zone A” on the Official Flood Plain Zoning Map Within these districts, all development
not allowed as permitted development are prohibited unless a variance to the terms of this ordinance is
granted after due consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Sec. 9.4. FLOODWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
(1) Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted within the Floodway Overlay District to
the extent they are not prohibited by any other ordinance or underlying zoning district regulation, and
provided they do not include placement of habitable structures, factory-built homes, fill or other obstruction
the storage of materials or equipment, excavation, or alteration of a watercourse (except as needed for
public infrastructure):
(a) Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant
nurseries, horticulture, viticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting.
(b) Signs, billboards, utility transmission lines and pipelines.
(c) Private and public recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts,
driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and
nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges,
hunting and fishing areas, hiking and horseback riding trails, and non-habitable structures accessory to
them that meet the applicable Floodway Overlay District Performance Standards.
(d) Residential accessory uses such as lawns, gardens and play areas.
(e) Grading provided there is no change of surface topography of more than one
foot and no fill is introduced into the Floodway.
(f) Such other open-space uses similar in nature to the above uses.
(g) Public infrastructure such as bridges; roads; trails; culverts; fill, excavation or
grading; channel changes, relocations or placement of riprap or similar material; provided that any required
permits from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or Army Corps of Engineers have been approved.
Such uses must also meet the applicable provisions of the Floodway Overlay District Performance
Standards. This also includes any activity defined as maintenance under the nationwide permit issued by
the Army Corps of Engineers.
(2) Development Uses. The following uses developments which involve structures (temporary or
permanent), fill, or storage of materials or equipment may be permitted only upon issuance of a Major Site
Development Plan as provided for in Section 29.1103. Such developments must also meet the applicable
provisions of the Floodway Overlay District Performance Standards.
(a) Transient commercial uses such as circuses, carnivals, flea markets, and
similar transient enterprises.
(b) Permanent commercial development such as drive-in theaters, new and
used car lots, and roadside stands.
(c) Borrow pits, storm water detention and retention areas, and extraction of
sand, gravel, and other materials.
(d) Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves.
(e) Accessory development such as loading areas, driveways and parking areas.
(f) Grading, in which the surface topography may be increased greater than one
foot.
(g) Other development similar in nature to development described as
permitted development or listed development, which are consistent with the performance standards of
Subsection (3) below and the general spirit and purpose of this ordinance.
(3) Performance Standards. All Floodway Overlay District development allowed as a Permitted
Development shall meet the following standards:
(a) No development shall be permitted in the Floodway Overlay District that
would result in any Increase in the base flood elevation level. Consideration of the effects of any
development on flood levels shall be based upon the assumption that an equal degree of development
would be allowed for similarly situated lands. Evidence required will be a hydraulic study performed by a
licensed professional engineer for the area of drainage involved.
(b) All development within the Floodway Overlay District shall:
(i) Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.
(ii) Use construction methods and practices that will minimize and resist
flood damage.
(iii) Use construction materials and utility equipment that are resistant to
flood damage.
(c) No development shall affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or
floodway or any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system.
(d) Structures, buildings and sanitary and utility systems, if permitted, shall meet
the applicable performance standards of the Floodway Fringe Overlay District and shall be constructed or
aligned to present the minimum possible resistance to flood flows.
(e) Structures, if permitted, shall have a low flood damage potential and shall not
be for human habitation.
. . .
Sec. 9.5. FLOODWAY FRINGE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
(1) Permitted Uses. All uses within the Floodway Fringe Overlay District shall be permitted to the
extent that they are not prohibited by any other ordinance or underlying zoning district and provided they
meet applicable performance standards of the Floodway Fringe Overlay District.
(2) Performance Standards. All development must be consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage and shall meet the following applicable performance standards. Until a regulatory
floodway is designated, no development may increase the Base Flood Elevation more than one (1) foot.
The applicant will be responsible for providing the Department of Natural Resources with sufficient
technical information to make such a determination.
(a) All structures shall
(i) be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral
movement of the structure,
(ii) be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood
damage, and
(iii) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood
damage.
(b) Residential Structure. All new or substantially improved residential structures
shall have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated a minimum of three (3) feet above the base flood
elevation level. Construction shall be upon compacted fill which shall, at all points, be no lower than three
(3) feet above the base flood elevation level and extend at such elevation at least 18 feet beyond the limits
of any structure erected thereon. Alternate methods of elevating (such as piers) may be allowed, subject to
favorable consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit,
where existing topography, street grades, or other factors preclude elevating by fill. In such cases, the
methods used must be adequate to support the structure as well as withstand the various forces and hazards
associated with flooding. All new residential buildings shall be provided with a means of access which will
be passable by wheeled vehicles during the base flood elevation.
(c) Non-residential Structure. All new and substantially improved non-residential
structures shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated a minimum of three (3) feet above the
base flood elevation level, or together with attendant utility and sanitary systems, be floodproofed to such a
level. When floodproofing is utilized, a professional engineer licensed in the State of Iowa shall certify that
the floodproofing methods used are adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact
and uplift forces and other factors associated with the base flood elevation level, and that the structure,
below the base flood elevation level, is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of
water. A record of the certification indicating the specific elevation to which any structures are
floodproofed shall be maintained by the Flood Plain Administrator.
. . .
(h) No development shall affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or
floodway of any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or other drainage facility or system. In
addition, the Department of Natural Resources must approve any alteration or relocation of any stream.
(i) Subdivisions (including factory-built home parks and subdivisions) shall be
consistent with the need to minimize flood damages and shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce
exposure to flood damage. Development associated with subdivision proposals (including the installation of
public utilities) shall meet the applicable performance standards of this Ordinance. Subdivision proposals
intended for residential development shall provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will remain
dry during occurrence of the base flood. Proposed subdivision plats greater that five (5) acres or fifty (50)
lots (whichever is fewer) shall include base flood elevation data for those areas located within the
Floodway, Floodway Fringe, or General Floodway Overlay Districts on the preliminary plat and final plat.
. . .
(k) For all new and substantially improved structures:
(i) Fully enclosed areas below the “lowest floor” (not including
basements) that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces
on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement
must either be certified by a licensed professional engineer or meet or exceed the following minimum
criteria:
a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not
less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided.
b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot
above grade.
c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or
other coverings or devices provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Such
areas shall be used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, and low damage potential storage.
. . .
Sec. 9.6. GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT (FP).
(1) . . .
(g) Public infrastructure such as bridges; roads; trails; culverts; fill, excavation or
grading; channel changes, relocations or placement of riprap or similar material; provided that any
required permits from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or Army Corps of Engineers have been
approved. Such development must also meet the applicable provisions of the Floodway Overlay District
Performance Standards. This also includes any activity defined as maintenance under the nationwide permit
issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
. . .
(2) Performance Standards.
(a) All conditional uses, or portions thereof, to be located in the floodway as
determined by the Department of Natural Resources shall meet the applicable provisions and standards of
the Floodway Overlay District.
(b) All conditional uses, or portions thereof, to be located in the floodway fringe as
determined by the Department of Natural Resources shall meet the applicable standards of the Floodway
Fringe Overlay District.
