HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - November 24, 2020, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAMENDED
AGENDA
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*
NOVEMBER 24, 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. Amendment to FY 2021/24 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
a. Motion setting the date of public hearing for January 12, 2021
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 “Small Business Saturday,” November 28, 2020
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
2. Motion approving payment of claims
3. Motion approving Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting held November 10. 2020
4. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period November 1 - 15, 2020
5. Motion approving certification of Civil Service applicants
6. Motion setting Conference Board meeting for December 8, 2020
7. Motion approving new 12-month Class C Beer Permit, Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine
Permit with Sunday Sales for Neighborhood Liquor & Smokes Inc 3505 Lincoln Way Ste 105
Pending Final Inspection
8. Motion approving Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales Ownership Change for Texas
Roadhouse Holdings Inc 519 Duff Avenue
9.Motion approval renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor Licenses:
a.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales - Aunt Maude’s 543-547
Main St
b. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Sunday Sales and Catering Privilege - The
Café 2616 Northridge Parkway
c. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Sunday Sales and Catering Privilege -
Thumbs Bar 2816 West Street
d. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales -Tip Top Lounge 201 E
Lincoln Way
10. Resolution adopting revised FMLA and Parental Leave Policies for City employees, effective
October 19, 2020
11. Resolution approving 2020 Urban Renewal Report:
a. Resolution approving certification of TIF Debt for Campustown and annual appropriation
of Kingland TIF Rebate
b. Resolution approving certification of TIF debt and appropriating payment of a rebate of
incremental taxes for the Barilla TIF District
12. ASSET Contract with Primary Health Care:
a. Resolution approving Agreement with Primary Health Care for FY 2020/21 City ASSET
funds in the amount of $95,000 to assist with purchasing equipment for Dental Clinic
13. Resolution approving Amendment to FY 2020/21 Ames Historical Society Outside Funding
Contract due to COVID-19
14. Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with WHKS & Co., of Ames, Iowa, for
2020/21 S. Dayton Avenue Improvements in an amount not to exceed $86,100
15. Resolution approving Encroachment Permit Agreement for awnings & building paneling at 330-
5th Street & 412 Burnett Avenue
16.Resolution approving extension of waiver of parking regulations for parking spaces at Ames Public
Library to facilitate curbside pick-up
17. Unit 8 Boiler Repair:
2
a. Resolution awarding contract for Unit 8 Boiler Repair to TEi Construction Services, Inc.,
of Duncan, South Carolina, in the amount of $6,690,271
b. Resolution approving contract and bond for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair
18. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Maintenance Facility Fabric
Structure; setting December 29, 2020, as bid due date and January 12, 2021, as date of public
hearing
19. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Auditorium HVAC Replacement;
setting December 29, 2020, as bid due date and January 12, 2021, as date of public hearing
20. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Homewood Slope Stabilization
Project; setting December 16, 2020, as bid due date and December 22, 2020, as date of public
hearing
21. Resolution approving Change Order No. 2 for 2019/20 Asphalt Pavement Improvements in an
amount not to exceed $133,061.22
22. Resolution approving Change Order for FY 2020/21 Right-of-Way Tree Trimming & Removal
Contract in the amount of $72,091
23. Inis Grove Restroom Project:
a. Resolution approving Change Orders No. 1-8 resulting in a credit of $1,845
b. Resolution accepting completion of Inis Grove Restroom Project
24. 2017/18 Arterial Street Improvements (13th Street):
a. Resolution approving Change Order No. 3, a deduction in the amount of $58,153.60
b. Resolution accepting completion of 2017/18 Arterial Street Improvements (13th Street)
25. 2018/19 Collector Street Pavement Improvements (Hickory Drive):
a. Resolution approving Change Order No. 5, a deduction in the amount of $50,951.70
b. Resolution accepting completion of 2018/19 Collector Street Pavement Improvements
(Hickory Drive)
26. Resolution accepting completion of 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation (Little
Bluestem)
27. Resolution accepting completion of Scaffolding and Related Services and Supply
28. Resolution accepting completion of Specialized Wet Dry Vacuum, Hydro Blast, and Related
Cleaning Services
PUBLIC FORUM: This is a time set aside for comments from the public on topics of City business
other than those listed on this agenda. Please understand that the Council will not take any action on
your comments at this meeting due to requirements of the Open Meetings Law, but may do so at a
future meeting. The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public; however, at no
time is it appropriate to use profane, obscene, or slanderous language. The Mayor may limit each
speaker to three minutes.
ADMINISTRATION:
29. Request for City to Purchase Rose Prairie property
PLANNING & HOUSING:
30. Staff Report regarding East Industrial Zoning
31. Resolution approving Downtown Facade Grant
3
PARKS & RECREATION:
32.Staff Report regarding Splash Pad Water Consumption
33. Discussion of Downtown Plaza vision
WATER & POLLUTION CONTROL:
34. Water Plant Dehumidification Project:
a. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Project; setting December
23, 2020, as bid due date, and January 12, 2021, as date of public hearing
b. Resolution approving Amendment to contract with KFI Engineers of St. Paul, Minnesota,
in the amount of $11,500 for bidding and construction administration services
HEARINGS:
35. Hearing on Changes to the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area:
a. Resolution amending Plan Criteria
b. First passage of Ordinance amending the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization
Area boundary by adding 313 Lynn Avenue and adding an expiration date of April 1,
2024
36. Hearing on zoning text amendments regarding the extension of building features into
required setbacks: (Continued from October 27, 2020)
a. First passage of Ordinance
ORDINANCES:
37.First passage of Face-Covering Ordinance extending sunset clause to June 30, 2021
38. Third passage and adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 4422 on proposed text amendments
regarding the new flood plain maps, updated definitions, and amended terminology used in
Chapter 9 of the Ames Municipal Code
39. Third passage and adopted of ORDINANCE NO. 4423 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
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 effective 01-02-2021 for the following:
a. 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:
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
4
South Sheldon Avenue Urban Revitalization Area, established 12-13-2016 by Ordinance
No. 4284
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
5
ITEM # AAMPO 1
DATE: 11-24-20
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO) TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO FY 2021-2024 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGAM BACKGROUND:
This amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 - 2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) involves changing the following:
• Adding an Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) CyRide Project in FY 2021.
This project would make use of federal funds from a COVID-19 Research Demonstration Grant, should CyRide be awarded the grant. APC’s will provide
passengers the ability to view the current space available on a bus via their smartphone applications in real-time to select the trip that best meets their needs. CyRide’s long-term goal of reducing overcrowding on buses is equally important
during the COVID-19 pandemic for passengers wanting to be more socially distanced restoring trust in public transit. This project will be programmed for
$474,864 in federal funding and $52,806 in CyRide funding match.
The requirements to process amendments to the TIP call for an opportunity for public review and comment as well as approval by the Policy Committee of the Ames Area MPO. The public input period is available from November 25, 2020 to January 1, 2021. After
this comment period, this item will go before the AAMPO Policy Committee again for final approval on January 12, 2021. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Review the amendment to the FY 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program and set January 12, 2021 as the date for the public hearing. 2. Review and modify the amendment to the FY 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program and set January 12, 2021 as the date for the public hearing. ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Inclusion of this project into the FY 2021-2024 TIP would allow CyRide to immediately proceed forward with the project after receiving pre-grant authority from FTA, should CyRide be awarded this grant. This project also help CyRide farther improve the efficiency of its transit system. Therefore, the Administrator recommends that the Transportation Policy Committee adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 10, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor John Haila called the Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council,
which was being held electronically, to order at 6:00 p.m. with the following Council members
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
an item to the Consent Agenda approving the purchase of a property at 1126 Grand Avenue.
PROCLAMATION FOR “HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS AWARENESS WEEK,”
NOVEMBER 15-22, 2020: Mayor Haila proclaimed the week of November 15-22 as “Hunger and
Homelessness Awareness Week.” He encouraged all citizens to recognize that many people do not
have housing and need support from citizens and private/public nonprofit service entities. The Mayor
added that during COVID-19, hunger and homelessness has been further exacerbated. Accepting the
Proclamation were City Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer, United Way representative
Anneke Mundel, The Bridge Home representatives Jodi Stumbo and Linda Munden, and The
Salvation Army representative Cari McPartland.
Ms. Baker-Latimer stated she appreciated the partnership she has with the service agencies to address
the needs of the community. It has been important, due to COVID-19, to spread the services to the
community and Story County. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that it is important to recognize the
agencies for their efforts and partnership.
Linda Munden, representative of The Bridge Home, said she appreciated the support of the Mayor,
the Council, and the City of Ames. She stated that everyone who receives the services that are
supported by the City of Ames is a lot better off.
Anneke Mundel, representative of United Way, thanked everyone for continuing to raise awareness
about hunger and homelessness. She stated she is concerned about what the Coronavirus is doing
to exacerbate the inequalities. Nationally, they are looking at 24 million more hungry people. Ms.
Mundel pointed out that particularly in the school-based pantries. The local food pantries have seen
an 800% increase in visitors.
Cari McPartland, representative of the Salvation Army, explained that the people she works with to
prevent hunger and homelessness are doing the best they can in Story County. She let the Council
know that she appreciated the support that has been given to the Salvation Army since 2012.
Jodi Stumbo, representative of the Bridge Home, thanked the Council for bringing awareness to the
community. She noted there are a lot of families who are in need, and she is grateful for all the
partner agencies and appreciated their help and collaboration. Ms. Stumbo stated they are starting
to see an increase in clients, and she believed that over the winter the numbers will continue to
increase. She pointed out that Iowa is facing the potential for 70,000 evictions; historically Iowa has
7,000 evictions in a year. Ms. Stumbo mentioned that they have not seen exactly all of what COVID
is going to do to some families, and they need to keep awareness going.
Mayor Haila thanked each agency for all they do for the community.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the following items
on the Consent Agenda.
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Minutes of Regular City Council meeting held October 27, 2020
3.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period October 16 - 31, 2020
4.Motion setting Conference Board meeting dates for January 26, 2021, and February 23, 2021
5.Motion approval renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor Licenses:
a.Class E Liquor License - AJ’s Liquor III, 2401 “A” Chamberlain Street
b.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Outlaws, 2522
Chamberlain Street
c.Class B Native Wine Permit with Sunday Sales - Chocolaterie Stam, 230 Main Street
d.Class B Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales -
Country Inn & Suites Ames, 2605 SE 16th Street - pending dram shop
e.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Time Out-Ames, 120 Kellogg Avenue -
pending dram shop
f.Class C Beer Permit with Class B Wine Permit and Sunday Sales - Swift Stop #8, 705
24th Street
6.Purchase of 1126 Grand Avenue in conjunction with City’s Dangerous Buildings Program:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 20-592 approving borrowing $8,205 for purchase of property and
$40,000 for asbestos removal and demolition from City-Wide Affordable Housing
Programs Fund and then re-sell the property to reimburse the expenditures advanced
from the Fund
7.RESOLUTION NO. 20-577 waiving Purchasing Policies and approving a sole source contract
to Action Information Systems of Golden, Colorado, for upgrading the City Clerk’s Office Files
Management System in the amount of $71,625
8.RESOLUTION NO. 20-578 amending FY 2020/21 Outside Funding Contract with
Campustown Action Association due to COVID-19
9.RESOLUTION NO. 20-579 amending FY 2020/21 ASSET Contract with Raising Readers of
Story County due to COVID-19
10.RESOLUTION NO. 20-580 amending FY 2020/21 ASSET Contract with Boys and Girls Club
of Story County due to COVID-19
11.RESOLUTION NO. 20-581 approving Detour Agreement with Iowa DOT for 2021 Bridge
Repair Project on I-35 over US 30
2
12.RESOLUTION NO. 20-582 approving a Professional Services Agreement with Bolton &
Menk, Inc., of Ames, Iowa for Work Order No. 2 for FY 2020/21 Airport Improvements
(Runway 01/19 Airfield Lighting) project not to exceed $99,900
13.RESOLUTION NO. 20-583 awarding contract to Hoglund Bus Company of Marshalltown,
Iowa, for purchase of six 176" wheelbase mini-buses for CyRide in an amount not to exceed
$658,200
14.RESOLUTION NO. 20-584 awarding contract to Elliott Equipment, Co, of Grimes, Iowa, for
purchase of one Peterbilt chassis with Schwarze street sweeper and accept the $85,000 trade-in
allowance for a total of $202,750
15.RESOLUTION NO. 20-585 approving deaccession of “Resonance” from Public Art Inventory
16.RESOLUTION NO. 20-586 accepting partial completion of public improvements and reducing
security for Kingsbury Subdivision, 4th Addition
17.RESOLUTION NO. 20-587 accepting partial completion of public improvements and reducing
security for Wheelock Corner Subdivision
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: Ahmed Ismail, Iowa City, said he wanted to discuss “Policing in Ames.” He
stated that he had reached out to a few of the Council Members about potentially talking to
marginalized communities. He noted that some of the Council Members had mentioned that they
didn’t fully understand the marginalized communities yet. Mr. Ismail explained that the
recommendations for the “Policing in Ames” will affect the marginalized communities the most. He
wanted to know if the Council is going to speak with the marginalized community first before
finalizing any of the recommendations.
Mayor Haila explained that Mr. Ismail’s question was about the Council moving forward with the
Policing in Ames: “A Path Forward” Recommendations, prior to interacting with under-represented
or marginalized communities in Ames. He explained that the City Manager had made some
additional recommendations relative to talking with marginalized communities. The Mayor noted
that this will be discussed during Item 18 on the Agenda. Mr. Ismail asked if Item 18 was going to
be the decision of the Council to pass the Recommendations or the decision to reach out to the
marginalized communities for its input. Mayor Haila mentioned that the decision before the Council
is whether to recommend to staff to proceed with beginning to create/implement some of the
recommendations. Mr. Ismail stated that he had the opportunity to speak with some members of the
Council and the Police Department and they all admitted that the City doesn’t understand the issues
of the marginalized communities. He was curious if this would be something the Council and Mayor
would like to move forward with.
POLICING IN AMES: “A PATH FORWARD:” City Manager Steve Schainker explained that
on September 29, 2020, a report was presented before the Council on “Policing in Ames, A Path
Forward.” The Report contains 21 recommendations to address the concerns reflected in the emails
that were received regarding the issue of improving policing efforts. Instead of making any final
decisions on the recommendations at the September 29, 2020, meeting, the Council decided to
provide citizens with sufficient time to review the proposals and offer additional feedback. Mr.
3
Schainker explained that he had met with Ahmed Ismail, representative for the local Black Lives
Matter, and he was very persuasive that the City of Ames does not do as good of a job as it could
with discussing issues of concern with “marginalized” communities. City Manager Schainker
mentioned in his cover letter he is recommending adding, under the Communication category, a
Focus Group/Workshop between the City Council and the marginalized community. Mr. Schainker
stated he is looking for direction as to what options to remove or add into the Plan. He added that
a couple options will be related to the budget and these will have to be approved during budget time.
Mr. Schainker wanted to clarify on Category No. 9 - “Funding” that he is not in support of
“defunding” the Police Department in any way. He also wanted to point out to the public how much
of a commitment the Council has made financially to service agencies throughout the years.
Mayor Haila stated that he agreed with Mr. Schainker’s recommendation to Mr. Ismail. The Mayor
stated that if the Council gives direction tonight, it would not be final; staff will bring more
information back to the Council. City Manager Schainker explained that there will be two additional
steps after tonight’s meeting. Once the Council gives direction on how they want to proceed with
the recommendations, Mr. Schainker will come back to the Council with an Implementation Plan.
The second step will be to continually communicate with the public regarding the process.
Mayor Haila asked the Council if there were any questions about Theme 1 was “Organizational
Culture.” Council Member Gartin stated that his only concern was a fiscal question. He explained
that his presumption is that the budget is going to be tight for the next couple of years and wanted
to know if Mr. Schainker would be recommending any new full-time employees (FTEs) in the next
budget. Mr. Schainker commented that it is too early to say, but he is going to recommend that a new
full-time position for a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Coordinator be created. It was noted that
each Department has done a wonderful job with their budgets, and he doesn’t expect a lot of new
positions.
Theme 2 was “Police Officer Recruitment and Selection Process,” and there were no comments from
the Council.
Mayor Haila explained that there had been over two hours of public comment on September 29,
2020, and the report had been available to the public. The Mayor stated that there will be no public
input tonight as tonight is for the Council to discuss and give direction on how to proceed with the
Report. There are multiple steps, and this item will be coming before the Council and the public
again for comment at a later date.
Theme 3 was “Officer Training/Education” and had no comments from the Council.
Theme 4 was “Departmental Policies.” Council Member Betcher stated this section had caught her
attention and there were a couple of concerns that didn’t pertain to just this section, but would be
considered global changes to some of the wording. Ms. Betcher worried that with the focus on
citizenship in recent years that the term “citizen,” which the City uses as synonymous with resident
4
could be misconstrued, especially by the international community in Ames. She wants anyone that
is a resident of Ames to feel included in the recommendations and be able to contribute and be a part
of the advisory committee.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to replace the word “citizen” with the word
“resident” throughout the Report.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Betcher mentioned that another point she wanted to make was also a global change.
In Recommendation No. 6, it referred to the City’s website and the City’s website shows up in a lot
of the recommendations, and it is one of the primary methods of publicizing what the City is doing.
She explained that the Council knows there are members of the community who are unable to afford
internet, smartphones, or by using electronic means to get information. Ms. Betcher stated she would
like to find some language that would allow the Council to have flexibility on how information is
publicized. She suggested saying that “distribution will occur using print, electronic, and other
appropriate means of communication.” Ms. Betcher would like to see the Council thinking more
broadly on how information is disseminated and using traditional means and means that are
recommended specifically for reaching those communities. One of the goals the Council has is how
to reach out and best communicate with those communities.
Moved by Betcher, moved by Junck, when it is appropriate in the Recommendations, they should
reflect print, electronic, and other appropriate means of communicating with the public.
Council Member Gartin stated that the Police Department Policy is over 100 pages long and asked
Ms. Betcher for further clarification. Ms. Betcher stated that the Police Department Policy is
probably the most difficult, but she was recommending having one hard copy available for someone
to review at the Public Library. Council Member Martin stated he didn’t understand the motion to
absolutely require the production of print copies of everything. The motion sounded a little more of
a nuance to him. Ms. Betcher stated she is trying to be broad, but in saying the primary mode is
electronic, the City is cutting out a lot of communities who don’t have access to the internet. Mayor
Haila stated he was reviewing the document to see where Ms. Betcher’s motion would apply.
Council Member Betcher stated it would be applicable to Recommendation No. 6, No. 11 (Quarterly
Summaries), No. 12 (Quarterly Reports), No. 14 (Periodic Studies), No. 15 (Complaint Forms), and
No. 18 (Periodic updates). Council Member Martin stated that this is something that may get more
clarification as staff works on the wording, but in the meantime, he thought it was a good idea. Ms.
Betcher mentioned that she hoped staff would take the motion as being flexible as they are not sure
what kind of recommendations they may get. She is not intending to lock things down, but open
them up.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Theme 5 was “City Ordinances and State Law.” City Manager Schainker pointed out that if the
Council wanted to proceed with Recommendation No. 9, immunity issues or other items that need
5
to be talked about had not been vetted with the City Attorney. It is whether the Council wants staff
to pursue the recommendation or not. The Council did not have any comments for Theme 5.
Theme 6 was “Transparency.” Council Member Junck noted that she had mentioned at the
September 29 meeting that she thought it was important to ask about race and other demographics
in all situations and then let people volunteer the information if they felt comfortable sharing it. She
suggested that staff look into doing this with the implementation of the Plan. Ms. Junck stated if it
is not possible that would be okay, but thought it would be good to explore.
Moved by Junck, seconded Martin, to ask staff to explore the possibility of asking people for
demographic information in situations where they are able to voluntarily comply.
Council Member Corrieri stated she is concerned with the motion as there are already some volatile
situations and this would create more tension for law enforcement and its dealings with the public.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen mentioned that she was worried about people feeling pressured to
answer the questions if they don’t want to. She wondered if this would be a good topic to discuss at
a Workshop and ask for input from other organizations and the public.
Council Member Junck withdrew her motion and recommended to discuss at a Workshop.
Council Member Betcher mentioned that the demographic information would be a good topic for
the conversation that will be held later. She didn’t feel comfortable having a bunch of “white” people
deciding to ask everybody’s race. It did not sit well with her. Ms. Betcher felt it was important to get
input from the impacted communities.
Council Member Martin thought it would be great to consult as well, but they would be doing what
the motion asked for, which was to “explore the possibility of doing it.” He understood the motion
to talk about the topic; not enforce it right away.
Theme 7 was “Accountability in Complaint Handling and Discipline.” Council Member Junck stated
she had a comment about the Ames Citizen Police Advisory Committee (ACPAC). It was discussed
how the Council would like the Committee to be representative of the diversity in the community
and if staff should explore potential term limits that would be more inclusive to having Iowa State
Students serve on the Committee. Ms. Junck noted that there were a few other Boards or
Commissions that have the shortened terms to attempt to include ISU students.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to have staff explore potential options for term limits
that would be more inclusive to having Iowa State University students be able to serve on the Ames
Citizen Policy Advisory Committee.
Council Member Betcher stated if the Council replaces the word “citizen” with “resident” it would
change the name to Ames Resident Police Advisory Committee (ARPAC), and she doesn’t think it
is a bad idea. She wondered about the implementation of the Committee as the way it is described
6
indicated that there would be a steep learning curve, and a lot of commitment that an ISU student
might not have the time for, but she is in favor of having a limited-term position.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
Council Member Gartin stated that the ARPAC is one of the more interesting aspects of the Report,
but he wanted to know how the Council would know that the Committee is working. Mr. Schainker
explained that they are not transferring or delegating the responsibility of accountability outside of
the organization. He stated he will know it is working because his goal and the goal of the Police
Chief is to make sure before they make a decision that will affect an officer or the community that
the Police Chief would get the benefit of a perspective that they would not normally have. By being
fair and having an open and honest dialogue, that type of exposure would be helpful. Mr. Schainker
stated it is not who wins or loses, and he would not recommend the group votes and it would be
more participation centered. The benefit is to give the Police Chief a new perspective from an
outside group.
Council Member Corrieri explained that she understood that an Implementation Plan will be coming
back to the Council, but she would like to know how potential candidates would be vetted. She
understood the appointments would be done by the Mayor, but she was worried it would be
politicized. Ms. Corrieri wanted to know if there would be a matrix as to what information is kept
confidential and what is available to the public. Mr. Schainker stated they would have to speak with
the City Attorney and some training would need to be done. The selection process could be discussed
as to whom they would want on the Board. She stated that of all the Boards and Commissions this
new Committee has the most potential to be politicized. Mr. Schainker stated they can get guidance
from other cities as to how they set up their committees.
Council Member Gartin asked if there would be any merit in considering putting a five-year period
follow-up date in where this item would come back to the Council instead of being on automatic
pilot. He would like a substantial period of time for the Council to come back with a fresh set of
eyes. Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that if the Council were to review the Committee in five
years and decide not to renew it, they would also have the votes to decide not to continue it on their
own. She didn’t think an automatic kick in to review the Committee would be necessary. Mr. Gartin
stated he was worried that if there was not some kind of sunset or place holder to review, the
Committee would just keep going, whether it was effective or not.
Mr. Schainker stated it is harder for the City Council to eliminate it once it is in place, but if a
timeframe is put in, it forces the Council to stop, take a look, and make a decision. Council Member
Betcher mentioned that this would be something to look at to see what other communities are doing
as she is sure there are other Citizen Advisory Committees.
Council Member Martin stated he is interested in how the members would be chosen for the
committee. He stated that the Committee is to have seven members who are intended to be the
7
representatives of the diversity of the community, appointed by the Mayor, and approved by the
Council. Mr. Martin wanted to know how they ensure that the members are representatives of the
diversity of the community. He had an idea that the Council could ask the Mayor when making the
appointment to consider the race and demographic information from the other Recommendations
and to say in the appointment what information was considered.
Council Member Betcher mentioned she knows it will be a challenge to fill the Committee as they
currently have issues with filling some of the other Board and Commission positions. Council
Member Betcher stated that it could attract people who are generally concerned and interested,
people who have an axe to grind, or people who want to be a part of the police. She noted it would
be worth it to look at how other communities have appointed its members, and if it is working well.
Ms. Betcher stated that the reports she has heard from the National League of Cities state the
appointments are going well, but she doesn’t know how the appointments were made. Council
Member Beatty-Hansen stated this may be a good topic for a Workshop as well. Not specifically
whom to pick, but where to get good, qualified people.
City Manager Schainker stated the Council could be general and state that the membership has to
reflect the demographics of the community or identify five different groups and each one has to have
a member. Ms. Betcher commented that she remembers the Council had been in trouble before for
having specifics. Mr. Schainker stated that is correct. Mayor Haila mentioned there is one board that
is impossible to fill as there are very specific qualifications or professions that are hard to fill. The
Mayor stated there will be the expectation for participation, training, and objectivity. Ms. Betcher
stated they could set percentages, and the Council could set a 50/50 percentage and try to meet it as
best as they can. The Mayor mentioned that he continually tries to get a diversified group on each
committee. Mr. Schainker stated he doesn’t expect an answer tonight, but will reach out to other
groups.
Theme 8 was “Communication.” Council Member Betcher mentioned that she had asked Mr.
Schainker about Recommendation No. 17, which referred to the ISU Community and Regional
Planning class and about incorporating the potential to continue the relationship with the Regional
Planning class or to say the Council adopts the Recommendations and explore the potential for a
continuing relationship with the ISU Community and Regional Planning class. Mr. Martin stated it
is hard for them to say one way or the other. His perspective is that this is a new program, but there
have not been any outcomes yet about the class. He would want to see how it went before
committing to an ongoing relationship. Ms. Betcher stated she wasn’t thinking of committing to the
relationship, but committing to consider it. She stated that adopting Recommendation No. 17 may
be premature as the Council doesn’t know what the recommendations are. Mr. Schainker explained
that he was careful with the wording as the Council will only approve “City approved”
recommendations as the class may give 20 recommendations and the Council may not approve any
of them.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to incorporate a community conversation with
representatives of marginalized communities and agencies that work with them.
8
Mayor Haila inquired when Council Member Beatty-Hansen would like the conversation to occur.
Ms. Beatty-Hansen stated that she would recommend having the conversation earlier than later. She
was not sure about timing though. Ms. Beatty-Hansen would like to get feedback on Policing and
other important issues. The Mayor wanted clarification and asked Ms. Beatty-Hansen at what point
she would recommend having a community conversation and would it be after staff came back with
its recommendations for implementation and review. Ms. Beatty-Hansen stated she didn’t think it
should be that specific, but still not sure about the timing. Council Member Betcher stated she
believed Mr. Ismail was recommending setting up a communication pipeline, but she was not sure
how long it would take to organize something like that. Council Member Martin stated this is
something that could be done in Council meetings and should be relatively decoupled from the
Policing Report. He stated it is about getting to know the community better and will be a real time
commitment.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Theme 9 was “Funding.” City Manager Schainker stated that Recommendation No. 21 is not his
recommendation. His recommendation is not to “defund” the Police Department or reallocate
ASSET.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen mentioned that they did mention not purchasing surplus armored
military vehicles, but thought there were some rifles that were purchased from surplus. She wanted
to know if the Council said no military anything, how would it affect purchasing. Police Commander
Geoff Huff explained that the important distinction is that the Police Department doesn’t buy them
from the military; if the item is a surplus the Department gets them for free. The City can buy the
same thing on a private market, but this is a more cost-effective method.
Council Member Martin stated he had a comment about Recommendation No. 21, and when he
looked at the ASSET priorities, he liked them and didn’t want to change them. Council Member
Betcher mentioned that she would tend to agree, but during their next discussion of ASSET funding,
the Council could foreground the question of social justice more in the Council’s decision-making
process so it is part of the discussion. Mr. Schainker inquired what Ms. Betcher meant by
foregrounding. Ms. Betcher stated she doesn’t believe they have ever discussed social justice during
any ASSET discussions and just wants to bring it into the conversation as a component.
