HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - December 8, 2020, Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CONFERENCE BOARD AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 8, 2020
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Conference Board, which was being held electronically, was
called to order by Chairman John Haila at 6:01 p.m. on December 8, 2020. Present from the Ames
City Council were Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel
Junck, and David Martin. Story County Board of Supervisors present were Linda Murken, Lisa
Heddens, and Lauris Olson. Representing the Ames Community School Board was Sabrina Shields-
Cook. Joe Anderson attended on behalf of the Nevada School Board. Gilbert Community School
District and United Community School District were not represented.
APPOINTMENTS TO EXAMINING BOARD: Mayor Haila explained the Ames Conference
Board meeting was called to appoint an Examining Board as required by the Code of Iowa. City
Assessor Greg Lynch had submitted his resignation effective December 31, 2020. He noted that a
memo was sent to each of the Conference Board members explaining the process that they will need
to go through. The first step in replacing the City Assessor is to appoint three members to the
Examining Board: one member represents the Ames City Council; one represents the Board of
Supervisors; and one represents all the school districts. The appointees to the Examining Board must
be residents of the City of Ames per the Code of Iowa.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, appointing Council Member Amber Corrieri to the Examining
Board representing the Ames City Council.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Olson, seconded by Murken, appointing Board of Supervisor Lisa Heddens to the
Examining Board to represent the Story County Board of Supervisors.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Shields-Cook, appointing Sabrina Shields-Cook to the Examining
Board to represent the School Districts (Ames, Gilbert, Nevada, United).
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS: Story County Board of Supervisor Lisa Heddens asked
the Mayor to clarify the process now that the Examining Board has been appointed. Mayor Haila
explained that the process is that only Assessors who are on a list of approved and have approved
certain licensing examinations that are available from the Department of Revenue can be considered
for the position. The Examining Board is the only one that can request a list from the Department
of Revenue. He noted that the Iowa Code also states that because the City has a Deputy City
Assessor, that person by Iowa Code will take over for Mr. Lynch as of January 1, 2021 until a new
City Assessor is appointed. The Examining Board is a search committee that brings back viable
candidates for the Conference Board to decide who to appoint. Per the Code of Iowa, the Examining
Board can also conduct an examination, either written or oral, of any person whose name appears
on the register, and shall make a written report of the examination and submit the report together
with the names of those individuals certified by the Department of Revenue to the Conference Board.
Ms. Heddens stated that Ames is one of seven cities in the state that has a City Assessor and the
other locations utilize a County Assessor. She pointed out that a staff report was done back in 2005
that looked at whether to have one or two Assessor’s within Story County or a separate one for
Ames. Ms. Heddens commented that she would be interested in having an updated report to see if
they really need to have two Assessors. She wanted to know if there was a need for separate
Assessor’s or was there any equipment that needed to be purchased. Ms. Heddens explained that 15
years is a long time and things are constantly changing.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that he would not be interested in changing the structure as he
thought the system that is already in place has served the community very well. He liked having the
accountability of the Assessor being within the Ames City Government and not shifting the role to
the County Supervisors. Mr. Gartin mentioned that the previous study made it clear that there was
a period where if the people of Ames would have had their assessments done by the County Assessor
their assessments would have been far worse than what they were. The statistics were clear about
this information. He explained that he thought the people of Ames are very well served by having
an Assessor within the City Government.
Board of Supervisor Lauris Olson asked Mr. Gartin if he was sure about the structure. She pointed
out that Story County is the fiscal agent for the City of Ames Assessor. Ms. Olson mentioned that
there are times that the City’s Human Resources Department has called Story County to assist with
the people on the Conference Board. She stated that the Conference Board doesn’t report to the City
of Ames and she thought there needed to be some clarity. Ms. Olson mentioned that Story County
does not charge any fees, but the City of Ames charges the Assessor’s Office for all the “other”
services that are provided to them.
Council Member Betcher stated when she read the 2005 report she was thinking along the same lines
as Ms. Heddens. The report is 15 years old and she is not sure the City of Ames knows if the citizens
of Ames are being better served by having a City Assessor opposed to a County Assessor. Ms.
Betcher mentioned that by having staff look at the data they can make sure they are making the right
decision.
Ms. Murken asked if it is the case that the City of Ames has a separate City Assessor due to an
Ordinance. Mayor Haila stated that there is an Ordinance that the City Council would have to be
repealed in order to eliminate the City Assessor’s position. Ms. Murken pointed out that it is
ultimately up to the City of Ames whether there are two Assessors in Story County. She explained
that the City Council Members are the ones that need to be convinced to do something different. City
Attorney Mark Lambert commented that he believed that would be correct and it would be up to the
City of Ames, but he would have to research it further. Mr. Lambert explained that the City is
2
allowed to have a City Assessor per the Iowa Code, but he hasn’t looked at the language in some
time and would want to look at it further before rendering an opinion. Ms. Murken explained to her
it seemed like the City “held all the cards,” but there are some issues that have come up that need
to be discussed as to what the County’s role is in terms of doing payroll and other items they are not
being reimbursed for. Ms. Heddens commented that is part of why she was suggesting the study. She
explained it was to update the information that is 15-years old and this is how you can determine
what is best for the citizens.
Mayor Haila stated the report that was sent out to the Conference Board was a report that analyzed
whether to combine the two Assessor’s offices and to look at the cost. He pointed out there are two
ways to approach the topic. One way would be if there is interest in refreshing the study as it was
initially done or make a motion to refresh the study, but look at different topics, i.e. payroll, etc., but
would not be to combine the City Assessor and County into one. Mr. Gartin suggested that those are
two separate conversations. He noted that if the County felt that they were picking up costs that were
not equitably shared, then those are matters that don’t require a special report, but a conversation the
two leadership bodies can have. The matter before the Conference Board now is the replacement of
the City Assessor. The Mayor explained that the reason for his clarification was because if the
County Board of Supervisors was proposing to refresh the study to see if they would want to
combine the City and County offices together this would be the time to do it, instead of going out
and searching for a new City Assessor. If there was support to do the study then the Examining
Board would be in place, but would be idle until the report came back. Ms. Betcher stated that if the
discussion was about shifting the financial responsibility to the City then that is also part of the
equation for whether there is a City Assessor or not. Ms. Betcher noted that the City doesn’t always
have the opportunity that is created by a retirement every year, and there is an opportunity right now
to take a look and see whether it is still fiscally responsible to have a City Assessor, whether it makes
sense for the citizens of Ames, and how the possible shift of responsibilities from the County would
figure into the equation. Mayor Haila mentioned that since the City Council can’t deliberate on
whether to move forward this becomes an issue to be placed on a City Council Agenda. He
suggested the Council refer this item to be placed on a future City Council Agenda for discussion.
Supervisor Heddens stated that they just got the report yesterday and they are just asking for the
report to be updated to move forward. She asked for clarification on the Examining Board moving
forward. Mayor Haila explained if the City Council is interested in combining the City and County
Assessor then there would be no reason for the Examining Board to meet; however, if the decision
is to have two Assessor’s then the Examining Board would proceed.
Nevada School representative Joe Anderson asked if it was possible to have the 15-year study sent
to the rest of the Conference Board. Mayor Haila apologized and commented that he will send it.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Anderson to adjourn the Ames Conference Board at 6:27 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AMES CITY COUNCIL
3
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor John Haila called the Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council,
which was being held electronically, to order at 6:29 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 to set the date of public hearing for December 22, 2020, to approve
the Partnership Agreements with Prairie Fire Corporation and Builder’s Development Corporation
in conjunction with Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue).