(3) Permitted Uses
a.All development within the General Floodplain District shall be permitted to the
extent that
they are not prohibited by any other ordinance (or underlying zoning district) and provided they meet the
applicable performance standards of the General Floodplain District.
b.Any development which involves placement of structures, factory-built homes,
fill or other obstructions, storage of materials or equipment, excavation or alteration of a watercourse shall
be reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources to determine (i) whether the land involved is either
wholly or partly within the floodway or floodway fringe and (ii) the base flood elevation. The applicant
shall be responsible for providing the Department of Natural Resources with sufficient technical
information to make the determination.
c.Review by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources is not required for the
proposed
construction of new or replacement bridges or culverts where:
1)The bridge or culvert is located on a stream that drains less than two (2)
square miles, and
2)The bridge or culvert is not associated with a channel modification that
constitutes a channel change as specified in 567-71.2(2), Iowa Administrative Code.
(4) Performance Standards
d.All development, or portions thereof, to be located in the floodway as
determined by the
Department of Natural Resources shall meet the applicable provisions and standards of the Floodway
(Overlay) District.
e.All development, or portions thereof, to be located in the floodway fringe as
determined by the Department of Natural Resources shall meet the applicable provisions and standards
of the Floodway Fringe (Overlay) District.
Sec. 9.7. ADMINISTRATION
(1) Appointment, Duties and Responsibilities of Flood Plain Administrator
(a) The Flood Plain Administrator (the Administrator) shall be the Director of the
Department of Planning and Housing or his/her designee and shall administer and enforce this chapter and
will herein be referred to as the Administrator.
(b) Duties and responsibilities of the Administrator shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to, the following:
. . .
(iii) Record and maintain a record of:
a. the elevation (in relation to the appropriate vertical datum) of the
lowest habitable floor of all new or substantially improved structure or
b. the elevation to which new or substantially improved structures have
been floodproofed.
. . .
(2) Flood Plain Development Permit.
(a) Permit Required. A Flood Plain Development Permit issued by the Administrator
shall be secured prior to initiation of any flood plain development. Development is defined in Section 9.11
(b) Application for Permit. Application for a Flood Plain Development Permit shall be
made on forms supplied by the Administrator and shall include the following information:
. . .
(v) Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of a structure or of the
level to which a building is to be floodproofed.
(vi) For a structure being improved or rebuilt, the estimated cost of
improvements and market value of the building prior to the improvements.
. . .
(e) The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a professional engineer or
land surveyor, as appropriate, licensed in the State of Iowa, that the finished fill, structure floor elevations,
floodproofing, or other flood protection measures were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of
this Ordinance, prior to the use or occupancy of any structure.
(3) Conditional Uses, Appeals, and Variances.
. . .
(e) Hearings and Decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
(ii) Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on a Conditional Use,
Appeal, or variance within a reasonable time. In passing upon an Appeal, the Board may, so long as such
action is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify
the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from, and it shall make its decision, in writing,
setting forth the findings of fact and the reasons for its decision. In granting a Conditional Use or Variance
the Board shall consider such factors as contained in this section and all other relevant sections of this
ordinance and may prescribe such conditions as described below.
a. Factors Upon Which the Decision of the Board Shall be Based. In
passing upon requests for Conditional Uses or Variances, the Zoning Board shall consider all relevant
factors specified in other sections of this ordinance and:
. . .
7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to
flooding for the proposed development.
8. The compatibility of the proposed development with
existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9. The relationship of the proposed development to the
comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area.
. . .
b. Conditions attached to Conditional Uses or Variances. Upon
consideration of the factors listed above, the Board may attach such conditions to the granting of
Conditional Uses or Variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose of this ordinance. Such
conditions may include, but are not limited to:
. . .
5. Floodproofing measures shall be designed consistent with
the flood protection elevation for the particular area, flood velocities, durations, rate of rise, hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic forces, and other factors associated with the regulatory flood. The Zoning Board of
Adjustment shall require that the applicant submit a plan or document certified by a licensed professional
engineer that the floodproofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and
associated flood factors for the particular area. Such floodproofing measures may include, but are not
necessarily limited to the following:
. . .
(h) Pumping facilities or comparable practices for
subsurface drainage systems for a structure to relieve external foundation wall and basement flood
pressures.
Sec. 9.8. NONCONFORMING USES.
(1) In the Floodway Overlay District. When located in the Floodway Overlay District, a structure,
or the use of a structure, or the use of land, which was lawful before July 16, 2004, but is not in conformity
with the provisions of this ordinance, may be continued subject to the following conditions:
(a) No use shall be expanded or enlarged to cover more lot area, or changed to
another use, unless that use is a permitted use.
. . .
(e) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months, any future
use of the structure or premises shall conform to this ordinance.
(2) In the Floodway Fringe Overlay District. When located in the Floodway Fringe Overlay
District, a structure, use of a structure or the use of land which was lawful before July 16, 2004, but is not
in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, may be continued subject to the following conditions:
. . .
(d) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months, any
future use of the structure or premises shall conform to this ordinance.
(3) In the General Flood Plain Overlay District. When located in the General Flood Plain Fringe
Overlay District, a structure, use of a structure or the use of land which was lawful before July 16, 2004,
but is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, may be continued subject to the following
conditions:
(a) No use shall be expanded or enlarged to cover more lot area, or changed to
another use, unless that use is a permitted use.
. . .
(e) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive
months, any future use of the structure or premises shall conform to this ordinance.
. . .
Sec. 9.11. DEFINITIONS.
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) - The elevation floodwaters would reach at a particular site during the
occurrence of a base flood event.
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) - A report published by FEMA for a community issued along with
the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map(s). The study contains such background data as the base flood
discharge and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the FIRM
FLOODPROOFING - Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments
to structures, including utility and sanitary facilities, which will reduce or eliminate flood damage to such
structures.
FLOODWAY FRINGE - Those portions of the Special Flood Hazard Area outside the floodway.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA) - The land within a community subject to the “base flood”.
This land is identified on the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map as Zone A, A1-30, AE, AH, AO, AR,
and/or A99. These Zones apply to areas subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given
year
STRUCTURE - Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground, including, but not
limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, cabins, factory-built homes, storage tanks, grain storage facilities
and/or other similar uses.
New Definitions
APPURTENANT STRUCTURE - A structure which is on the same parcel of the property as the principal
structure to be insured and the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure.
FIVE HUNDRED (500) YEAR FLOOD - A flood, the magnitude of which has a two-tenths (0.2) percent
chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year or which, on average, will be equaled or exceeded at
least once every five hundred (500) years.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT - An overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing
flood damages and promoting the wise use of floodplains, including but not limited to emergency
preparedness plans, flood control works, floodproofing and floodplain management regulations.
HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE - The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction
next to the proposed walls of a structure.
NEW FACTORY-BUILT HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A factory-built home park or subdivision
for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the factory-built homes are to be
affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site
grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of the effective date of
the first floodplain management regulations adopted by the community.”
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a municipal infraction
punishable as set out by law.
Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to
the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
______________________________________ _______________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
Memo
Department of Planning & Housing
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director
DATE: October 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Continue public hearing for zoning text amendment to November 24th
A public hearing was noticed for October 27th to have City Council consider a draft ordinance related to
Zoning Ordinance cleanup issues for setback exceptions. However, more time is needed to allow staff to
finalize the language for the text amendment.
Therefore, staff requests that the City Council continue the hearing until the November 24th City
Council meeting.