Assistant City Manager Schildroth asked for clarification if Ms. Betcher meant for the ASSET fiscal
year 2020/21. Ms. Betcher stated for next year’s funding round, in July 2020 for the next fiscal year
of 2021/22. Ms. Schildroth mentioned she would make a note of it.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to ensure that social justice is part of the discussion of the
ASSET priorities next year as the Council reviews the priorities.
Council Member Gartin stated he is going to vote in favor of the motion, but stated it is going to be
very difficult to work on a new category for social justice. Ms. Betcher mentioned that she thought
9
they were already having this discussion in other work that the Council has been doing with plans.
Ms. Betcher asked Ms. Schildroth if this idea was something that would be doable and if she knew
of designations of groups that fit within the category of social justice communities that are impacted
positively or negatively by suggestions. Ms. Schildroth explained that she would need to think that
through a little bit. One piece of information they started collecting with the ASSET budget for fiscal
year 2022 was information on race and ethnicity to see where the agencies are providing their
services. Ms. Betcher mentioned that she suspects that there will be some overlapping.
Council Member Martin stated he would be in support of the motion, but is unsure of what it means
in terms of the services that the Council would see for ASSET and how allocations would be
changed. He thought it would be positive to have a conversation.
Mr. Schainker asked if Ms. Betcher’s motion was approved would she intend for it to replace
Recommendation #21. Ms. Betcher stated she guessed it would as she is not talking about
reallocating anything or re-prioritizing, but talking about the next cycle.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Mayor Haila stated he typically doesn’t read his emails during the Council meetings, but there have
been a lot of emails about having a dialogue with the public during tonight’s meeting. He reminded
the public that there had been plenty of time for input and this is not the end of the discussion.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to move forward with the suggestions outlined in the
Staff Report, including the modifications voted on by the Council.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION OF THE FACE-
COVERING ORDINANCE: City Attorney Mark Lambert explained that on September 1, 2020,
the Council adopted Ordinance No. 4420, which generally mandated that the people in Ames wear
face coverings while in public settings. The Ordinance contained a sunset clause; the Council had
chosen December 31, 2020, as the date the Ordinance would come to an end. He noted that there are
three City Council meetings left after this meeting if the Council wanted to extend the Ordinance,
but if the Council doesn’t do anything the Ordinance will no longer be valid.
Council Member Martin stated it would be a good idea to extend the Ordinance as the COVID
numbers are still going up, however; as a point of good governance, the Council should be soliciting
the opinions from the medical authorities whom the Council is relying on.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to ask the Story County Board of Health, Iowa State
University, Mary Greeley Medical Center, and McFarland Clinic for their advice either in favor of
or against continuing the Face-Covering Ordinance while simultaneously putting the first reading
of the modified Ordinance on the next agenda to extend the Ordinance until June 30, 2021.
10
Council Member Betcher wanted to know what the motion would do to the timeline. Mr. Martin
stated he would ask staff to bring back the modified Ordinance for first reading on November 24,
and to reach out to the four parties who were mentioned in the motion to provide a written response
by November 19, 2020. He noted that this should give everyone enough time to review the responses
before making a decision on November 24.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AMES AND MARY GREELEY MEDICAL
CENTER AND CITY OF AMES AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE
FIGHTERS, LOCAL 625: Fire Chief Rich Higgins stated that he is asking the Council for its
approval on two separate contracts. The first contract is with Mary Greeley Medical Center and the
second contract is with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 625. The
Agreements are to move to a new service level from the current level of First Responder (Emergency
Medical Responder) to an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Chief Higgins noted that the City
has had a great partnership with Mary Greeley Medical Center (MGMC) for years. The first contract
was done in 1996 and it was agreed that the Ames Fire Department would upgrade its emergency
medical service (EMS) status to that of First Responder. In 1998, the contract was updated to add
extrication and in 2003, the contract was modified to further clarify responsibilities under the
partnership. He explained that in 2016, MGMC requested that the Ames Fire Department upgrade
its EMS service level to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Discussions occurred between
MGMC and the City of Ames regarding the change in service level, but no changes were agreed to
by the parties. In 2019, MGMC gave notice that it was canceling the contract with the Ames Fire
Department for medical services. Additionally, MGMC canceled two other contracts with the Ames
Police Department, one for Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) and the other for the interface
connection between the Police Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch System to MGMC
ambulances. Although cancellations were received, the parties continued to operate under the
original terms of the Agreements until a new contract could be negotiated. Chief Higgins stated that
over the last year a lot of time had been spent with the President and CEO of MGMC Brian Dieter
and the MGMC staff. One contract was prepared; MGMC would pay 100% for the EMT training.
Mr. Higgins highlighted a few of the items that will be in the contract with MGMC:
-The Ames Fire Department will be responsible for 100% of the cost for extrication
equipment and training.
-MGMC will be responsible for 100% of the incentive pay paid to Ames Firefighters
and Lieutenants for maintenance of their EMS licenses.
-MGMC will provide, free to the City, all equipment, initial and ongoing training, and
disposable supplies in order to provide EMT services to the community.
-The initial term of the Agreement shall be for four years with one automatic renewal
term of four years. If a new contract has not been agreed to at the end of the
automatic renewal term, the contract will continue for one additional year if mutually
agreed upon.
-The Ames Fire Department’s EMS service level will increase to EMT within 18
11
months. The Department will transition over to a Conditional EMT service early next
year. At this level of service, EMT-level services may be provided when staffing
allows, while MGMC provides EMT training and certification to the whole
Department. The Department will transition away from the Conditional EMT service
to an EMT service once the Department has more members trained and certified at
the EMT level, which will be towards the end of 2021.
Chief Higgins pointed out that after the automatic renewal of the four-year contract if MGMC
decides not to renew after the contract; the City of Ames will be responsible for all incentive pay for
all the Firefighters and Lieutenants.
Mr. Higgins stated that the other contract is with the International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Local 625. A Letter of Agreement was drafted between the City of Ames and the IAFF,
Local 625, to reflect mutually-agreed-upon changes to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. He
explained that a few changes would be:
-EMT certification becomes a required credential for Firefighters and Lieutenants
whose initial hire date as a Firefighter occurs after January 1, 2020. The EMT
certification must be obtained within 18 months of the start of employment and be
maintained thereafter.
-Emergency Medical Responder (EMR) certification, previously known as First
Responder, remains the minimum required credential for Firefighters and Lieutenants
whose initial hire date as a Firefighter occurred prior to January 1, 2020. These
Firefighters may elect to upgrade to EMT to receive the higher incentive pay, but it
is not required.
- Current EMR incentive pay is $20 per month for Step A, B, and C Firefighters, and
.7% of the annual salary for Step D Firefighters and Lieutenants.
-Proposed EMT incentive pay will be $30 per month for Step A, B, and C
Firefighters, and 1.05% of the annual salary for Step D Firefighters and Lieutenants.
City Manager Steve Schainker wanted to thank Mr. Dieter and the staff at MGMC for their work on
the Contract, because of the partnership the City of Ames helps support MGMC. He noted the
Agreement is fair where it works for both sides and the citizens will get a better level of service.
Mayor Haila asked how many Firefighters will want to switch from EMR to an EMT. Mr. Higgins
stated he is anticipating having 100% within the next three years.
Mayor Haila opened public comment.
Corinne McDowell, address unknown, stated she has been trying to speak up about Item No. 18.
Mayor Haila stated he explained several times the process that the Council would have during the
meeting. Ms. McDowell explained that she had heard what he said, but wanted to know why the
Council allowed public comment before the discussion instead of hearing the Council’s opinion first.
She stated the public still has comments and would they not have a place to respond. Mayor Haila
stated that the public has the opportunity to interact with the Council via email at any time.
12
Mayor Haila closed public comment.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-588 approving the
Reciprocal Service Agreement between Mary Greeley Medical Center and the City of Ames.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-589 approving the Letter
of Agreement between the City of Ames and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF),
Local 625.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
SOLAR FARM ELECTRICAL PERMIT: Fire Chief Rich Higgins explained that the company
constructing the City’s Community Solar project pulled their Electrical Permit and were taken aback
by the total Permit fee. The site has 5,902 panels, and what the Inspection Division does is charge
an “Other Fee” for all solar panels that have been done throughout the community. He noted that
there have been quite a few solar projects in the City, but nothing of this size. The fee schedule
worked well with residential homes and small commercial programs; however, for this large project,
it created a Permit fee in the amount of $35,176.40. When staff spoke with the contractor, they had
never seen this high of pricing in other communities that they had worked in. The Contractor asked
for staff to reevaluate the cost.
Building Official Sara Van Meeteren explained they had checked with several different communities
within the Des Moines metro area, but no one had ever seen a project of this scope and had nothing
to compare it to. She stated the fees in Des Moines were all different. Some were evaluation-based
and some were based on the number of fixtures, but no one had anything to compare to. Ms. Van
Meeteren explained that the fees for the Electrical Permit are a base fee of $53.55 and then additional
fees for each fixture. The largest solar panel permit fee they have had so far was for the McFarland
Clinic building on Lincoln Way. McFarland put solar panels on the roof, and it was about $6,000
for the Permit. She noted it is about time for the City to change how the fees are assessed as the solar
panels are becoming more frequent in nature and doesn’t want to change the Code drastically for this
project when it is highly unlikely to have another project of this scope come to the City of Ames.
Staff believed a new fee for large projects (large projects are those over 500 kVA) should be added
to Appendix U. It had been determined that the fee most closely related to a solar module fee would
be a fixture fee of $2.15.
Mayor Haila inquired if the adjusted fee is similar to other states that the contractor had worked with.
Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the change did bring it in line with other states’ fees.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it when no one asked to comment.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-590 amending the Fee
13
Schedule in Appendix U.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
TRANSFER OF MIRACLE LEAGUE FIELD AND INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND FROM
THE AMES FOUNDATION TO THE CITY OF AMES: Parks and Recreation Director Keith
Abraham stated this item was brought up in 2015 as to how to bring an inclusive playground into
the park system. He stated that now five years later the Ames Foundation is transferring a $2.3
million project over to the City of Ames. There have been a lot of people involved in the process and
he wanted to thank the Ames Foundation. The Playground will be a great amenity that will be for
all ages, all abilities, and Ames residents. Mr. Abraham mentioned that this past week someone had
looked at the Park who has seen other parks throughout the State of Iowa and commented that the
City of Ames has a “crown jewel” in the Miracle League Field and Inclusive Playground.
Lynne Carey, Representative of the Ames Foundation, thanked everyone who believed in the project.
The Ames Foundation could not have done it without the donations of the community.
Mayor Haila pointed out that it is amazing to see that there were eight major competitive grants
worth over $700,000, more than 70 businesses/organizations, Foundation donations over $750,000,
and nearly 350 individual donations of over $800,000. He noted the Playground is an amazing
facility and will be well used by many people.
The Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-591 accepting the transfer
of the Miracle League Field and Inclusive Playground from the Ames Foundation to the City of
Ames.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
ORDINANCE ON PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE NEW FLOOD
PLAIN MAPS, UPDATED DEFINITIONS, AND AMENDED TERMINOLOGY USED IN
CHAPTER 9 OF THE AMES MUNICIPAL CODE: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by
Betcher, to pass on second reading an ordinance regarding the new Floodplain Maps, updated
definitions, and amended terminology used in Chapter 9 of the Ames Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE REPEALING CERTAIN URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS (URA),
EFFECTIVE 12-31-20: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on second reading an
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
14
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
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 effective 01-02-2021 for the following:
a.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:
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
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila stated the first item was
a memo from Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips addressing the Council’s goal on identifying
ways that the City can assist the Ames Community School District in its efforts with closing the
achievement gap. City Manager Steve Schainker commented that this item was for the Council’s
information only. He asked the Council if they wanted to wait until a future goal setting meeting,
place the item on an Agenda, or just sit on it for a bit. Ms. Betcher stated this item was Task 2 of
their goal, and she thought Task 1 was to speak with the School District. She wanted to know if Task
1 had been done. Ms. Betcher noted that it might make sense to wait on this item until the Council
knows where the School District stands. Council Member Gartin stated that he hoped that since the
last goal-setting meeting, staff would have had the opportunity, even with COVID, to have some
follow-up with leadership. He wanted to know if the follow-up could happen in the near future. Mr.
Schainker commented that schools have been under a lot of pressure, but they could try to set
something up. The Mayor stated that he and Mr. Schainker can try to meet up with the School
District before the end of the year. Mr. Gartin stated his concern is for those kids who were
struggling before and if they are falling even further behind. Mayor Haila stated that he will work
on trying to see if something could be set up.
The second item was a letter from Jerry Nelson requesting changes in the residential parking
requirements in the Downtown area.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to refer Mr. Nelson’s letter to staff for a memo.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Item 3 was a Staff Report giving a summary and follow-up on the August 10, 2020, high wind event.
City Manager Schainker mentioned that the report read like an adventure novel and that Assistant
Manager Brian Phillips did a great job writing the report. The report outlined all the trials and
15
tribulations that the City had faced during the derecho.
Council Member Gartin inquired that, given the magnitude of the storm, whether it would make
sense to have an opportunity for the Council to have a debriefing about the lessons learned and
anything they need to be doing as a result. Mr. Schainker explained that the Council will see some
changes in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects from the Electric and Water Departments.
Council Member Betcher wanted to know what was being done to distribute the Staff Report. Mr.
Schainker stated that they will distribute a copy to the Library, social media, etc.
The fourth request was an email from Steven Young, Director of Operations, MLY Investments,
LLC/dba Freddy’s Frozen Custard and Steakburgers requesting two reserved parking spots on
Lincoln Way for delivery and mobile order pick-up. Mr. Schainker recommended asking staff for
a memo.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Betcher, to ask staff for a memo regarding Mr. Young’s request for
two reserved parking spots on Lincoln Way for delivery and mobile order pick-ups.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
City Manager Schainker commented that the last three items for dispositions are in reference to the
Policing in Ames Report, which was on this Agenda. He noted that the Council should have read
through them. Mayor Haila stated the Council will take them under advisement. Mr. Schainker
explained that they will reach out to Ahmed Ismail to explain what happened during tonight’s
meeting, and that the Council is talking about setting up a dialogue for the marginalized
communities.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Gartin stated he wanted to commend Story County
Auditor Lucy Martin and all the volunteers who helped make the election run smooth. He stated that
tomorrow is Veterans Day, and due to COVID, the Ames Patriotic Council will be holding a virtual
presentation on November 11, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Anyone can watch the presentation on Facebook
of the Ames Patriotic Council or its website at www.amespatroticcouncil.org. Mr. Gartin thanked
Mr. Schainker and staff for their work on the Policing Report. There was a lot of thoughtfulness and
working through a difficult set of problems. He also wanted to thank the Ames Police for keeping
the community safe and their commitment to the mindfulness of the residents’ civil liberties.
Council Member Betcher thanked all the people who have served or are serving in the military. She
explained that Iowa State is also doing virtual recognition, and anyone can go to the ISU website to
view the video they are promoting. She stated that this week is the Symposium with Building
Inclusive Organizations that the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring with various other
organizations. Next week is the National League of Cities virtual summit, and she is hoping some
of the Council will be able to attend the meeting. Ms. Betcher stated that she and Mr. Schainker will
be getting the final reports from the Community and Regional Planning class the week of November
23 and will report back to the Council.
16
Council Member Martin stated that the Council had received a schedule of the Council meetings for
2021, but have not talked about Goal Setting dates yet. He asked the Mayor to start the process.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Corrieri to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
17
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Public Works 2018/19 Collector Street
Pavement Improvements
(Hickory Drive)
Plan 2045
Period:
Item No. 4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 22, 2020
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission was called to order by Chairman Mike
Crum at 8:15 a.m. on October 22, 2020. As it was impractical for the Commission members to attend
in person, Commission Chairman Mike Crum and Commission Members Kim Linduska and Harold
Pike were brought in telephonically.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2020: Moved by Pike, seconded by Linduska,
to approve the Minutes of the September 24, 2020, Regular Civil Service Commission meeting.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Linduska, seconded by
Crum, to certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Entry-Level Applicants:
Firefighter: Allan Busch 81*
Connor Hoyle 80
Jacob Eslick 78
Kyle Lux 78
Axel Silva 77
Rhys McCollum 76*
Mason Eisentrager 76
Tyler Willman 76
Lucas Peterson 75*
Taylor Scott 75
John Le 74
Seth Stetzel 70
*Includes Preference Points
Public Safety Dispatcher: Amber Paul 84
Jordan Overton 81
Colin Chinery 80
Grace Olmstead 80
Kyle Kain 79
Alexis Sonich 77*
Sarah Young 74
*Includes Preference Points
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: The next Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission is scheduled for
November 19, 2020, at 8:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:19 a.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Michael R. Crum, Chairman Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 19, 2020
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission was called to order by Chairman Mike
Crum at 8:15 a.m. on November 19, 2020. As it was impractical for the Commission members to
attend in person, Commission Chairman Mike Crum and Commission Members Kim Linduska and
Harold Pike were brought in telephonically.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2020: Moved by Pike, seconded by Linduska, to approve the
Minutes of the October 22, 2020, Regular Civil Service Commission meeting.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Linduska, seconded by Crum, to certify
the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Entry-Level Applicants:
Electric Services Maintenance Superintendent: Christopher Schwab 77
Matthew Shriver 77
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: The next Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission is scheduled for
December 17, 2020, at 8:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:19 a.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Michael R. Crum, Chairman Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
Item No. 7
Item No. 8
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Tom Shelton, Ames Police Department
Date: October 27, 2020
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for November 24, 2020 includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales - Aunt Maude’s
(543-547 Main St)
•Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Sunday Sales & Catering Privilege
- Thumb’s Bar (2816 West Street)
•Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales - Tip Top Lounge
(201 E Lincoln Way)
•Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Sunday Sales and Catering
Privilege - The Café (2616 Northridge Parkway)
A review of police records for the past 12 months found no liquor law violations for any
of the above locations. The Ames Police Department recommends renewal of licenses
for all the above businesses.
Item No. 9
1
ITEM#: 10
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FMLA AND PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY REVISIONS
BACKGROUND:
On October 13, 2020, the City Council approved a collection of revised policies for City
employees. These policies became effective October 19, 2020. Staff has prepared
revisions to two additional policies: Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Parental
Leave. Both proposed policies are attached to this Council Action Form. Staff proposes
that these be adopted with applicability retroactive to October 19, when the larger set of
policies was adopted. Highlights of the revised policies are below.
FMLA Policy:
The new policy replaces the detailed listing of eligible family members with “close family
members.” This language replicates language used throughout City employment policy,
and helps the organization use a common language for certain types of benefits. This
change meets or exceeds the federal requirements of the FMLA.
The new policy also allows for all forms of paid leave to be used for a period of up
to 12 weeks following the birth of a child, adoption of a child, or the placement of a
foster child in an employee’s home. Under the current policy, sick leave may only
be used for the period of the mother’s recovery after birth (six weeks), and sick
leave may not be used for the remainder of the leave.
Parental Leave:
This policy has been revised to mirror the language for leave usage in the FMLA policy,
which now allows for any form of accumulated paid leave to be used for a period of up to
12 weeks following the birth of a child, adoption, or placement of a foster child in an
employee’s home.
This policy provides unpaid parental leave as an option for those employees who are not
eligible for FMLA, along with the option to substitute any form of accumulated paid leave
for a period of up to 8 weeks following the birth of a child, adoption, or the placement of
a foster child in an employee’s home. Currently, employees who are ineligible for FMLA
are not entitled to any form of parental leave.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the revised FMLA and Parental Leave Policies, effective October 19, 2020.
2
2. Direct staff to modify the proposed policies.
3. Do not adopt the proposed policies.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
These policies have been prepared in consultation with internal and external experts in
the fields of personnel law and administration. The proposed policies comply with state
and federal employment law and best employment practices. The policies also
incorporate provisions necessary to ensure the City is a desirable place to work in
comparison with peer municipalities. Adopting these policies with the same effective
date as the other City policies provides ease in administration of changes.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as described above.
Leave – Family and Medical Leave
Date Established: 10/19/2020
Date Last Updated: 10/19/2020
Purpose
To identify and describe Family and Medical Leave provided by the City of Ames to its employees.
Policy Statement
In accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act, the City will grant job protected unpaid family
and medical leave to eligible employees for up to twelve weeks per twelve-month period for any one or
more of the following reasons:
1. The birth of a child and to care for such child, or the placement of a child with the employee
for adoption or foster care (Leave for this reason must be taken within the twelve-month
period following the child's birth or placement with the employee); or
2. In order to care for a close family member (as defined in the Glossary of the Employee
Handbook) of the employee if such close family member has a serious health condition; or
3. The employee's own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the
functions of the employee’s position; or
4. Because of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, determine)
arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is on active duty (or
has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty) in the Armed Forces in support
of a contingency operation. Qualifying exigency is defined and includes absence for: (1) short-
notice deployment; (2) military events and related activities; (3) childcare and school activities;
(4) financial and legal arrangements; (5) counseling; (6) rest and recuperation; (7) post -
deployment activities; and (8) additional activities.
Servicemember Family Leave
Subject to certification, an eligible employee who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent or next of kin
of a covered servicemember shall be entitled to a total of twenty-six weeks of leave during a twelve-
month period to care for a servicemember with a serious illness or injury incurred in the line of
duty or active duty. The leave described in this paragraph shall only be available during a single
twelve-month period.
Combined Leave Total
During the single twelve-month period described in the “Servicemember Family Leave” section
above, an eligible employee shall be entitled to a combined total of twenty -six weeks of leave under
the Qualifying Exigency and Servicemember Family Leave sections above. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to limit the availability of leave under the medical provisions of the
FMLA during any other twelve-month period.
Definitions
1. Twelve-month Period - means a rolling twelve-month period measured backward from the date
leave is taken.
TITLE OF POLICY PAGE 2 OF 6
2. Close Family Member - as defined in the Employee Handbook.
3. Child - means a child either under 18 years of age, or 18 years of age or older who is incapable
of self-care because of a mental or physical disability. An employee's "child" is one for whom
the employee has actual day-to-day responsibility for care and includes a biological, adopted,
foster or step-child.
4. Serious Health Condition - means an illness, injury, impairment, or a physical or mental
condition that involves:
a. Inpatient care (an overnight stay) in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility.
b. Any period of incapacity of more than three consecutive, full calendar days, and any
subsequent treatment or period of incapacity relating to the same condition, that also
involves:
i. Treatment two or more times, within 30 days of the first day of incapacity, (unless
extenuating circumstances exist), by a health care provider; or
ii. Treatment by a health care provider on at least one occasion, which results in a regimen
of continuing treatment under the supervision of the health care provider.
The requirement in paragraphs b(i) and (b)(ii) of this section means an in-person visit to a
health care provider. The first visit (or only) in-person treatment visit must take place within
seven days of the first day of incapacity.
c. Pregnancy or prenatal care by a health care provider.
d. Any period of incapacity or treatment for such incapacity due to a chronic serious health
condition which:
i. Requires periodic visits at least twice per year for treatment by a healthcare provider, or
by a nurse under direct supervision of a health care provider;
ii. Continues over an extended period of time (including recurring episodes of a single
underlying condition); and
iii. May cause episodic incapacity rather than a continuing period of incapacity.
e. A period of incapacity, which is permanent or long-term, due to a condition for which
treatment may not be effective.
f. Any period of absence to receive multiple treatments (including any period of recovery
therefrom) by a health care provider or by a provider of health care services under orders
of, or on referral by, a health care provider, for restorative surgery after an accident or other
injury; or a condition that would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than three
consecutive, full calendar days in the absence of medical intervention or treatment.
TITLE OF POLICY PAGE 3 OF 6
5. Active Duty – means duty under a call or order to active duty under a provision of law referred
to in Section 101(a)(13)(B) of Title 10, United States Code.
6. Covered Servicemember – means a member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the
National Guard or Reserves, who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is
otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a
serious injury or illness.
7. Outpatient Status – with respect to a covered servicemember, means the status of a member of
the Armed Forces assigned to:
a. a military medical treatment facility as an outpatient; or
b. a unit established for the purpose of providing command and control of members of the
Armed Forces receiving medical care as outpatients.
8. Next of Kin – with respect to a covered servicemember, means the nearest blood relative of
that individual.
9. Serious Injury or Illness – in the case of a member of the Armed Forces, including a member of
the National Guard or Reserves, means an injury or illness incurred by the member in line of
duty on active duty in the Armed Forces that may render the member medically unfit to
perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank or rating.
10. Incapacity – inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due to the
serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery therefrom.
11. Regimen of Continuing Treatment – includes, for example, a course of prescription medication
(e.g., an antibiotic) or therapy requiring special equipment to resolve or alleviate the health
condition. A regimen of continuing treatment does not include the taking of over-the-counter
medications such as aspirin, antihistamines, or salves; or bed -rest, drinking fluids, exercise, and
other similar activities that can be initiated without a visit to the health care provider.
Coverage and Eligibility
To be eligible for family/medical leave an employee must:
1. Have worked for the City for at least twelve months. If the employee has had a break in service
of seven years or greater, those years of prior employment would not be counted except if the
break in service was due to National Guard or Reserve military service, or where otherwise
provided through a written agreement, including a collective bargaining agreement; and
2. Have worked at least 1,250 hours over the previous twelve-month period.
Intermittent or Reduced Leave
TITLE OF POLICY PAGE 4 OF 6
1. An employee may take leave intermittently (a few days or a few hours at a time) or on a reduced
leave schedule to care for an immediately family member with a serious health condition or
because of a serious health condition of the employee when "medically necessary".
a. "Medically necessary" means there must be a medical need for the leave and that the leave
can best be accomplished through an intermittent or reduced leave schedule.
b. The employee may be required to transfer temporarily to a position with equivalent pay and
benefits that better accommodates recurring periods of leave when the leave is planned
based on scheduled medical treatment.
2. An employee may take leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule for birth or
placement for adoption or foster care of a child only with the department's consent.
3. For part-time employees and those who work variable hours, the family and medical leave
entitlement is calculated on a pro rata basis. A weekly average of the hours worked over the
twelve weeks prior to the beginning of the leave should be used for calculating the employee's
normal work week.
Substitution of Sick Leave and Vacation
1. Employee’s Own Serious Health Condition - all accrued sick leave must be used before unpaid
leave will be granted.
2. Close Family Member Serious Health Condition - Family sick leave may be used for the care of
family members. Vacation leave or compensatory time may be used in lieu of unpaid time once
family sick leave has been depleted.
3. Birth of a Child, Adoption, or Placement of a Foster Child in an Employee’s Home - Any form
of accrued leave (including sick, vacation, or compensatory time) may be used for the duration
of the FMLA-qualified absence.
4. At the employee's option, accrued vacation or compensatory time may be used in lieu of unpaid
leave.
5. Both paid and unpaid leave will be counted toward the maximum twelve weeks entitlement.
This means that an employee will not be entitled to twelve weeks of unpaid leave in addition to
any paid leave taken under the FMLA.
Injury Leave and Workers' Compensation
When an employee is on injury leave and/or workers' compensation leave, such leave will be
designated concurrently as FMLA leave.
Notice Requirement
1. An employee is required to give thirty days notice in the event of a foreseeable leave. In
unexpected or unforeseeable situations, an employee should provide as much notice as is
practicable, usually verbal notice within one or two business days of when the need for leave
becomes known.
2. If an employee fails to give thirty days notice for a foreseeable leave with no reasonable excuse
for the delay, the leave may be denied until thirty days after the employee provides notice.