Mayor Haila requested to pull Item No. 15, Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 with
Anderson Process & Instrumentation Solutions, LLC, for Maintenance Services Contract for the
Power Plant, in an amount not-to-exceed $443,8889.50 for further discussion.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the following items on
the Consent Agenda.
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Minutes of November 24, 2020
3.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period November 16 - 30, 2020
4.Motion approving New 12-month Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and
Sunday Sales: Kum & Go #7706, 2320 Lincoln Way
5.Motion approval renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor Licenses:
a.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales,1 Night Stand, 124 Welch, Pending
DRAM
b.Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit with Sunday
Sales: Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way, Pending DRAM
c.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales: Café Beau, 2504
Lincoln Way
d.Class B Beer with Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales: Torrent Brewing Co LLC, 504
Burnett Avenue
e.Class C Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit with Sunday Sales, Outdoor Service:
Mickey’s Irish Pub, 109 Welch Avenue
6.RESOLUTION NO. 20-621 setting date of public hearing for December 22, 2020, to vacate
Public Utility Easement located across portions of Southtown Subdivision (300 and 310 S.
17th Street)
7.RESOLUTION NO. 20-622 setting date of public hearing for December 22, 2020, to approve
Partnership Agreements with Prairie Fire Corporation and Builder’s Development
4
Corporation in conjunction with Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue)
8.RESOLUTION NO. 20-623 approving Professional Services Agreement with CGA
Consultants, of Ames, Iowa, for Flood Mitigation - River Flooding - Land Acquisition
Services in an amount not-to-exceed $74,800
9.RESOLUTION NO. 20-624 approving Agreement with Iowa Department of Transportation
for Traffic Safety Improvement Program Funding (S. 16th Street/S. Duff Avenue) in the
amount of $495,000
10.RESOLUTION NO. 20-625 approving Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement
between the City of Ames and City of Nevada for Emergency Response Coverage of
Interstate 35 and Highway 30 outside of the Ames city limits and extending the expiration
date to December 31, 2030
11.RESOLUTION NO. 20-626 approving FY 2020/21 Commission On The Arts Spring Special
Project Grants
12.SunSmart Ames Community Solar Farm:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 20-627 approving Memorandum of Agreement
b.RESOLUTION NO. 20-628 approving Notice and Acknowledgment of Assignment
with ForeFront Power
13.RESOLUTION NO. 20-629 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2020/21
Pavement Restoration - Slurry Seal Program; setting January 6, 2021, as bid due date and
January 12, 2021, as date of public hearing
14.Baker Subdivision Geothermal Heat Pump System:
a.Motion rejecting bid
b.RESOLUTION NO. 20-630 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Baker
Subdivision Geothermal Well Installations; setting January 27, 2021, as bid due date
and February 9, 2021, as date of public hearing
15.RESOLUTION NO. 20-631 approving Change Order No. 1 with TEi Construction Services,
Inc., for Unit 8 Boiler Repair Project, in the amount of $369,324
16.RESOLUTION NO. 20-633 approving contract renewal for Furnishing Gases and Cylinders
to the Power Plant with Airgas USA, LLC for a total amount not-to-exceed $32,000
17.RESOLUTION NO. 20-634 accepting completion of 2017/18 Right-of-Way Restoration
18.RESOLUTION NO. 20-635 accepting completion of Teagarden Drainage Improvements
19.RESOLUTION NO. 20-636 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Crane Farm Subdivision, 2nd Addition
20.RESOLUTION NO. 20-637 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Crane Farm Subdivision, 6th Addition
21.RESOLUTION NO. 20-638 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Scenic Valley Subdivision, 4th Addition
22.RESOLUTION NO. 20-639 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Scenic Valley Subdivision, 5th Addition
23.RESOLUTION NO. 20-640 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Sunset Ridge Subdivision, 8th Addition
24.RESOLUTION NO. 20-641 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Sunset Ridge Subdivision, 9th Addition
5
25.RESOLUTION NO. 20-642 approving completion of public improvements and releasing
security for South Fork Subdivision, 9th Addition
26.RESOLUTION NO. 20-643 approving completion of public improvements and releasing
security for South Fork Subdivision Wrap-Up
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH ANDERSON PROCESS & INSTRUMENTATION
SOLUTIONS (API SOLUTIONS), LLC, FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT
FOR THE POWER PLANT: City Attorney Mark Lambert explained that the contractor is
currently working on this project, but has not provided a Performance Bond for the new amount with
the Change Order. This is a requirement under Iowa law. He mentioned that if the Council approved
the Change Order tonight it should be contingent upon receipt of the Performance Bond. If Anderson
Process & Instrumentation Solutions, LLC, is unable to provide an updated Performance Bond
before their current job runs out of funds, they will have to be pulled from the work until it is
obtained. Mayor Haila explained that this was a time-sensitive project, and Electric Services is
interested in seeing the project continue instead of waiting a few more weeks.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-632 approving
Change Order No. 1 with Anderson Process & Instrumentation Solutions, LLC, for Maintenance
Services Contract for Power Plant, in an amount not to exceed $443,889.50, contingent upon
receiving the updated Performance Bond.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Merlin Pfannkuch, 1424 Kellogg Avenue, Ames, asked for more discussion of
the East Industrial Area before a contract is issued for $5 million for sanitary sewer and water mains
next spring. He mentioned that he had heard that the City of Ames might hear about the status of its
federal grant in February. Mr. Pfannkuch felt that the Council has done a pitiful job with this project
on being transparent. He felt that as usual when a project involves the Ames Economic Development
Commission, it gets a pass. The job as Council members is to examine proposals closely and involve
the public in the discussion. Mr. Pfannkuch stated that the Ames Economic Development
Commission Executive Dan Culhane keeps talking about how the City has missed out on
opportunities for industry by not having the infrastructure, but this is portraying the process too
simplistically. He explained that Mr. Culhane also talked about how great of a location the East
Industrial Area is to the Interstate and rail access, but he thought Mr. Culhane might be overstating
this information. It was noted that according to information available on the Iowa Department of
Economic Authority’s website, there are 27 Iowa certified sites of more than 67 acres. He stated that
15 of the sites have rail service and four-lane highway access, 11 sites have commercial air service
within 20 miles and Ames does not. There needs to be a major public discussion of this project. Mr.
Pfannkuch pointed out that with the pandemic not ending anytime soon, this is the time to be
cautious on spending.
6
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN SCOPE OF SERVICES:
Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth stated that joining her tonight is Public Relations Officer
Susan Gwiasda, Sustainability Coordinator Merry Rankin, and Energy Services Coordinator Kayley
Lain. Developing a Climate Action Plan addresses the City Council’s value of “Environmental
Sustainability,” and specifically, the goal of developing and adopting a Climate Action Plan. The
consultant services City staff had requested are:
1. Determine Community Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals - With assistance
from City staff as well as input gathered through a robust, multi-faceted, and
inclusive community-input process, the consultant is asked to develop Greenhouse
Gas reduction goals for the Ames community.
Ms. Schildroth noted that the team had looked at Dubuque and Iowa City’s Climate Action Plans
and also at Davis, California, Bloomington, Indiana, and Columbia, Missouri. In the other states, the
goals were already developed prior to going into the Climate Action Plan Request for Proposals
(RFP).
2.Develop a Climate Action Plan - The Plan will establish relevant, achievable, and
cost-effective strategies to achieve reduction goals within a timeline, designate
milestone reduction achievements along the timeline, and specify metrics to track and
measure progress.
3.Outreach and Engagement Process - Consultant will develop, oversee, and facilitate
a plan to solicit input and achieve meaningful engagement with the Ames
community. The City considers citizen input essential to developing a Climate Action
Plan.