Item No. 21
ITEM # ___22_ _
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
DOCUMENT FOR THE NORTH RIVER VALLEY WELL FIELD AND
PIPELINE PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
The Ames Water Treatment Plant relies on a network of 22 potable supply wells as the
source of drinking water for the community. As old wells fail and need to be replaced and
as demand for treated water increases, additional wells must be drilled.
The location for a new well field has been chosen using a detailed ground water hydraulic
model. The new wells are proposed to be constructed on land owned by the City and
located north of East 13th Street and east of the Skunk River. Development of the
proposed well field will consist of an interconnecting pipeline and three new wells, each
with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute. Standby electrical power will also be included
in the scope of the project. The planned new well field will add an estimated 2.6 million
gallons per day (MGD) of raw water that can be delivered to the City’s Water Treatment
Plant.
On April 23, 2019, Council issued a Notice to Bidders for the North River Valley Well Field
and Pipeline Project. The combined total project cost was over the engineer’s estimate
by 34%. On June 11, 2019, Council rejected all bids.
Since the rejection of bids, staff has moved the funding for the project construction from
an upfront payment out of the Water Fund to a twenty loan from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program. Moving to the SRF loan program will ensure adequate
funding for construction and help mitigate future water rate increases. A public hearing
on the environmental impact of the project construction is one of the first steps to meeting
requirements of the SRF loan program.
An Environmental Information Document (EID) has been prepared by the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), which evaluated the impact of constructing a
new well field and pipeline. The conclusion of the EID is the project will have no
significant environmental impact. Staff has reviewed the EID and found no errors
or omissions and agrees with the conclusions offered. The IDNR requires that the
City hold a hearing where the public can offer comments on the EID, after which
the Mayor would sign the EID, indicating that it is accurate to the best of his
knowledge. A separate hearing will be held before the City enters into any financial
agreements with the SRF loan program.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize the Mayor of Ames to sign the IDNR Environmental Information Document
on behalf of the City of Ames after completing the public hearing on October 27, 2020.
2. Do not approve the Environmental Information Document.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In order to increase source water capacity as existing wells continue to age and become
less effective, new wells need to be constructed. To finance the construction of the new
well field, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program will be utilized. A
public hearing on the environmental impact of the project construction is one of the first
steps to meeting requirements of the SRF loan program. The conclusion of the
Environmental Information Document (EID) is the project will have no significant
environmental impact. Staff has reviewed the EID and found no errors or omissions and
agrees with the conclusions offered. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
INVESTING IN IOWA’S WATER
www.iowasrf.com
Why You Should Read This: The document below reviews the environmental impact likely
from a project. This project is planned to be federally funded through your tax dollars;
therefore, you are entitled to take part in its review. If you have concerns about the
environmental impact of this project, raise them now. We encourage public input in this
IOWA STATE REVOLVING FUND
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Applicant: City of Ames SRF Number: FS-85-21-DWSRF-009
County: Story Iowa DNR Project Number: W2020-0437
State: Iowa
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Location: The City of Ames is located in Story County, Iowa approximately 42 miles west
of Marshalltown, Iowa and 37 miles north of Des Moines, Iowa.
Population: The population of Ames according to the 2010 US Census was 58,965. The
design population equivalent for the year 2030 is approximately 60,500.
Current Source of Water: Currently, the city’s water supply is owned and operated by the
City of Ames. The water treatment plant relies on a network of 22 portable supply wells as
the source of drinking water for the community.
Current Well System: The City of Ames currently utilizes four well fields. These well fields
pull water from the Ames Aquifer. The 22 wells range in depth from 76’ to 146’, and have a
capacity of 15 million gallons per day (MGD). A capacity of 15 MGD is not practical for long-
term use and as old wells fail and need to be replaced and as demand for treated water
increases, additional wells must be drilled.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Purpose: The purpose of this project is to make improvements to the current drinking
water system infrastructure to enhance the overall reliability, increase capacity and to
EID Page 2 City of Ames FS-85-21-DWSRF-009
INVESTING IN IOWA’S WATER
www.iowasrf.com
replace again wells in the downtown well field to safely and reliably operate the City of
Ames drinking water system for at least the next 20 years.
Proposed Improvements: The proposed project consists of the construction of a new
well field consisting of three new water supply wells. The proposed project also includes
the construction of new water pipelines to bring water from the wells to the water
treatment plant south of 13th St. The water pipelines will consist of a 7,600 feet long, 24-
inch diameter, raw water main that will tie the wells with the water treatment plant and
a 2,000 feet long buried power transmission line, which will run from a utility electrical
service and new generator at the southeast corner of Inis Grove Park to the well field. In
addition, new fiber optic lines will be installed south of 13th Street.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives Considered: After review of the current drinking water infrastructure, the
City identified the water supply wells of greatest concern. A no action alternative is not
viable due to future system capacity requirements for Ames as population and growth
continues.
Reasons for Selection of Proposed Alternative: The City has prioritized eliminating
underperforming and aging water supply wells. The construction of the 3 new water
supply wells and installation of the 7,600 feet long pipeline will increase the integrity of
the water distribution system during future growth and during times of drought.
The project site was selected for the availability of land, proximity to existing
infrastructure, engineering criteria, capital cost, operational costs and considerations, as
well as minimization of the impacts to the environment.
MEASURES TAKEN TO ASSESS IMPACT
Coordination and Documentation with Other Agencies and Special Interest Groups:
The following Federal, state and local agencies were asked to comment on the proposed
project to better assess the potential impact to the environment:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Historical Society of Iowa (State Historical Preservation Office)
Iowa DNR Conservation and Recreation Division
Iowa DNR Water Resources Section
Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe
Flandreau Santee Sioux
Ho-Chunk Nation
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
EID Page 3 City of Ames FS-85-21-DWSRF-009
INVESTING IN IOWA’S WATER
www.iowasrf.com
Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
Lower Sioux Indian Community Council
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
Omaha Tribal Council
Osage Tribal Council
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
Prairie Island Indian Community
Sac & Fox Nation of Mississippi in Iowa
Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri
Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma
Santee Sioux Nation
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate
Spirit Lake Tribal Council
Three Affiliated Tribes Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nations
Upper Sioux Tribe
Winnebago Tribal Council
Yankton Sioux Tribal Business and Claims Committee
Ames Historical Society
No adverse comments were received from any agencies to date. Conditions placed on
the applicant by the above agencies in order to assure no significant impact are included
in the Summary of Reasons for Concluding No Significant Impact section.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY
Construction: Traffic patterns within the community may be disrupted and above
normal noise levels in the vicinity of the construction equipment can be anticipated
during construction and should be a temporary problem. Adverse environmental
impacts on noise quality will be handled by limited hours of contractor work time during
the day. Other adverse environmental effects from construction activities will be
minimized by proper construction practices, inspection, prompt cleanup, and other
appropriate measures. Areas temporarily disturbed by the construction will be restored.
Solid wastes resulting from the construction project will be regularly cleared away with
substantial efforts made to minimize inconvenience to area residents.
Care will be taken to maintain dirt to avoid erosion and runoff. Temporary air quality
degradation may occur due to dust and fumes from construction equipment. The
EID Page 4 City of Ames FS-85-21-DWSRF-009
INVESTING IN IOWA’S WATER
www.iowasrf.com
applicant shall take reasonable precautions to prevent the discharge of visible emissions
of fugitive dusts beyond the lot line of the property during the proposed project (567
Iowa Administrative Code IAC 23.3(2)“c”).