TITLE OF POLICY PAGE 5 OF 6
Medical Certification
1. For leaves taken because of the employee's or a covered family member's serious health
condition, the employee must submit a completed "Physician or Practitioner Certification"
form and return the certification to Human Resources. Medical certification must be provided
by the employee within thirty days after the notice date. If the certifica tion form is not received
within thirty days from the time the notice is dated, then it will be denied. If extenuating
circumstances prevent the employee from submitting the paperwork within 30 days, it is the
employee’s responsibility to contact the FMLA administrator prior to the expiration of that
time period to request an extension.
2. If an employee qualifies for FMLA and is absent because of his or her own health condition for
more than three consecutive working days or the City becomes aware that an employee has
been hospitalized, the City may designate that leave as FMLA by its own action.
3. The City may require a second or third medical opinion (at its own expense), periodic reports
on the employee's status and intent to return to work, and a fitness -for-duty report to return to
work. The City reserves the right to specify or approve the employee's selection of a physician.
4. All documentation related to the employee's or family member's medical condition will be held
in strict confidence and maintained in the employee's medical records file.
Certification Related to Active Duty or Call to Active Duty
A request for leave under Section 1(d) must be supported by certification issued at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe. If the Secretary of State issues a
regulation requiring such certification, the employee shall provide, in a timely manner, a copy of
such certification to the City.
Effect on Benefits
1. An employee granted an unpaid leave under this policy will continue to be covered under the
City's employee health benefit trust, life insurance plan, and long-term disability plan under the
same conditions as coverage would have been provided if that employee had been continuously
employed during the leave period. This means that the City will continue to pay the costs of
such benefits as when the employee was in active pay status. In the case of family health
coverage, the employee will be responsible for payment of the employee's premium share as
outlined below.
2. Employee contributions for family health coverage will be required either through payroll
deduction or by direct payment to the City. The employee will be advised in writing at the
beginning of the leave period as to the amount and method of payment. Employee
contribution amounts are subject to any change in rates that occur while the employee is on
leave.
3. When an employee is on an unpaid leave during the course of FMLA leave, the City and the
employee will enter into an arrangement that will ensure the payment of the employee’s
contribution for health insurance premiums within a reasonable period of time . This
arrangement could include payroll deduction or regular withdrawals from a bank account.
TITLE OF POLICY PAGE 6 OF 6
4. If the employee fails to return from work upon unpaid family/medical leave for reasons other
than (1) the continuation of a serious health condition of the employee or a covered family
member, or (2) circumstances beyond the employee's control (certification required within 30
days of failure to return for either reason), the City may seek reimbursement from the employee
for the portion of the premiums paid on behalf of that employee (also known as the employer
contribution) during the period of leave.
5. An employee is not entitled to accrual of sick leave or vacation during periods of unpaid leave
but will not lose sick leave, vacation or seniority accrued prior to leave. In accordance with
current City policy, seniority will continue to accrue during periods of unpaid leave up to 60
days.
Job Protection
An employee who returns to work following FMLA leave will be entitled to return to their position.
The right to reinstatement is, however, subject to any changes that would have affected
employment status even if such leave had not been taken. This means that the employee could be
subject to transfer or layoff due to reorganization or abolishment of the employee’s position.
Family/Medical Leave Forms to be Submitted by the Employee
1. Certification of Health Care Provider (Family Member/Serious Health Condition or
Employee/Serious Health Condition)
2. Certification of Qualifying Exigency for Military Family Leave
3. Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of Covered Servicemember for Military Family Leave
4. Authorization for Payroll Deduction for Benefit Plan Coverage Continuation during a
Family/Medical Leave of Absence
5. Fitness to Return to Work Certification
These forms may be obtained from the Human Resources Department.
Contact Information
Human Resources Department
hr@cityofames.org
515-239-5199
Parental Leave
Date Established: 10/19/2020
Date Last Updated: 10/19/2020
Purpose
To identify and describe Parental Leave provided by the City of Ames to its employees.
Policy Statement
Parental Leave
1. Employees who believe they may be eligible for leave under this policy, or supervisors with
employees affected by this policy, should contact the Human Resources Department to
ensure the requirements of FMLA and City policies are followed.
2. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees eligible employees up to twelve
weeks of parental leave for birth, adoption or placement of a foster child in an employee’s
home. See the FMLA Policy for information regarding eligibility for FMLA Leave. This
leave is also available to employees whose partner has given birth. Sick leave, vacation,
compensatory time or leave without pay may be used for infant, child or family care for
FMLA-covered absences. Sick leave, vacation and leave without pay will all be counted
toward maximum allowable FMLA leave.
3. For those employees not eligible for FMLA, parental leave shall be available for a period of
up to eight weeks following the adoption, placement of a foster child in an employee’s
home, or the birth of a child. This leave is also available to employees whose partner has
given birth. Sick leave, vacation, compensatory time, or leave without pay may be used to
cover the mother’s period of disability. Under normal circumstances the employee will be
expected to provide prior notice of the period of leave requested, and any change in the
period must be approved before the change becomes effective. As with other temporary
disabilities or illnesses, the employee may also be required to verify by medical certification
that their job duties cannot be performed because of pregnancy, childbirth or related
medical conditions.
Contact Information
Human Resources Department
hr@cityofames.org
515-239-5199
Finance Department
515-239-5113
ITEM # 11
DATE: 11/24/20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) AND REPORTING RESOLUTIONS
FOR ANNUAL URBAN RENEWAL REPORT AND CERTIFICATON AND
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION OF KINGLAND AND BARILLA TIF
REBATES
BACKGROUND:
The 2012 Iowa Urban Renewal and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Reform bill included
provisions for reporting, including the Annual Urban Renewal Report, which must be
approved by the governing board and provided to the Iowa Department of Management
to be made available to the public on an internet site.
This report includes uploading documents related to the urban renewal districts, such as
the plan document and City Council action establishing the district, as well as financial
information on TIF funds related to urban renewal districts. The due date for the report
filing is December 1 of each year. The penalty for non-compliance is withholding
certification of tax levies. The attached report includes financial information for the
South Bell, ISU Research Park District 1, Barilla and Campustown (Kingland) TIF
districts. The attached Annual Urban Renewal Report is for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2020. The newly adopted ISU Research Park District 2 was not active at the start of
the fiscal year so it was not included in the report.
In addition to the state reporting, the City is required to certify TIF debt with the County
Auditor for the upcoming fiscal year. The ISU Research Park Districts 1 and 2, and the
South Bell debt are both general obligation bonds approved by Council when issued, so
no additional action is required. The Kingland and Barilla TIF districts involve a rebate of
incremental property taxes subject to annual appropriation by the City Council. A
resolution is required for the annual appropriation for the collection and rebate of
incremental taxes per the agreements with Kingland and Barilla. Incremental taxes for
the Kingland TIF are estimated at $360,000 for the upcoming fiscal year. Incremental
taxes for the Barilla TIF are estimated at $420,000 for the upcoming fiscal year.
SUMMARY AND CURRENT STATUS OF TIF DEBT
South Bell Avenue TIF
The South Bell TIF debt was issued for infrastructure improvements to expand
development along South Bell. The debt with principal of $1,152,000 was issued in
2009. With the development staring as we entered a recession, the repayment of the
TIF had a slow start and incremental taxes were not able to cover debt service until
recently resulting in a negative balance for the TIF fund. The TIF district is now
generating positive cashflow and the final bond payment will be made in FY 20/21. We
expect a partial release of TIF valuation to general taxation in FY 22/23 with the TIF
debt being fully paid off that year and the full value released to general taxation in FY
23/24.
Campustown TIF (Kingland)
The Campustown TIF debt is an annually appropriated rebate of property taxes to
Kingland as an economic development incentive for improvements in the Campustown
area. The maximum amount of the rebate is $2,064,530 or a term of 10 years
whichever comes first. The rebates began in FY 16/17, we expect a full rebate of
property taxes through FY 22/23. In FY 23/24 the maximum rebate amount will be met
and part of the value will be released to general taxation with the full value being
released in FY 24/25. This TIF fund carries a zero balance since taxes received are
rebated. Since this TIF debt is subject to annual appropriation, the Council is required
to approve the debt (rebate) each year until terms of the agreement are met.
Ames ISU Research Park
The Ames ISU Research Park TIF debt was issued for infrastructure improvements to
expand development in the ISU Research Park. The debt with principal of $2,725,000
was issued in 2015. The TIF district was generating positive cashflow by FY 17/18 and
we expect a partial release of TIF valuation to general taxation in FY 22/23 with the TIF
balance accumulated being able fully pay off the debt. The full value will be released to
general taxation in FY 23/24. The TIF bonds will not be retired until FY 26/27, we will
spend down the accumulated TIF balance to make the bond payments.
Barilla TIF
The Barilla TIF debt is an annually appropriated rebate of property taxes to Barilla as an
economic development incentive for expansion to their facility. The maximum amount
of the rebate is $3,00,000 or a term of 10 years whichever comes first. The rebates
began in FY 20/21, we expect a full rebate of property taxes through FY 26/27. In FY
27/28 the maximum rebate amount will be met and part of the value will be released to
general taxation with the full value being released in FY 28/29. This TIF fund will carry
a zero balance since taxes received are rebated, the current small negative balance
reflects costs the City incurred to establish the TIF and will be reimbursed from TIF
proceeds. Since this TIF debt is subject to annual appropriation, the Council is required
to approve the debt (rebate) each year until terms of the agreement are met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the City’s annual 2020 Urban Renewal Report and resolutions
appropriating the payment of a rebate of incremental taxes for the Campustown and
Barilla TIF districts.
2. Do not approve the report and resolution and refer back to staff.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In order for the City to comply with mandated reporting requirements and fulfill
requirements under the development agreements with Kingland and Barilla, it is
necessary to submit this report to the Iowa Department of Management by December 1
of this year and approve the appropriation of the tax increment rebates.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the City’s annual 2020 Urban Renewal Report and
resolution appropriating the payment of rebates of incremental taxes for the
Campustown and Barilla TIF districts.
Levy Authority Summary
Local Government Name: AMES
Local Government Number: 85G811
Active Urban Renewal Areas U.R.
#
# of Tif
Taxing
Districts
AMES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARK URBAN RENEWAL 85012 1
AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL 85021 2
AMES CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL 85023 1
AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL 85024 2
AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL 85026 1
TIF Debt Outstanding: 3,074,959
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 07-01-2019: -693,097 0
Amount of 07-01-2019 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
TIF Revenue: 0
TIF Sp. Revenue Fund Interest: 489
Property Tax Replacement Claims 1,231,397
Asset Sales & Loan Repayments: 0
Total Revenue: 1,231,886
Rebate Expenditures: 296,303
Non-Rebate Expenditures: 421,749
Returned to County Treasurer: 0
Total Expenditures: 718,052
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 06-30-2020: -179,263 0
Amount of 06-30-2020 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
Year-End Outstanding TIF
Obligations, Net of TIF Special
Revenue Fund Balance: 2,536,170
Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 1 of 29
Urban Renewal Area Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARK URBAN RENEWAL
UR Area Number: 85012
UR Area Creation Date: 11/1997
UR Area Purpose:
Enhance the availability of sites to
accommodate the construction of
new industrial and commercial
buildings and encourage and
support development that will
expand the tax base.
Tax Districts within this Urban Renewal Area Base
No.
Increment
No.
Increment
Value
Used
AMES CITY/AMES SCH/AMES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARK URBAN RENEWAL TIF
INCREM 850526 850126 0
Urban Renewal Area Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Homestead Credits 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 07-01-2019: 0 0
Amount of 07-01-2019 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
TIF Revenue: 0
TIF Sp. Revenue Fund Interest: 0
Property Tax Replacement Claims 0
Asset Sales & Loan Repayments: 0
Total Revenue: 0
Rebate Expenditures: 0
Non-Rebate Expenditures: 0
Returned to County Treasurer: 0
Total Expenditures: 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 06-30-2020: 0 0
Amount of 06-30-2020 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 2 of 29
256 Characters Left
Sum of Private Investment Made Within This Urban Renewal Area
during FY 2020
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 3 of 29
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARK URBAN RENEWAL (85012)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY/AMES SCH/AMES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARK URBAN
RENEWAL TIF INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850126
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 1997
FY TIF Revenue First Received: 2000
Subject to a Statutory end date? Yes
Fiscal year this TIF Taxing District
statutorily ends: 2020
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development 11/1997
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 43,167 0 0 0 0
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 4 of 29
Urban Renewal Area Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL
UR Area Number: 85021
UR Area Creation Date: 01/2009
UR Area Purpose:
To expand the available inventory
of fully serviced industrial land
within Ames.
Tax Districts within this Urban Renewal Area Base
No.
Increment
No.
Increment
Value
Used
AMES CITY/AMES SCH/SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWL TIF INCREM 850586 850186 7,886,340
AMES CITY AG/AMES SCH/SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL TIF INCREM 850587 850187 0
Urban Renewal Area Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 8,762,600 0 0 0 8,762,600 0 8,762,600
Taxable 0 0 7,886,340 0 0 0 7,886,340 0 7,886,340
Homestead Credits 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 07-01-2019: -475,788 0
Amount of 07-01-2019 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
TIF Revenue: 0
TIF Sp. Revenue Fund Interest: 0
Property Tax Replacement Claims 200,896
Asset Sales & Loan Repayments: 0
Total Revenue: 200,896
Rebate Expenditures: 0
Non-Rebate Expenditures: 110,837
Returned to County Treasurer: 0
Total Expenditures: 110,837
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 06-30-2020: -385,729 0
Amount of 06-30-2020 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 5 of 29
Projects For AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL
South Bell Infrastructure
Description:Public Infrastructure for South Bell Area
Classification:Roads, Bridges & Utilities
Physically Complete:Yes
Payments Complete:No
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 6 of 29
Debts/Obligations For AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL
2009B GO Bonds
Debt/Obligation Type:Gen. Obligation Bonds/Notes
Principal:337,236
Interest:23,670
Total:360,906
Annual Appropriation?:No
Date Incurred:10/29/2009
FY of Last Payment:2023
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 7 of 29
Tied To Debt:
Tied To Project:
Non-Rebates For AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL
TIF Expenditure Amount:110,837
2009B GO Bonds
South Bell Infrastructure
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 8 of 29
256 Characters Left
Sum of Private Investment Made Within This Urban Renewal Area
during FY 2020
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 9 of 29
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL (85021)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY/AMES SCH/SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWL TIF INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850186
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 2008
FY TIF Revenue First Received: 2010
Subject to a Statutory end date? Yes
Fiscal year this TIF Taxing District
statutorily ends: 2030
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development 01/2009
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 8,762,600 0 0 0 8,762,600 0 8,762,600
Taxable 0 0 7,886,340 0 0 0 7,886,340 0 7,886,340
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 25,851 7,886,340 7,886,340 0 0
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL (85021)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY AG/AMES SCH/SOUTH BELL AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL TIF
INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850187
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 2008
FY TIF Revenue First Received: 2011
Subject to a Statutory end date? Yes
Fiscal year this TIF Taxing District
statutorily ends: 2031
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development 01/2009
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 0 0 0 0 0
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 10 of 29
Urban Renewal Area Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL
UR Area Number: 85023
UR Area Creation Date: 11/2014
UR Area Purpose:
To promote economic development
in the Campustown area through
the expansion of office and retail
space.
Tax Districts within this Urban Renewal Area Base
No.
Increment
No.
Increment
Value
Used
AMES CITY/AMES SCH/CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWALTIF INCREM 850630 850230 12,740,380
Urban Renewal Area Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 17,075,000 0 0 0 17,075,000 0 17,075,000
Taxable 0 0 15,367,500 0 0 0 15,367,500 0 15,367,500
Homestead Credits 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 07-01-2019: 0 0
Amount of 07-01-2019 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
TIF Revenue: 0
TIF Sp. Revenue Fund Interest: 0
Property Tax Replacement Claims 296,303
Asset Sales & Loan Repayments: 0
Total Revenue: 296,303
Rebate Expenditures: 296,303
Non-Rebate Expenditures: 0
Returned to County Treasurer: 0
Total Expenditures: 296,303
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 06-30-2020: 0 0
Amount of 06-30-2020 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
▲ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 11 of 29
Projects For AMES CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL
Campustown Kingland Building
Description:Office and Retail Development
Classification:Commercial - office properties
Physically Complete:Yes
Payments Complete:Yes
▲ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 12 of 29
Debts/Obligations For AMES CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL
Campustown Urban Renewal
Debt/Obligation Type:Rebates
Principal:296,303
Interest:0
Total:296,303
Annual Appropriation?:Yes
Date Incurred:11/10/2015
FY of Last Payment:2020
▲ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 13 of 29
Rebate Paid To:
Tied To Debt:
Tied To Project:
Projected Final FY of Rebate:
Rebates For AMES CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL
Kingland Systems
TIF Expenditure Amount:296,303
Kingland Systems
Campustown Urban Renewal
Campustown Kingland Building
2020
▲ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 14 of 29
256 Characters Left
Sum of Private Investment Made Within This Urban Renewal Area
during FY 2020
▲ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 15 of 29
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWAL (85023)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY/AMES SCH/CAMPUSTOWN URBAN RENEWALTIF INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850230
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 2014
FY TIF Revenue First Received: 2017
Subject to a Statutory end date? Yes
Fiscal year this TIF Taxing District
statutorily ends: 2037
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development 11/2013
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 17,075,000 0 0 0 17,075,000 0 17,075,000
Taxable 0 0 15,367,500 0 0 0 15,367,500 0 15,367,500
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 3,467,200 13,607,800 12,740,380 867,420 20,174
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
▲ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 16 of 29
Urban Renewal Area Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL
UR Area Number: 85024
UR Area Creation Date: 11/2013
UR Area Purpose:
To promote economic development
for Iowa State University Research
Park by extending public
infrastructure.
Tax Districts within this Urban Renewal Area Base
No.
Increment
No.
Increment
Value
Used
AMES CITY/AMES SCH/ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL TIF INCREM 850628 850228 24,539,206
AMES CITY AG/AMES SCH/ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL TIF INCREM 850629 850229 0
Urban Renewal Area Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 230,200 27,120,200 0 0 0 27,350,400 0 27,350,400
Taxable 0 131,026 24,408,180 0 0 0 24,539,206 0 24,539,206
Homestead Credits 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 07-01-2019: -205,050 0
Amount of 07-01-2019 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
TIF Revenue: 0
TIF Sp. Revenue Fund Interest: 489
Property Tax Replacement Claims 724,473
Asset Sales & Loan Repayments: 0
Total Revenue: 724,962
Rebate Expenditures: 0
Non-Rebate Expenditures: 310,912
Returned to County Treasurer: 0
Total Expenditures: 310,912
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 06-30-2020: 209,000 0
Amount of 06-30-2020 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 17 of 29
Projects For AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL
ISURP Infrastructure Extension
Description:Extension of public infrastructure to serve ISURP
Classification:Roads, Bridges & Utilities
Physically Complete:Yes
Payments Complete:Yes
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 18 of 29
Debts/Obligations For AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL
General Obligation Series 2015A
Debt/Obligation Type:Gen. Obligation Bonds/Notes
Principal:2,095,000
Interest:322,750
Total:2,417,750
Annual Appropriation?:No
Date Incurred:11/13/2015
FY of Last Payment:2027
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 19 of 29
Tied To Debt:
Tied To Project:
Non-Rebates For AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL
TIF Expenditure Amount:310,912
General Obligation Series 2015A
ISURP Infrastructure Extension
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 20 of 29
256 Characters Left
Sum of Private Investment Made Within This Urban Renewal Area
during FY 2020
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 21 of 29
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL (85024)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY/AMES SCH/ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL TIF INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850228
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 2014
FY TIF Revenue First Received: 2017
Subject to a Statutory end date? Yes
Fiscal year this TIF Taxing District
statutorily ends: 2037
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development 11/2013
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 230,200 27,120,200 0 0 0 27,350,400 0 27,350,400
Taxable 0 131,026 24,408,180 0 0 0 24,539,206 0 24,539,206
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 126,518 24,539,206 24,539,206 0 0
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
♣ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL (85024)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY AG/AMES SCH/ISU RESEARCH PARK URBAN RENEWAL TIF
INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850229
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 2014
FY TIF Revenue First Received:
Subject to a Statutory end date? No
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development No
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 413,712 0 0 0 0
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 22 of 29
Urban Renewal Area Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL
UR Area Number: 85026
UR Area Creation Date: 07/2017
UR Area Purpose:
This urban renewal area was
created to facilitate the expansion
of the Barilla manufacturing
facility at 3303 and 3311 East
Lincoln Way.
Tax Districts within this Urban Renewal Area Base
No.
Increment
No.
Increment
Value
Used
AMES CITY/AMES SCH/BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL INCREM 850638 850238 418,152
Urban Renewal Area Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 0 41,832,700 0 0 41,832,700 0 41,832,700
Taxable 0 0 0 37,649,430 0 0 37,649,430 0 37,649,430
Homestead Credits 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 07-01-2019: -12,259 0
Amount of 07-01-2019 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
TIF Revenue: 0
TIF Sp. Revenue Fund Interest: 0
Property Tax Replacement Claims 9,725
Asset Sales & Loan Repayments: 0
Total Revenue: 9,725
Rebate Expenditures: 0
Non-Rebate Expenditures: 0
Returned to County Treasurer: 0
Total Expenditures: 0
TIF Sp. Rev. Fund Cash Balance
as of 06-30-2020: -2,534 0
Amount of 06-30-2020 Cash Balance
Restricted for LMI
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 23 of 29
Projects For AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL
Barilla Expansion
Description:
Expansion of pasta production and transportation facilities
at Barilla America Inc.
Classification:Industrial/manufacturing property
Physically Complete:Yes
Payments Complete:Yes
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 24 of 29
Debts/Obligations For AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL
Barilla TIF Rebate
Debt/Obligation Type:Rebates
Principal:0
Interest:0
Total:0
Annual Appropriation?:Yes
Date Incurred:11/13/2018
FY of Last Payment:2019
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 25 of 29
Tied To Debt:
Tied To Project:
Non-Rebates For AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL
TIF Expenditure Amount:0
Barilla TIF Rebate
Barilla Expansion
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 26 of 29
Jobs For AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL
Project:Barilla Expansion
Company Name:Barilla America Inc
Date Agreement Began:11/13/2018
Date Agreement Ends:11/13/2023
Number of Jobs Created or Retained:41
Total Annual Wages of Required Jobs:2,039,897
Total Estimated Private Capital Investment:64,000,000
Total Estimated Cost of Public Infrastructure:0
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 27 of 29
256 Characters Left
Sum of Private Investment Made Within This Urban Renewal Area
during FY 2020
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 28 of 29
TIF Taxing District Data Collection
Local Government Name: AMES (85G811)
Urban Renewal Area: AMES BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL (85026)
TIF Taxing District Name: AMES CITY/AMES SCH/BARILLA URBAN RENEWAL INCREM
TIF Taxing District Inc. Number: 850238
TIF Taxing District Base Year: 2017
FY TIF Revenue First Received:
Subject to a Statutory end date? No
UR Designation
Slum No
Blighted No
Economic Development No
TIF Taxing District Value by Class - 1/1/2018 for FY 2020
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial Other Military Total Gas/Electric Utility Total
Assessed 0 0 0 41,832,700 0 0 41,832,700 0 41,832,700
Taxable 0 0 0 37,649,430 0 0 37,649,430 0 37,649,430
Homestead Credits 0
Frozen Base Value Max Increment Value Increment Used Increment Not Used Increment Revenue Not Used
Fiscal Year 2020 38,813,000 3,019,700 418,152 2,601,548 60,504
FY 2020 TIF Revenue Received: 0
♦ Annual Urban Renewal Report, Fiscal Year 2019 - 2020
Created: Tue Nov 10 13:18:20 CST 2020
Page 29 of 29
RESOLUTION_____
Obligating funds from City of Ames Barilla Urban Renewal Area Urban Renewal
Tax Revenue Fund for appropriation to the payment of annual appropriation tax
increment rebate payments due to be paid in the next succeeding fiscal year
WHEREAS, the City of Ames, Iowa (the “City”), pursuant to and in strict compliance
with all laws applicable to the City, and in particular the provisions of Chapter 403 of the Code
of Iowa, has adopted an Urban Renewal Plan for the Barilla Urban Renewal Area (the “Urban
Renewal Area”); and
WHEREAS, this Council has adopted an ordinance providing for the division of taxes
levied on taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area pursuant to Section 403.19 of the Code of
Iowa and establishing the fund referred to in Subsection 2 of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa
(the “Barilla Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund”), which fund and the portion of taxes referred
to in that subsection may be irrevocably pledged by the City for the payment of the principal and
interest on indebtedness incurred under the authority of Section 403.9 of the Code of Iowa to
finance or refinance in whole or in part projects in the Urban Renewal Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) with
Barilla America, Inc. (the “Company”), approved by resolution of the City Council on November
13, 2018, the City agreed to make economic development tax increment payments to the
Company, subject to annual appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, payments under the Agreement are scheduled to be made from the Barilla
Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund during the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2021, in a total
amount equal to 100% of the incremental property tax payments made by the Company in that
fiscal year (the “Payments”); and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary for the City Council to obligate for appropriation to the
Payments, funds anticipated to be received in the Barilla Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund in
the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE, It Is Resolved by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa, as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby obligates for appropriation from the Barilla
Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund the amount of $420,000, which is estimated to be an amount
equal to 100% of the incremental property tax revenues that are expected to be received by the
City in such fund from the Story County Treasurer in the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2021.
Section 2. The City Clerk and Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to
certify to the Story County Auditor the amount obligated for appropriation in Section 1 above as
part of the City’s 2020 certification of debt payable from the Barilla Urban Renewal Tax
Revenue Fund and to reflect such estimated amount in the City’s budget for the fiscal year that
will begin July 1, 2021.
Section 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Passed and approved November 24, 2020.
Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
City Clerk
RESOLUTION_____
Obligating funds from City of Ames Campustown Urban Renewal Area Urban
Renewal Tax Revenue Fund for appropriation to the payment of annual
appropriation tax increment rebate payments due to be paid in the next succeeding
fiscal year
WHEREAS, the City of Ames, Iowa (the “City”), pursuant to and in strict compliance with
all laws applicable to the City, and in particular the provisions of Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa,
has adopted an Urban Renewal Plan for the Campustown Urban Renewal Area (the “Urban
Renewal Area”); and
WHEREAS, this Council has adopted an ordinance providing for the division of taxes
levied on taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area pursuant to Section 403.19 of the Code of
Iowa and establishing the fund referred to in Subsection 2 of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa
(the “Campustown Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund”), which fund and the portion of taxes
referred to in that subsection may be irrevocably pledged by the City for the payment of the
principal and interest on indebtedness incurred under the authority of Section 403.9 of the Code of
Iowa to finance or refinance in whole or in part projects in the Urban Renewal Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) with
Kingland Systems Corporation (the “Company”), approved by resolution of the City Council on
December 10, 2013, the City agreed to make economic development tax increment payments to
the Company, subject to annual appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, payments under the Agreement are scheduled to be made from the
Campustown Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund during the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2021,
in a total amount equal to 100% of the incremental property tax payments made by the Company
in that fiscal year (the “Payments”); and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary for the City Council to obligate for appropriation to the
Payments, funds anticipated to be received in the Campustown Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund
in the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE, It Is Resolved by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa, as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby obligates for appropriation from the Campustown
Urban Renewal Tax Revenue Fund the amount of $360,000, which is estimated to be an amount
equal to 100% of the incremental property tax revenues that are expected to be received by the
City in such fund from the Story County Treasurer in the fiscal year that will begin July 1, 2021.
Section 2. The City Clerk and Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to
certify to the Story County Auditor the amount obligated for appropriation in Section 1 above as
part of the City’s 2020 certification of debt payable from the Campustown Urban Renewal Tax
Revenue Fund and to reflect such estimated amount in the City’s budget for the fiscal year that
will begin July 1, 2021.
Section 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Passed and approved November 24, 2020.
Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
City Clerk
1
ITEM # ___12____
DATE 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH PRIMARY HEALTH CARE TO PURCHASE
DENTAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE NEW DENTAL CLINIC
BACKGROUND:
Primary Health Care (PHC) is in the process of building out a dental clinic at their
medical facility location in Ames. This is in response to the closure of MICA’s dental
clinic last spring and the two agencies working together on a transition plan. Upon the
MICA dental clinic closure, the City ASSET funding that had been allocated to MICA for
dental services in the amount of $95,000 was withheld from the FY 2020-21 MICA
contract.
Primary Health Care submitted a request to Council for these funds to help pay for
dental clinic equipment, supplies, and dental services. Council approved the request
at the November 10, 2020 Council meeting and directed staff to draft an
agreement (Attachment A). The agreement was drafted by the City Attorney’s
Office and reviewed by the Finance Department and outlines the utilization of the
$95,000 towards the purchase of equipment for the PHC dental clinic. However, if
PHC obtains alternate funding for the equipment, any remaining ASSET funds
may be used to provide dental services to low- and moderate-income residents of
the City. The agreement also contains a clawback clause requiring PHC to return
funds disbursed to the City if there’s failure to provide the services or if PHC
ceases from providing the services before July 31, 2026.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the agreement with PHC in the amount of $95,000 to purchase dental
equipment, supplies, and client services for the new dental clinic effective
November 24, 2020 – June 30, 2021.
2. Direct staff to modify the agreement.
3. Do not approve the agreement.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By providing funds to help purchase equipment needed to open the new dental clinic,
dental services for low- and moderate-income residents will be reinstated in the Ames
community.
2
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the agreement with PHC for the purchase of
equipment for the new dental clinic in the amount of $95,000 for FY 2020/21.
FUNDING AGREEMENT
FOR DENTAL OPERATORY EQUIPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 24th day of November, 2020, by and
between the CITY OF AMES, IOWA, a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant
to the laws of the State of Iowa (hereinafter sometimes called "City") and Primary Health Care,
Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Iowa
(hereinafter called "Provider");
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the City of Ames has, by its City Council acting in open and regular session,
determined that certain services and facilities to be provided to the City of Ames and its citizens
by Provider, such services and facilities being hereinafter described and set out, should be funded
in accordance with the terms of a written agreement as hereinafter set out, in accordance with all
applicable Federal, State, and Local laws or regulations, and
WHEREAS, the funding of these services and facilities constitutes a public purpose by
funding the purchase of equipment for six (6) dental operatories for a facility where dental services
will be provided to low- and moderate-income residents of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto have agreed and do agree as follows:
I
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to procure for the City of Ames and its citizens certain
services and facilities as hereinafter described and set out; to establish the methods, procedures,
terms and conditions governing payment by the City of Ames for such services; and, to establish
other duties, responsibilities, terms and conditions mutually undertaken and agreed to by the
parties hereto in consideration of the services to be performed and monies paid.
II
SCOPE OF FUNDING AGREEMENT
Provider shall provide the services and facilities to the City of Ames and its citizens as set
out in the Provider’s September 29, 2020 request to City Council. Attached to and made a part of
this Agreement is a copy of Provider’s September 29, 2020 request, which shall be incorporated
as Exhibit ‘A’ to this Agreement.
ASSET funds provided by the City shall be used to purchase dental operatory equipment,
instruments and supplies for the Provider’s dental clinic located at 3510 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa.
The dental operatory equipment to be purchased under this Agreement is as follows:
Should Provider obtain alternate funding for the dental operatory equipment, any
remaining ASSET funds may be used to provide dental services to low- and moderate-income
residents of the City. The reasonableness of Provider’s reimbursement rates for dental services
will be determined by completing the ASSET budget forms to determine a unit cost.
III
METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. All payments to be made by the City of Ames pursuant to this Agreement shall be
made on a reimbursement basis for equipment costs and/or services provided in amounts not to
exceed those outlined in Section II above.
B. The Provider shall requisition for funds and the City shall disburse funds on a
monthly basis. If Provider wishes to request disbursement of funds on other than a monthly basis,
the Provider must request in writing that an alternate disbursement period be adopted and approved
by the Director of Finance for the City.
C. Requisitions for disbursement shall be made in such form and in accordance with
such procedures as the Director of Finance for the City shall prescribe. Said form shall include but
not be limited to an itemization of the equipment purchased and must be filled out completely.
Should services be provided under this Agreement, said form shall include but not be limited to an
itemization of the nature and amount of services provided and must be filled out completely.
D. The maximum total amount payable by the City of Ames under this Agreement is
$95,000 as detailed in the SCOPE OF FUNDING AGREEMENT (Section II of this contract), and
no greater amount shall be paid.
E. Should any funds be used to provide dental services, Provider shall have up to 90
days from the date that services are provided to request payment from the City. Any request made
by Provider in excess of 90 days after services are provided shall be deemed a waiver by the
Provider and the City shall have no obligation to pay for said untimely requests for payment.
Failure to request reimbursement in a timely manner shall be grounds for termination of this
Agreement by the City.
3
IV
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATION
A.All monies disbursed under this Agreement shall be accounted for by the accrual
method of accounting or other generally accepted comprehensive basis.
B.All dental operatory equipment for which payment is claimed shall be supported by
documentation evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. Documentation
shall include, but not be limited to, copies of invoices for Provider’s dental operatory equipment
that are funded by this Agreement and proof of payment of said invoices.
C.All dental services for which payment is claimed shall be supported by
documentation evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. The City-
provided claim form shall be completed and include the service name, the unit cost claimed for
each service, and the client code where required. A client code shall be required for any service
in which the individual has entered the program through a third-party referral, intake process,
personal application, or emergency response. Exceptions shall include one-time educational
sessions, confidential telephone counseling, or where the identity and residency of a person cannot
be reasonably determined. The Provider may assign whatever client code it deems appropriate, as
long as it can be used to verify the client’s Ames or Story County residency and participation in
City-subsidized programs of service and/or sliding fee scale.
D.All checks or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to this
Agreement shall be clearly identified as such and readily accessible for examination and audit by
the City or its authorized representative.
E.All records shall be maintained in accordance with procedures and requirements
established by the City Finance Director, and the City Finance Director may, prior to any
disbursement under this Agreement, conduct a pre-audit of record keeping and financial
accounting procedures of the Provider for the purpose of determining changes and modifications
necessary with respect to accounting for funds made available hereunder. All records and
documents required by this Agreement shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following
final disbursement by the City.
F.At such time and in such form as the City may require, there shall be furnished to the
City such statements, records, reports, data, and information as the City may require with respect
to the use made of monies disbursed hereunder.
G.At any time during normal business hours, and as often as the City may deem
necessary, there shall be made available to the City for examination all records with respect to all
matters covered by this Agreement and Provider will permit the City to audit, examine, and make
excerpts or transcripts from such records.
H.Monies provided under this Agreement shall not be used as matching funds for a
grant to fund activities in any county other than Story County.
I.If Provider’s annual budget is over $100,000, within six months of the end of the
Provider’s fiscal year the Provider shall submit to the City an annual financial audit prepared by
an independent certified public accounting firm and a copy of IRS Form 990. If Provider’s annual
budget is $100,000 or less, within six months of the end of the Provider’s fiscal year the Provider
shall submit to the City a copy of IRS Form 990 and a balance sheet prepared externally and
independently. Failure to submit documentation in accordance with this section shall result in
withholding payments under this contract. If withheld, payments may resume when required
documentation is delivered to the City and City staff has had a reasonable period to review it.
J. The Provider agrees to participate in the Clear Impact Scorecard outcomes
measurement system, or an equivalent outcomes measurement system identified by the City. The
Provider shall identify a minimum of one (1) performance measure acceptable to the City, and
shall regularly update the outcomes measurement system with the Provider’s progress and
achievements in relation to such outcome(s). The Provider shall not be entitled to payment from
the City under this Agreement if the Provider has not provided updated progress and achievement
reports to the City’s satisfaction.
V
CLAWBACK
Should Provider fail to provide dental services to low- and moderate-income residents of
the City in the manner described in Provider’s September 29, 2020 request to City Council or
should Provider cease providing dental services to low- and moderate-income residents of the City
before July 31, 2026, any and all funds disbursed under this Agreement shall be returned to the
City.
VI
SALE, TRANSFER OR DISPOSAL OF EQUIPMENT
Provider may not sell, transfer to location outside Ames or, otherwise dispose of any
equipment purchased with funds provided under this Agreement without the written consent of the
City of Ames for a period of five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
VII
INSURANCE
The Provider will provide proof that any equipment purchased under this Agreement is
insured during the term of this Agreement and the five (5) years following the expiration or
termination of the Agreement, so long as the equipment is in the Provider’s possession.
VIII
DURATION
This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from and after November 24, 2020, until
June 30, 2021. The City Council may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the
Provider at least sixty (60) days before the effective date of such termination. From and after the
effective date of termination the City shall have no obligation to pay Provider for any services
provided under this Agreement. The clawback provision in section V of this Agreement shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
5
XI
DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, no person shall, on the grounds of
age, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, or gender
identity be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available
under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have, by their authorized representatives,
set their hand and seal as of the date first above written.
CITY OF AMES, IOWA ATTEST:
BY______________________________ __________________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor Diane Voss, City Clerk
Primary Health Care, Inc. Organization Address (please print):
BY______________________________ __________________________________
Authorized Representative
__________________________________
Print Name: Phone Number:
_________________________________ __________________________________
1200 University Ave., Suite 200
Des Moines, Iowa 50314-2355
Kelly Huntsman (515) 248-1447
1
ITEM # ___13____
DATE 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO FY 2020/21 AMES HISTORICAL SOCIETY
CONTRACT DUE TO COVID-19
BACKGROUND:
The City has an outside funding contract with Ames Historical Society (AHS) for FY
2020/21, which was approved in spring 2020 in the amount of $46,927. AHS is
requesting modifications to this contract due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The contract
contains the following tasks for AHS to complete between July 1, 2020 and June 30,
2021:
Drawdown Schedule:
Task Date Amount
Quarter 1:
Present 20 presentations/open houses
Conduct 1 3rd grade elementary school visit
Answer 100 research requests
Host 750 visitors at the Ames History Museum
Catalog 125 historical Ames objects
Present 20 presentations/open houses
Conduct 1 3rd grade elementary school visit
Answer 100 research requests
Host 750 visitors at the Ames History Museum
Catalog 125 historical Ames objects
Conduct special projects/programs with 2 partner orgs.
Present 20 presentations/open houses
Conduct 1 3rd grade elementary school visit
Answer 100 research requests
Host 750 visitors at the Ames History Museum
Catalog 125 historical Ames objects
Conduct special projects/programs with 3 partner orgs.
Present 20 presentations/open houses
rd
2
Answer 100 research requests
Host 750 visitors at the Ames History Museum
Catalog 125 historical Ames objects
Conduct special projects/programs with 3 partner orgs.
AHS has not operated the open hours of the History Museum that are called for in the
agreement due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, AHS has proposed an
alternative set of tasks to allow it to fully draw down its allocation while continuing to
provide services to the community. The proposed alternative set of tasks is:
Drawdown Schedule:
Task Date Amount
Present 10 programs or open houses and post 250 historical
photos or stories online
Dec. 2020 $1,750
Answer 100 direct research requests and make 75 new
resources available online
Dec. 2020 $1,750
Display 9 exhibits at the museum, at other locations, or
virtually
Dec. 2020 $13,815
Catalog 200 historical Ames objects Dec. 2020 $3,000
Partner with 6 community organizations for programs or
special projects
Dec. 2020 $3,000
Present 15 programs or open houses and post 150 historical
photos or stories online
March 2021 $1,500
Answer 50 direct research requests and make 25 new resources
available online
March 2021 $750
Display 3 exhibits at the museum, at other locations, or
virtually
March 2021 $4,605
Catalog 300 historical Ames objects March 2021 $4,500
Partner with 2 community organizations for programs or
special projects
March 2021 $1,000
Present 15 programs or open houses June 2021 $750
Reach all five public elementary schools with 3rd grade June 2021 $3,000
3
programming
Answer 50 direct research requests June 2021 $500
Partner with 2 community organizations for programs or
special projects
June 2021 $1,000
Display exhibit about notable women from Ames history and
host related programming
June 2021 $6,007
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the revised drawdown schedule for Ames Historical Society’s FY
2020/21 funding contract.
2. Modify the proposed tasks in the revised drawdown schedule.
3. Do nothing.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Ames Historical Society has requested to pursue alternative activities as part of its FY
2020/21 funding contract due to the risk of hosting certain activities during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Approving these alternative tasks will allow AHS to draw down its full
allocation of funding for the fiscal year. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above.
ITEM # 14
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2020/21 SOUTH DAYTON IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND:
The South Dayton Gateway area of Ames has seen increased congestion over the last
several years. Development on South Dayton, South Bell Avenue, and SE 16th Street
has contributed to this congestion. The completion of the northbound to westbound fly-
over bridge at the Interstate 35 and US 30 interchange has made mitigating the
congestion on South Dayton Avenue a priority.
In order to address this congestion, capacity improvements are needed at the SE 16th
Street and South Dayton Avenue intersection as well as signalizing the ramp terminals at
the South Dayton Avenue and US Highway 30 interchange. This contract involves the
design of the project.
Services will include a base survey, evaluation of construction techniques, area drainage
analysis, preparation of plans and specifications, conducting at least one public
informational meeting, notification and coordination with right of way users, and
attendance at a pre-construction meeting. Also included will be plan development and all
submittals required for coordination with Iowa DOT to meet local letting requirements,
with an anticipated July 2021 letting for construction in 2022.
Proposals for this work were received from seven engineering firms and were evaluated
according to the following criteria: Project Understanding / Analysis of Conceptual Design,
Design Team, Previous Experience, Availability to Perform Work, and Estimated Contract
Cost. Listed below is the ranking information based on this evaluation:
Consultant Avg. Rank Est. Fee
Given the above rankings, Staff has negotiated a contract with the highest-ranked firm,
WHKS & Co., of Ames, Iowa.
The engineering, construction administration, and construction budget for this project is
currently programmed with $700,000 in G.O. Bonds and $400,000 in U-STEP Grant
Funds for a total of $1,100,000. (The current CIP allocates $132,000 for engineering
services).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the engineering services agreement for the 2020/21 South Dayton
Improvements project with WHKS & Co., of Ames, Iowa, in an amount not to
exceed $86,100.
2. Direct staff to negotiate an engineering agreement with another consulting firm.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on staff’s evaluation using the above criteria, WHKS & Co. will provide the best
value to the City in designing this project.
Therefore, the City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1
as described above.
ITEM # __15___
DATE: 11-10-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR AWNINGS AND EXTERIOR
BUILDING PANELING AT 330-5TH ST & 412 BURNETT AVENUE
BACKGROUND:
Onondago Investments, LLC, is seeking approval for an encroachment permit that
would allow three awnings (canopies) that will project 4’-0” out from the face of the
exterior brick at:
• 330-5th Street – 4’-0” x 9’0” (38SF) canopy above new window in existing masonry
opening
• 412 Burnett – 4’-0” x 10’ x 0” (31SF) north canopy above new storefront main entry
in existing masonry opening
• 412 Burnett – 4’-0” x 12’-0” (36SF) south canopy above new window in existing
masonry opening
and allow some exterior building paneling to slightly overhang the sidewalk.
Chapter 22.3(3) of the Ames Municipal Code requires approval of the Encroachment
Permit Agreement by the Ames City Council before the permit can be issued. By signing
the Agreement, the owner agrees to hold harmless the City of Ames against any loss or
liability as a result of the encroachment, to submit a certificate of liability insurance
which protects the City in case of an accident, and to pay the fee for the encroachment
permit. The owner also understands that this approval may be revoked at any time by
the City Council. The fee for this permit was calculated at $105, and the full amount has
been received by the City Clerk’s Office along with the certificate of liability insurance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the request.
2. Deny the request.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No.
1, thereby granting the encroachment permit for the awnings and facade.
COUNCIL ACTION:
1
ITEM # ____16___
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PARKING METER WAIVER FOR CURBSIDE SERVICE
AT THE AMES PUBLIC LIBRARY
BACKGROUND:
The Ames Public Library is shifting its service model from in-lobby pick-up to curbside
pick-up to encourage a safe way for customers get their books and other materials
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Customers can park, call or send a text request, and
library staff will retrieve the held items and place them in the customer’s vehicle.
In order to safely facilitate the pick-up, the Library has had three designated parking
spots (70.C, 71.C, and 72.C) on Douglas Avenue in front of the library since May 18,
2020. Municipal Code Section 18.5(5) authorizes the City Manager to designate any
parking spaces adjacent City buildings as “visitor” spaces. The request has been
granted, and signage made to designate the 3 spots for curbside pick-up retroactive to
October 2, 2020.
City Council is being asked to approve the waiving of parking meter fees during the time
in which the Library is offering curbside pick-up service. The time frame in which the
City Manager authorized the designation of the three parking spots is October 2, 2020
through January 31, 2021, Sunday through Saturday from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. This
request calculates into a $675 loss to the parking meter fund.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the waiver for parking meter fees for 3 designated spots on Douglas
Avenue in front of the Library (70.C, 71.C, and 72.C) retroactive to October 2,
2020 through January 31, 2021, Sunday through Saturday from 9:00 am to 9:00
pm.
2. Do not approve the request.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A fast, convenient curbside pick-up with no appointments needed will allow library
customers to safely access library materials. The library currently processes
2
approximately 800 holds items a day providing a much-needed service for Ames
residents.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the waiver of parking meter fees for the time frame
outlined above.
ITEM # __17___
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AND BOND FOR UNIT 8
BOILER REPAIR PROJECT
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
Unit 8 boiler through the following actions:
• Replace a section of waterwall tubes at the bottom of the boiler
• Replace all the pendant tubes in the superheater section
• Replace six (6) lower sidewall headers and add eight (8) riser tubes connecting
the upper headers to the steam drum as per the original equipment
manufacturer’s recommendation to improve boiler circulation and to enhance
the ability to control the temperature of the steam from the boiler to the turbine
Unit 8 is one of two boilers at the City’s Steam Electric Plant and is now 38+ years old.
Due to age, a history of firing coal and natural gas (since 2016), along with co-firing refuse
derived fuel (RDF), the boiler is in critical need of repair, especially the tubes in the
superheater.
After switching from coal to natural gas in 2016, staff found that the boiler tubes in the
superheater were deteriorating at an accelerated pace. Staff believes this is because
water vapor created by the combustion of natural gas combines with chlorides from
combusting RDF, causing the surfaces of the tubes in the superheater to corrode, with
the higher temperature zones of the superheater suffering the greatest corrosive attack.
For many years, the power boiler and waste-to-energy industries have relied on coating
or cladding boiler tubes with nickel-based alloys to act as a barrier to the corrosive attack
of boiler gases on the tubes. For this project, the outer surfaces of the new
replacement tubes for the superheater and the waterwall tubes at the bottom of the
boiler (that connect to the lower headers), will be clad with a nickel-based alloy to
prevent or substantially mitigate the corrosive attack on the tubes.
As a result of the boiler becoming more and more unreliable due to tube failures, Unit 8
has been off-line since 2019. It is critical that this Unit 8 boiler repair project proceed
expeditiously so that the Steam Electric Plant’s units are available and reliable.
On October 14, 2020, seven bids were received, ranging in price from $6,690,271 to
$9,775,245. The low bid ($6,690,271) was submitted by TEi Construction Services, Inc.
(TEiC) of Duncan, South Carolina. TEiC, along with an affiliated company, Boiler Tube
Company of America (BTA), (both are part of the Babcock Power group of companies),
combined to offer a bid for this project. BTA will responsible for sourcing the boiler tubes,
applying the alloy cladding to the tubes, and fabricating (bending) the tubes as required.
TEiC will be responsible for installing the tubes in the boiler. Both firms are well known
in the industry and qualified to perform the project work. BTA, for example, has designed,
fabricated, and installed parts and components for boilers since 1918.
In addition to the bid amount of $6,690,271, there will need to be a Change Order
approved in the amount of $369,324 to account for additional sales tax obligation.
(The Change Order for the additional sales tax will be brought before the City Council for
its approval at a future meeting.) Therefore, the total price including the bid proposal
plus the additional sales tax change order necessary to accomplish the scope of
work is $7,059,595. However, even with the adjustment for sales tax, TEiC’s bid is
$1,335,760.05 less than the next highest bid (with appropriate sales tax included).
It should also be noted that TEiC’s low bid of $6,690,271 plus the additional sales
tax of $369,324 totaling $7,059,595 is $1,514,405 less than the engineer’s cost
estimate of $8,574,000, and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) budget of
$7,399,455 is more than adequate to pay for the project.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Award a contract to TEi Construction Services, Inc. of Duncan, South Carolina,
for the Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project in the amount of $6,690,271.
(NOTE: A Change Order in the amount of $369,324 for the additional sales
tax obligation is necessary to be approved by City Council at a later date.)
b. Approve the Contract between TEiC Construction Services, Inc. and the City
of Ames along with the Performance Bond provided by TEiC.
2. Award a contract to one of the other bidders.
3. Reject all bids and delay this project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project will greatly improve the availability and reliability of Unit 8. It is crucial that
the project proceed in order to increase the Power Plant’s reliability to produce electricity
and burn refuse derived fuel.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1.a and 1.b, as described 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
BIDDER: THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., SUMTER, SC
BIDDER: AZZ SMS LLC, SAINT PETERSBURG, FL
ITB 2021-005 UNIT 8 BOILER REPAIR BID SUMMARY
Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
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
$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: ENERFAB POWER & INDUSTRIAL, KANSAS CITY, MO
BIDDER: A&D CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, EVANSVILLE IN
BIDDER: FRANK LILL & SON, INC., VICTOR NY
ITEM # 18
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE FACILITY FABRIC BUILDING
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Maintenance Facility is used by Fleet Services and the Public Works
Streets, Utility Maintenance, and Traffic divisions. The building has reached its
capacity to store equipment, especially during the snow season. A fabric structure
would allow for some cold storage and the ability to park snowplow trucks to free up
for space in the Maintenance Facility. Currently there are several pieces of equipment
stored outside during the winter, such as a leased motor grader, that it would be
preferable to store in a covered facility. Using a fabric structure rather than constructing
a stick built option will be a more cost effective strategy for gaining additional vehicle
storage space.
An architectural firm was hired to review options and develop plans and specifications.
The design resulted in a fabric building that is 100 feet by 50 feet, anchored with
shipping containers. This was proposed due to the poor ground conditions of the
former dump in that area. The shipping containers will also allow for some cold storage
and provide protection to the fabric structure.
City staff has developed plans and specifications with estimated construction in the
amount of $135,850. Engineering costs are estimated at $4,685. This amount does not
include installation of electrical service for lights and power, which will be contracted
separately. This project is shown in the Capital Improvements Plan in Fiscal Year
2019/20 in the amount of $250,000. To take advantage of favorable bids (if received),
an option has been included for a second building that is a mirror of the first.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Maintenance Facility Fabric Building
project and establish December 29, 2020, as the bid due date with January 12,
2021, as the date for report of bids.
2. Do not approve this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION :
By approving these plans and specifications the Maintenance Facility area will gain
much needed space for the workgroups at a more cost-effective price. Therefore, it is
the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1,
as described above.
ITEM # 19
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AUDITORIUM HVAC REPLACEMENT
BACKGROUND:
The City Auditorium is currently served by an HVAC system that is comprised of a fan
and heating coils from when the building was built in 1938 and a condenser and cooling
coils that were later added in 1990. Over the last several years there have been ongoing
maintenance issues with the system. It has been determined that the best course of action
is to replace the system and modernize it for ease of use and maintenance.
A mechanical engineering firm was hired to complete plans and specifications. The plan
calls for the removal of the existing fan and the heating and cooling coils and replace with
a rooftop unit that would heat and cool the Auditorium. A rooftop unit allows for easier
access for maintenance as well as frees up space that could then become additional
storage for the Auditorium. An alternate was also developed to provide heating and
cooling in the lobby areas. These areas only have heating provided by radiators and no
cooling.
Plans and specifications have been developed with estimated construction in the
amount of $370,517 without the alternate for heating and cooling the lobby.
Engineering and construction administration costs are estimated at $32,000
bringing the total project cost $402,517. During the development of the FY 2019/20
budget, $400,000 in one-time savings was directed to replace the HVAC system. The
additional funding will come from the City Hall Improvement funds within the CIP.
The alternate will be considered once bids are received.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Auditorium HVAC Replacement project
and establish December 29, 2020, as the bid due date with January 12, 2021, as the
date for report of bids.
2. Do not approve this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION :
By approving these plans and specifications, the Auditorium will receive a much-needed
HVAC system that will be more efficient and easier to maintain. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as
described above.
1
ITEM#: 20
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: HOMEWOOD SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
Near Hole #4 of Homewood Golf Course, there is an unstable steep slope continuing to
severely erode across the Skunk River Trail and into the river. Slope stabilization with
native vegetation has been attempted as part of previous projects; however, the slope
has further eroded, taking more trees across the shared use path and into the river.
Further geotechnical investigation has identified high groundwater and soil instability near
the top of the slope at Homewood Golf Course. In order to stabilize the slope, this
groundwater needs to be managed. Additionally, native vegetation with deep root
systems can secure the soil from further eroding. Funding for the project in the amount of
$1,142,322 exists from previously unallocated G.O. Bonds.
WHKS & Co. has completed plans and specifications for the project, with an estimated
construction cost of $799,750. Engineering and construction administration are estimated
to cost $160,000, bringing the total estimated cost of the project to $959,750.
Council Members should be aware of two important aspects of this project that
could temporarily impact adjacent residents and the operations of Homewood Golf
Course. First, the work is scheduled to be completed by March 31, 2021. Since most
of this work is being done from the golf course, any delays in the project could
result in Homewood opening in 2021 without holes 3 & 4 being playable, and thus
could impact revenues. Second, almost 8,000 cubic yards of dirt will be hauled
away. This means approximately 800 truckloads will be transported away through
the Inis Grove east parking lot and down 24th Street to Duff Ave. Therefore, the Inis
Grove neighborhood association president will be notified of this City Council item,
along with the residents adjacent to 24th Street east of Duff who will be most
impacted by the truck traffic.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Homewood Slope Stabilization
Project, setting the bid due date of December 16, 2020 and report of bids on
December 22, 2020.
2. Do not proceed with this project at this time.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This unstable slope has continued to erode regardless of attempts to stabilize the area
with vegetation. Groundwater management and native vegetation are intended to
stabilize the slope and prevent future erosion. Therefore, it is the recommendation of
the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
515.239.5160 main
5404 fax
Ave.
November 20, 2020
Dear Inis Grove Neighbor:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020, City Council will consider an item to approve plans and
specifications for a slope stabilization project on the east side of Homewood Golf Course. The slope
to the east of Hole No.4 has continued to severely erode and is threatening to damage or destroy
this area of Homewood, an adjacent segment of the Skunk River Trail, and a section of sanitary
sewer trunk main.
This very important project is to mitigate and stabilize the slope, thus protecting the golf course,
shared use trail, and sanitary sewer infrastructure. Construction is tentatively planned to begin in
January 2021 and continue through March 2021. The project will involve hauling approximately
8000 cubic yards of soil (about 800 truckloads), which will occur mainly during the earlier portions
of the work activities. The route will be along 24th Street and the east Inis Grove parking lot. All
proper traffic control, warning measures, and information signage will be maintained throughout
the project
Bids for the project are scheduled to be received on December 16, 2020 and City Council will
consider award of the construction contract on December 22, 2020. City staff will continue to keep
the neighborhood updated during the entirety of the project.
For questions, please contact Ms. Tracy Peterson, P.E., Municipal Engineer, at
tracy.peterson@cityofames.org or 515-239-5160.