The Plan should engage and empower residents, businesses, and institutions toward ownership and
responsibility in ensuring a resilient and sustainable future. Because of the importance of the Climate
Action Plan and the impact it will have on the total community, under the Request for Proposals the
Mayor and City Council members will serve as the Steering Committee for the consultants. In this
capacity, the Steering Committee will advise the consultant on interim proposals and policy
considerations during goal-setting and plan development, will provide direction and guidance to the
consultants regarding key decision points, and will make final decisions related to the consultants’
recommendations. This is the same role the Mayor and City Council are playing regarding the
development of the City’s new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schildroth noted that funds totaling
$130,000 are available for a Climate Action Plan and have been identified from the FY 2019/20
General Fund ending fund balance. Staff is taking the recommendation from Purchasing and waiting
to release the Request for Proposals until January 4, 2021, with the deadline for responses to be
February 2, 2021. A cross-departmental project team will evaluate the proposals and bring a proposal
back to the Council on March 23, 2021.
The Mayor opened public comment.
Allison Brundy, 3125 Maplewood Road, Ames, thanked the City on behalf of the Ames Climate
Action Team. She mentioned that a letter was sent to the Council from the Ames Climate Action
Team that recommended a few changes to the Request for Proposals (RFP). The group wanted to
see the mention of climate adaptation in the RFP. She noted that she did see the climate adaptation
7
piece in the other communities’ reports. Ms. Brundy thought it was interesting to see how other cities
are increasing their climate adaptation, climate action goals, and renewable energy goals. She is
supportive of moving forward with the process. It was also recommended to list the Ames 2040 Plan
and the Iowa Energy Plan as a resource in the RFP. Ms. Brundy explained that building climate
resilience for the people of Ames is an exciting prospect.
Lee Anne Willson, 5326 Springbrook Drive, Ames, stated she was very impressed with everything
she has learned about Ames and the City Council in respect to climate issues. She is a scientist and
understands when discussing land use; it is a different political process, but she can’t imagine how
one can address climate issues without thinking about how the land is used. It was mentioned that
the more land that is used, the more transportation is needed, and more farmland is covered up. Ms.
Willson recommended mentioning land use in the RFP.
Shellie Orngard, 928 Burnett Avenue, Ames, thanked the Council for getting the opportunity to
speak and for the emphasis on community input as part of the RFP. She noted that the Climate
Action Plan will be far more successful with having the Ames residents’ knowledge of and active
participation in developing the Plan and making it happen. Ms. Orngard thought it would be good
to have an RFP that allows for a wide scope of mitigation of CO2 emissions, but adaptations to the
already changing climate. The derecho event that happened earlier this year was a surprise and a
shock to all citizens, and it was also a wake-up call of how severe weather events can affect the
community financially, but also in the way they live their lives. Climatologists say that the climate
future is going to be different with more extreme weather events, more moisture on average, and
periodic droughts. Ms. Orngard stated that people need to anticipate what those changes are going
to be and prepare for them. The Climate Action Plan will need to work together with the Ames 2040
Plan in order for either Plan to be successful and that should be stated in the RFP. Preparing for a
climate future means people are going to have to think of new ways to do things differently. She
looks forward to future conversations on this topic.
Council Member Martin stated the suggestions are very well-intentioned and some of those will be
covered under the execution of the RFP by the consultants, but some of the suggestions are very easy
to state in the RFP. He explained that he was inclined to make a motion to add some references.
Council Member Gartin inquired when City engineers and staff are looking at capital improvement
plans is the issue of adaptation being considered and how is the staff already taking those issues into
account. City Manager Steve Schainker explained that staff is always looking at ways to make sure
there is enough infrastructure in place to handle unforeseen disasters, but it is difficult to guard
against every situation.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to edit the Request for Proposals to include appropriate
references to the City’s interest in climate adaptation planning, the fact that the Ames 2040 Plan is
underway, reference the Iowa Energy Plan as a resource, and to mention the City is also studying the
future of the Resource Recovery Plant.
8
Council Member Gartin mentioned that he would agree with most of the additions as they are really
for information purposes for the consultant, but the addition of adding the climate adaptation
component is an entirely different additional level of service and would change the scope. His
understanding was the City was focusing on ways to reduce the City’s contribution to greenhouse
gases and try to create a more sustainable community. Finding ways to make the community more
resilient to weather events seemed like a different proposal to him. He asked Council Member
Martin if he intended with his motion to expand the services. Mr. Martin stated he didn’t consider
his motion to be an expansion as it was in the scope of the Climate Action Plan. Council Member
Beatty-Hansen stated it also has to do with predictions of more extreme drought and flooding, and
adaptation could mean planning for different items that could be planted that have not been thought
of before.
Sustainability Coordinator Merry Rankin commented that the intent of staff doing the Climate
Vulnerability Study was to look at what considerations they needed to be aware of related to the
intensity and trickling effect. To include the Climate Vulnerability Study as a resource was the intent
to ensure the Climate Action Plan included strategies. She mentioned that, when looking across the
board, there are communities that have Climate Action Adaptation Plans and some who just have
components in them. Those pieces had already been intended to be covered, but could adjust how
they would be titling the Plan at the end of the process.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY OPTIONS STUDY SCOPE
OF SERVICES: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips stated that for the past 45-years the
community has been reliant on the Resource Recovery system to process and dispose of the solid
waste in the County. The community landfill closed in the 1990's, and there is no alternative landfill
in the County. The City is now at a point where it makes sense to study fundamental changes to how
the system operates and explore other technical options that have been developed within the past 45
years. The Power Plant’s conversion to natural gas in 2016 has given the City the opportunity to
show how the Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) combusts with the natural gas for the past four years.
There are some technical challenges to co-firing with the natural gas that didn’t exist when the RDF
was combusted with coal. Another reason is to analyze the electric markets and make purchase
decisions that are advantages to ratepayers; however, there are times when the City is not able to take
full advantage of low energy rates because the Power Plant must remain operating to dispose of the
RDF. The amount of natural gas that is used to combust the RDF could be greatly reduced if the City
had a unit that was more optimally sized to do so. Mr. Phillips also explained that the City is
approaching a point where the City needs to invest a significant amount of capital into the RDF
Storage Bin between the Resource Recovery Plant and the Electric Plant, in order to keep the bin
functional or move in a different direction that does not require the use of the Bin. Staff also
recognizes that the composition and quantities of waste along with the community’s interest have
changed since the mid-1970's when the Resource Recovery system started. It is becoming difficult
to make incremental changes that have added any major improvement to the process; therefore, staff
needs some expertise to understand where waste is going in the future and what methods are best
9
suited.
There are four options that City staff has requested to be evaluated. Mr. Phillips explained that each
option will have a dedicated waste-to-energy unit(s) smaller in scale then the Power Plant boilers that
staff believed will provide the City with more reliability and flexibility at a lower cost. The four
options are:
1. A dedicated Refuse Derived Fuel Unit inside the Power Plant potentially using one
of the retired turbine generator units
2. A dedicated Refuse Derived Fuel Unit in the Power Plant with larger (20") RDF
sizing in the hopes that this would reduce processing costs
3. To build a dedicated Refuse Derived Fuel Unit on a Greenfield Site to explore
recovering metals and other recycling materials at the front end of the process.
4.A dedicated Municipal Solid Waste Unit on a Greenfield Site where the raw
municipal waste would be combusted, and the recyclable metals would be recovered
after the combustion process.
Each option would be asking a consultant to outline the capital, operating the maintenance and other
costs, operational requirements, environmental issues, etc., to help the City analyze its options. All
those options would be weighed against a fifth option, which would be to continue investing in the
system that is currently in place. City staff is asking the Council to consider what had been prepared
and offer any other further directions.