Historical/Archaeological: Various Native American tribes with an interest in the area
and the Certified Local Government were provided information regarding the project. A
Phase I Archeological investigation of the proposed project area is currently underway.
Results from this investigation will be submitted to the State Historical Preservation
Office (SHPO) for review. The project will only proceed as planned if a determination of
either “no historic properties affected” or “no adverse affect on historic properties” can
be appropriately reached with or without mitigation.
Environmental: According to the Iowa DNR Conservation and Recreation Division, the
proposed project will not interfere with any State-owned parks, recreational areas or
open spaces. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurs that the project will not impact
wetlands. The project will not impact any wild and scenic rivers as none exist within the
State of Iowa.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Section 7 Technical Assistance website consultation
determined, and Iowa DNR Conservation and Recreation Division agree, that the project
will not impact threatened or endangered species or their habitats provided that any
tree cutting is conducted between October 1 and March 31 to avoid impacting
endangered bats. However, if any State- or Federally-listed threatened or endangered
species or communities are found during the planning or construction phases, additional
studies and/or mitigation may be required. According to the Iowa DNR Water Resources
Section, this project will not impact the 100-year floodplain provided all necessary
floodplain development permits, state and local, are obtained and the terms of which
are abided by. No adverse impacts are expected to result from this project, such as
those to surface water quantity, or groundwater quality or quantity.
Land Use and Trends: The project will not displace population nor will it alter the
character of existing residential areas. The proposed project is within the present
corporate limits of Ames in areas zoned residential, commercial, or industrial. No
significant farmlands will be impacted. This project should not impact population trends
as the presence or absence of existing water/sewer infrastructure is unlikely to induce
significant alterations in the population growth or distribution given the myriad of
factors that influence development in this region. Similarly, this project is unlikely to
induce significant alterations in the pattern and type of land use.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: Fuels, materials, and various
forms of energy will be utilized during construction.
EID Page 5 City of Ames FS-85-21-DWSRF-009
INVESTING IN IOWA’S WATER
www.iowasrf.com
POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TO BE REALIZED FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Positive environmental effects will be maintained water quality and quantity for the
citizens of Ames. A catastrophic loss of water supply could result in City-wide health
impacts due to a lack of sanitation and the use of other water sources that may not
meet Federal drinking water standards.
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR CONCLUDING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
• The project will not significantly affect the pattern and type of land use (industrial,
commercial, agricultural, recreational, and residential) or growth and distribution of
population.
• The project will not conflict with local, regional or State land use plans or policies.
• The project will not impact wetlands
• The project will not affect threatened and endangered species or their habitats
provided that any tree cutting is conducted between October 1 and March 31 to
avoid impacting endangered bats. If any State- or Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species or communities are found during the planning or construction
phases, additional studies and/or mitigation may be required.
• The project will not displace population, alter the character of existing residential
areas, or convert significant farmlands to non-agricultural purposes.
• The project will not affect the 100-year flood plain provided all necessary floodplain
development permits, state and local, are obtained and the terms of which are
abided by.
• The project will not have effect on parklands, preserves, other public lands, or areas
of recognized scenic or recreational value.
• A Phase I Archeological investigation of the proposed project area is currently
underway. Results from this investigation will be submitted to the State Historical
Preservation Office for review. The project will only proceed as planned if a
determination of either “no historic properties affected” or “no adverse affect on
historic properties” can be appropriately reached with or without mitigation.
• The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon local ambient air quality
provided the applicant takes reasonable precautions to prevent the discharge of
visible emissions of fugitive dusts beyond the lot line of the property during the
proposed project (567 IAC 23.3(2)“c”).
• The project will not have a significant adverse effect upon local ambient noise levels,
surface water quantity, groundwater quality or quantity, or water supply.
• No significant impact to surface water quality, shellfish, wildlife, or their natural
habitats.
EID Page 6 City of Ames FS-85-21-DWSRF-009
INVESTING IN IOWA’S WATER
www.iowasrf.com
The project description, scope, and anticipated environmental impacts detailed above are
accurate and complete to the best to my knowledge.
Signature of the Mayor, City of Ames Date
Printed Name of the Mayor, City of Ames
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle: Ames East
Section: 35, Township: 84 N, Range: 24 W
Date: 1975
Scale: 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
North
USGS Topographic Map
Ames Drinking Water Infrastructure Upgrade
Ames, IA
State Revolving Fund
502 East 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
Location information provided by HDR
2017
North
Aerial Photograph
Ames Drinking Water Infrastructure Upgrade
Ames, IA
State Revolving Fund
502 East 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
ITEM # ___23__
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: POWER PLANT UNIT #8 BOILER REPAIR PROJECT – REPORT OF
BIDS
BACKGROUND:
On August 25, 2020, the City Council approved plans and specifications for the Unit 8
Boiler Repair Project. This project, which has been planned for several years, is to repair
the boiler through the following actions:
• Replacing the waterwall tube stubs in the lower section of the boiler
• Replacing all the pendant tubes in the superheat section
• Modifying the boiler as per the original equipment manufacturers (OEM)
recommendation
Bid documents were issued to thirty-seven firms and five plan rooms. The bid was
advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing webpage and a
Legal Notice was published on the websites of a contractor plan room service with
statewide circulation and the Iowa League of Cities.
On October 14, 2020, seven bids were received as shown on the attached summary.
The Engineer’s cost estimate for this project is $8,574,000. The approved Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) includes $6,550,000 for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project. The
project in its entirety consists of five (5) work elements. Three of the five elements are
deemed urgent and critical. The Engineer’s estimate for the critical three elements is
$5,278,000, $1,272,000 less than budget. The three critical elements include 1)
Waterwall Ribbon, 2) Replace Secondary Superheater tubes, 3) Boiler Modifications
per the OEM. The other two elements, estimated to cost an additional $3,296,000 are
needed and important, but can be deferred. if necessary. These two elements include
the Primary Superheater and the Radiant Superheater sections. Because it is staff’s
desire that the bids would be such that all elements of the project can be undertaken
without deferring, these two elements were bid as alternates to determine if there are
sufficient funds to proceed with more than the three elements.
Staff feels that additional time is needed to evaluate each bid in order to
recommend an award that best meets the City’s needs.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report of bids and delay award for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project until
staff is able to perform a thorough review and determine a recommended company
to award the contract to.