Thank you for your understanding and patience during these vital, protective improvements.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Public Works Director
TH
ITEM # 21
DATE: 10-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2019/20 ASPHALT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS – (14
15TH STREET) – CHANGE ORDER No. 2
ST AND
BACKGROUND:
This is the annual program for reconstruction or rehabilitation of asphalt streets that are typically
located within residential neighborhoods. Rehabilitation of existing asphalt streets is possible
where the base asphalt layer is solid, but the surface course has failed. Full-depth replacement
of these streets is necessary in cases of structural pavement failure. This program was created
in accordance with City Council’s goal of strengthening our neighborhoods. This project is
14th St from Duff Ave to Burnett Ave and 15th St. from Duff Ave to Clark Ave.
On May 12th, 2020, City Council awarded the contract for this project to Manatts Inc. of Ames,
Iowa in the amount of $774,662.19. This project includes a 2-inch mill and overlay of the existing
pavement, spot replacements of curb and gutter, infill of sidewalk, and improvements to storm
and sanitary sewers. Change Order No.1 (additional $11,042.50) was to modify three intake
structures and add a manhole to the project. These changes were needed due to the location of
the Storm Sewer being incorrectly shown on past as-built records.
During construction the contractor discovered that the existing depth of asphalt at the
intersections of 14th and Kellogg and 15th and Kellogg was only two inches. The rest of the project
has a depth of 6-7 inches. In order to correctly resurface these two locations, a 4-inch
asphalt base needs to be paved before the final 2-inch asphalt surface is placed. The two
intersections will need to be excavated and regraded before the base and surface lifts can be
installed. There were also multiple locations where the contractor discovered deteriorated
asphalt base material. This includes the 15th St block from Burnett Ave to Kellogg Ave. These
locations must be corrected with a full depth asphalt base before the surface lift is placed. These
areas will become a maintenance issue in the near future if the base is not correctly addressed.
The total cost for the intersections and full depth patches is an additional $122,018.72
During the design phase for future mill and overlay projects, a full depth patching bid item to fix
these potential but unknown locations can be included to help reduce future change orders.
Revenue and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows:
Available Revenue Estimated Expenses
G.O. Bonds $1,000,000
2019/20 Storm Water Improvements $ 43,000
Construction $ 774,662.19
Engineering/Administration (Est.) $ 135,000.00
Change Orders 1 & 2 $ 133,061.22
TOTAL $1,043,000.00 $1,042,723.41
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount not to exceed $133,061.22
2. Direct staff to pursue changes to the project.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: These full depth patches are needed to increase structural stability of the base of the roadway and therefore reduce the deterioration of the surface. This will greatly reduce maintenance cost in the future for these locations. Even with the addition of this change order, the program expenses still are estimated to be below the Capital Improvement Plan funding amount.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM # _ 22
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FY 2020/21 RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING & REMOVAL
PROGRAM CHANGE ORDER
BACKGROUND:
In May, City Council approved the renewal contract for tree trimming, tree removal, and
stump removal in the City right-of-way with Pitts Lawn & Tree Service, Huxley, Iowa in the
amount of $85,000. Most of the contracted work is for removal of trees too large or
trimming that is too high for the equipment owned by the City.
Prior to the August 10th Derecho storm, $19,574 had been expended on the contract for
FY 2020/21. Since the Storm, over $63,823 has been expended and another $31,194 has
been billed to the City but not yet paid for storm related trimming and removals. Staff
estimates there is $7,500 worth of storm-related work yet to be completed. Also, the
contractor will still need to complete various trimming and hazard tree removal work not
related to the storm. Staff estimates $35,000 of non-storm related work will be required of
the contractor to finish FY 2020/21.
The table below details the funds expended on the contract to this point and funds needed
to complete storm related and non-storm related work.
Non-Storm
Related Work
Storm
Related Work Total
Prior to Storm $19,574 $ 0 $ 19,574
Storm Related Work Completed 0 95,017 95,017
Work yet to be completed 35,000 7,500 42,500
The contract amount needs to be increased to $157,091 to complete the necessary
storm and non-storm related work in the right of way. The Adopted FY 2020/21
budget has $85,000 for contracted tree work. Staff has submitted claims with
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) officials for
reimbursement. Storm related work is eligible for up to 85% reimbursement.
Therefore, if the claims are approved, the City could receive over $87,000 in
reimbursed funding.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a Change Order to add $72,091 to the FY 2020/21 Right of Way Tree
Trimming & Removal Contract awarded to Pitts Lawn & Tree Service, Huxley,
IA.
2. Do not approve the Change Order to add $72,091 to the FY 2020/21 Right of
Way Tree Trimming & Removal Contract awarded to Pitts Lawn & Tree Service.
CITY MANAGE R’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The work completed by the contractor is work City staff is not capable of doing due to the
large diameter and the height of the trees. The work needed is necessary to maintain
safety to the residents and their property. Adding the funds to an existing contract allows
staff to move forward in directing Pitts Lawn & Tree Service to continue with mitigating
storm damage and other non-storm related work.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
1
ITEM #__23 __
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CONTRACT COMPLETION FOR INIS GROVE PARK
RESTROOMS
BACKGROUND:
This project included constructing a new restroom on the north side of the tennis courts
and renovating the current restroom building located along Duff Avenue in Inis Grove Park.
A contract was awarded to HPC, LLC, Ames, IA in the amount of $378,000 on November
12, 2019. The project was designed by Hartman Trapp Architecture Studio, Des Moines,
Iowa.
The restroom renovation and the new restroom include some of the same amenities,
including being gender neutral, ADA accessible, automatic door locks that lock when the
park is closed from 10:30 PM to 6:00 AM, ADA accessible water fountains with bottle
fillers, soap dispensers, metal roofs, limestone veneer that match Walnut Shelter in the
park, infrared occupancy sensors, and LED lighting on the interior and exterior of the
building.
The new restroom features linear trench drains for easy cleaning, hand sanitizer
dispensers, and adult/child changing tables, which are the first ones constructed in the
park system. Not included as part of this contract was a sewage lift station that was
installed to service the new restroom. The cost of the lift station was $27,400.
As part of the project there were eight change orders that resulted in a total credit to the
project of $1,845, thus reducing the final construction cost to $376,155. The change
orders are listed below:
Change Order Description Amount
Change Order Total ($ 1,845)
As shown below, the final project cost including design, sewage lift station, septic tank
decommissioning, renovation, and new construction was $442,555. Decommissioning the
septic tank for the old restroom near Shagbark Shelter is the only component that needs
2
to be completed yet and will be done by staff. Total funding for the Inis Grove Park
Restrooms Project is $446,210, leaving $3,655 in unused funds which will be returned to
the Park Development Fund.
Project Components Cost
Total Project Cost $442,055
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Approve Change Orders 1 – 8 in the amount of ($1,845) to HPC, LLC., Ames,
Iowa, for the Inis Grove Park Restrooms Project.
b. Accept completion of the contract for the Inis Grove Park Restrooms Project in
the amount of $376,155.
2. Do not accept the completion of the Inis Grove Park Restrooms Project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The project complements the addition of the Miracle League Field and Inclusive
Playground because now individuals have easier access to restroom facilities that are
safe, have adequate lighting, clean, and ADA accessible. The completion of the project
has made Inis Grove Park a destination because it offers amenities for all to enjoy.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # 24
DATE: 11/24/20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2017/18 ARTERIAL STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(13 TH STREET – RIDGEWOOD AVENUE TO HARDING AVENUE)
BACKGROUND:
This annual program utilizes current repair and reconstruction techniques to improve
arterial streets with asphalt or concrete. These pavement improvements are needed to
restore structural integrity, serviceability, and rideability. Targeted streets are re aching a
point of accelerated deterioration. By improving these streets prior to excessive
problems, the service life will be extended. The location for this project was 13th
Street from Ridgewood Avenue to Harding Avenue. This project also included the
shared use path extension along 13th Street from Ridgewood Avenue to
Northwestern Avenue.
On March 20, 2018, City Council and the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT)
awarded the project to Con-Struct, Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount of $1,453,187.05.
Two change orders were administratively approved by City and IDOT staff, totaling
$35,122.88. Change Order No. 3 is the balancing change order to reflect the actual
measured quantities completed during construction and is a deduction in the amount of
$58,153.60. The construction was completed in the amount of $1,430,156.33.
This project required IDOT audit prior to final acceptance. Due to the project engineer no
longer working for the City, the IDOT audit process took longer than expected. This
project can now obtain final acceptance and be closed out.
The following table summarizes the 2017/18 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements
program funding sources, funding distribution, and expense breakdown for this project
location.
Funding Sources Expenses Revenue
TOTAL $1,716,206.33 $2,132,500
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a.) Approve Change Order No. 3, a deduction in the amount of $58,153.60.
b.) Accept the 2017/18 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements (13th Street –
Ridgewood Avenue to Harding Avenue) project as completed by Con-
Struct, Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount of $1,430,156.33.
2. Direct staff to pursue changes to the project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
The DOT has completed the audit and approved the project for final acceptance.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM#: 25
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2018/19 COLLECTOR STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(HICKORY DRIVE – WESTBROOK DRIVE TO WOODLAND STREET)
BACKGROUND:
This is the annual program for reconstruction or rehabilitation of collector streets.
Locations are chosen in accordance with the most current street condition inventory.
This project along Hickory Drive from Westbrook Drive to Woodland Street included
pavement improvements, repair/replacement of storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and
watermain.
On April 17, 2019, City Council awarded the contract to Manatt’s Inc. of Ames, Iowa in
the amount of $1,222,195.85. Five change orders were administratively approved by
staff. Change Order No.1 was approved in the amount of $11,000 to bore water
services instead of open trench to allow access for residential traffic. Change Order
No.2 was approved to extend the completion date. Change Order No.3 was approved in
the amount of $2,962.50 to construct a temporary sidewalk access. Change Order No.4
was approved in the amount of $4,300 to add additional temporary sidewalk and
manhole adjustment. Change Order No.5 is the balancing change order for the project
and is a deduction in the amount of $50,951.70. This balancing change order reflects
the actual measured quantities completed during construction. Construction was
completed in the amount of $1,189,506.65.
Revenue and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows:
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Approve Change Order No. 5, a deduction in the amount of $50,951.70.
b. Accept the 2018/19 Collector Street Pavement Improvements (Hickory
Drive – Westbrook Dr. to Woodland St.) project as completed by Manatt’s
Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount of $1,189,506.65.
2. Direct staff to pursue changes to the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as noted above.
1
ITEM#: 26
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2018/19 STORM WATER FACILITY REHABILITATION (LITTLE BLUESTEM)
BACKGROUND:
New developments within the community are required to provide storm water
management quantity control. As part of the post-construction storm water
management ordinance adopted in April 2014, commercial and industrial landowners
are responsible to maintain their own storm water facilities. This ordinance also outlines
that the homeowner’s association/owner for residential developments will maintain all
water quality features. However, the City is responsible for the long-term maintenance
of residential regional detention facilities providing water quantity control.
As these facilities age, sediment accumulates, volunteer vegetation becomes more
prevalent, erosion occurs, and structures need to be improved. This annual program
addresses those concerns. The location for the 2018/19 Storm Water Facility
Rehabilitation Program is on a parcel owned by the City of Ames between Little
Bluestem Court and Gateway Hills Apartments (Gateway Hills Lots W, X, Y, and Z).
On August 25, 2020, City Council awarded the project to J & K Contracting in the
amount of $133,233. There was one change order, the balancing change order, which
was a deduction in the amount of $13,480 and was approved by staff. Work was
completed in the amount of $119,753.
Total revenues and expenses for this project are summarized below:
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the 2018/19 Storm Water Facility Rehabilitation (Little Bluestem) Project as
completed by J & K Contracting of Urbandale, IA in the amount of $119,753.
2. Direct staff to pursue modifications to the project.
Funding Source Available Actual
2
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This is project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
ITEM # ___27__
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SCAFFOLDING AND RELATED SERVICES AND SUPPLY
CONTRACT FOR POWER PLANT – ACCEPT COMPLETION FOR
HTH COMPANIES, INC. FOR FY2019/20
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2019, City Council awarded a contract to HTH Companies, Inc., Union, MO
for FY19/20. This contract is for Scaffolding and Related Services and Supplies for the
Power Plant in the amount of $60,000.
There was one change order to the HTH Companies, Inc. contract. Change Order #1:
On April 14, 2020, was approved to increase the purchase order by $108,000 for
additional scaffolding and related services for the Unit 8 Electrostatic Precipitator repair
and Unit 7 Duct Work repairs. The total contract amount including the one change
order is $168,000.
HTH Companies, Inc. has completed work under this contract period and the Electric
Services Power Plant Engineer has provided a certificate of completion.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept completion for the Scaffolding and Related Services and Supply Contract
with HTH Companies, Inc. for FY2019/20. This Council action form is to release
the 5% retainage that was held per the contract terms and conditions.
2. Delay acceptance of this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
HTH Companies, Inc. has completed the work required under this contract for FY2019/20.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
ITEM # ___28 _
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: POWER PLANT SPECIALIZED WET DRY VACUUM, HYDRO BLAST,
AND RELATED CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT – ACCEPT
COMPLETION FOR HTH COMPANIES, INC. FOR FY2019/20
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2018, City Council awarded a contract to HTH Companies, Inc., Union, MO
for FY18/19. This contract is for Specialized Wet Dry Vacuum, Hydro Blast, and Related
Cleaning Services for the Power Plant.
This contract had the option for the City to renew in one-year increments for up to four
additional years. City Council approved the renewal for FY19/20 in the amount of
$45,000.
There was one change order to the HTH Companies, Inc. contract. Change Order #1:
On May 16, 2019, was approved to increase the purchase order by $7,605.61 for
additional cleaning on Unit 8 Boiler. The total contract amount including the one
change order is $52,605.61.
HTH Companies, Inc. has completed work under this contract period and the Electric
Services Power Plant Engineer has provided a certificate of completion.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept completion of the contract for Specialized Wet Dry Vacuum, Hydro Blast,
and Related Cleaning Services with HTH Companies, Inc. for FY2019/20. This
Council action form is to release the 5% retainage that was held per the contract
terms and conditions.
2. Delay acceptance of this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
HTH Companies, Inc. has completed the work required under this contract. For
FY2019/20. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
ITEM#: 29
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CITY OF AMES TO PURCHASE ROSE PRAIRIE
PROPERTY
BACKGROUND:
On August 31, 2020, City Council received correspondence (Attachment A) from the
Board of Directors of the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park (FAHHP) requesting the
City to acquire the 170-acre parcel of land known as Rose Prairie. FAHHP believes this
is a golden opportunity to expand Ada Hayden Heritage Park and there are several
reasons to do so:
• Storm water runoff from this property continues to flow into Hayden Park carrying
silt and nutrients and degrading the wetlands that were designed to protect the
lake, Ames’ back-up water supply.
• Converting this property to native prairie and other perennial vegetation would help
ensure that the water quality in Hayden Park lake remains high.
• Expanding the park would remove some of the growing pressure of public use that
is already beginning to show effects on the wildlife.
• At least three developers have attempted to build on Rose Prairie spanning nearly
20 years and failed. The most recent developer intended to locate a convenience
store over or right next to the creek that flows through the property. A store with
underground storage tanks would pose a long-term threat to the park.
On October 11, 2020, City Council received a letter (Attachment C) from the Friends of
Ada Hayden Heritage Park (FAHHP) in response to the Staff Report provided to Council
regarding the request to purchase the Rose Prairie Property. On October 13, 2020, City
Council directed staff to place this item on a future agenda.
On November 20, 2020, City Council received additional correspondence (Attachment D)
from FAHHP. This response comes after FAHHP had an opportunity to review the Staff
Report. Jim Pease, President of FAHHP, also met with City staff to further understand
the report findings before sending his response on the 20th.
To aid Council in assessing the feasibility of an alternate use of this property, staff feels
it is important to provide information regarding three areas; 1) Water quality in the Ada
Hayden Watershed; 2) Park needs in this north growth area; and 3) Development impacts
of making the Rose Prairie property a park.
WATER QUALITY IN THE ADA HAYDEN WATERSHED:
Ada Hayden Watershed - Background
The total watershed that drains through the lake is approximately 2,200 acres. The
watershed is roughly bounded on the south by 24th Street, on the east by U.S. Highway
69/Grand Avenue, on the north by 180th Street, and on the west by George W. Carver
Avenue. The majority of the topography in the watershed is gently sloping, changing to
moderately steep at the central creek that runs from the southwest corner of 190th Street
and Grant Avenue and ultimately empties into the central wetland complex. The soils in
the watershed range from very poorly drained to well drained, with the majority being
poorly drained.
Presently, the land draining to Ada Hayden Heritage Park Lake from the west are
dominated by agricultural land uses; primarily row crops and pasture. Drainage coming
from the north and south is largely residential with some commercial uses.
For reference, the drainage from Rose Prairie originally (prior to Ada Hayden Heritage
Park construction) dumped directly into the south lake via a channelized ditch. As part of
the park construction, the channelized drainage ditch was intercepted and routed through
the west central constructed wetland complex prior to discharging into the southern lake.
Over the years, there have been multiple assessments of the lakes at Ada Hayden and
the water quality entering them. A very brief synopsis of each study is provided in
Attachment B. In general, the studies have shown that the lake is overall healthy. Studies
have shown highly variable performance of the constructed wetlands in the early years.
A 2005 assessment showed a high-performing central wetland complex. A 2010 study,
though, showed significant impacts of the wetlands as a result of the very wet summer,
with the wetlands being a net exporter of nutrients. A 2017-2018 assessment determined
that “…the Ada Hayden Lake is a ‘healthy’ lake, especially as it relates to nutrient
concentrations.” However, there is evidence that the nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio is
trending towards a level that would become more favorable for cyanobacteria (blue-green
algae) to form. While not all blue-green algae are toxic, some can form microcystins, a
liver toxin. These toxins, when produced in mass during a large-scale algal bloom, can
pose a major threat to drinking water supplies and to humans and wildlife that are exposed
to them. (It is important to understand that the Ames Water Plant does not take water
directly from the lakes at Ada Hayden. The lakes are used in times of exceptional drought
to artificially augment the flow in the South Skunk River, which in turn helps recharge the
underground aquifer.)
Water Quality Modeling
Staff from the Water & Pollution Control Department utilized several different modeling
tools to estimate the water quality leaving the Rose Prairie site under four different
scenarios. The baseline scenario looks at the water quality leaving the site under the
existing row-cropped agricultural conditions. The second scenario looks at the likely
water quality leaving the site based on the “Rose Prairie – Revised Master Plan” dated
August 10, 2016. The third scenario looks at the water quality that could be expected to
leave the site if the entire parcel were converted to a combination of beneficial treatment
practices. The fourth scenario looked at the possibility of making additional targeted water
quality improvements while working within the general land uses laid out in the Rose
Prairie master plan.
The results of the modeling (shown in Table 1) suggest that the stormwater
management included in the Rose Prairie Developer’s revised master plan (second
scenario) would make a significant improvement in the amount of nutrients and
sediment being transported off the site, as compared to current conditions
(baseline scenario).
Staff next attempted to determine what theoretical pollutant export could be achieved
utilizing multiple common-use urban stormwater facilities across the entirety of the Rose
Prairie parcel. Based on simulated models, the pollutant export for nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment could theoretically be completely eliminated. For this scenario, the pollutant
reduction was achieved by a combination of land conversion to restored native prairie, a
nitrifying bioreactor (to treat the subsurface drainage coming from off-site tile drainage
from the north), a constructed wetland along the central drainageway, an iron-enhanced
sand filter (to target phosphorus runoff from the golf course), and two sedimentation
basins.
Table 1: Nutrient Reduction Likely as a result of Rose Prairie Development
Loading Entering Rose Prairie
From Northern Tile Drainage and 13,218 8,075 323
Rose Prairie Property As It
Exists Today (in row crops) 74,595 6,518 245
Current Pollutant Load Leaving
Rose Prairie Property (Baseline
Scenario) 87,813 14,593 568
Rose Prairie if Developed “As
Proposed” (Second Scenario)
4,195
(95%↓)
1,513
(90%↓)
143
(75%↓)
Table 2: Theoretical Nutrient Reduction That Could Be Achieved by
Placing the Entire Rose Prairie Development in Best
Management Practices
Sediment
(lbs/yr)
TN
(lbs/yr)
TP
(lbs/yr)
Estimated Pollutant Load Leaving the
Rose Prairie Parcel with Maximum Water
Management Practices Implemented
(Third Scenario)
0
(100↓)
0
(100%↓)
0
(100%↓)
The fourth scenario looked for targeted opportunities to achieve specific water quality
improvements while not significantly changing the overall site development concept. Staff
determined that targeting the off-site pollutant loadings entering the Rose Prairie parcel
would offer the greatest water quality improvements with the least land requirements and
the least disruption to the proposed development plans.
• Implementing a wetland-sedimentation basin around the Ada Hayden
tributary would offer added stability and less erosion. The wetland-
sedimentation basin would also serve a second purpose to treat the subsurface
flows from the Story County tile drain. (See the Rose Prairie stormwater
management plan below with the wetland overlaid.) However, this would still
pose a challenge for constructing the east-west road that the developer has
expressed concern about.
• Targeting the off-site phosphorus loading from the golf course with an iron-
enhanced sand filter would significantly decrease the phosphorus export
into Ada Hayden Park. It should be noted that even without this sand filter (also
shown on the following stormwater management plan, the modeled phosphorus
export after the Rose Prairie development is complete would be 143 pounds per
year. The wetland complex inside Ada Hayden that the Rose Prairie tributary
discharges into was designed to accommodate a load of 670 pounds per year.
Thus, the modeling suggests that if/when the Rose Prairie development is
complete, the existing wetlands are sufficiently protective of water quality in the
lakes without the installation of any additional water quality practices that target
phosphorus.
When considering the range of possible water quality impacts, one additional water
quality issue was considered. The proposed site development plan allocated a portion of
the northwest corner for commercial development to include a gas station. The
commercial area as proposed would straddle the tributary that ultimately drains into Ada
Hayden Park. Gas station runoff can be a heavy contributor of gasoline, chloride, and oil
and grease to receiving waters. While less likely, leaking underground storage tanks
(USTs) have historically been a cause of contamination of shallow groundwaters.
A 2011 Stream Assessment by Iowa State determined that the Ada Hayden tributary
located on the Rose Prairie Property is one of the least stable streams in Ames, with over
70% of the channel categorized as downcutting or widening. A 2008 study by Iowa State
determined that the shallow groundwater in this area would ultimately end up in the lake
itself due to the direction of groundwater flow.
The risk of a leak here is no greater than a leak from a new gas station anywhere
else in the community. There are existing gas stations in Ames that are situated such
that any leaks would travel directly towards a drinking water well; so the risk on the Rose
Prairie parcel is not unique and appears to be a risk that has been accepted in other
settings. But, the proximity to the lake and the groundwater flow directly towards the lake
might be a factor to consider.
Location of potential
wetland and vegetative
Location of potential iron-
enhanced sand filter
Christianson, Evan. 2008. A Hydrogeological Investigation of Ada Hayden Lake.
It is staff’s opinion that an engineering assessment of the existing wetlands’
nutrient reduction capacity is not necessary. The modeling just performed by City
staff shows a capacity very similar to what the wetlands were designed nearly 20
years ago to accommodate. The wetlands have been monitored in back-to-back
years on multiple occasions since the City acquired the property. The results
show, within an expected range of seasonal variation, that the wetlands are
performing as envisioned.
It is reasonable to expect that the wetlands will need to be periodically “refreshed”
due to sediment loading, similar to other stormwater basins around the City. This
is a normal maintenance activity for a wetland in a developing watershed.
PARK NEEDS IN THE NORTH GROWTH AREA:
As Council has been developing the Ames Plan 2040, discussion has occurred regarding
what principles related to 1) Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces; and 2) Environment; should
be included in the plan. Since this plan will direct growth, park development, and
environmental sustainability, some elements of the draft plan need to be considered
regarding FAHHP’s request.
Park, Trails, and Open Spaces Principles and Actions
Eight principles were discussed on May 19, 2020 and are shown below as a refresher:
I. Reflect community values with public space for social and physical wellbeing that
private open space alone cannot accomplish
II. Accessible and desirable open space opportunities
III. Concurrent growth of park land with development
IV. Maintain and expand the system of park types to varied needs of the community
overall
V. Plan a system of interconnected greenways
VI. Stewardship and variety of open space
VII. Fiscally Responsible
VIII. Support Partnerships
In addition to this, seven actions are being proposed to accomplish the principles. These
actions follow with some listing additional information:
1. Maintain a high quality and ample park system and recreation facilities as the City
grows.
A. Plan for new 40-60-acre community parks with recreational facilities in
larger growth areas. This area is part of the North Growth Area proposed
in Ames Plan 2040.
B. Strive to maintain an overall open space similar to the current ratio of
approximately 18 acres per 1,000 people (include public land, partnerships,
greenways, parks, special facilities).
2. Plan for park dedication as part of the development process with parkland
dedication based upon Neighborhood Park needs.
3. Provide a park system that supports a variety of user needs.
A. Utilize a hierarchy of Regional, Community, Neighborhood, Specialty Parks,
and Recreation Facilities to serve the various needs.
4. Support the experience.
5. Support Parks and Open Space environmental opportunities.
A. An open space framework is valuable to the character of the community. In
some instances, open space may provide primarily environmental benefits
rather than recreation benefits.
B. Designing for environmental priorities includes:
• Natural stream way preservation and water quality enhancement for
supporting human and aquatic life (Ada Hayden Watershed)
• Natural resources/habitat areas conservation
6. Apply conservation standards in growth areas.
7. Identify partnerships for meeting service needs.
Based on the above information, one could make the argument that acquiring the
Rose Prairie property makes sense. A portion of the land could be used for a
community park with community amenities (sport fields/courts, playground, etc.) that are
not part of the philosophy for Ada Hayden heritage Park. Much of the north growth area
is within the Moore Memorial Park service area of two miles, however, Moore Memorial
Park has a similar philosophy as Ada Hayden with prairies, trails, and no community
amenities besides shelters and playgrounds.
In the latest Rose Prairie plan, the Developer has set aside five acres for a neighborhood
park. This park would serve all of Rose Prairie and most of the Hunziker development to
the south. Quarry Estates and Hayden’s Crossing homes will be on the fringe of the
service area of this park.
Ada Hayden Heritage Park for many is the crown jewel of the park system and because
of this, it gets plenty of use. Expanding the park across Hyde would provide additional
opportunities for park users and additional habitat for wildlife and potentially alleviate
some of the pressure on Ada Hayden Heritage Park. There will be additional operational
costs in terms of staffing and equipment because current levels of each are not enough
to maintain an additional 170 acres of park land.
In addition to the purchase price, which is listed at $3,700,000, there could be
development costs as much as $7,200,000 plus utilities (See Attachment E)
depending on which features are selected for the new park. In comparison, the cost
to purchase Ada Hayden was approximately $2.9 million and development costs
were approximately $3.8 million.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS:
The Rose Prairie site was most recently approved for development with a Master Plan in
2016. The Master Plan requires development as a Conservation Subdivision and permits
a variety of housing types for up to 620 units and a small commercial node. The plan
also includes dedication of a neighborhood park and extensions of bike trails and
sidewalks. Importantly, the mandatory Conservation Subdivision standards and
the City’s Post-Construction Storm Water Management standards of Chapter 5b
are designed to improve water quality and reduce runoff that results from
development of a site. Protection of the Ada Hayden watershed was at the forefront
of creating the Conservation Subdivision standards and development of the site is
seen as a benefit to water quality compared to existing conditions.
In support of the development of the site, the City installed water and sewer mains and
paved Hyde Avenue, assigning proportional costs to developers of property located along
Hyde Avenue. The City will be repaid for these investments as development occurs. The
Rose Prairie site has an estimated outstanding assignment of cost that includes a
$866,000 street assessment, water connection fees of $240,000, and sewer connection
fees of $363,000. Additionally the City would need to support the extension of a sewer
line to the west for future development of the Borgmeyer property if it does not occur as
part of a development project.