Council Member Betcher stated it seemed odd to her that there wasn’t an examination into whether
or not the City should continue with waste-to-energy. She had assumed while doing the study that
one of the options would be to not continue in that direction and it sounded like other directions were
looked at ten-years ago. She stated that seemed like a long time to her with the scope of changes in
energy production and the ability to harness alternative energies. Ms. Betcher wanted to know why
they are not including the option to continue the waste-to-energy. Mr. Phillips stated staff
approached this process with the expectation that in the past the community and City Councils’
directions were waste-to-energy and that is why the proposed study followed the same philosophy.
He stated if there are alternatives, they could add them to the proposal, but wanted the Council to
keep in mind that there are other communities that partner with the Resource Recovery System. They
would need to make sure whatever future system or whatever is pursued that the other communities
are brought along with the new system. Mr. Phillips commented that the City needs to be cognizant
of the City’s obligations to the other communities.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know if it would be possible for the Boone Landfill to take over
all the waste. Mr. Phillips stated that he doesn’t believe that would be an option as Boone is not that
big of a landfill. Mr. Gartin stated the only option would be to build a landfill in Story County. Mr.
Phillips stated if the City did not have a waste-to-energy system, that option would need to be on the
table for discussion. Resource Recovery Plant Superintendent Bill Schmitt stated that those would
be the only alternatives as the DNR has not approved any landfills within the past 20 years. He noted
that the Boone Landfill has not planned to have anything else added to its landfill.
10
Council Member Betcher stated she had heard from the National League of Cities that a circular
waste economy that doesn’t turn the waste into energy, but turns waste into other products. Mr.
Phillips noted that one of the items staff will have the consultant look at is whether there is the
possibility of creating beneficial biproducts out of a new facility. The challenge is that right now the
City has a product that only has one end-user, which is the Power Plant, and when there are times
that the Power Plant can’t take the waste is when the City can get into a bind. Mr. Phillips explained
they will look for a consultant to let the City know if there are other options to come from the
process.
Mr. Gartin asked if a new facility were to be built, what sources of funding would be available. Mr.
Phillips stated staff would look to the consultant to see if there are any grants or other sources of
funding available.
Mayor Haila opened public input. It was closed when no one came forward
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to approve Alternative 1, authorizing staff to issue the
Request for Proposals for the Waste-to-Energy Options Study.
Council Member Martin stated that Option 1 made sense, but asked if the City should do anything
beyond it. Mr. Phillips pointed out that one of components of the scope of services will allow the
consultant, as part of its proposal, to point out if the City is missing out on any other opportunities.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING IOWA REINVESTMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM: City
Manager Steve Schainker commented that everyone might have noticed that site work has begun on
the northwest corner at Clark and Lincoln Way that will eventually house the relocated Starbucks.
With the relocation of Starbucks, it will free up property east of Lincoln Way for the Mixed-Used
Redevelopment. Within the next few weeks, the developer will come forward with its proposal and
negotiations for their incentive program. Mr. Schainker stated that the City was approached by the
Ames Economic Development Center (AEDC) about the Iowa Reinvestment District Program, and
the possibilities of taking advantage of the new development along Lincoln Way, and leveraging
some state funding to accomplish some of the possible goals of the Council. By rebating the newly
generated state taxes, the City may finance (in part or in full) construction of new projects to improve
residents’ quality of life, create and enhance unique opportunities, and substantially benefit the
community, region, and state through transformative projects. Mr. Schainker pointed out that the
Staff Report outlines the Program itself, the project examined, and the risks involved in pursuing the
Program. The Report also lists the steps that need to happen in a relatively short period of time, but
the benefits are immense. He noted that the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA)was
intrigued with the idea of the City trying to accomplish putting an indoor Aquatic Center in the
Downtown area. There are limited sites that are available for sale or re-development, but one
property is owned by the Iowa Department of Transportation that is north of Lincoln Way directly
across the street from the main DOT entrance (122 North Oak Avenue). This prospective indoor
11
aquatics center site has the advantage of being 1) available for sale, 2) large enough to accommodate
an indoor aquatics facility and accessory parking, 3) currently zoned for government use that does
not generate any property taxes, and 4) a favored site of the IEDA because of its close proximity and
interconnection with Downtown. Mr. Schainker noted to help show the leverage the City was
thinking of including the Downtown Plaza, and the Lincoln Way redevelopment project in the
application.
City Manager Schainker pointed out that the risk involved with this arrangement is that should the
actual rebated amount not be sufficient to cover the principal and interest payments for the bonds,
property taxes would have to cover any shortfall. Therefore, it is important that very conservative
estimates be made regarding the amount of new taxes that will be generated from the proposed
redevelopment of Lincoln Way (the sole source of the new taxes for rebating) and that generous
boundaries are considered when the Reinvestment District boundaries are drawn. This would allow
capturing new sales and hotel/motel taxes from any other future retail development in the
Reinvestment District in addition to the forthcoming Lincoln Way development. He noted that the
pre-application is due in February 2021, and a decision will probably not be made until a year from
now. Staff will need to move quickly in two months to submit the information needed for the pre-
application to see if the City of Ames is still in the running; therefore, the City will need to hire three
consultants. A consultant will need to be hired to help develop the concept along with the estimated
cost for the Plaza, and it was suggested to work with Confluence out of Des Moines, Iowa. Another
consultant, RDG Planning and Design, will need to be hired to work on the aquatic center concept.
The last consultant would be Decision Innovative Solutions for the economic impact and feasibility
analysis of the proposed elements of the project. Staff is recommending that the City Council waive
its Purchasing Policy and allow staff to negotiate contracts with the three consultants. Mr. Schainker
noted that funding has not been included in the budget and asked that the Council authorize that the
funding comes out of the hotel/motel tax available balance. He is unsure of the amount, but projected
about $25,000 for each consultant. He noted that he will be asking the Council to make a motion to
indicate to the DOT that the City would be interested in buying its site, at the appraised value, if the
City is able to raise the private donations necessary. The AEDC has promised to help spearhead a
drive for private donations.
Council Member Betcher stated that she had a concern from a citizen in the Oak to Riverside
neighborhood about “project creep” going west of the property on Lincoln Way. Mr. Schainker
explained that no boundaries have been established yet, and that will be a policy decision made by
the Council that will need to be in the pre-application.
Mayor Haila opened public comment and closed it when no one asked to comment.
Mayor Haila indicated the compressed timeline may give the Council some hesitancy about getting
public feedback for the project. The development is building on the input from all the public sessions
during the Healthy Life Center and the aquatic center is just scaling down the original project. They
have not known about the availability, but just found out about the deadline, which was set by the
State. Mr. Schainker mentioned that this is not the way the City prefers to move forward, but
12
something that has to be done, and staff is now scrambling to get everything done in a short period
of time. He is hopeful that the public is understanding and excited. They are trying to move forward
to get the amenity that the public wants without having to raise taxes. Mr. Schainker commented that
he was sure that there would be some people who were opposed to the Aquatic Center and asked
why there was not a vote on it. However, the issuance of the bonds is subject to a reverse
referendum whereby the submittal of a qualifying petition would force a bond election. City Manager
Schainker pointed out that it doesn’t take away from any of the local hotel/motel tax funding the City
will receive. The City will capture the same amount, but this is funding that would normally go to
the State that would be deferred to the City. Mayor Haila mentioned that the Staff Report explained
that the last time this Program was offered in Iowa was almost six years ago, and there is no
guarantee that the Program will continue next year; the Iowa Reinvestment District Program may
not be offered again.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Junck, to approve Option 1, which is to pursue the Iowa
Reinvestment District Program incentive by:
a. Directing staff to prepare a pre-application including
- the Lincoln Way redevelopment project
- the Downtown Plaza east of City Hall
- An indoor aquatics center on the Iowa Department of Transportation property
b. Waiving the Purchasing Policy, allowing staff to select Confluence for the Plaza,
RDG for the aquatics center, and Decision Innovative Solutions for the economic
impact and feasibility analysis.