2. Award a contract to the apparent low bid.
3. Award a contract to one of the other companies that submitted a bid.
4. Reject all bids, which will delay this project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project should substantially address Unit 8’s boiler tube failures. By delaying
award of this bid, staff will have adequate time to fully evaluate each bid before
recommending action by the City Council.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
PRICE $7,846,126.21 $7,237,831.65 $5,045,274.59 $4,377,980.03
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $549,228.84 $506,648.22 $353,169.22 $306,458.60
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $8,395,355.05 $7,744,479.87 $5,398,443.81 $4,684,438.63
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)6-10 weeks 6-10 weeks 6-10 weeks 6-10 weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)34 weeks 34 weeks or less 34 weeks or less 34 weeks or less
Source of Tubes Domestic and/or
Foreign - Europe
Domestic and/or
Foreign - Europe
Domestic and/or
Foreign - Europe
Domestic and/or
Foreign - Europe
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
PRICE $6,650,364 $5,855,964 $4,676,411 $3,882,011
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $39,907 $35,140 $28,062 $23,295
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $6,690,271 $5,891,104 $4,704,473 $3,905,306
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)5-8 weeks 5-8 weeks 5-8 weeks 5-8 weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)34 weeks 34 weeks 34 weeks 33 weeks
Source of Tubes Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
PRICE $8,729,809 $7,657,470 $6,429,918 $5,372,634
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $0 $0 $0 $0
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $8,729,809 $7,657,470 $6,429,918 $5,372,634
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)8 weeks 8 weeks 8 weeks 8 weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)34 weeks 34 weeks 33 weeks 33 weeks
Source of Tubes Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic
Deduct using Inconel 625 -$124,000.00 -$109,000.00 -$78,000.00 -$63,000.00
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
PRICE $9,775,245 $8,822,203 $7,187,079 $6,164,340
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $0 $0 $0 $0
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $9,775,245 $8,822,203 $7,187,079 $6,164,340
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)46 weeks 40 weeks 33 weeks 25 weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)51 weeks 45 weeks 38 weeks 30 weeks
Source of Tubes Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
BIDDER: THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., SUMTER, SC
BIDDER: AZZ SMS LLC, SAINT PETERSBURG, FL
BIDDER: ENERFAB POWER & INDUSTRIAL, KANSAS CITY, MO
ITB 2021-005 UNIT 8 BOILER REPAIR BID SUMMARY
PRICE $8,649,782 $7,669,223 $6,121,265 $5,215,776
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $430,209 $360,226 $262,892 $206,382
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $9,079,991 $8,029,449 $6,384,157 $5,422,158
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)46 weeks 40 weeks 33 weeks 25 weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)51 weeks 45 weeks 38 weeks 30 weks
Source of Tubes Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
PRICE $9,589,573.54 $8,421,254 $6,554,693 $5,483,509
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $0 $0 $0 $0
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $9,589,573.54 $8,421,254 $6,554,693 $5,483,509
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)46 weeks 40 weeks 33 weeks 25 weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)54 weeks 48 weeks 39 weeks 31 weeks
Source of Tubes Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
PRICE $8,248,337 $7,749,337 $7,149,337 $6,549,337
Sales Taxes Included in above amount $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
EVALUATED AMOUNT: $8,298,337 $7,799,337 $7,199,337 $6,599,337
Lead time ARO to source tubes (weeks)24 Weeks 24 Weeks 24 Weeks 24 Weeks
Total project time ARO (weeks)34 weeks 34 weeks 34 weeks 34 weeks
Source of Tubes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
BIDDER: A&D CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, EVANSVILLE IN
BIDDER: FRANK LILL & SON, INC., VICTOR NY
ITEM # ___24__
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: BAKER SUBDIVISION GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM –
REPORT OF BIDS
BACKGROUND:
On September 22, 2020 Council approved the preliminary plans and specifications for the
District Geothermal Vertical Closed Loop Project at Baker Subdivision.
The geothermal system would provide space heating and cooling and boost water heating
efficiency for all the homes in the subdivision. This project proposal was motivated by an
effort to advance environmental sustainability of the subdivision developed by the City,
while maintaining affordable utility costs for the mixed-income neighborhood. The system
would help to balance the seasonal load and utilization of existing electric infrastructure
and reduce community greenhouse gas emissions.
Bid documents were issued to forty-five companies and was sent out to five plan rooms.
The bid was also advertised on the Current Bid Opportunities section of the Purchasing
webpage and a Legal Notice was published on the websites of a contractor plan room
service with statewide circulation and the Iowa League of Cities.
On October 21, 2020, one bid was received as shown below.
Bidder Bid Price Use Taxes Evaluated Bid
Price
Brimhall Industrial, Inc.
Monte Vista, CO $755,237 $10,320 $765,557
The construction costs are estimated at $290,000, with a project life of over 50 years. A
monthly customer charge would be based on the size of the customer’s system. The
average charge would start at $5.25, with Council-approved rate increases as
appropriate, resulting in a payback time of around 27 years. One goal of the project would
be to keep the utility costs of homes in the neighborhood comparable to or lower than
those with more traditional heating and cooling systems. The approved Demand Side
Management budget contains $405,756 carried forward from the FY 2019/20 budget to
cover this project cost.
Staff feels that additional time is needed to evaluate the bid in order to determine
the reasons why the bid came in significantly higher than the Engineer’s estimate.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report of bids and delay award for the Baker Subdivision Geothermal
Heat Pump System until staff is able to perform a thorough review and determine
a recommended action.
2. Reject the bid, which will delay this project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A district geothermal system will provide highly efficient, affordable, and sustainable
space heating and cooling to the new development. This application of geothermal
heating and cooling would introduce more local contractors and residents to the
technology and model an innovative project structure for other communities. By delaying
award of this bid, staff will have adequate time to fully evaluate the bid before
recommending action by the City Council.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
Bidder Bid Price tax included
Evaluated bid
Price
Unit Price #1: Increase
or decrease in the
number of ground heat
exchanger bores
Unit Price #2: Increase of
decrease in the required
quantities of the grout for
ground heat exchanger wells
Ankeny, IA $755,237 $10,320 $765,557 $5,100 $125
INVITATION TO BID NO. 2021-023
BAKER SUBDIVISION GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM BID SUMMARY
ITEM #: 25
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
REQUEST: MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 3619 STANGE ROAD, PART
OF AN INTEGRATED SITE PLAN FOR THE NINETEENTH ADDITION
TO NORTHRIDGE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION.
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 2020, City Council approved the Integrated Site Plan for Burgie’s Coffee
& Tea Co. and Fareway Grocery, which includes a concurrent Preliminary Plat and Major
Site Development Plan approval (Attachment A – Location Map, B- Zoning). The Final
Plat was approved on September 8, 2020, and subsequently recorded. The plat
subdivided the 4.06 gross acres of the former lot into two lots: one for Fareway and one
for Burgie’s. Vehicle and pedestrian access remained the same.
The current request is to amend the Major Site Development Plan only, leaving the
platting unchanged. The applicant is requesting to enlarge the approved building
(Attachment C – Approved Major Site Plan) for Burgie’s Coffee by 93 square feet,
resulting in a new building that is 1,795 square feet (Attachment D – Proposed Major Site
Plan). The expansion of the building occur at the NE corner and the SW corner of the
building. No changes are proposed to the Fareway building lot and no other alterations
are proposed on the Burgie’s property beyond corresponding modifications to
landscaping for the enlarged footprint.
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. Concurrent review of a Major Site Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat is required as part of the Integrated Site Plan approval process. As no
changes are proposed to the plat, references, or lot standards themselves, this
amendment is being processed only as a Major Site Development Plan.
The new lot configuration subdivided the existing Fareway Grocery property into two
developable lots. The Integrated Site Plan enables the two new lots to share the existing
parking, the maximum building coverage requirement (45%), and the minimum
landscaped area requirement (25%). The revised total building coverage proposed is
20.24%; the revised total landscaped area proposed is 25.12%. The proposed lots both
have frontage on a public street. A note on the plat indicates the entire site will have
shared access and parking for both lots.
The proposed Major Site Development Plan (Attachment D) accounts for all building
configurations, uses, and features of the site layout. The new building will have 1,795
square feet; the current Fareway is 34,000 square feet.