City Council identified the Rose Prairie site as part of our Tier 1 growth in relation to Ames
Plan 2040. This means it is viewed as an area that is readily developable through logical
extensions of services or based upon prior extensions of infrastructure. Rose Prairie is
currently the single largest piece of vacant land in the City that is zoned for development.
Acquiring the whole site for a park would stress our current vacant land inventory
to find replacement land resources to meet near term development needs. In
essence, there is no other obvious additional area of equal size that is immediately
able to be developed as a replacement for housing needs if the land was utilized
for a park. In addition to making up for the costs of prior investments, the City
would need to proactively look at facilitating other development with near term
infrastructure extensions to address housing supply needs if this site was no
longer available for housing.
Based upon the Tier 1 scenario analysis from Ames Plan 2040, the City would need
to plan to extend water and sewer infrastructure to the south or west at a cost of
between $2.5 to $6 million dollars to create readily developable land similar to the
Rose Prairie site. In addition, paving of County Line Road in the West Growth Area
would be an additional cost estimated at $1.5 to $2.5 million dollars. Other planned
road improvements are not included in these initial costs estimates as they can occur as
development occurs.
Some of these estimated costs will be necessary for the City to incur in the future
as we expand into the planned growth areas, but the need would be accelerated as
soon as the second year of the current CIP if needed to replace available land used
for a regional park. Some of the water and sewer costs could be recouped through
connection districts as was originally intended with Rose Prairie, but the City would have
to spend the money up front to extend some of the infrastructure.
BOND REFERENDUM:
Given the magnitude of the expenditures needed to purchase the land for only wetlands,
develop it as a community park, or both; a bond referendum will be needed. The Council
will have to decide if these options should take precedence over other projects that will
need voter approval in the near future such as a new indoor acquatic center or fire station.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Do not approve the request from the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park that the
City should acquire the Rose Prairie Property.
2. Approve, in concept, the request from the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park to
acquire the 170 acres of the Rose Prairie property for purposes of a wetland and
a community park, and direct staff to prepare an action plan to implement this
alternative.
3. Approve, in concept, the request from the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park to
acquire the 170 acres of the Rose Prairie property for purpose of wetlands and
native vegetation and direct staff to prepare an action plan to implement this
alternative.
4. Approve, in concept, the request from the Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park to
acquire the 40 to 60 acres of the Rose Prairie property for purpose of community
park and direct staff to prepare an action plan to implement this alternative
5. Direct staff to evaluate other options as determined by City Council.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Rose Prairie developers have been in contact with City staff to discuss moving
forward with their project. They have indicated an interest in modifying their approved
Master Plan (but still retain the conservation subdivision and maximum of 620 units) and
development agreement in the coming months in order to initiate development of their
property in 2021. Therefore, it continues to appear that the primary goals for protecting
the quality of Ada Hayden can be accomplished without the acquisition of the 170 acres
of Rose Prairie land. The City’s development standards will yield improvements to current
water quality by replacing the unmitigated field runoff with modern control measures.
The City has already invested a significant amount of money in support of housing
development in this area that makes the land expensive to purchase on the open market
and would require the City to absorb the street assessment and utility connection costs
that have been apportioned to the developer. Although part of the site could be developed
as a 40 to 60-acre recreational/community park, filling that need is more necessary with
the buildout of North Growth in the future and could still be accommodated by securing
land north of 190th Street if it is needed.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
Attachment A
31 August 2020
Dear Mayor Haila and City Council Members:
Adjoining Ada Hayden Heritage Park on the western boundary is a 170-acre parcel of
ground that developer, Matt Eller, called Rose Prairie. There are signs on the property
that it is for sale. Several of us with Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park believe this is
a golden opportunity to acquire the property and expand the park. There are several good
reasons for doing this:
• Storm water runoff from this property continues to flow into Hayden Park carrying
silt and nutrients and degrading the wetlands that were designed to protect the
lake, Ames’ back-up water supply.
• Converting this property to native prairie and other perennial vegetation would help
ensure that the water quality in Hayden Park lake remains high.
• Expanding the park would remove some of the growing pressure of public use that
is already beginning to show effects on the wildlife.
• At least three developers have attempted to build on Rose Prairie spanning nearly
20 years and failed. The most recent developer intended to locate a convenience
store over or right next to the creek that flows through the property. A store with
underground storage tanks would pose a long-term threat to the park.
In 2001, as a Commissioner for Story County Soil and Water District, Erv Klaas was
successful at getting funding for the Hallett’s Quarry watershed to implement soil
conservation practices on farmland in the watershed. Several farmers north of 190th
Street participated, and the District installed grass waterways and helped the farmers
develop nutrient management practices. We quickly became aware that the land south
of 190th and adjoining the park to the west was crucial to protecting water quality in the
park. That area, in fact, had the highest potential for sediment loss on the whole
watershed. However, the property was owned by a developer who did not wish to
participate in government programs. Sean McCoy, who conducted the watershed
assessment on behalf of the Conservation District, stated that conservation practices on
the Rose Prairie property were crucial because surface water drainage from the farmland
to the north flows through the Rose Prairie property via a small creek which then enters
directly into the park on the west side. When the city of Ames later annexed and zoned
the property, they rightly placed an overlay requirement that all development next to the
park be developed with Low-Impact Designs (aka Conservation Designs). Rose Prairie
has been farmed for many years without soil conservation practices. The constructed
wetlands within the park undoubtedly are being impacted by silt deposition from Rose
Prairie that will shorten the effective ability of the wetlands to remove nutrients and other
impurities from surface run-off before the water enters the lake. This serves as Ames’
critical secondary drinking water supply.
In addition to surface water runoff, the lake at Ada Hayden is fed by groundwater in the
porous landscape. Since 2006, Dr. Bill Simpkins, a professor in groundwater and
geochemistry from ISU, has conducted studies on wells surrounding the park and found
that a plume of water-soluble phosphorus was migrating toward the lake from the west,
likely sourced from agricultural land and the fertilizers applied to it there. While most
phosphorus is known to come from surface waters where it is attached to soil particles,
this phosphorus is in an ionic, water-soluble form that moves in groundwater. As a result
of the particular geology of the area, it is a potential threat to the water quality in the lake,
adding nutrients which promote algae growth. Putting the Rose Prairie area under
perennial vegetation rather that row-crops would help address this problem.
Rose Prairie has changed ownership at least three times since the park was formed.
None of these developers have been successful in designing a residential development
that would be compatible with protecting the park and give them their desired return-on-
investment. We don’t expect the next owner to be any more successful.
Based on nearly 20 years of biological surveys, Ada Hayden Heritage Park is a
microcosm of biodiversity in the midst of an expanding urban area. We have documented
over 360-winged species—birds, butterflies, dragonflies, and damselflies—using the
park, and the list is growing. In addition, it is a haven for mammals, including river otters,
mink, badgers, beavers, deer, and many other species. The possibility to see these
species enhances the lives of Ames citizens and brings them outdoors to the park.
Hayden Park has been extremely popular with the public who owns and uses it. Many
are concerned about the increased public use that would be added with further
development that would come from Rose Prairie. Thus, park expansion would help to
preserve additional habitat for the wildlife that people enjoy so much and provide
additional recreational space for an expanding population. Having the land in perennial
vegetation would also help maintain water quality in the lake by reducing surface water
runoff from impermeable surfaces (roads, houses, etc.), by absorbing more water and
reducing stress on the constructed wetlands designed to protect the lake’s water.
One potential source of funding to acquire the land would be a loan from the State
Revolving Fund for Source Drinking Water Protection. The payback would be over 20
years likely at zero percent interest, we believe. There may be other sources to acquire
a right of first refusal on the property to give us some time to organize funding for acquiring
the property. We would happily assist city staff in connecting with those entities. We
believe this would be a forward-looking acquisition for the City of Ames that demonstrates
the City’s ongoing concern for water quality and the health of its citizens.
We believe that it is imperative that the city takes steps to preserve and enhance the park,
adding to the rich heritage that Ames City Council and Ames citizens created in 2004
when they dedicated the park in August of that year. The Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage
Park has been a partner in ongoing efforts to enhance, manage, and educate our fellow
citizens about the park. We hope you will partner with us in 2020 to help ensure the
park’s future and acquire this 170-acre addition to the park.
Sincerely,
Jim Pease, President
Board of Directors, Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park
Erv Klaas, Past President and Friends Founder
Wolf Oesterreich, Vice President
Stephanie Fox, Secretary-Treasurer
Paul Domoto
Kevin Kane
Robert Klaver
James Patton
Tana Tesdall
Attachment B
EXCERPTS FROM WATER QUALITY STUDIES AT ADA HYDEN PARK
2001-2004 study by Iowa State (J. Downing, “Final Report – Ames Quarry Lakes
Diagnostic Study”). This was the primary investigative report that constituted the “due
diligence” efforts of the City prior to acquisition of the former quarry as a park.
“The south basin of Ames Quarry is a relatively nutrient-poor water body, but it is
much more nutrient-rich than the north basin…Nitrate-nitrogen seems to be fueled
by watershed inputs, particularly rain events…The highest total phosphorus
concentrations were seen following rain events, suggesting transport by
precipitation or erosional activities…the south basin is normally P-limited, and is
almost never N-limited. This indicates that nutrient conditions are not conducive
to Cyanobacterial blooms…The prevalence of inorganic forms of nitrogen and
phosphorus at site A (the tributary that drains Rose Prairie), as well as high
concentrations of these constituents, indicate nutrient losses from over-application
of fertilizer on the agricultural fields in the watershed…”
2005 study by Iowa State (T. Stewart, “Pollution-filtering Capacity of Ada Hayden
Wetlands: An Assessment Focusing on Biological Components”) included these high-
level observations regarding the wetland complex where the Rose Prairie drainage
discharges:
“…positive signs included establishment of aquatic plant populations…relatively
high invertebrate biomass and abundance, and occurrence of large-bodied
invertebrates. Additionally, turbidity in these ponds usually met water quality
standards established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.”
Later in the report, the following observation was provided:
“A variety of larval and adult amphibians were observed or captured in wetland
ponds. Because the presence of amphibians is indicative of good environmental
health, the high abundance and diversity of frogs and toads was a sign that the
Ada Hayden wetlands can support aquatic life. Occurrence of the northern cricket
frog was particularly encouraging, since populations of this species have declined
or disappeared across much of North America.”
2006-2007 study by ISU (W. Simpkins, “Water supply for Ames in the 21st Century: A
Comprehensive Reassessment of the Ames Aquifer”) provided these observations
regarding Ada Hayden Heritage Park.
“…Wetlands receiving overflow from Tributary A (Rose Prairie drainage ditch) are
recharging the water table…It appears that phosphorus is also being transported
with that recharge water…
“…it was estimated that the wetlands are able to capture 50 percent of the total P
in the streams, which is a typical value for constructed wetlands…
“…data suggests that the aquifer is not connected hydraulically with the lake or the
wetlands…
“…Total P and soluble reactive P (ortho-P) is present in all samples…suggesting
that the lake could also be a source of P in the South Skunk River…groundwater
accounts for between 14 and 54 percent of the total P load to the lake…Above-
ambient Cl concentrations at shallow depths on the up-gradient side of the lake
suggest contamination from agricultural activities or road salt.
2009-2010 study by ISU (J. Downing, “Ada Hayden Heritage Park 2009-2010 Water
Quality Monitoring”) included the following passage in the executive summary.
“Despite construction of the wetland complexes in 2003, there have not been
noticeable improvements in lake water quality yet. Oxygen concentrations were
rapidly depleted in deeper waters during summer months, which restricted the
availability of deeper waters to aquatic life. These anoxic zones, which occupied
46% of the South basin’s volume and 31% of the North basin’s volume, appeared
to be growing in volume compared to past years. Total phosphorus concentrations
in the lakes were relatively low compared to average concentrations from all Iowa
lakes. However, nutrient concentrations in deeper waters were relatively high and
have increased through time. Total nitrogen and nitrate concentrations and
nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratios have significantly declined in the South basin from
2001 to 2010 which will increasingly favor nitrogen-fixing Cyanobacteria through
time.”
2017-2018 study by State Hygienic Laboratory (J. Luzier, “Water Quality Sampling at Ada
Hayden Heritage Park: May 18, 2017 to October 11, 2017 and April 5, 2018 to September
27, 2018”)
“Average concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen, chlorophyll α, E. coli, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, orthophosphate, total suspended solids, total volatile suspend solids, and
turbidity were generally less than or equal to the state-wide median value reported
by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
(https://programs.iowadnr.gov/AQuIA/Programs/Lakes). The average trophic
state indices, an indicator of the level of nutrients and algal productivity, were also
less than the state-wide average reported by the IDNR.
“In both years, the phytoplankton community in both cells was dominated by
cyanobacteria (blue green algae) for most of the field season. … Microcystin
concentrations were highest in the spring of 2017 when algal biomass was the
greatest. In 2018, microcystin concentrations were above the quantitation limit in
all nine samples collected from the south cell and in eight of the nine samples
collected from the north cell.
“During both years, microcystin concentrations were less than the Iowa warning
level and the 10-day drinking water health advisory for school age children and
adults. Microcystin concentrations were greater than the 10-day drinking water
health advisory for bottle-fed infants and pre-school children twice during 2017 and
six times in 2018.
“Ada Hayden Lake was previously sampled by the Iowa State Limnology
Laboratory from 2001 to 2006 and in 2009 and 2010. A comparison of data
collected by the State Hygienic Laboratory and the Iowa State University
Limnology Laboratory showed that the concentrations of nutrients and solids have
not changed significantly since 2001. Although the results for some parameters
appeared to trend up or down over time, none of the trends were statistically
significant. Overall, the results of the 2017 and 2018 sampling indicate that Ada
Hayden Lake is a “healthy” lake, especially as it relates to nutrient concentrations.”
Attachment C
DATE: 11 October 2020
TO: Ames City Council
FROM: Jim Pease, President
Erv Klaas, Past President
Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park
RE: Rose Prairie Property
Thanks to Ames City Staff for giving a thoughtful analysis of our request for the city to acquire
the 170-acre property to the west of Ada Hayden Park now called Rose Prairie. We concur that
the three elements they have examined are critical in assessing our request: 1) water quality in
the Ada Hayden watershed; 2) park needs in the north growth area; and 3) development impacts
of making the area a park. They did not address the enhancement of the area’s biodiversity.
City staff have presented a brief history of the watershed and some of the scientific studies which
have been conducted. There is at least one study, however, that they have not cited, that of the
Soil and Water Conservation District in 2004 that we believe is also a helpful analysis. It notes
that some of areas of highest potential erosion and nutrient loss are within the current Rose
Prairie property. Further, while we believe that the conservation overlay and a resulting low
density development could, in fact, result in runoff that is significantly less degrading to the
wetlands than agricultural runoff, the park’s wetlands may or may not be sufficient to handle the
increase in water due to an increase in impermeable surfaces.
The four scenarios for nutrient loading presented by staff from the Water and Pollution Control
Department are an interesting analysis. We would like time to review these models with them
and examine the methodology. We would respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the
existing wetlands are sufficient to protect the lakes without an additional water quality practices.
We’d also like to examine the data regarding the conclusion that the wetlands are functioning
well. To our knowledge, no regular current sampling is done for N and P runoff into and out of
the wetlands nor have they been measured for silt loads.
Thus, we encourage Council members to choose Option 1 and place the item on a future agenda
to allow for further discussion of our proposal.
Attachment D
DATE: 18 November 2020
TO: Mayor Haila and Ames City Council
FROM: James Pease, President, Friends of Ada Hayden Heritage Park
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Staff Report on our 31 August 2020 request for
the City to purchase the 170-acre parcel now known as Rose Prairie. As indicated in our 11
October letter to you, we needed time to assess the models used in that report. Our response
follows.
As the Staff Report indicates, the best protection for the park and the lakes is to acquire the
parcel and convert the entire 170 acres to some form of permanent vegetative protection. This
protection would likely include prairie, wetlands, and some trees, as well as some amenities not
found currently in the Ada Hayden Heritage Park (AHHP), those more typical of a community
park. This is clearly the best way to protect the park and its resources.
Why? Human need for parks
AHHP is certainly one of Ames’ most used and popular parks. Developments to the north
boundary of the park have increased human usage of the park’s trails, fishing and paddling
opportunities, wildlife-watching and other resources. Indeed, the use of public parks in Ames, in
Story County, in Iowa, and across the nation have increased dramatically in the last 10 months,
as COVID-19, a highly divisive election, a derecho, and other calamities have struck the nation.
Parks—whether neighborhood, community, regional, county, or state—are the places to which
we retreat to find peace, to find recreation, to find connection to nature.
Why? Biodiversity
Hundreds of other species also use the park, as documented by our on-going record-keeping of
species in the park (see https://adahaydenpark.blogspot.com/). To protect this wild resource in
the midst of urbanization is a continual challenge. The management plan we wrote is being
implemented as well as possible by the City and by the Friends. As urbanization increases,
habitat for other species decreases. Acquiring this additional acreage for biodiversity—
something the Staff Report did not address—is clearly important and critically needed as the
human population of Ames increases.
Why? Lake protection
The model that staff has used, the Model My Watershed web-based tool put out by the EPA, is a
fairly robust tool for people to assess various theoretical impacts on a given watershed. It uses
USGS, USDA, EPA and other local data to simulate various scenarios on a given watershed.
Like all models, it works best by inputting real data. Much of the data used in the Staff Report is
real, but it is not long-term data. Rather, the important reports used are points in time—a season,
a month, a year—not longitudinal data. The scenarios they examined and the outputs obtained
are not inaccurate but they are outputs based on limited time data, not longitudinal data. As you
will see later in this letter, we suggest that we try to obtain more long-term data to give us a more
accurate picture of what we must do to protect the park and its waters.
The report to the Soil and Water Conservation District by McCoy (2004) of the AHHP
watershed shows clearly that most of the most highly erodible land in the AHHP watershed is
within what is now the Rose Prairie development (see attached figure in Appendix A). That
erosion potential is in the range of 0.3 to 1.5 tons per acre per year. While the conservation
overlay that the city has imposed on the development will help limit the soil and storm water
runoff, it will not eliminate it, with or without additional measures within the development
(like those in the Fourth Scenario in the Staff Report).
In his M.S. thesis, ISU graduate student Evan Christianson (a graduate advisee of Dr. Bill
Simpkins at ISU), showed high mean concentrations of total and soluble reactive P in
groundwater at depths of 35 ft. and 64 ft. on the west side of the north cell of the lake.
Groundwater at these depths flows beneath the surface wetlands, thus bypassing them and
going directly into the lake. He also found that total and soluble reactive P in water in the
wetland water was ending up in the groundwater beneath it, which also flows to the lake. In a
recent personal communication with Dr. Simpkins, he recalled that they discussed the
implications of finding deep groundwater with high P coming into the west side of the lake.
Because the groundwater P input cannot be controlled, adding more P from surface sources
to the lake would not be a good idea.
We ALL agree—FAHHP, city staff, the City Council, Ames citizenry—that we must protect the
park, the wetlands, and the lake. The whole existence of the park is predicated on that
protection. The 2040 Ames citizenry would never forgive any of us if we failed in that mission.
Our disagreements are based on how best to do that.
Would a Rose Prairie housing development protect the Park better than the agricultural land as it
currently exists? We think there is no doubt that it would, at least in some respects. This is
especially true since the developer who owned the land in the early 2000s refused all of the cost-
shared conservation improvements offered on the ag land at the time by the Soil and Water
Conservation District and it has continued to be row-cropped (see the report by McCoy). The
modeling the city staff has done—even though it is limited by the amount of real longitudinal
data they have for input—shows clearly that the N, P, and sediment loads would be lower in this
development than off of agricultural land. Due to increased impermeable surfaces (roofs, roads,
sidewalks, etc.) the water run-off increases, putting more water into the wetlands through the
surface stream. The conservation overlay is intended to account for some of that, certainly.
Land-owner education (like what we have tried to do with our recent AHHP Neighbors
brochure) may further assist that. Climate change will, however, exacerbate it with an increasing
number of large rainfall events.
The model does not account either for the new run-off pollutants that human development
brings—the salts, the hydrocarbons, the plastics—and their impacts on wetland macro-
invertebrate diversity and wetland functions. These are not negligible impacts and are not
accounted for in the models presented. Remember: not only is this an important recreational
resource for the City, but also the backup water supply. The public would likely perceive this as
dangerous.
What is also not accounted for in the models is the loss of potential habitat, the loss of
biodiversity. Again, while the housing development might be somewhat better than a row-crop
field, they both pale by comparison to permanent vegetation on the whole parcel.
The costs of such an acquisition to the city were also mentioned in the Staff Report as an
impediment. The $3.7 M the current owners are asking is considerably above their purchase
price a few years ago of $2.6 M. We strongly suspect that negotiations will produce a purchase
price somewhere between those two figures. Further, the development of this parcel will be well
below that of AHHP, since no lakeshore stabilization would be undertaken on Rose Prairie.
Whatever other amenities are added—besides native vegetation, some wetlands, and some
trails—remain to be designed, engineered, and priced. Again, we suspect it will be at
considerably lower cost than indicated in the Staff Report. Although acquisition of this land
should easily get a 0% loan from the Source Water Protection portion of the State Revolving
Fund, a bond issue to repay it over 20 years would be necessary. Ames has the bonding capacity
to handle it. A campaign for public support should be based on source water protection for
AHHP and the lakes. Conservation is not free—we understand that. But neither are clean water
and a high quality of life for Ames citizens.
For increased biodiversity of the area, for future recreational opportunities for Ames
citizens, and for the best protection of the waters of Ada Hayden Heritage Park, the
BEST alternative is to purchase the Rose Prairie land and convert the 170 acre
property into a park.
Whatever decision you make regarding our request to purchase the whole of the 170 acres of
Rose Prairie and make it into a park, we must act soon to make certain that we continue to
thoughtfully protect the waters and land of Ada Hayden Heritage Park. Ames Citizens of 2040
and beyond are counting on us to do so.
We believe that several steps must be taken:
1) An engineering assessment of the current condition of the wetlands (perhaps by the firm
that designed them) in their silt and nutrient processing capabilities should be made.
Dredging of Pond G, for example, may be in order as considerable siltation (see photo,
Appendix B) has taken place there. The original estimate for these wetlands to be re-
dredged was, we believe, 20 years and we are approaching that. Continued agricultural
use of the Rose Prairie land without any conservation interventions, plus the paving of
Hyde Road, have likely both exacerbated that time-line, increasing siltation. Landowners
of the Jensen property (now Quarry Estates and Hayden Crossing) and agricultural fields
north of 190th both implemented conservation practices on those lands in 2004 to limit
soil erosion. Rose Prairie did not.
2) There's a popular Chinese proverb that says: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years
ago. The second best time is now.” The same is true for water quality sampling. We
wish it had begun 20 years ago. We would have better longitudinal data for making
decisions today. While several single-year studies have been done and referred to in the
Staff Report, they are points in time, not long-term data. Nutrient-levels, macro-
invertebrates, bacteria and other critical factors that impact streams, rivers, lakes, and
wetlands all have seasonal and annual variations based on precipitation, temperature, and
other factors. Tracking those over years gives better data upon which to base decisions—
decisions like whether the Rose Prairie land should be put into housing or a park.
Therefore, we recommend the City of Ames organize an on-going volunteer network to
sample water coming into and exiting from the wetland complexes on the west and south
sides of the Ada Hayden Lakes. There are existing models and protocols for such a
progrm through the IoWater Program and the SOS Program of the Izaak Walton League
for such sampling. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The Friends of Ada Hayden
Heritage Park, Skunk River Paddlers, Story County Outdoor Alliance, Ames Anglers,
and others are likely sources of dependable and capable volunteers to fill the ranks of
such a group (and many are already IoWater-trained). As noted in Tim Stewart’s 2006
report:
“Monitoring of physical, chemical and biological components of Ada Hayden
wetlands should continue in 2006 and beyond. These wetlands are only a few
years old, and abundance and diversity of organisms responsible for filtering
pollutants should increase over the next several years. However, an
increasingly larger quantity and variety of pollutants will enter the Ada
Hayden wetlands as the human population in the watershed continues to
increase. Without periodic biological assessment of wetland condition and
pollution-filtering capacity, we have no way of knowing if these wetlands are
protecting the water quality of Ada Hayden Lake.”
3) Despite the Staff Report’s finding that “the risk of a leak here is no greater than a leak
from a new gas station anywhere else in the community”, we find any such risk
unacceptable and avoidable by placing it elsewhere. The fact is, nearly all
underground storage tanks eventually leak, as noted in the Iowa Groundwater
Protection Act. Even with newer fiberglass tanks, leaks are likely. To put one
anywhere in the Ada Hayden Park watershed is simply poor planning and
irresponsible. Even the Staff Report notes that “the proximity to the lake and the
groundwater flow directly towards the lake might be a factor to consider.” Indeed.
Consider it and find an alternative site out of the watershed, please. We rightly
prohibit motorboats on the lake to prevent gas and oils from polluting the lakes
directly. Why would we even think of risking such an indirect source to our back-up
water supply?
Attachment E
ESTIMATED PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR ROSE PRAIRIE PROPERTY
Item Quantity Unit Measure Unit Cost Total Cost
Park Road 8,667 Sq Yd $ 150 $ 1,300,050
Trails 21,120 Sq Yd $ 75 $ 1,584,000
Bridge 1 Each $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Wetlands & Water Quality 40 Acre $ 10,000 $ 400,000
Prairie Development 75 Acre $ 2,000 $ 150,000
Playgrounds 4 Each $ 75,000 $ 300,000
Softball Complex
Fencing 4 Field $ 25,000 $ 100,000
Irrigation 4 Field $ 25,000 $ 100,000
Lights 1 Complex $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Parking (200 Spots) 6,000 Sq Yd $ 100 $ 600,000
Restroom 1 Bldg $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Field Development 4 Field $ 50,000 $ 200,000
Disc Golf Course 1 Course $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Shelters
Shelter Structure 3 Each $ 60,000 $ 180,000
Concrete Pads & Walkways 625 Sq Yd $ 50 $ 31,250
Restroom 3 Bldg $ 300,000 $ 900,000
Parking 4,500 Sq Yd $ 100 $ 450,000
Utilities (Unkown) $ -
Total Estimated Development Costs $ 7,295,300
1
ITEM # __30___
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM AEDC TO ESTABLISH INDUSTRIAL ZONING FOR
PRAIRIE VIEW INDUSTRIAL CENTER (EAST INDUSTRIAL AREA)
BACKGROUND:
At the September 22 City Council meeting the Council referred to staff a letter from the
Ames Economic Development Commission (AEDC) to designate industrial zoning on land
that is referred to as the Prairie View Industrial Center. The area was annexed in 2016
and contains 1,300 acres east of I-35 and on both sides of East Lincoln Way (Attachment
A). The land has been zoned Agricultural since its annexation. The AEDC is now
requesting an industrial zoning designation on portions of the land to facilitate recruitment
and development of industrial businesses.
The City’s intent at the time of annexation was to create development opportunities
with large tracts of land to help diversify the employment base in Ames and
contribute to the continued economic growth of the community. The vision for the
Prairie View Industrial Center is to provide land for large general industrial uses,
such as manufacturing, and to take advantage of rail access for properties along
the north side of Lincoln Way.
Planning for industrial zoning with the Prairie View Industrial Center has been part of the
Planning Division workplan for many years, but has not been prioritized due to the need
for completing water and sewer extensions to serve the area. Considering zoning
options for this area is now appropriate as the City has budgeted for water and
sewer extensions with the intent of starting construction in 2021. There has also
been substantial interest in Prairie View, as indicated by the AEDC, with a need to define
the development parameters for prospective businesses.
The current Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) designation for the area is Planned Industrial.
Ames Plan 2040 also identifies Prairie View as industrial. Currently there are three
industrial zoning classifications within the Zoning Ordinance: General Industrial (GI),
Planned Industrial (PI), and Research Park Innovation District (RI). However, the Planned
Industrial LUPP designation relates specifically to PI and RI zoning districts. General
Industrial is its own separate category.