c. Indicating to the Iowa Department of Transportation the City’s willingness to
purchase its property north of Lincoln Way at the appraised price subject to the
Reinvestment District Program incentive being awarded to the City and private
donations being secured in an amount sufficient to construct a new indoor aquatics
center.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DOWNTOWN FACADE GRANT: City Planner Benjamin Campbell explained that the Facade
Grant application was for 409 Douglas Avenue. The building is now vacant and contains a second
story apartment. County records state that the building was constructed in 1902. The applicant is
requesting to replace the sash windows on the second-story windows that fill the space as originally
designed, add an awning, replace the kickplate below the plate glass display windows along with the
windows themselves, and replace plywood fill next to the doors with glass. The applicant is
requesting the maximum allowed amount of $15,000 along with the $1,000 for design fees.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Martin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-644 approving the
Downtown Facade Grant for 409 Douglas Avenue for an estimated cost up to $15,000 for second-
story windows, an awning, a kickplate, and storefront glass, plus $1,000 in design fees.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
13
SPECIAL REQUEST FOR URBAN REVITALIZATION TAX ABATEMENT IN 2021
FROM 311 ASH AVENUE (FARMHOUSE FRATERNITY): Planning and Housing Director
Kelly Diekmann reminded the Council if they agreed to the special request, the Farmhouse Fraternity
will formally apply in January 2021 for approval. The Farmhouse Fraternity is applying late so they
will not be eligible for the previous year’s tax abatement.
Council Member Betcher inquired if it was known how much the City would lose in taxes. Mr.
Campbell stated the total eligible exemption amount would be $85,487 and approximately $27,552
would go to the State.
Mayor Haila opened public input.
Eugene Rodberg, 1715 Northwest Drive, Des Moines, representing the Farmhouse Fraternity,
explained that the application is late as the Fraternity was not aware of the Urban Revitalization Tax
Abatement during the building process. He appreciated the Council considering its request.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Alternative 1: to approve the request from the
Farmhouse Fraternity to be allowed to apply for a tax exemption at a reduced exemption schedule
as outlined in State law. The formal application would need to be submitted no later than February
1, 2021.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING OUTREACH RELATED TO SMALL LOTS AND
INCREASING HOUSING TYPE DIVERSITY: Planning and Housing Director Diekmann
explained that the City Council adopted a goal during its annual goal setting session to “Increase the
stock of diverse housing types for a variety of income levels through zoning,” including changes to
minimum lot size. Staff presented a report to the Council regarding small lots and increasing the
diversity of housing types on June 23, 2020. The report provided background regarding a range of
housing issues and comparisons to other cities, but ultimately, the focus was how to support housing
diversity in new developing areas, as the City grows. The Council showed interest in three options,
which were: 1) Reducing minimum lot area; 2) Adding lot size variation for 20% of lots in a
subdivision; and 3) Creating a Planned Unit Development (PUD) focused on small lots. Staff had
met with developers in October 2020 to gauge interest and discuss concerns related to text
amendments in support of small development in Ames. Allowing for smaller lots was desirable to
all participants in order to add housing development flexibility. Director Diekmann explained that
there was no strong preference for a particular direction from the developers, but based on staff’s
research and developer comments, staff believed that adding a Planned Unit Development as a new
zoning tool was preferred.
Council Member Martin stated that only having five developers didn’t seem like a lot and wanted
to know if that was normal. Mr. Diekmann mentioned that this is normal for the Ames area as there
are not a lot of developers in the community and regional developers would not take an interest.
14
Council Member Martin mentioned that the Staff Report mentioned this project is not to address
infill problems. Director Diekmann explained that the PUD tool is something that will have to be
described by the Council, and he wanted to point out that it is not meant to change densities that have
already been established. The PUD will not set a new zoning district. It is important to get this on
the books to allow for some greenfield sites to pursue this type of housing option. There is a lot more
outreach necessary and conditions that would need to be addressed if the PUD tool was thought to
be used for infill as opposed to the growth of the City.
The Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Betcher to approve Option 1: to add a PUD Overlay Zone as a new
zoning tool.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The Mayor recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:07 p.m.
STAFF REPORT REGARDING CAMERAS IN CAMPUSTOWN: Assistant City Manager
Brian Phillips stated that staff is asking the Council for some direction regarding cameras in
Campustown. This has been a project that has been intermittently worked on and brought to the
Council over the last eight to nine years, and the most recent situation was that the camera recordings
were planned to be stored on Campus per an arrangement with ISU; however, in investigating the
cost to install the system, the City would be charged some ongoing fees to do this. In consulting with
the contractors, staff believed the City could store the cameras at a lower cost. The question is
whether the Council is comfortable with the philosophy of storing the recordings, as this was an
issue in previous discussions. Mr. Phillips noted that Acting Police Chief Geoff Huff had reached
out to the ISU Student Government and the Campustown Action Association to gather their
perspectives about the recordings being stored with the City instead of on Campus. Both
organizations were still supportive of pursuing the camera project. Acting Police Chief Huff stated
that one change that had happened for the project was the Welch Avenue reconstruction as it allowed
the City to lay down fiber. He mentioned that both the Campustown Action Association and the ISU
Student Government were supportive of the project in the past and when the change was explained
to them, they were both still supportive.
Council Member Betcher stated that in the past some of the concern about the cameras was the
aspect of surveillance and that the Police are always watching. She mentioned that is not true and
the video would only be accessed when needed, but the Policy that was attached to the Staff Report
is called “Policy 336, Public Safety Video Surveillance System,” which makes it sound as if the
Police Department will be watching all the time. Ms. Betcher wanted to know if it was possible to
change the title so the City is not giving the impression that everyone is being watched 24/7, but just
adding security cameras. Chief Huff explained that he would agree with Ms. Betcher’s comment,
and the title is something that can be easily changed. He explained that staff plans on putting up
signage in the area letting the public know about the cameras.
15
Ex officio Member Whitlock mentioned that the cameras would create an opportunity for more
students to feel safe when they are out and about in the area. She noted there are a lot of bars in the
area and students may be out late at night. Ms. Whitlock explained that for her there are times when
she is walking home and some of those parts of Campustown are not well lit and she would feel
more comfortable knowing the cameras were there. Mayor Haila asked if this has been a topic of
discussion among the Student Government. Ms. Whitlock stated a discussion has not happened as
they have not met due to finals and the upcoming holidays.
Council Member Junck stated that the original conversation was a few years ago, and if the Council
does move forward with the cameras, she thought it would be important to remind students about
the previous conversations, and what is going to happen moving forward.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that one of the chief goals as a City Council Member is to protect
the citizens. He pointed out that there are cameras all over Campus, but once someone crosses over
to Lincoln Way there are not that many cameras available, and it is the Council’s duty to protect the
citizens.
Council Member Martin mentioned that he has some concerns about the timing of the project as he
has been on the Council for three years and this is the first time he is hearing about it. He was
concerned about the shift in focus from ISU holding the records to the Ames Police Department. Mr.
Martin stated that he believed it is better for the City to hold the equipment and make a policy. He
commented that this is a topic that a lot of cities have invested significant resources in community
involvement, and to make sure that people agree that having the state manage this level of activity
is something everyone is behind. Mr. Martin felt they should slow down the process a little bit to
allow for specific policy questions to be answered.
Council Member Gartin stated that they have had cameras around City Hall for some time and it is
2020; there is an assumption that cameras will be up. He didn’t feel the need for additional public
input.
The Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when there was no one wishing to speak.
Council Member Martin stated it is about increasing confidence and knowing exactly what the
Council is approving. He noted that the Council understands the topic is Campustown cameras, but
the policy that is in the Staff Report mentions that cameras will be placed in strategic locations
throughout the City. He is concerned as he is confident the Council knows they are only approving
the Campustown area, but not sure everyone in the community understands that cameras would not
be placed anywhere else without coming back to the Council for approval. Mr. Martin proposed
taking a two-to four-week break to allow time for his questions to be answered as well as any public
questions.
Council Member Gartin commented that when a Council member has these types of concerns, he
would defer to the Council member, but wanted to know if there were any issues with timing. Acting
16
Police Chief Huff stated that the delay would affect the contractor, due to the change in the weather,
as they were hoping to get it done before the weather got bad. He noted that a delay would move the
project to the Spring, but it was not a huge problem. City Manager Steve Schainker stated that if this
project is delayed, he hoped that all Council members would submit their questions to him so he can
get them addressed as soon as possible, and maybe have this item back at the next meeting in
December.
Mayor Haila asked ex officio Whitlock if students would have a problem with this project moving
forward during break without any additional input. Ms. Whitlock stated she would recommend
waiting until after the Student Government meets so they can relay the information. She pointed out
that students will not be checking their emails while on break. Ms. Whitlock believed the next
Student Government meeting would be on January 27, 2021.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to not take action on this item tonight and have staff bring it
back once questions have been addressed by staff.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO THE ANNEXATION MORATORIUM AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF NEVADA: Mayor Haila opened public input.
John Hall, 304 Main Street, Ames, with the Ames Economic Development Commission and
representing the Nevada Economic Development Council, stated he was available in case there were
any questions. He pointed out that the City of Nevada Administrator Jordan Cook was also online
if there were any questions.
Public input closed by the Mayor.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-645 approving the
Amendment of the Annexation Moratorium Agreement with the City of Nevada, 28E Agreement
regarding the establishment of a division line between corporate boundaries.
Roll Call Vote: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
REVISIONS TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS NECESSITATED BY A NEW STATE LAW
THAT PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING SHORT-TERM
RENTAL DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES: The Mayor opened the
public hearing and closed it after there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Gartin, to pass on first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 29
of the Ames Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. He closed the hearing after no one asked to speak.
17
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to pass on first reading an ordinance amending
Chapter 13 (Rental) of the Ames Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on first reading an ordinance amending
Chapter 35 (Guest Lodging) of the Ames Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. He closed the hearing after no one asked to speak.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-646 repealing the
fee for Guest Lodging Licensure.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2019/20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM (LINCOLN WAY/BEACH
AVENUE): The Mayor mentioned that it was brought to his attention that under 36a on the Agenda,
the amount should be $19,000 not $20,000.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it after there was no one wishing to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-647 approving the
reallocation of $19,000 from the savings in the 2018/19 Signal Program to the 2019/20 Traffic
Signal Program (Lincoln Way/Beach Avenue).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-648 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Van Maanen Electric, Inc., of Newton, Iowa, in
the amount of $274,254.18.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON INIS GROVE SIDEWALK PROJECT: Mayor Haila declared the public input
open. It was closed when no one came forward.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 20-649 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Pillar Inc., of Huxley, Iowa, in the amount of
$157,199.11.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
18
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EAST UN I VER SITY IMPACTED URBAN
REVITALIZATION AREA BOUNDARY BY ADDING 313 LYNN AVENUE AND ADDING
AN EXPIRATION DATE OF APRIL 1, 2024: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to pass on
second reading an Ordinance Amending the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area
Boundary by adding 313 Lynn Avenue and adding an expiration date of April 1, 20204.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF BUILDING
FEATURES INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS: Moved by Junck, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to
pass on second reading a Zoning Text Amendment regarding the extension of building features into
required setbacks.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
FACE-COVERING ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE SUNSET CLAUSE TO JUNE 30,
2021: Moved by Junck, seconded by Betcher, to pass on second reading the Face-Covering
Ordinance extending the sunset clause to June 30, 2021.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
BUDGET ISSUES/GUIDELINES: Finance Director Duane Pitcher stated the budget looked a little
different this year due to COVID. Staff’s ability to make predictions on the budget was not as strong
as it has been in the past. There has been an impact to the budget and that was reflected in the report.
The budget for next year is a plan where hopefully the City will return to normal. The Local Options
Sales Tax has done well, and Mr. Pitcher thought this was because the Iowa Department of Revenue
began the collection of sales tax on internet transactions. Director Pitcher pointed out that this year
the City will end up above budget along with some growth projected for next year. There is a balance
available in the General Funds that can be used for one-time expenditures, but he would recommend
maybe holding some of the balance, especially moving forward with any unknowns. The areas where
decisions will need to be made tonight will be ASSET, COTA, and the Outside Funding Requests.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that there are a lot of unknowns and he is nervous about what
the Federal Government might do. He wanted to know if there were any variables in the budgeting
process that Finance Director Pitcher would be concerned about. Director Pitcher explained that he
is a lot more confident than when he was last Spring when Final Amendments were presented. They
didn’t have any experience on the impact that COVID would have, obviously COVID could continue
and affect the City further. He gave examples of parking and hotel/motel tax. He noted that retail
sales came in a little better and the CARES Act Funding helped some of the areas that were cut back
from the General Fund. The impact on utilities and road-use tax took a hit due to COVID, but that
is bouncing back. Mr. Pitcher mentioned that because the City had reserves and acted quickly the
City is in a decent position for 2020 and staff is predicting that in 2021 things will more or less get
back to normal.
ASSET Human Services Funding: Assistant City Manager Schildroth pointed out that three ASSET
volunteers and CyRide Director Barbara Neal were on line to help answer any questions. Ms.
19
Schildroth commented that ASSET looks at the priority categories that were given by the Council
and what the funding has been for all the funders for the past five-six years. She mentioned that
Central Iowa Community Services (CICS) withdrew as an ASSET funder effective July 1, 2020.
CICS continues to fund services; however, funding is now accounted for separately from the ASSET
process. For FY 2021/22, City ASSET funds requested by agencies total $7,740,209, up $215,359
or 14.12% over the current FY 2020/21 contracted services of $1,524,850. Ms. Schildroth stated that
in the contracted amount it does include the $95,000 that had originally been allocated to MICA for
the Dental Clinic. The services are being transitioned to Primary Health Care and they requested
$95,000 to assist with its Dental Clinic equipment expenditures for six operatories. A new agency
to ASSET is Wings of Refuge. They provide housing and employment support to female victims of
sex trafficking. Although Wings of Refuge has been approved to be in the ASSET process beginning
in FY 2021/22, they decided not to request funds at this time. Ms. Schildroth went over a few
highlights of ASSET agency requests that included Ames Community Preschool Center, Bridge
Home/formerly known as Emergency Residence Project, Good Neighbor, HIRTA, Primary Health
Care, Wings of Refuge, and the YWCA.