When the Fareway was approved in August of 2008, the minimum parking requirement
for a grocery store was one space per 150 square feet. The parking requirement for Retail
Sales and Services-General is now one space per 300 square feet. As a result of this
citywide change, the current requirement for Fareway is 113 parking spaces. There are
currently 187 parking spaces provided. The new development will reconfigure 14 spaces
leaving a total of 182 parking spaces. This leaves 69 parking spaces available for Burgie’s
Coffee. Fast Food Restaurants are required to have 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet in
the dining or waiting area. The current, proposed redesign of Burgie’s Coffee will have
873 square feet in the waiting and dining area, requiring 10 spaces. This is one more than
the original approval, but within the allowed parking available across the lots. Both areas
of the plat will have shared access and parking, though the spaces nearest the proposed
Burgie’s Coffee will be used for the new building. On-site bicycle parking is to be provided
at the southeast corner of the new building.
No traffic improvements are being required as part of this Major Site Plan Amendment as
all driveways were determined to operate acceptably.
The site requires front yard landscaping along Stange Road (location of the street
frontage for development of the new Lot 2), including overstory trees, shrubs, and
grasses. The proposed plan complies with the non-residential, front yard requirements of
Sec. 29.403(1)(A)(i)(d).
Notice was provided to property owners within 200 feet of the site and by posting of sign
on the site.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on October 21st and voted 4-0-0 to
recommend that the City Council approve the Major Site Plan Amendment for 3619
Stange Road with the following stipulations:
i. Correct the following:
1. The label for the required bike rack, currently denoted as a sign.
2. The Total Building Area and Building Coverage on C1.01.
3. The parking calculation, which should be 12 spaces / 1000
square feet of dining area (the total required spaces comes to the
same number) on C1.01.
ii. Compliance with the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code as approved by staff.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Major Site Development Plan, subject to the following stipulations:
i. Correct the following:
1. The label for the required bike rack, currently denoted as a sign.
2. The Total Building Area and Building Coverage on C1.01.
3. The parking calculation, which should be 12 spaces / 1000
square feet of dining area (the total required spaces comes to the
same number) on C1.01.
ii. Compliance with the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code as approved by staff.
2. Approve the request for a Major Site Plan Amendment, for the properties at 3619
Stange Road, with modified conditions.
3. Deny the request for a Major Site Plan Amendment for the properties at 3619 Stange
Road if the Commission 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 Major Site Plan Amendment is a small modification from the approved
Major Site Plan, part of an Integrated Site Plan for Fareway and Burgie’s. The developer
seeks to make modifications to the approved building to add 93 square feet. This change
will still result in a development that complies with minimum landscaping, minimum
parking requirements, and all other development regulations pertaining to an Integrated
Site Plan. The small increase ins square footage allowed for interior changes for seating
and services for customers.
The proposed new use, coffee shop, complements the existing grocery store and that of
the nearby commercial and residential areas. With the conditions of approval, staff finds
that the project meets the design principles of an Integrated Site Plan, subdivision
standards, and the standards of the Major Site Development Plan.
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 a Major Site
Plan Amendment for the properties at 3619 Stange Road with the noted
stipulations.
ADDENDUM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is a parcel of land totaling 4.06 acres fronting on Bloomington and Stange
Roads. Vehicle access is only from Stange Road. The proposed development will divide
the existing lot into two lot: the larger lot containing the existing Fareway will be 3.66
acres; the smaller lot to contain Burgie’s Coffee is 0.4 acres.
Parking. The parking for the development will all be on Lot 1 (Fareway). Shared access
and parking agreements are required. A note is on the Final Plat, as required, that states
all parking areas, drives, sidewalks, fire lanes, etc. are for the common use of all lots
within the subdivision. Adequate parking, as required by the Zoning Code, is provided.
The addition to Burgie’s increases that building’s parking requirement by one space. The
site will retain ample parking spaces to accommodate both uses.
Lot
# Suites Use Requirement Spaces
Required
On-Site after
Reconfiguration
1 Fareway
Grocery
Grocery
Store
34,000 Sq. Ft. 1/300 Sq. Ft. 113
182
Coffee & Tea Shop (873 Sq. Ft. of dining & in dining or
Landscaping. Convenience General Service zoned properties are required to adhere to
the landscaping requirements in Sec. 29.403 and to provide a minimum of 25% open
space. The benefit of the Integrated Site Plan is that this 25% can be applied across the
entire development rather than on a per lot basis. The amount of open space provided
meets the 25% requirement. This open space area is made of green space principally
along the perimeter of the site.
The proposed amount of landscaping will shrink from 44,518 square feet (25.18% of the
site) to 44,419 square feet (25.12% of the site). The requirements of the CGS Zoning
District will still be met.
Landscaping is required for Lot 2 and the adjacent parking on Lot 1. The landscaping for
Fareway was compliant at the time of development and no alterations to that approved
plan are required. The required number of trees is provided on Lot 2 along Stange Road.
Existing trees are within the right-of-way for Stange Road. The required planting depth is
shown. The landscaping calculations for shrubs and grasses match the amount as
calculated by Staff. The new landscaping will have five overstory trees, 48 shrubs, and
72 grasses.
Overstory trees are required for new development. Existing trees in the parking lot median
between the proposed building and Fareway are ornamental. The applicant has agreed
to replace all four ornamental trees with four overstory trees in the same locations.
All sidewalks along public streets exists and will remain. Private sidewalks will be provided
along buildings and connection will be provided to public walks.
Building Elevations. Building elevations are included in this report. (Attachment E –
Building Elevations). The CGS zoning mandates architectural standards, including
architectural theme, height, materials, façade treatment, roof design, and pedestrian
entrances.
The building is similar in scale (one story) and in material (brick) to other nearby buildings.
The brick will be light color, with two complementary shades. The altered facades will
comply with the CGS Zoning District requirements.
The new structure will have a drive-through on the west side. Vehicles will enter the queue
for the window to the north.
The west façade facing the parking lot does not comply with the requirements in Sec.
29.810(4)(d)(ii). This regulation requires that the façade be “subdivided and proportioned
by openings, such as windows or doors, and/or projecting structures, such as arcades,
arbors, or awnings, along no less than forty (40) percent of the length of the façade.” The
applicant has agreed to add an arcade, arbor, or awning to comply with this requirement.
The building elevations do indicate lighting will be located on the buildings. Fixture
information was not provided. It should be noted that all lighting on buildings and in
parking areas will need to comply with the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code.
Infrastructure. The site is fully served by City infrastructure. Electric Services will be
supplied by the City of Ames electric service territory. Easements are shown on the
Preliminary Plat/Site.
Storm Water Treatment. The site is subject to conformance with Municipal Code
Chapter 5a and 5b requirements for storm water control and treatment. The Public Works
Department has reviewed the submitted plans and has concluded that existing
stormwater facilities can handle the increased runoff from the construction of the building.
Access/Traffic. Vehicular access is currently provided to the site from Stange Road. The
existing vehicular access points will remain in the same location and configuration. The
northern entrance will be restriped to provide a left-turn lane for the parking and drive-
through for Burgie’s. An existing ingress / egress easement, providing access to a
Bankers Trust branch, at the north entrance will remain.
Major Site Development Plan Criteria.