PROPOSED “MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL” ZONE
Although the area could be zoned PI, it is not believed that the allowed range of uses and
development standards would suit the types of businesses recruited by AEDC for this
area. City Council is being asked to give direction regarding whether to create a
new industrial zoning district rather than applying the current PI zoning. Staff
believes that creating an additional zoning district is preferable compared to
2
modifying the existing PI zoning district designation and changing the range of
uses and standards that apply to PI zoned properties in the City. Attachment B
includes proposed new Manufacturing Industrial and the current industrial zoning
district zoning standards.
Creation of a new zoning classification and standards would provide for the opportunity
to develop standards designed for the Prairie View Industrial Center. The emphasis of
this zoning classification would likely be a “manufacturing industrial” focus that
would support medium to large scale industrial uses reflective of the goal of
attracting more manufacturing to the employment base of the community.
Staff’s understanding for the area is to allow for the siting of large uses, similar in scale
to Barilla. Staff believes that the new standards should contain design allowances similar
to PI zoning in terms of generous setbacks while allowing for many of the industrial uses
permitted similar to GI. Staff proposes that the front setbacks be greater (similar to PI) to
ensure that potentially large uses are pushed back to allow adequate space for
landscaping and screening. Staff also proposes a larger minimum lot size and minimum
frontage that matches PI compared to GI to ensure that lots can more easily
accommodate all required elements of a site plan and to allow for adequate space for
access points for heavy truck traffic. A new feature to setbacks is that rear setbacks for
uses abutting rail lines be zero.
Staff can support a maximum height limit in this new district of 150 feet compared
to 100 feet in other industrial zones. This is more than any district currently allows in
the zoning ordinance. Staff believes allowing heights of 150 feet in this zone reflect the
larger scale of uses that may locate here and their related appurtenances. The height
allowance is based upon the intended scale of large or traditional industrial uses, large
amounts of land and space for separation in this area, and potential for new technologies
or future uses to need concentrated areas of height increases. Staff does not envision
tall office components, but instead high-volume space for warehouse or industrial
processes.
If height allowances greater than 150 feet are necessary, staff will develop either
an exception process through the Zoning Board of Adjustment or an alternative
site development plan review process for City Council approval. Examples of taller
features for a large industrial use would be structures such as cooling towers, exhaust
stacks, and testing or production areas that must extend higher to achieve a certain
design interests of the user. Standards governing specific types of appurtenances or
exhaust stacks could be put in the ordinance to allow extensions beyond 150 feet in
height.
Staff proposes that several of the main industrial uses allowed in either PI or GI be
permitted in the proposed Manufacturing Industrial Zone while excluding some other
minor uses allowed in other industrial zones. Creating a new zoning district would
allow a broad range of manufacturing, production, R&D, warehouse, and
distribution uses that are not currently permissible in these combinations in either
GI or PI. This range of activities includes food processing, fuel refineries, packing plants,
3
and chemical production as some of the more intense options that are not easily sited
within the City currently.
Staff believes a rail yard as a principal use should only be allowed via special use
permit. Accessory rail sidings would be permitted with industrial uses, such as
what has been approved with Barilla. In addition, Staff supports restricting
standalone vehicle service facilities, most retail sales and services, and salvage
yards in this new industrial zone to maintain its focus on large industrial uses.
Planning for accessory and support service uses can be addressed at a later time when
the patterns of development and character of the area is better understood. Future uses
along Teller Avenue and HWY 30 would be likely areas to allow for support commercial
activities as well.
Staff does not anticipate including any architectural design elements as part of the
new zoning district. Neither GI or PI zoning has design standards or guidelines.
Only the RI zoning district includes architectural design requirements.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to create a new industrial zoning
district for the Prairie View Industrial Center based upon the standards described
in this report.
As part of this alternative, the Planning & Housing Director will meet with
representatives from the Ames Economic Development to obtain their feedback
regarding the standards suggested for this new zoning district.
2. Direct staff to prepare zoning text amendment with different draft standards.
3. Direct staff to apply Planned Industrial zoning to the Prairie View Industrial Park
and to not create a new zoning district.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff does not view Research Innovation District (RI) or Planned Industrial (PI) zone as
appropriate designations for the Prairie View Industrial Center given the intent to allow for
“heavy” or traditional industrial uses. Staff prefers the option of developing new standards
in order to be able to realize the vision for this area with expanded industrial opportunities
and to achieve the right mix of uses that make this area of the community distinct from
other industrial areas.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1, as described above.
4
Attachment A
5
Attachment B: Proposed Industrial Standards
Development Standards:
• Height- 150 feet
• Minimum Lot size- 1 acre
• Minimum frontage- 100 feet
• Maximum Building Coverage 85%
• Minimum Landscaped Area 15%
• Front setback 40 ft.
• Street side 40 ft.
• Side setback interior 20 ft. and
• Rear setback 20ft.
Permitted Uses:
• Manufacturing/Processing
• Resource Production/Extraction
• Warehousing/Freight Storage
• Offices when in conjunction with an Industrial Use
• Industrial Services
• Transportation, Communications and Essential Services, Rail Yard by Special
Use Permit
• Personal Wireless Communications Facilities
Restricted Uses
• Vehicle Service Facilities
• Salvage Yards
• Miscellaneous Uses
• Most Retail Sales & Service
6
Attachment C- GI Design Standards And Uses
7
Attachment C (Cont.)
8
Attachment D- PI Design Standards And Uses
9
Attachment D (Cont.)
ITEM # 31
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD OF DOWNTOWN FAÇADE GRANTS
BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Façade Grant Program was introduced in 2000 to facilitate private
improvements to downtown retail and other commercial storefronts. The City Council
annually budgets $50,000 as matching funds for eligible projects. This program is
available to property owners within the area generally described as from 6th Street to the
railroad tracks, from Duff Avenue to Northwestern Avenue, and along Kellogg Avenue to
Lincoln Way (Attachment 1).
The program allows for up to $15,000 of dollar-for-dollar matching funds per front façade
and up to $1,000 for additional architectural services. The program requires compliance
with specified Design Guidelines that can be found on the Planning Division website at
this link. The program requirements include a prerequisite of a ground floor use of office
or retail trade. Additionally, grant eligibility includes a requirement for proposed
improvements to retain the historic façade or for the removal of non-compliant elements
consistent with the guidelines or pursue eligibility under the other façade guidelines. The
program does not allow for maintenance activities or replacement of compliant
elements with new in-kind elements as eligible activities on their own. Proposed
improvements are intended to have a significant positive visual impact on the
building and the district overall. If grant requests exceed the available funding, the
program criteria include preferences for façades that have not received previous funding,
for front façades. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the intent and process for the
façade grant program.
The program is designed to operate with two application cycles. The first cycle is typically
in the summer/fall and if there are remaining funds after awards are granted in the first
round, then a second application round occurs in the winter/spring. The summer grant
round is intended to provide funding for new projects with one grant per building. The
second round is intended to fund new projects and potentially second façades for
properties that have already received a grant. There were two applications during the
previous winter round. The current application was solicited in late summer / early fall and
is considered a first-round application.
GRANT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED:
The City solicited applications for this round in September 2020 and received requests
for one property. The total requested grant funding is $16,000.
This round of applications contains one grant request at 409 Douglas Avenue, which most
recently contained Heroic Ink Tattoo and Piercing. The tenant space is currently vacant.
The application proposes to replace the sash windows on the second story, add an
awning, and replace the kickplate below the plate glass display windows. The current
second-story windows do not fill the opening in the façade and have infill at the top. The
proposal would replace the windows with new sash windows that fill the space as
originally designed. The current plank and plywood kickplate would be replaced with one
made of brick.
Project summaries, a location map, and project design illustrations are attached.
Address Business or Building Name Requested Project
409 Douglas Avenue (Formerly) Heroic Ink $15,000
Design Fees $ 1,000 $36,250
*Not all of the request is an eligible expense
409 Douglas Avenue (Formerly Heroic Ink Tattoo and Piercing)
LCM Properties, LLC owns the building at 409 Douglas Avenue. The tenant space on the
ground level was recently vacated by Heroic Ink Tattoo and Piercing and has not been
filled. The second story contains an apartment. County records state that the building was
constructed in 1902. The subject building and the abutting Masonic Temple to the north
(now the Octagon Center for the Arts) have a unified façade, though these structures
were built independently (County records show the Masonic Temple was built in 1916).
Photographs from the 1900s show a different façade from the present one; a picture from
1928 shows the present façade when the building housed Tilden’s Grocery. It is
understood that the façade of 409 changed when the neighboring building was
constructed. The building is a contributing property in the Ames Main Street National
Register Historic District.
The owner intends to make several changes to the façade:
- Replacing the windows
- Adding an awning
- Removing the leaded glass tiles in the transoms and replacing them with glass
- Adding a blade sign
- Replacing the storefront windows
- Changing the wood kickplate to brick
- Modifying the entrance
Of these changes, only the second story windows, awning, kickplate, and
storefront glass are eligible for a grant, which is intended to bring non-compliant
façade elements into compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The other work,
such as replacing the current transom, are viewed as maintenance activities. The other
proposed changes that are not grant-eligible may be done in conjunction with the eligible
work Zoning rules do not prohibit alterations outside of compliance with the Guidelines
and the grant may not be used for maintenance..
The total estimated cost for 409 Douglas Avenue is $35,250, of which only $23,050
qualifies for the grant. The project would therefore be eligible for the maximum of $11,525
and $1,000 in design fees. The applicant will need to provide cost breakdowns to ensure
only eligible activities are funded with the façade grant.
If the façade grant request is approved, the applicant will need to secure encroachment
permits for the awning. Awnings and canopies are routinely approved as encroachment
permits and encouraged in Downtown.
ELIGIBLE WORK COST ESTIMATES FOR ELIGIBLE WORK
MATERIALS
INSTALLATION
Subtotal for Eligible Work $23,050
City Match Total $11,525
Total Grant $12,525
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve Downtown Façade Improvement Grants for 409
Douglas Avenue for estimated eligible costs up to $11,525 for second-story windows,
an awning, a kickplate, and storefront glass, plus $1,000 in design fees.
2. The City Council can determine the proposed grant request is not compliant with
Downtown Façade Improvement Grants program goals and objectives or is not
visually significant and make a different grant award.
3. The City Council can refer this request to staff or the applicant for additional
information.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The fiscal year 2020-21 permits two rounds of grant solicitations: one in the summer and
one in winter. The current round resulted in one request for one grant in the amount of up
to $12,525 at 409 Douglas Avenue.
City staff has determined that the proposed Downtown Façade Improvement projects for
the building at 409 Douglas Avenue comply with the design requirements of the program.
The Façade Program funding has enough funds to match the requested amounts.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
approve Alternative #1, thereby approving Downtown Façade Improvement Grants
for the one façade grant as noted above.
Attachment 1: Eligibility Map
Attachment 2: Downtown Façade Grant Review
Requirements for all Façade Grants
The building must be located downtown within boundaries established by City Council.
The ground floor must be Office Uses or Trade Uses as defined by the Ames zoning
ordinance.
The façade design must comply with Downtown Design Guidelines.
Improvements to historic façade shall include replacing non-compliant elements with
compliant elements.
Residential structures and buildings owned by the government, churches and other religious
institutions are not eligible.
No façade grant shall exceed $15,000.
Program Logistics
The following process for review of applications for façade grants provides time to inform all
potential applicants of the opportunity, to work with applicants, applicants to prepare submittals
and for staff to review applications and report to City Council. Two grant periods will be planned
for each fiscal year.
First Grant Period
For this first grant period, preference for grant awards will be given to:
- façades that have not received any previous grant funding
- front façades
Action Steps:
Staff will inform all property and business owners of grant availability, process, and deadlines.
Staff will work with applicants to define the project, ensure that it meets the guidelines, and
assure that it is feasible and can be completed within the time frame.
Applications will be accepted in May and June.
Staff will review and score applications and report to City Council in July or August for
awarding grants.
Projects may then start in the fall and be potentially completed before the holiday shopping
season.
Second Grant Period
If the entire budget is not committed in the first grant period in each year, a second grant period
will begin in October for projects to be implemented the following spring. While façades on Main
Street and façades for which no previous grants have been awarded will still receive first
preference in this second grant period, all downtown grant requests will be considered and
potentially approved if funds remain after all first-preference proposals are awarded.
Conditions of Grant Approval
Grant projects must be completed within one year from award of grant.
Any required building code and/or safety improvements to a structure must be completed
before grant work proceeds or before grant funds are paid.
Attachment 3: Scoring Criteria
For each category, the following criteria shall be used to award points:
VISUAL IMPACT Maximum Score 30 Points
Improvements apply to more than one story on one façade
Improvements apply to more than one 25-foot wide bay on one façade
Improvements will create more visual significance because:
- key, highly visual elements of the building are being improved
- the building is prominently visible due to its location (E.g., it serves as a focal point from
a street, is at a prominent intersection, or is larger than other buildings around it)
FINANCIAL IMPACT Maximum Score 30 Points
Matching funds exceed the minimum dollar-for-dollar match
The project includes improvements being made to
- ensure public safety,
- establish or preserve the building’s structural integrity
- resist water and moisture penetration
- correct other serious safety issues
The façade project is part of a larger project that improves other exterior or interior parts of
the building
The project helps to make use of space that has been unoccupied or used only for storage
EXTENT OF IMPROVEMENTS Maximum Score 20 Points
The number points granted in this category shall be based upon the number of elements from the
Downtown Design Guidelines being improved. More improved elements deserve more points.
HISTORIC DESIGN Maximum Score 20 Points
Project includes historically appropriate materials and restoration techniques
Project goes beyond basic rehabilitation and re-establishes a more historically accurate
appearance than other projects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
a
ç
a
d
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
Staff Report
SPLASH/SPRAY PADS – WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
November 24, 2020
BACKGROUND:
There is currently a wading pool in Brookside Park that opens in early June and closes
mid-August. This pool has been in operation since 1990 and requires staff to fill it daily
to an eighteen-inch depth, monitor chlorine levels, and collect admission fees ($1 per
youth). For safety reasons associated with standing water, this facility is staffed. Hours
of operation are 11:00 AM – 4:00 PM. It is located in the floodway, so it is unusable when
the park is flooded and requires extra maintenance after a flood event.
The FY 2020/21 CIP has funds allocated to construct a splash pad somewhere in the
City that is out of the flood plain. In addition, City Council is wishing to develop a
downtown plaza which could have a splash pad included. Splash pads (picture below)
do not have standing water, do not require a staff person to be present, can be open
longer hours, have a longer season, and do not require an admission fee.
Although there are many decisions to be made (features, surfacing, location, etc.),
staff is looking for direction regarding whether Council has a preference as to what
Water Management System (WMS) is incorporated into the design. There are three
WMS to consider; 1) Recirculation System, 2) Flow-Through System, and 3)
Repurpose System. Each system has different requirements and the following
information is provided to further explain each system and the pros and cons
associated with each.
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SPLASH/SPRAY PADS:
The Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) governs the code requirements related to
pools in Iowa. IDPH views a splash pad with a recirculation system as a pool and
Item No. 32
requires agencies to adhere to IDPH Pool Code. Flow-through and repurpose systems
are not governed by IDPH.
The Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC) is a voluntary guidance document based on
science and best practices that can help local and state authorities and the aquatics
sector make swimming and other water activities healthier and safer. It is a collaborative
effort between the CDC and 140 volunteers across the U.S. with expertise in public
health or aquatics. At the current time, compliance with the MAHC is voluntary. At the
same time it is regarded as the best practices and a way to standardize the industry.
Several states, including Iowa, are considering adoption of the MAHC into code. Some
of the MAHC is more restrictive than Iowa code and some less restrictive. Parks and
Recreation has been following the most restrictive code of the two when improvements
have been made within our aquatic programs and facilities. MAHC also regulates
recirculation systems but not flow through.
WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS:
Recirculation System
Recirculation is a closed-circuit system that recycles and disinfects the water to and from
the play area. This is the system currently used at Brookside Wading Pool, Municipal Pool
and the Furman Aquatic Center. The diagram below shows how this system works.
Pros:
• Uses the least water of the three systems
• Circulated water is typically warmer
• IPDH and MAHC provides standards to follow
Cons:
• Approximately $150,000 more in capital costs than a flow-through system
• Construction permit required by IDPH (requires permit, plan submission and fee,
and notification of completion so it can be inspected prior to opening. Plans must
be certified. No deviation from plan without prior approval by IDPH.
• Must adhere to IDPH Pool Code
• Requires annual IDPH registration and inspection
• MAHC requires bathrooms to be within 200 feet walking distance and in clear view
from the splash pad
• Showers are required by IDPH and MAHC
• Only one location (Daley Park) currently within the park system may meet the
bathroom requirement, none meet the shower requirement
• MAHC requires a primary and secondary disinfection system such as U. V.
• Water testing (start/end of each day, minimum of every four hours)
• Monthly coliform test required
• Chemicals required for disinfection and pH control
• Pumps needed for spray features and circulation
• Higher electric costs than other WMS
• Hours of operation could be limited by available staff
• Staffing
o Average of 4.5 hours of maintenance per day
o Water testing at beginning and end of each day
o Water testing required in intervals not to exceed four hours
o Backwashing the filter 2-3 times per day
o Dumping and filling the holding tank 1-2 times per week
• Highest potential of the three systems for small children to contract water borne
illness by getting recirculated water on their faces and ingesting pathogens
• Additional deck space (more concrete) is required as the deck needs to be clear
of landscape debris by either eight feet of deck area, raised curbs, or raised
planters
Flow-Through System
Flow-through systems are easy to operate, low maintenance, and an eco-friendly way to
manage water. These systems use potable water that goes through the play area.
Effluent water is then returned to the municipal wastewater system or percolated back to
the water table.
Pros
• Minimal staffing required for maintenance
• Lowest capital costs of the three systems
• No IDPH involvement with construction
• Not governed by IDPH or MAHC
• Bathrooms are not required, but recommended to have at least one restroom
available in the area
• Locations within park system expanded due to no bathroom requirement
• No showers or UV filter required
• No water testing required
• No chemicals required for disinfection and pH control
• Pumps are only needed for spray features
• Lower electric costs than other WMS
• Hours of operation not limited by available staff
• Minimal staffing required (address maintenance issues as they arise)
• Lower potential for small children to contract water borne illness as water is potable
• Additional deck space perimeter is not needed
Cons
• Uses the most water of the three systems
• Water is typically colder (could install mechanical heat)
Repurpose System
Repurposing systems are sustainable solutions that are designed to reuse the effluent
water for surface or sub-surface irrigation. These systems are simple to operate and
require minimal maintenance. After use on a splash pad, effluent water is transferred to
an effluent water holding tank, then sent through the filtration & disinfection system,
treated water is then transferred to a second holding tank. The irrigation pumping station
then draws water from the second tank for surface or sub-surface irrigation, the water
nourishes vegetation, and returns to nature.
Pros
• Water may be used twice and ultimately returned to the natural ground water
source
• Water may be repurposed for other uses, however, overflow will go to sanitary
sewer
• Minimal staffing required for maintenance
• Lower capital costs than the recirculation system but more than a flow through
system
• Midlevel operational costs of the three systems
• No IDPH involvement with construction
• Not governed by IDPH or MAHC
• Bathrooms are not required but recommended to have at least one restroom
available in the area
• Locations within park system expanded due to no bathroom requirement
• No showers or UV filter required
• No water testing required
• No chemicals required for disinfection and pH control
• Lower electric costs than a recirculation system
• Hours of operation not limited by available staff
• Minimal staffing required (address maintenance issues as they arise)
• Lower potential for small children to contract water borne illness as water is potable
Cons
• Uses the same amount of water as the flow-through system but it is repurposed
• Size of tank needed to store all the runoff may be cost prohibitive
• Space needed for large tank or irrigation pond may not be available
• Would not be able to utilize the amount of water generated
• Water is typically colder (could install mechanical heat)
• Pumps needed for spray features and irrigation
SPLASH PAD EXAMPLE:
In the following sections, comparisons will be made between a flow through and a
recirculation system. To provide some context, a splash pad design from Looking Glass
Park, Bellevue, NE (shown below) is being used to make these comparisons. This
splash pad is approximately 4,800 square feet and has approximately 20 spray features
and has a maximum flow rate of 271 gallons per minute.
WATER CONSUMPTION COMPARISON:
The main difference between the systems described above is that in a flow through
system, the water goes directly to the sewer system (most likely sanitary) after it exits
the spray features. The recirculation system reuses the water, however, there is a loss
of water through evaporation, backwashing, and periodic water replacement. The two
tables below show how much water is used during a 100-day season with the splash
pad in operation 7-10 hours per day.
Flow Through Water Usage
Maximum Flow Rate (gpm) 160
Average Sequence Flow Rate (gpm) 136
Maximum Flow Per Hour (Gallons) 8,160
Hours Per Season 786
Consumption Per Season (Gallons) 6,413,760
Average Daily Consumption (gpd) 64,138
Average Daily Consumption (cf) 8,575
Average Annual Consumption (cfps) 857,455
Average Annual Consumption (ccf) 8,575
Recirculation Water Usage
Maximum Flow Rate 271
Average Sequence Flow Rate 230
Maximum Flow Per Hour (gal) 13,821
Hours Per Season 786
Spray Volume Per Season (gal) 10,863,306
Water to Fill Tank (gal) 3,000
Dump & Fill Every 3 Days (gps) 100,000
Water Used Per Backwash (gal) 1,000
Backwash 2 Times Per Day (gal) 2,000
Backwash Consumption Per Season (gps) 200,000
Evaporation & Overspray Loss @ 4% (gps) 434,532
Consumption Per Season (Gallons) 737,532
Average Daily Consumption (gpd) 7,375
Average Daily Consumption (cf) 986
Average Annual Consumption (cfps) 98,601
Average Annual Consumption (ccf) 986
As you can see, a flow through system uses 6,413,760 gallons per season compared to
737,532 gallons for a recirculation system.
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS:
Since a recirculation system requires a restroom within 200 feet of the splash pad with
clear sight lines, the number of locations are limited. When you also consider this
amenity should not go in the flood plain, the locations dwindle even further. Also, there
are no locations in the park system other than the Furman Aquatic Center that meets
the shower requirement for recirculation systems.
Possible Locations – Recirculation System
• Daley Park
• Emma McCarthy Lee Park
A flow through system has less requirements (e.g. restroom, shower) so the number of
locations increases. The one downside of most of the locations suitable to
accommodate a flow through system is that most of the parking is on-street parking.
Possible Locations – Flow Through System
• Brookside Park (east of Squaw Creek)
• Carr Park
• Christofferson Park
• Daley Park
• Emma McCarthy Lee Park
• Franklin Park
• Greenbriar Park
• Lloyd Kurtz Park
• Northridge Heights Park
• Tahira and Labh Hira Park
CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS:
A comparison of the capital and operational costs between the two systems is shown
below. Please note the cost of a restroom and/or shower is not included in these cost
estimates. Depending on system and location, these would need to be added in.
ESTIMATED SPLASHPAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FLOW THROUGH RECIRCULATION
4,800 SQ FT 4,800 SQ FT
Estimated Total Project Costs $ 350,000 $ 500,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS
Water Costs $ 27,863 $ 3,731
Sewer Costs* $ 25,415 $ 2,953
Maintenance Costs $ 1,500 $ 7,073
Parts & Supplies Costs $ 100 $ 250
Chemical Costs $ - $ 350
Electrical Costs $ 84 $ 2,224
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS $ 54,962 $ 16,581
*If the water could go to the storm sewer, this cost would be zero.
ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COSTS - 10 & 15 YEARS
Estimated 10 Year Operating Costs $ 549,619 $ 165,808
Estimated Total Project Costs $ 350,000 $ 500,000
TOTAL 10 YEAR COST $ 899,619 $ 665,808
Estimated 15 Year Operating Costs $ 824,429 $ 248,712
Estimated Total Project Costs $ 350,000 $ 500,000
TOTAL 15 YEAR COST $ 1,174,429 $ 748,712
STAFF COMMENTS:
In speaking with colleagues from across the state, nearly all of the new installs
around the state are flow through systems. There are also a couple of existing
recirculation systems being considered for transitioning to flow through. While many
liked the appeal of the recirculation system, they ultimately did not have a viable plan to
capitalize on the water savings that would outweigh the additional capital expense to
install the system. Flow through systems were also preferred over recirculation systems
due to the staffing and state code requirements that added staff time and expense to
operate the system. A number of these cities also are not billed for water usage, making
the feasibility of a flow through system even greater.
Although the idea of repurposing the water if using a flow through system is
intriguing, staff does not feel this is a viable option. The volume of water generated
and the inability to use it as it is available will mean most of it will go to the sewer
system. This reality makes this option less intriguing. The only location that could
make this option work is if the splash pad were placed in Carr Park and an irrigation
pond was constructed in River Valley Park. The water could then be used to irrigate the
soccer and softball fields within River Valley Park.
The recirculation system is better environmentally as it will use approximately 11% of
the water used in a flow through system. Although a recirculation system involves
almost five times the labor for maintenance tasks than a flow through system, the
overall annual operating expense is much lower. Including approximately $17,000 of
operational expense for a recirculation system into the budget is easier than trying to
include almost $55,000 for a flow through. Currently, $300,000 has been budgeted
for the construction of a splash pad, which creates a $200,000 shortfall is a
recirculation system selected. Assuming an additional $200,000 can be identified
during the upcoming budget amendment process, a recirculation system appears
to be the prudent choice.
Staff Report
DOWNTOWN PLAZA VISION
November 24, 2020
BACKGROUND:
As early as 2005, the City first explored the idea of developing a gathering place in the
Downtown Business District. City Council most recently discussed plaza options in
November 2017. On February 25, 2020, the City Council established as part of their value
to have a “fun, vibrant community that attracts and retains people” to begin construction
on a downtown community space by 2021. To help accomplish this goal, a five-task
process was approved by the City Council which included budgeting for the plaza, holding
a Council discussion to determine the vision for this space, and convening public
meetings by the staff to solicit input regarding desired features and location of the plaza.
In February 2020, the City Council took the first step by appropriating the following funds
to support the construction of a Downtown Plaza.
2019/20 General Fund $1,100,000
2020/21 Design (Local Option Sales Tax) $ 200,000
2021/22 Construction (G.O. Bonds) $ 700,000
2022/23 Construction (G.O. Bonds) $ 700.000
Total Funding $2,700,000
REINVESTMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY:
As you know, the new development being proposed along the north side of Lincoln Way
from Clark to Kellogg provides the City the opportunity to take advantage of the State’s
Reinvestment District incentive. Unfortunately, the application deadline for this incentive
program is February 15, 2021. Should the Council want to pursue this funding source, it
is important that a site location for the plaza be determined as soon as possible.
QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL:
Before identifying the preferred site, hiring a consultant to design the space, and soliciting
public input regarding desired amenities; it is important that the City Council members
first express their vision for the plaza. Therefore, staff is seeking your thoughts regarding
the following four questions.
1.What is Council’s vision for this plaza?
a.A year-round attraction or is it just to be used in the warmer months
b.A hub for downtown activity
c.The space should be unique
Item No. 33
d. A space that does not compete, but rather complement other downtown
amenities (i.e. Tom Evans Plaza, Bandshell Park)
e. A balance of green space versus hard scape (concrete, fountains, etc.)
2. What goals does Council have for this project?
a. Attract more people to the downtown area
b. Provide opportunities for residents and businesses to utilize
c. A space anyone can use at any time at no cost and/or a rental process
for events
3. What activities does Council wish to see happen at the plaza?
a. Special events (e.g. small musical events, individual performers, etc.)
b. Small gatherings (e.g. lunch dates, business meetings, etc.)
c. Play opportunities (e.g. spray pad, ice skating, etc.)
4. What is the preferred site for the plaza?
After defining the vision for the space, it is important to identify the site(s) that
accomplishes the vision. Because the City owns the property east of City Hall,
it appears this site would offer the best option if we hope to complete a grant
application on time. Although selecting this site expedites the application
process, the question remains if this is the right location to meet Council goals
for a downtown plaza.
Following are several pictures of what could be included in the plaza:
Spray features could be a play feature during the day and provide ambience in the
evening for activities and/or special events
The above pictures show how a space could be a spray pad in the summer and
converted to an ice-skating venue during the winter season
A more contemporary shade structure is shown on the left while a more traditional
shelter structure is shown on the right
STAFF COMMENTS:
The downtown plaza is an opportunity to be a unique gathering space for Ames. It could
provide residents and businesses a place to meet, conduct events, and just pass time.
By Council providing direction as to what its vision is for this plaza, along with input from
the public and businesses, the end product has a greater chance of meeting everyone’s
goals for this project.
1
ITEM # ___34 __
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: NOTICE TO BIDDERS FOR WATER PLANT DEHUMIDIFICATION
PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
The new water treatment plant started operation in 2017. After the facility start up, staff
identified three areas where dehumidification is necessary but was not installed in the
initial construction. Lack of dehumidification causes pipes to sweat, creating a
maintenance issue for the pipe coatings. This has caused frequent projects to remove the
paint and recoat. The dripping water also causes employee safety concerns with puddles
on the floor and corrosion issues on electronics and control systems.
On July 9, 2019, Council authorized a contract for engineering services with KFI
Engineers of St. Paul, Minnesota, for design of dehumidification improvements for the
water treatment plant in an amount not to exceed $66,500. The progress of the project
slowed in the spring when City facilities closed due to COVID. The design work is now
complete and ready for bidding.
The engineer’s estimate of probable construction costs is $223,000. The FY 2018/19
facility improvements CIP budget includes $400,000 for design and construction of
dehumidification.
As part of this Council action, staff is also requesting an amendment to the Professional
Engineering Services agreement to add bidding and construction phase services. At the
time the engineer was originally hired, they had proposed a bidding and construction
phase contract of $50,250. The scope of improvements was not fully known at that time,
and staff chose not to contract for bidding and construction phase services until after final
design was complete.
Now that the scope of work is known, staff is comfortable performing the daily construction
observation duties that will be needed. The engineer will be available for milestone
inspections and to answer technical questions during bidding and construction. The
amendment for these services is a price not to exceed $11,500. The summary of the
project costs is shown on the next page.
2
Project Budget
FY 2018/19 CIP $ 400,000
Estimated Project Expenses
Engineering
Design $ 66,500
Bidding and Construction admin (this request) $ 11,500
Construction Estimate $ 223,000
Contingency (10% of construction) $ 22,000
Total Estimated Expense $ 323,000
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Grant preliminary approval of the plans and specifications and issue a Notice to
Bidders, setting December 23, 2020 as the bid due date and January 12, 2021 as
the date of public hearing.
b. Approve the amendment to the contract with KFI Engineers of St. Paul, Minnesota,
in the amount of $11,500 for bidding and construction administration services.
2. Do not issue a Notice to Bidders or extend the engineering contract at this time.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Several areas of the water treatment plant need dehumidification in order to extend the
useful life of piping and electronics, as well as alleviate some potential safety issues. The
project was budgeted in the 2018/19 CIP as a part of the Water Plant Facility
Improvements Project. Staff worked with the consulting team to design effective
dehumidification systems and now are ready to bid the work.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
ITEM # ___35__
DATE: 11-24-20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE EAST UNIVERSITY IMPACTED URBAN
REVITALIZATION AREA TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE
313 LYNN AVENUE AND TO ADD A PLAN SUNSET DATE OF APRIL 1,
2024 AND A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PLAN CRITERIA
BACKGROUND:
On October 13, 2020 the City Council adopted a Resolution setting the date of a Public
Hearing on changes to the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area (URA) and
Plan. Subsequently, Staff sent courtesy notices as directed by the City Council, to all
property owners of the 37 Greek Housing residences within the East University Impacted
URA to alert them of the proposed changes and upcoming public hearing. Additionally,
as required by Iowa Code Section 404.2, property owners and residents within 200’ of the
boundary increase area (313 Lynn Avenue) received notification.
Boundary Change:
The boundary change was directed by the City Council on August 21, 2020 to rectify an
error recently discovered during the citywide review of URAs. The property at 313 Lynn
Avenue was approved for tax abatement in 2018 and has been receiving tax abatement
for the last three years. However, it is not actually located within the boundaries of the
East University Impacted URA. The property abuts the current boundary of the URA.
Amending the boundary rectifies this disconnect. The attached ordinance replaces
Ordinance #3880 by establishing new boundaries for the East University Impacted URA.
A ttachment 1 illustrates both the current boundary as well as the proposed
boundary for th e East University Impacted URA. Please note that this action only
changes the URA boundary and will not change any of the zoning overlay district
boundaries. Given this, the property will remain within the “O-UIW” West University
Impacted Zoning Overlay District.
Sunset Date for the East University Impacted URA- Additions:
On September 22, 2020, Council unanimously agreed that a sunset date was appropriate
for the East University Impacted URA. The East University Impacted URA was
established in 2006. Over 36% of the Greek Houses in the URA have taken advantage
of the program in the past ten years. City Council determined the goals of the program
for revitalizing the area have been met.
The sunset date is proposed as April 1, 2024. This will allow pending or potential projects
an opportunity to still move forward given the longer timeline need for advance planning,
budgeting, and fund raising that is relied upon to execute these projects. As directed by
the Council, Staff contacted each property owner of the 37 Greek Houses within the East
University Impacted URA, so that their input could be received. We did not receive any
comments back related to upcoming projects that would be impacted by the proposed
change.
The attached ordinance identifies the URA expiration date of April 1, 2024. All projects
seeking tax abatement must be completed prior to the expiration and approved for award
prior to expiration; however, projects already determined to be eligible for tax abatement
will continue to receive tax abatement consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement
and in accordance with state law.
Eliminating Tax Abatement for New Construction of Greek Housing:
On September 22, 2020, Council determined that current criteria that allows for both new
construction and additions to be eligible for abatement conflicts with several policy
directions of the city and directed that the criteria be revised. Eliminating new construction
as an eligibility criterion restores tax abatement to the 2018 criteria for additions only.
Supporting additions is an incentive to encourage and support reuse of buildings or
adaptive reuse of Greek houses (some of which are likely to be historically and
architecturally significant).
The proposed criteria will allow construction of a new Greek residence on a site that has
been recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system, and
which has an approved Minor Site Development Plan and Demolition approved by City
Council, both of which have to be approved prior to January 1, 2021.
When this date was initially proposed there was no known pending demolition requests
and that Kappa Kappa Gamma had already received a demolition approval from City
Council in December 2020. Staff has not heard of any new demolition requests that may
be forthcoming. However, Kappa Kappa Gamma has made inquires to staff about
modifying their prior approval and they are aware of the deadline to make changes prior
to January 1, 2021.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council may approve the proposed changes by taking the following separate
actions for each:
• Hold a Public Hearing and Approve the First Reading of an Ordinance
establishing new boundaries for the East University Impacted Area URA
(adding the property at 313 Lynn Avenue) and adding an expiration date of
April 1, 2024, for the East University Impacted Area URA;
• Approve the Resolution revising the Criteria of the East University Impacted
Area URA to read as follows:
o The building is an existing or former residence recognized by the Iowa
State University as part of the Greek residence system, and which,
following rehabilitation 70% of the area of the existing exterior walls of
the structure will remain.
o Construction of a new Greek residence recognized by Iowa State
University as part of the Greek residence system, if built on a site that
was formerly a Greek residence with an approved Minor Site
Development Plan and demolition approved by City Council prior to
January 1, 2021.
2. The City Council may choose to Amend or Not Proceed with any of the actions
identified above.
3. The City Council may refer this item back to City staff for additional information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed changes to the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area and
Plan recognize the success the East University Impacted URA has achieved over the last
fifteen years in encouraging new investment and stabilizing the area. The proposed
changes provide flexibility to projects already in process, while setting forth an end date
for tax abatement funding.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council accept
Alternative #1, thereby approving First Reading of an Ordinance implementing a
boundary change and sunset date for the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization
Area and approving a Resolution amending the criteria of the East University Impacted
Area Urban Revitalization Area Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1: EAST UNIVERSITY IMPACTED URA
EXISTING & PROPOSED BOUNDARY
ATTACHMENT 2: EAST UNIVERSITY IMPACTED URA
PLAN CRITERIA
EXISTING CRITERIA
1. Applicability of Revitalization: Revitalization shall be applicable only to
buildings in the designated area which comply with following conditions-
• Existing or former residences recognized by Iowa State University as
part of the Greek residence system, and which, following rehabilitation,
70% of the area of existing exterior walls of the structure will remain, or
• Construction of a new Greek residence recognized by Iowa State
University as part of the Greek residence system.
PROPOSED CRITERIA
7. Applicability of Revitalization: Revitalization shall be applicable only to
buildings in the designated area which comply with following conditions-
• Existing or former residences recognized by Iowa State University as
part of the Greek residence system, and which, following rehabilitation,
70% of the area of existing exterior walls of the structure will remain, or
• Construction of a new Greek residence on a site that has been
recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence
system, and which has an approved Minor Site Development Plan and
Demolition approved by City Council, both of which were approved
prior to January 1, 2021.
RESOLUTION NO. 20-XXX
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CRITERIA OF THE
EAST UNIVERSITY IMPACTED AREA
FOR THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, Council unanimously agreed that a sunset date was
appropriate for the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area (URA); and,
WHEREAS, the East University Impacted URA was established in 2006 and over 36% of
the Greek Houses in the URA have taken advantage of the program in the past ten years; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the goals of the program for revitalizing the
area have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the sunset date is proposed for April 1, 2024, which will allow for pending or
potential projects to have an opportunity to still move forward given the longer timeline needed for
advance planning, budgeting, and fundraising that is relied upon to execute these projects; and,
WHEREAS, as directed by the Council, Staff contacted each property owner of the 37 Greek
Houses within the East University Impacted URA, so their input could be received, and there were
not any comments received relating to any upcoming projects that would be impacted by the
proposed change; and,
WHEREAS, the new Ordinance will show an expiration date of April 1, 2024 and all projects
seeking tax abatement must be completed prior to the expiration and approved for award prior to
expiration; however, projects already determined to be eligible for tax abatement will continue to
receive tax abatement consistent with the chosen schedule for abatement and in accordance with state
law; and,
WHEREAS, also on September 22, 2020, the Council determined that the current criteria that
allows for both new construction and additions to be eligible for abatement conflicted with several
policy directions of the City and directed that the criteria be revised; and,
WHEREAS, eliminating new construction as an eligibility criterion restores tax abatement
to the 2018 criteria for additions only; and,
WHEREAS, supporting additions is an incentive to encourage and support reuse of buildings
or adaptive reuse of Greek houses (some of which are likely to be historically and architecturally
significant); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed criteria will allow construction of a new Greek residence on a site
that has been recognized by Iowa State University as part of the Greek residence system, and which
has an approved Minor Site Development Plan and Demolition approved by the City Council, both
of which have to be approved prior to January 1, 2021; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa,
that the revised Criteria for the East University Impacted URA is approved as follows:
- The building is an existing or former residence recognized by Iowa State University as part
of the Greek residence system, and which, following rehabilitation 70% of the area of the existing
exterior walls of the structure will remain.
- Construction of a new Greek residence recognized by Iowa State University as part of the
Greek residence with an approved Minor Site Development Plan and demolition approved by the
City Council prior to January 1, 2021.
1
ITEM: ___36__
DATE: 10/24/20
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS AND
PROJECTIONS
BACKGROUND
In response to a general code cleanup assignment included as part of the Planning
Division work plan, staff has reviewed certain development standards for consistency with
terminology and development review practices. The intent is to clarify interpretations and
standards, particularly as they relate to extensions into front, side and rear yard setbacks.
The changes will principally apply to residential properties but also affect commercial and
industrial properties.
Section 29.402(2)(a) of the Municipal Code specifies which features of principal buildings
and other structures may extend into required building setbacks. Staff specifically
identified updates to this setback exception section in response to interpretations of
current terminology, duplicative standards, and an interest in facilitating front porch or
entrance improvements for older homes. The updates have been prepared in consultation
with the Inspections Division as well as the Planning Division. (See Attachment B:
Proposed Revisions.)
There are two categories for extensions into setbacks. One category is “minor
projections allowed,” and the other is “full projections allowed.” Minor projections
may extend up to three (3) feet into the required building setback; however, such
projections may be no closer than three (3) feet to a lot line. Full projections are currently
allowed to extend fully into required setbacks. Porches have their own exception category
allowing for an extension of up to eight (8) feet in the front yard or rear yard and three (3)
feet in a side yard, provided that the portion of the porch extending into the required yards
is fully open except for support columns and balustrades. The current language is
included as Attachment A: Existing Regulations.
Staff proposes updates to minor projections by cleaning up current terminology.
Fire escapes would no longer be described as “open or lattice enclosed.”
Uncovered stairways would be further defined as “leading to a ground floor or
basement building entrance.” Previously stairways were described in both minor
and full projections with no distinguishable differences.
Staff proposes to replace the current individual Porch exception with a new
exception category named Architectural Features. These new allowances are
meant to broaden options for enhancing entrances and creating more
opportunities for outdoor usable space beyond the traditional front porch
configuration. Architectural features of an open design that are attached and protruding
from building facades located at first floor building entrances (such as porches, pergolas,
stoops, porticos and decks) may project into a front, street side, or rear yard setback as
much as eight feet and into a side setback not more than three feet. These allowed
projections will only apply to open architectural features as described in the ordinance,
therefore enclosing these features to make indoor space with walls, glass, or screens in
the future would be prohibited. Additionally, to address situations where a home may
have a nonconforming setback, a new exception process allows for the ZBA to
approve a projection that exceeds that stated limits so these properties may also
benefit from enhanced outdoor spaces. For example, a home built with a 20-foot
setback where a 25-foot setback is now required would previously have not been able to
add a porch. The new exception would allow for ZBA to approve a setback of as little as
12 feet for an architectural feature.
Currently full projections do not limit what level of a building stairs access to have a full
projection. In further clarifying full projections, stairways including landings, wheelchair
lifts, and accessible ramps are to lead directly to a first floor or basement building
entrance. The current language would allow for full projections regardless of what level
of a building it served, which was contrary to allowances of minor projections. At-grade
steps and above-grade steps up to three feet in height are further clarified to include
associated handrails, sidewalls and landings. Staff has also added minor changes to the
landscape accent section recognizing that slightly larger arbors and other features
commonly found as accents are permissible.
With the proposed changes, commercial properties will be affected by the new
architectural feature allowance, use of the term covered walkways in lieu of
awnings/ canopies, and newly defined sign maximums that were previously
ambiguous.
The new sign standard adds definition to a vague section that previously stated signs
were allowed as a full projection with no limitations. Signage is regulated by Chapter 21
of the Ames Municipal Code and some commercial zones within the Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 29. Due to discrepancies in free-standing sign definitions and allowances
between Codes, staff proposes to limit free-standing sign exceptions to ground,
monument, and poles signs to less than 150 square feet of coverage by either the
base/support of the sign or the cabinet of the sign. The proposed 150 square foot
maximum coverage for a ground sign reinforces the City’s site development plan review
threshold for administrative consistency. For example, the Lincoln Center sign located
near the intersection of Lincoln Way and Grand Avenue has a coverage of approximately
150 square feet with an estimated 6 x 25-foot cabinet dimension. If someone desires to
have a larger sign footprint than 150 square feet, it could still occur outside of setbacks.
Traditional wall sign and projecting sign encroachments will continue to be allowed as full
projections.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed draft changes at the August 19, 2020
Commission meeting. The Commission voted 6-0 in support of the staff recommendation,
which is to allow for amendments for extensions into required building setbacks subject
to staff working with the City’s Legal Department and Building Inspections Division to
finalize changes and prepare a draft ordinance for City Council approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve first reading of the proposed text amendments for extensions into required
building setbacks.
2. Approve first reading of the proposed text amendments with modifications.
3. Decline to proceed with amendments to the extensions into required building
setbacks.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed zoning text amendments clarify requirements and expectations for the
extension of building features into required setbacks, as well as offer additional flexibility
in the application of such extensions. Overall, the changes help to facilitate contemporary
improvements to properties and enhance entrances and outdoor space valued by
individuals. These changes will provide property owners with a better understanding of
what is allowed by the Code as they prepare plans for new structures and additions to
existing structures. Staff has received no feedback regarding the proposed changes from
the public or the developer/builder contact list. Therefore, it is the recommendation of
the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1, as described above.
Attachment A: Existing Regulations
Attachment B -Proposed Changes
“Sec. 29.201. DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise defined in this Ordinance or unless the context may otherwise require, the following
words are defined for the purpose of this Ordinance as follows:
. . .
(17) Awning means an architectural projection that provides weather protection, visual interest, or decoration
and is wholly supported by the building to which it is attached. any structure, movable or stationary, attached to and
deriving its support from framework, posts or other means independent of a connected structure for the purpose of
shielding a platform, stoop or sidewalk from the elements or a roof-like structure of a permanent nature projecting
from the wall of a structure and overhanging a public way.
. . .
(27) Building Coverage means the area of a lot covered by buildings or roof areas, including covered
porches, accessory buildings and areas for outdoor storage, but excluding minor projections such as allowed projecting
eaves, uncovered balconies, and similar features.
. . .
(49a) Deck means a horizonal platform built above grade and typically supported by pillars or posts and may
include railing.
. . .
(157a) Pergola means a structure of vertical posts or columns that support a series of cross-beams providing
primarily an open covering that is not a roof. Pergolas may be attached to a building as an architectural feature to
provide enhanced visual interest or as a stand-alone structure for shade and shelter. For purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance, pergolas are accessory buildings.
. . .
(160) Porch means a roofed area attached at the first floor of a building and located at a building entrance. A Porch
must be open on two or more sides, but may include support columns, piers, and balustrades or railing (including
kneewalls). structure attached to or extending from a building providing a covered shelter at a building entrance. A
Porch is open on at least one side, except that it may be enclosed with screens or latticework.
. . .
Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS.
(1) Building Setback Standard. Except as provided below, all buildings and structures, Principal and
Accessory, shall be located to comply with the minimum and maximum Building Setbacks established for Principal
and Accessory Buildings listed in each Zone Development Standards Table, Supplemental Development Standards
Table, condition or other regulation applicable to the lot or the use being employed at the site.
(2) Extensions into Required Building Setbacks. Certain building elements and site features are allowed
to be located within or project into required setbacks. Extensions of architectural features into nonconforming setbacks
may be granted as a minor area modification under Section 29.1506.
(a) Principal Buildings.
(a)(i) Minor projections allowed. Minor features of a building, such as eaves, chimneys, open or lattice-
enclosed fire escapes, bay windows, uncovered stairways leading to an upper story entrance or deck,
wheelchair ramps, awnings, and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required setback up to 3
three feet. Such projections, however, may be no closer than 3 three feet to a lot line.
(b) Projection of Architectural features. Architectural features of an open design attached to and protruding
from building façades located at first floor building entrances (such as porches, pergola, stoops, porticos,
decks) may project into a front-, street-, or rear yard setback as much as eight feet, and into a side setback
not more than three feet. Such projections, however, may be no closer than three feet to a lot line. Allowed
projections must be open in design without walls, screening, windows or doors. Enclosing an open projecting
architectural feature is prohibited.
(c)(ii) Full projections allowed. In addition to the minor projections listed in the previous section, the
following features are allowed to fully project into required setbacks:
(i)a. Covered walkways leading to main entrances in commercial and industrial zones;
(ii)b. Uncovered stairways (including landings), wheelchair lifts, and Wheelchair accessible access
ramps and associated handrails that lead directly to a first floor, basement, or at-grade building
entrance;
(iii) At-grade steps, above-grade steps up to three feet in height, and associated handrails, sidewalls,
and landings;
c. Driveways, patios, sidewalks, and similar at-grade surfaces;
(iv)d. Uncovered decks, with or without railings, no higher than 24 inches above finished grade;
(v)e. Retaining walls that retain fill and which are up to four feet in height in front setbacks and up
to six feet in height in side and rear setbacks.
(vi)f. Retaining walls of any height that retain existing natural grade;
g. At-grade steps, above-grade steps up to three feet in height, and associated handrails;
(vii) Driveways, patios, sidewalks, and similar at-grade surfaces;
(viii)h. Landscape accents that include but are not limited to arbors Arbors with a footprint coverage
area no greater than 10 15 square feet; fountains and statuary up to four feet in height, and
constructed ponds and waterfalls at or below finished grade, and similar incidental landscape
accents. The design and location of accent features shall not have the effect of creating a continuous
wall that does not meet fence standards.
(ix)i. Mechanical Units (within rear and side yards only);
(x)j. Play structures (within rear and side yards only), no closer than 3 three feet to property lines;
(xi)k. Fences as allowed in Section 29.408(2);
(xii)l. Planter boxes/walls at allowable fence heights;
(xiii)m. Alternative Energy devices as allowed in Sections 29.1309 & 29.1310;
(xiv)n. Satellite dishes less than 24 inches one meter in diameter;
(xv)o. Mailboxes, little libraries, cluster box units, flagpoles, and lamp poles;
(xvi)p. Signs are subject to the standards of Chapter 21 and Chapter 29. Free standing signs
described as ground, pole, or monument signs, including any support structure of said signs, where
the sign has less than 150 square feet of coverage. Signs attached to a principal building, such as
wall signs and projecting signs, that do not have support extending to the ground (as otherwise
allowed by code);
(xvii)q. Public Art when located within a public art easement accepted by the City of Ames.
(xviii)r. Bicycle Parking Systems. Bicycle Parking Systems may be located in the front setback of
nonresidential zoning districts when it is no higher than four feet in height and it does not interfere
with required landscaping. This exception does not allow for parking areas where otherwise not
permitted.
(iii) Porches. A porch may project into the required front yard not more than 8 feet, the required side yard
not more than 3 feet, and the required rear yard not more than 8 feet, provided that the portion of the porch
extending into required yards is fully open except for support columns and balustrades.
* * *
Sec. 29.1506. EXCEPTIONS.
(4) When Authorized.
…
(d) Exceptions for minor area modifications.
…
(vi) extension of architectural features into a required building setback pursuant to Sec. 29.402(b) when the
setback of the principal building is non-conforming. An approved minor area modification under this
subsection shall:
(A) provide for a minimum usable area,
(B) preserve compatible open yard areas intended within the zone, and
(C) ensure the aesthetic compatibility of the feature with the surroundings.”
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5101 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
City Manager’s Office
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Deb Schildroth, Assistant City Manager
Date: November 24, 2020
Subject: Responses for Face Covering Ordinance
At the November 10th meeting, City Council began its discussion of extending
the expiration of the Face Covering ordinance. In preparation of reviewing the
first reading of the modified ordinance at the November 24th meeting, Council
approved soliciting opinions in favor or against the ordinance from the
following organizations that the City partners with:
•Story County Board of Health
•Iowa State University
•Mary Greeley Medical Center
•McFarland Clinic
All four organizations responded in favor of continuing the Face Covering
ordinance. Those responses are attached to this memo.
Thank you
Item No. 37
-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter, Brian <dieter@mgmc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 1:56 PM
To: Deb Schildroth <deb.schildroth@cityofames.org>
Subject: Re: City of Ames Face Covering Ordinance
[External Email]
Deb-
As President and CEO of Mary Greeley Medical Center, I support an extension of the Ames face covering
ordinance beyond Dec. 31, 2020<x-apple-data-detectors://0>. We are in another significant wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic, with positivity rates and hospitalization rates on the rise. Many medical experts
predict this wave will continue into the new year. There are several reasons to suspect this will be the
case. First, the holiday season will bring many people together, despite admonishments to avoid large
gatherings. In fact, a recent national survey indicated that nearly 40% of U.S. residents plan to
participate in gatherings of 10 or more people this holiday season. Also, one-third of the survey
respondents said they wouldn't ask attendees at holiday parties with family or friends to wear masks,
and just over 25% indicated that they wouldn't practice social distancing. We are clearly up against
COVID-19 fatigue. Contributing to concerns is the cold weather, which will result in people being in
closed spaces more with limited ventilation. Extending the face covering ordinance will send a message
that we need to be diligent in our efforts to control the spread of the pandemic.
Brian Dieter
President and CEO
Mary Greeley Medical Center
Ames, IA 50010
From: John Paschen <jpaschen@mcfarlandclinic.com>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:25 AM
To: Deb Schildroth <deb.schildroth@cityofames.org>
Cc: Stephanie L. Jones <SJones@storycountyiowa.gov>; mollylee [CFSPH] <mollylee@iastate.edu>; Lisa
K. Heddens <LHeddens@storycountyiowa.gov>; Louisa Tabatabal <Louisatabatabai39@gmail.com>;
Mark Speck <mspeck3680@aol.com>; Dr. John Kluge <jkluge@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: City of Ames Face Covering Ordinance
[External Email]
Deb,
Reviewed your ordinance. FIrst, and foremost I would most emphatically recommend you extend. If you
MUST put a sunset clause on it I would do March 31st. But I would rather it be kept open. We do not
know how the vaccine will change the COVID landscape. The BOH can always give you guidance, if you
wish.
The recommendations from the CDC is children 2 and older should wear a face covering. I would change
to 2 yo. I am not sure why you chose 3yo.
I would consider a penalty section be added. You can word it like the BOS did. But the reason to have it
is IF Governor Reynolds sees the light and allows local communities to do their own mask ordinance, you
already have the penalties written in. An ordinance without penalties is a suggestion. And wearing a
mask deserves more importance than a "suggestion".
I also notice you do not mention what a face covering is. I would recommend you review our definition
and include that. I would, however. leave out face shields as an appropriate face covering. When we
wrote ours it was felt a face-shield was adequate. That is no longer the case. We are actually
considering changing that in our mask ordinance for the County.
Thanks for reaching out. Let me know if you need anything else.
John Paschen, Story County BOH.
John Paschen, MD
McFarland Clinic | Pediatrics
1215 Duff Ave Ames IA 50010
t: (515)239-4569 | e: jpaschen@mcfarlandclinic.com
From: Bowers, Robert J [P SAF] <rjbower@iastate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 2:52 PM
To: Deb Schildroth <deb.schildroth@cityofames.org>
Subject: RE: City of Ames Face Covering Ordinance - Follow Up
[External Email]
Deb,
I heard back from Chief Newton and he asked me to let you know that ISU plans to continue with our
face covering requirements and that we support the City of Ames continuing with theirs as well.
Thanks
Rob
From: Roger Kluesner <rkluesner@mcfarlandclinic.com>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:55 AM
To: Deb Schildroth <deb.schildroth@cityofames.org>
Subject: Fwd: Scan from McFarland Clinic
[External Email]
Deb,
Thank you for reaching out to the community for input on face coverings. I have attached McFarland
Clinic's Mask Up Position Statement along with a Press Release which was issued on August 5.
I appreciate your efforts to see that our community Masks Up.
Roger K
--
Roger Kluesner
Chief Operating Officer | Administration
McFarland Clinic | 1215 Duff Ave Ames IA 50010
t: (515)239-4484 | e: rkluesner@mcfarlandclinic.com
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very low
OthersCOVID Carrier
Mask Up!
Risk of Transmission
6+ Feet
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY EXTENDING THE SUNSET
CLAUSE DATE IN SECTION 17.37 THEREOF, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FACE COVERING REQUIREMENT
REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH
CONFLICT; 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 extending the Sunset Clause Date as follows:
“Sec. 17. 37 FACE COVERING REQUIREMENT:
. . .
SUNSET CLAUSE: This ordinance expires and becomes null and void after June 30,
2021, unless the date in this clause is amended or the ordinance is sooner repealed.”
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