Ms. Schildroth explained that HIRTA provides transportation to City residents in-town and areas
outside of Ames. Historically the allocation from the City has been between $38,000 - $40,000
annually. HIRTA received clarification last summer that the Federal Transit Funds (FTA) could no
longer be used to supplement rides provided within City limits since the City’s transit system,
CyRide, also receives FTA funds. Due to HIRTA not being able to subsidize their funds using FTA
they are requesting $130,000 from the City, which is a 225% increase over the current year allocation
of $40,993. CyRide has contracted with HIRTA for over ten years to provide the Dial-A-Ride
paratransit service. In reviewing the FY 2021/22 ASSET budget submitted by HIRTA, cost
comparisons were made with the Dial-A-Ride contract as many of the riders on HIRTA’s general
transportation service could qualify for Dial-A-Ride. Ms. Schildroth commented that within the last
three to four years HIRTA has lost a significant amount of Medicaid funding due to changes in
Medicaid. She commented that her concern with the HIRTA increase to $130,000 that it is quickly
approaching the amount of the Dial-A-Ride contract which is budgeted to be $175,000 in FY
2021/22. HIRTA charges per ride are similar, but the Dial-A-Ride contract with HIRTA allows
CyRide to access federal funds that offset the cost of the ride by 80%. It is also cheaper for the rider
to utilize Dial-A-Ride. HIRTA charges $2.50 per ride and Dial-A-Ride only charges $2.00. Ms.
Schildroth mentioned that she felt it was important to match a rider with the most appropriate ride,
and that is something the mobility coordinator through HIRTA is supposed to be working on, but
they are not seeing a lot of movement recently. CyRide Director Barb Neal explained that the cost
to operate Dial-A-Ridge is high compared to fixed routes, and that is why they have it contracted out.
She felt that it is important to avoid duplication of services and making sure the City’s investment
in transportation is maximized.
Council Member Gartin asked if staff was making any recommendations regarding HIRTA and Dial-
A-Ride. Ms. Schildroth stated that they do not have any specific recommendations, but any
suggestions that would help guide the volunteers when they meet for the allocation process in
January would be appreciated. She noted that staff had already alerted the City volunteers to this
20
situation and if they wanted to continue to potentially compete against themselves with
transportation, but given the duplication and the rising cost the City needs to approach this topic
carefully. They want to match a rider with the best ride that will best meet their needs.
Mayor Haila wanted to know what the ramifications would be for HIRTA and the residents if the
Council decided to not make up the difference. Ms. Schildroth stated that what is happening this year
is that HIRTA drew down its entire allocation as of October 2020. HIRTA had gone to the Board
of Supervisors asking to use the funds that the County had to continue providing rides to Ames
residents. She noted that she sees the invoices when they come through and she recognizes names
that could be on Dial-A-Ride. It was recommended that between now and the allocation process in
January to talk to HIRTA about why they are not moving people over to Dial-A-Ride when people
do qualify. She pointed out that it is only a matter of completing a simple application. It was
explained that the clients will not see any difference between HIRTA and Dial-A-Ride as a HIRTA
bus is going to pick them up regardless if it was HIRTA or a Dial-A-Ride.
Ms. Neal mentioned that a lot of the people that HIRTA is transporting could move to Dial-A-Ride
services. She noted that the riders aren’t aware that they should switch to Dial-A-Ride as it is the
same bus and might not understand the difference. She felt that HIRTA should be filling in the gaps
for what Dial-A-Ride can’t provide. Ms. Neal stated they have room on Dial-A-Ride and the answer
is to try and shift as many people to Dial-A-Ride and then see what gaps there are. She doesn’t think
there is a strong interest by HIRTA to do that right now. Ms. Neal has asked them to, but they are
not doing it.
Council Member Corrieri stated that she agrees with Ms. Neal as she doesn’t think it is the Council’s
job to look for ways to supplement HIRTA’s income that they are losing. When thinking about
ASSET duplication of services that is incredibly important, especially if they want it to be
sustainable. Ms. Corrieri commented that they should be looking to HIRTA to fill the gaps and not
just duplicating what the City’s own services can already provide. She thought that if the City is able
to work with a lot of the agencies that are serving the people of Ames in other ways, they could get
them to move to Dial-A-Ride and not have to rely on HIRTA.
Mayor Haila stated that the big issue is the HIRTA needs to understand that the City doesn’t have
the financial reserves or the ability to fund something that they could potentially help by moving
people to Dial-A-Ride. The concern would be if HIRTA started denying people rides due to
insufficient funds when there is funding available, but just through a different program. Ms. Corrieri
agreed and felt this is where reaching out to some of the agencies would be helpful, and thought that
some of the problem will take care of itself. Ms. Corrieri would recommend a 5% increase in funding
and felt it will sort itself out when it gets to that point.
Council Member Gartin stated it seems easy to say not to duplicate services, but pulling the funds
from HIRTA will that jeopardize any other services that citizens are relying on. Director Neal stated
CyRide budgets $175,000 a year for Dial-A-Ride services and that amount is not fully used. She
mentioned that about four years ago CyRide carried about 14,000 people on Dial-A-Ride services
21
through HIRTA, but it is currently down to 7,200. The Dial-A-Ride service is continually dropping
in numbers. They do not actively go out and solicit people for Dial-A-Ride, but CyRide would be
willing to partner with HIRTA to get people on the right service. Ms. Neal pointed out that she is not
saying that HIRTA does not deserve some funding from ASSET, but not sure if that large of an
increase is going to take away from CyRide’s abilities. She is sure there is a threshold, but she is not
sure what that would be. Ms. Schildroth wanted to point out that federal funding looks at rides and
ridership and whether HIRTA is providing the rides on its regular funding or by Dial-A-Ride, they
get to count rides both ways. She had talked to a few of the agencies that have used HIRTA for
transportation and a couple agencies mentioned that their clients were not riding as much as the
agency itself had bought its own vehicle or van and are doing the transportation themselves. Ms.
Corrieri explained that when Medicaid changed the transportation funding a lot of agencies
purchased their own vehicles as it was not cost effective anymore.
Council Member Martin stated that it seems they are worried about sustaining HIRTA by allowing
them to miscategorize the use of its equipment. The Council is worried about the good things that
HIRTA provides, but is worried about the duplication of Dial-A-Ride. He noted that it all seems very
convoluted and it is a bad approach. Mr. Martin wanted to know if they could include a condition
in the ASSET contract with HIRTA that the funding can only be used for rides that can’t be provided
by Dial-A-Ride. Ms. Schildroth mentioned that they had discussed this before and that is a question
that would need to be addressed with the Legal Department. Mr. Martin stated it would solve part
of the problem.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to increase the allocation to ASSET by 5%.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Andrea Rich, ASSET volunteer, stated that the requests are higher this year than it has ever been
before, and the decisions are getting harder to make. She wanted to have some guidance from the
Council as to how ASSET should proceed during its budget allocation meetings. Mayor Haila stated
that is a good question and it probably goes back to getting the community needs assessment done,
which would give the Council direction.
Council Member Corrieri stated that she has sat on ASSET before and the ASSET volunteers should
be empowered to make decisions. They are the ones who review the data closely and meet with the
individual agencies. She mentioned that if the ASSET volunteers agree that one service has a higher
priority than another, then they should look at whether an increase is warranted based on the
outcomes it is seeing. Council Member Betcher stated that the ASSET volunteers are in the best
position to know when something should be said to the agencies about the funding being a little short
of any request. Council Member Corrieri stated that there is still a significant amount of money that
is able to be had from the government. There was a lot of help available to the non-profit agencies.
Mayor Haila mentioned that he has discussed with Jean Kresse, United Way, about reaching out to
nonprofits to give them a heads-up that funding is down. Ms. Schildroth commented that any way
they can bring that message forward would be helpful. She mentioned that the Community Needs
22
Assessment is still in process and hoping to have the data sometime next year and would be available
for FY 2022/23.
There was a discussion about the viability of the City continuing to provide ASSET funds and it was
mentioned that in order to make any changes to the Policy there would need to be in-depth
conversations had within the City and also with other joint funders. Mayor Haila explained that this
would be a discussion with United Way, Story County Board of Supervisors, and ISU Student
Government.