The standards are found in Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1502(4)(d) and include the
following requirements. When acting upon an application for a Major Site Development
Plan approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall rely upon
generally accepted site planning criteria and design standards. These criteria and
standards are necessary to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Use Policy
Plan, and are the minimum necessary to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics,
and general welfare. See Attachment F for a full review of the individual Development
criteria for the Major Site Development Plan. There are no changes to the original
findings as a result of the amendment.
Attachment A
Location Map
Attachment B
Zoning Map
Attachment C
Approved Major Site Plan
Attachment D
Proposed Major Site Plan
Areas Enlarged
Attachment E
Proposed Floorplan & Building Elevations
Attachment F
Major Site Development Plan Criteria
1. The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provisions for
surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface
water to adjacent and downstream property.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed development and is
satisfied that the regional detention will be able to handle the increase in impervious
coverage created by the new building and its accompanying patio.
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 existing utilities were reviewed and found adequate to support the anticipated
load of the proposed development. There are no offsite upgrades needed to serve
the site for any utility.
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 for access and circulation. The main access to
the site is from Stange Road, a public street. The site also fronts on Bloomington
Road.
4. The design of the proposed development shall not increase the danger of
erosion, flooding, landslide, or other endangerment to adjoining and
surrounding property.
It is not anticipated that this proposed development will be a danger due to its location
on the site, the flatness of the parcel, and the distance from a floodplain.
5. Natural topographic and landscape features of the site shall be incorporated
into the development design.
The developer is working with the existing topography of the site, which is generally
flat. The disturbed areas of the site, the new Lot 2, are required to come into
compliance with current landscape requirements.
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 will continue to take access from Stange Road using the
existing vehicular entrances. North-bound automobiles will continue to turn left onto
the property from the northern curb cut; south-bound automobiles will continue to turn
right at either of the two entrances. The northern entrance will be restriped to create
one outbound lane and two inbound lanes: one to go straight towards Fareway and
the other to turn left towards Burgie’s.
Angled parking is oriented so that vehicles entering from the northern entrance can
turn left and go south into the parking spaces or the drive-through. All interior private
sidewalks will continue to connect with the public sidewalk system that is already in
place.
The Ames Traffic Division reviewed the project and the vehicle access and is satisfied
with the configuration and the changes to the interior of the site. Of concern was the
truck delivery to the Fareway Grocery, which accesses the property from the northern
entrance. Trucks wend their way through the parking to the loading dock on the
southwest side of the existing building. The applicant has addressed this concern by
proposing to restripe the northern entrance with an incoming lane for heading west
towards Fareway, an incoming lane for heading south towards Burgie’s Coffee, and
an outgoing lane for turning in either direction onto Stange 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.
The existing site parking areas will be retained. The new Burgie’s Coffee building and
its landscaping will provide significant greater screening of the parking lot than
currently exists. A new ADA compliant parking space will be provided near the
Burgie’s entrance.
A new dumpster enclosure is on the north side of Burgie’s.
The applicant is proposing 9 new trees, 48 new shrubs, and 72 new grasses for the
landscaping.
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.
All existing access into the development will remain at their existing locations. No
new driveway entrances will be created.
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.
All lighting will be required to comply with the City’s Outdoor Lighting code, Section
29.411. Building lighting must also meet downlighting requirements.
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.
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 proposed development complies with the site coverage requirements, which in
CGS requires a minimum of 25% landscaped area. The site proposes 25.12%
landscaped area.
The proposed layout of the development is consistent with surrounding commercial
development. The surrounding commercial structures are all single-story. The
maximum allowable building height is 30 feet; the proposed structure is 19 feet, 4
inches to the top of the parapet wall.
The development complies with all minimum setbacks.
The approval of an Integrated Site Plan allows some benefit by allowing some site
development regulations to be applied across the entire site rather than on an
individual lot basis allowing for a more condensed site compared to individual lot
development.
ITEM # ___26__
DATE: 10-27-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE
REPEALING CERTAIN URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS
BACKGROUND:
On August 21, 2020, the City Council received an overview of Ames’ Urban Revitalization
Areas and Program and directed the repeal of several Urban Revitalization Areas that are
outdated. It should be noted that the action being requested is independent of the
proposed changes to the East University Impact Area URA which will be
considered by the City Council on November 24, 2020.
The majority of the proposed URA repeals are project specific. Project Specific URAs
often include approved project site plans and building elevations in place of an area map.
Once an URA is established by Ordinance, properties located within the URA may apply
for tax abatement with the City Assessor if they meet the established criteria and are
determined to be eligible by the City Council upon competition of improvements. Although
improvements are completed, no sunset date was included as part of the establishing
ordinance. It is staff’s opinion that a formal action on the part of the Council to eliminate
these completed projects would be beneficial to avoid inadvertent subsequent property
tax incentives for future improvements.
In some cases, a limited time period for eligibility was included as part of the urban
revitalization plan. The intent was to support a time-limited approval as a sunset feature
for the URA. However, under Iowa Code, dates included within the plan and adopted by
resolution are referred to as “an estimated date” and do not appear to have binding
authority in sunsetting an URA. Thus, the ordinances must be repealed to effectively close
out or sunset a URA.
The Code of Iowa Section 404.7 grants the city authority to repeal any ordinance
establishing a revitalization area, if the city determines that “the desired level of
revitalization has been attained or if the city determines that economic conditions are such
that the continuation of the URA abatement would cease to be of benefit to the city”. If a
repeal of a URA should occur, existing tax abatements, based upon approved eligibility,
continue until the completion of the tax abatement cycle of three, five or ten years.
The addendum to this report includes a summary of the eight proposed URA changes.
City staff consulted with the City Assessor to discuss the timing of sunsetting URAs. Per
the Assessor’s guidance, if the URA is in place on January 1st, property owners with
improvements from the prior year will be eligible to apply for property tax abatement. For
example, the 415 Stanton Crawford URA has an eligibility deadline of December 31,
2020, therefore the URA as a whole must still exist on January 1, 2021 to allow for
someone to claim the intended tax abatement. To allow for this, the sunset date is
proposed then as January 2, 2021 to match up with the expected eligibility.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council may approve first reading of an Ordinance repealing the
following Urban Revitalization Areas by establishing an effective date of 12-31-
2020 for each of the following Urban Revitalization Areas;
• South Lincoln “Sub-area”/ Neighborhood Urban Revitalization Area;
• 405 & 415 Hayward Avenue Urban Revitalization Area;
• 517 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area; and
• Roosevelt School Site and City of Ames Park 921 9th Street Urban
Revitalization Area;
Establishing an repeal effective date of 01-02-2021 for the following Urban
Revitalization Areas:
• 415 Stanton Crawford School Urban Revitalization Area;
And additionally, by establishing a sunset date of 12-31-2021 for each of the
following active Urban Revitalization Areas:
• Walnut Ridge 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area;
and
• 2700, 2702, 2718, and 2728 Lincoln Way; 112 and 114 South Hyland
Avenue; and 115 South Sheldon Avenue Urban Revitalization Area.
2. The City Council may choose to Amend the Ordinance and proceed with the
repeal of only some of the areas identified above.