Commission on the Arts: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips stated that the Commission on the
Arts (COTA) allocation for FY 2020/21 was $183,898. This was an 8.9% increase compared to the
allocation for FY 2019/20. For FY 2021/22, COTA organizations have requested funding in the
amount of $218,175 (excluding special spring and fall grants). This is an 18.6% ($34,277) increase
from the FY 2020/21 appropriation. Mr. Phillips stated COTA is looking for a “pot of money” that
the COTA commissioners can use to make recommendations for the annual grants. The
commissioners will also take a portion of that funding and set it aside for the spring and fall special
grants.
The Mayor stated the City had a well-attended and well-presented Arts Workshop. He wanted to
know if the funding would come from COTA if the Council was interested in funding some of the
initiatives that were presented at the Workshop. Mr. Phillips explained it would not as he would
consider those a special activity.
Council Member Betcher mentioned she is not sure how much money the City of Ames is putting
into the Arts as funding is scattered throughout the budget. City Manager Steve Schainker explained
that the Finance Director, Duane Pitcher is working on a report to show what the City of Ames is
putting into Arts and what other cities are doing. Mr. Pitcher stated that he has pulled some of the
data together. Funds are driven by whether a city has a facility and also what is considered Art. Ms.
Betcher commented that she asked about getting the report because having a baseline for where the
City is now will give a bigger picture as to how much the City is adding to the amount.
Council Member Gartin stated the amount is $34,000. Ms. Betcher stated that $34,000 in the grand
scheme of things is not that much, but wants to know where the City stands. Council Member
Corrieri asked why the Council couldn’t make a motion to increase the allocation by 5% as there is
nothing stopping the Council from increasing that amount during budget time to allocate more, if
needed.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Martin, to increase the allocation to COTA by 5%.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junk, Gartin. Voting Nay:
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
Council Member Martin stated that along the lines of responding to community input, it was
observed in the Staff Report that some programmable one-time funding is available. He noted that
23
he would like to get proposals from staff on how to put together a pool of money and brainstorm
what may be useful to the community. Mr. Schainker mentioned that he will come back to the
Council with a “pot of money” for the Council to appropriate for a one-time grant use in addition
to the 5% increase that was just passed.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Corrieri, to have staff come up with additional funding for a one-time
grant that is in addition to the 5% increase in COTA funds.
Council Member Gartin stated he is fully supportive of the motion, but what the Council has heard
from the input falls into increasing the annual amount and one-time projects, as he believes both are
needed.
Council Member Betcher asked for clarification on how this one-time grant money is different from
the grant program the Council approved last year. Mr. Phillips stated that the Public Arts
Commission (PAC) is working on that initiative and the concept it is currently pursuing is a
partnership with the Octagon Center for the Arts to use the funding to complete some renovations
that would then provide studio space for artists. Ms. Betcher stated that is not what the Council had
approved the funding for.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Betcher stated that what was approved for the Public Art Commission (PAC) was
a concept for small grants to be given to various organizations and it sounds like the funds are being
used for Capital Improvements instead of a piece of art that would contribute to the community. Mr.
Phillips mentioned that he had indicated to the Public Art Commission that ultimately whatever they
recommend needs to come back to the Council for consideration. He believed the Public Arts
Commission’s view is that the renovations would provide space for individual artists and would be
appropriate. He pointed out that there were very few parameters given with the Program.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to have Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips come back
with what the Public Arts Commission is doing with the Small Grant Program.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Outside Funding requests: Mr. Phillips stated that the City Council has exempted the Ames
Economic Development Commission’s business development partnership, the Ames/ISU
Sustainability Coordinator, and the Ames Human Relations Commission from the process, since its
activities are conducted in an official capacity on behalf of the City government. Funds for these
programs come from two sources. The Hotel/Motel Tax Fund supports the workforce development
activities undertaken by the Ames Economic Development Commission. Requests from other
outside organizations are supported with funds from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund. The portion
of the requests that would be financed from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund totaled $231,251 for
FY 2021/22, which is a 9.5% increase over the amount budgeted in the current year from the Local
Option funds ($211,112).
24
Council Member Gartin commented that it is important that the City continues to show a
commitment to maintaining the Hunziker Youth Sports Complex as it brings a lot of activity to the
community. He felt that Hunziker Youth Sports Complex’s request for a $45,000 allocation this year
does not seem like a crazy amount to him.
City Manager Schainker mentioned that a change for the Ames Main Street Farmers’ Market was
because they missed the deadline for the financing through the grant program through the Ames
Convention and Visitors Bureau, which is the proper source of funding. The Ames Main Street
Farmers’ Market is coming to the Council asking for funding. Mr. Schainker commented that if the
Council agreed to a 6% increase in allocation to Outside Funding it would cover everything except
the Farmers’ Market. Council Member Gartin wanted to know how much of an increase would cover
everything that is being requested including the Farmers’ Market. It was noted the increase would
need to be 9.5%. Council Member Betcher stated she had some difficulty with the Farmers’ Market
request primarily because they have used the Community Grant Funds before, so she is not sure why
the Farmers’ Market missed the deadline. She felt that if it was just improvements then the Council
should have them apply next year. Mr. Phillips stated the Farmers’ Market is proposing to support
musical entertainment, a petting zoo, cooking contest, pony rides, and other market expenses.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve a 9.5% increase for Outside Funding.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Betcher. Motion declared carried.
Director Pitcher explained that is all for decisions, but there are minutes and other items attached to
the Staff Report. He noted that one of the items was from the Ames Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Mr. Schainker explained that no action was needed to be taken on those items at this time and will
move forward with those requests during Budget Wrap-Up.
Council Member Martin mentioned that he understood that there was some background information
on the Lincoln Way Median Project that may be useful for the Council and wanted to know if that
could be sent to the Council. Mr. Phillips stated that there is a previous Lincoln Way Median Study
that was done about eight years ago with ISU and he will send it out to the Council.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila mentioned there are
only two items on Dispositions and the first one was a memo from Kelly Diekmann, Planning and
Housing Director in response to the request from Jerry Nelson for consideration of eliminating
parking requirements for small residential developments in Downtown. Mr. Schainker recommended
placing the request on a future agenda to discuss.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Beatty-Hansen to place the memo from Director Diekmann on a
future agenda to discuss Jerry Nelson’s request for consideration of eliminating parking requirements
for small residential developments in Downtown.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried.
25
The second item was a letter from the Ames Climate Action Team giving input for the Climate
Action Plan Request for Proposals that was discussed during Item No. 27 on the Agenda, and per
Mr. Schainker no action is required.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to update the 2005 report
considering continuing the viability of maintaining the City Assessor.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know what the purpose would be in getting an updated report.
Ms. Betcher mentioned that the 15-year old data doesn’t tell the Council if it is fiscally responsible
for the City in 2020 to continue having a City Assessor since there is now a County Assessor. She
pointed out that there are only seven or nine cities that have both and it also seemed like a good time
since the City Assessor is retiring.
Council Member Gartin stated he has no interest in losing the City Assessor and cede that position
to the County. He felt there is a great value in having the accountability of a City Assessor.
Council Member Martin asked how much staff time it would take to refresh the study. City Manager
Schainker explained that it would be substantial, and staff could do it, but it wouldn’t be until
February as they have the Reinvestment Program and Budget to finalize. He mentioned that the City
is going to have to sit down with the County Assessor, who is going to have to explain his plans and
operating costs. Mr. Schainker stated he is not saying they can’t get the information, but is asking
for more time to obtain the needed information.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay: Corrieri,
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
There was a discussion about if the Examining Board should proceed with looking for a City
Assessor. Council Member Corrieri stated that the Council is still interested in moving forward with
continuing to hire a City Assessor.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Junck to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
26