3. The City Council may refer this item back to City staff for additional information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
URAs have generally been successful at incentivizing projects prioritized by the City
Council over the past two decades. However, as time goes on the goals and objectives
for an area or program may become stale, not support current priorities, or are ineffective
at achieving their goals. The approval of this ordinance will help to ensure that the City’s
URA program is appropriately directed and maintained going forward on current City
priorities. Any property owner that is receiving a tax abatement benefit will continue to
receive the approved abatement even after repeal of the specific URA.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council accept
Alternative #1, thereby approving first reading of an ordinance implementing the repeal
of certain Urban Revitalization Areas.
Addendum
South Lincoln Sub-Area (or Neighborhood) Urban Revitalization Area
The South Lincoln Sub-Area URA was established September 23, 2003 by Ordinance
#3733. No sunset date was included in the ordinance. Since its establishment, minimal
redevelopment has occurred in this area. The structure of the criteria has not yielded the
specific desired results in terms of design and character. The area is labeled in Plan 2040
as an area to be revisited for an updated sub-area plan. It would be appropriate to
consider a new URA in the future, once that planning work is complete, and to not
encourage potentially undesirable redevelopment in the interim. Given this, staff
proposes repeal of Ordinance #3733, with an effective date of December 31, 2020.
All projects seeking tax abatement must have been completed prior to expiration. Projects
already determined to be eligible for tax abatement shall continue to receive tax
abatement consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement and in accordance with
state law.
405 and 415 Hayward Avenue Urban Revitalization Area
The 405 and 415 Hayward Avenue URA [Iowa House] was established November 20,
2007 by Ordinance #3932. No sunset date was included in the ordinance. It is a project
specific URA. The project was completed according to the approved plans and the
desired level of revitalization has been attained. Additionally, the 3-year schedule for tax
abatement has been completed. Given this, staff proposes repeal of Ordinance
#3932, with an effective date of December 31, 2020.
517 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area
The 517 Lincoln Way URA [Squeaky Clean] was established February 24, 2015 by
Ordinance #4209. No sunset date was included in the ordinance. It was a project specific
URA but did not establish site specific improvement or architectural plans. No expiration
date was identified in the Plan. The project has been completed and the desired level of
revitalization has been attained. Tax abatement began in 2016 for a 3-yr period which
has been completed. Given this, staff proposes repeal of Ordinance #4209, with an
effective date of December 31, 2020.
Roosevelt School Site and City of Ames Park 921 9th Street Urban Revitalization Area
and Program Policy
The 921 9th Street URA was established November 12, 2013 by Ordinance # 4162. No
sunset date was included in the ordinance. The Roosevelt School Site qualifying criteria
was established June 11, 2013 by Resolution # 13-265 establishing it as a program policy
area. No expiration date was identified in the Plan; however, the desired level of
revitalization has been attained. Tax abatement began in 2015. Given this, staff
proposes repeal of Ordinance #4162, with an effective date of December 31, 2020.
Projects already determined to be eligible for tax abatement shall continue to receive tax
abatement consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement and in accordance with
state law.
415 Stanton Crawford School Urban Revitalization Area
The 415 Stanton Crawford School URA was established June 12, 2008 by Ordinance #
4357. No sunset date was included in the ordinance. The 415 Stanton Crawford School
URA is a project specific URA. The Plan adopted May 8, 2018 by Resolution #18-281
indicated a duration period expiring on December 31, 2020. The project has been
completed according to the approved plans and the desired level of revitalization has
been attained. Twenty-eight units began receiving tax abatement in 2020. Two remaining
units qualify but have not yet applied/received tax abatement. Given this, staff proposes
repeal of Ordinance #4357, with an effective date of January 2, 2021. This will allow
the two remaining properties to apply for tax abatement consideration in 2021, because
the area must exist at time of determination which is January 1. Projects already
determined to be eligible for tax abatement shall continue to receive tax abatement
consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement and in accordance with state law.
Walnut Ridge 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area
The Walnut Ridge 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way URA was established April 26, 2016 by
by Ordinance # 4254. No sunset date was included in the ordinance. The Walnut Ridge
3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way URA is a project specific URA. The Plan adopted March
22, 2016, indicated a duration period expiring on December 31, 2021. The project has
been completed according to the approved major site development plans, participation
in the Ames Crime Free Housing Program and in accordance with the conditions of
Resolution #15-561. Tax abatement began in 2017 for a 10-yr period. Given this, staff
proposes repeal of Ordinance #4254, by establishing a sunset date of December
31, 2021. Projects already determined to be eligible for tax abatement shall continue to
receive tax abatement consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement and in
accordance with state law.
2700, 2702, 2718, and 2728 Lincoln Way; 112 and 114 South Hyland Avenue; and 115
South Sheldon Avenue Urban Revitalization Area
The 2700, 2702, 2718, and 2728 Lincoln Way; 112 and 114 South Hyland Avenue; and
115 South Sheldon Avenue URA [The Union] was established December 13, 2016 by
Ordinance # 4284. No sunset date was included in the ordinance. It is a project specific
URA. The Plan adopted November 15, 2016 by Resolution # 16-660 indicated a
duration period expiring on December 31, 2021. The project was completed according
to the approved plans and the desired level of revitalization has been attained. Tax
abatement began in 2019 for a 10-yr period. Given this, staff proposes repeal of
Ordinance #4284, by establishing a sunset date of December 31, 2021. Projects
already determined to be eligible for tax abatement shall continue to receive tax
abatement consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement and in accordance with
state law.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL URBAN REVITALIZATION
AREAS (URA) BY ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE
OF 12-31-2020 FOR: SOUTH LINCOLN “SUB-AREA”
/NEIGHBORHOOD URA, 405 & 415 HAYWARD AVENUE
URA, 517 LINCOLN WAY URA, ROOSELVELT SCHOOL SITE
AND CITY OF AMES PARK 921 9TH STREET AND
ESTABLISHING A SUNSET DATE OF 12-31-2021 FOR:
WALNUT RIDGE 3505 AND 3515 LINCOLN WAY URA, 2700,
2702, 2718 AND 2728 LINCOLN WAY; 112 AND 114 SOUTH
HYLAND AVENUE; AND 115 SOUTH SHELDON AVENUE
URA, AND ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE OF 01-02-
2021 FOR 415 STANTON CRAWFORD SCHOOL URA.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Urban Revitalization Areas as follows:
“An Ordinance repealing the following Urban Revitalization Areas, effective 12-31-2020 for each
of the following:
x South Lincoln “Sub-Area”/ Neighborhood Urban Revitalization Area, established 09-23-03
by Ordinance # 3733;
x 405 & 415 Hayward Avenue Urban Revitalization Area, established 11-20-2007 by
Ordinance # 3932
x 517 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area, established 02-24-2015 by Ordinance # 4209;
x Roosevelt School Site and City of Ames Park 921 9th Street Urban Revitalization Area
established 11-12-2013 by Ordinance # 4162, and Program Policy established by Resolution # 13-265;
And effective 01-02-2021 for the following:
x 415 Stanton Crawford School Urban Revitalization Area established 06-12-2018 by
Ordinance # 4357;
And additionally:
by establishing a sunset date of 12-31-2021 for each of the following:
x Walnut Ridge 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Area, established
04-26-2016 by Ordinance # 4254;
x 2700, 2702, 2718, and 2728 Lincoln Way; 112 and 114 South Hyland Avenue; and 115 South
Sheldon Avenue Urban Revitalization Area, established 12-13-2016 by Ordinance # 4284.”
Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to
the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
______________________________________ _______________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor