HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated March 25, 2025To:Mayor and City Council
From:Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning and Housing
Date:March 21, 2025
Subject:Response from City Attorney and Fire Chief regarding Proceeding with
Annexation
Item No. 19
MEMO
City Council reviewed the status of the proposed northern Ames annexation, which
includes the Ames Golf and Country Club (AGCC) and homes within the Irons
Subdivision, at the March 11 meeting. The AGCC and Irons properties are subject to
agreements obligating them to apply for annexation at the City's request. After initiating
the annexation and failing to receive a substantial number of annexation applications, the
March 11 discussion was held to seek direction from Council regarding how to proceed.
The original report with its alternative can be found at this link.
At the meeting, Council directed staff to sever the Borgmeyer related lands and to
proceed with its annexation separately from the Irons and AGCC properties. Notably,
by splitting the annexation area, the AGCC land is the most significant component
of pursuing annexation, as its land area alone would allow for an 80/20 annexation
of the Irons properties regardless of status of the individual Irons homeowner
submitting applications.
City Council also received a letter from the AGCC on March 11 questioning certain
elements of the original agreement and proceedings for annexation (See attached).
The letter indicated that AGCC did not want to be annexed at this time but would
be willing to discuss future annexation. At the March 11 meeting, Council directed
staff to provide a response regarding fire protection and an opinion about the legal
status of the agreement for the March 25 meeting. Attached are memos regarding
these topics. The Fire Chief believes the facilities serving the area are consistent with our
normal firefighting practices and as a career fire department, it has staff at three stations
24-hours a day to respond to emergencies. The City Attorney's office opined that the
agreement is valid as a covenant and the agreement to annex at City Council direction
still applies.
With the information provided to Council, staff now seeks direction on how to proceed.
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
1
#1. Direct the City Attorney to send notice requesting annexation applications from the
Irons and AGCC by April 30 and notifying those who remain noncompliant that court
action will be pursued to compel performance of the covenant. With annexation, initiate
rezoning of the properties to FS-RL (Original Staff Recommendation)
#2. Request annexation applications from the Irons and AGCC by April 30 with an offer
to transition City imposition of taxes over three years on a 75%, 50%, 25% abatement
schedule. With annexation, initiate rezoning of the properties to FS-RL.
#3. Direct staff to reach out to representatives of AGCC for meeting before April 2nd to
discuss their proposed timeline of annexation to not occur until the sanitary sewer and
water mains reach the southern boundary of the Irons subdivision. (Suggested by AGCC
Attorney in a March 20th email.
#4. Agree not to initiate annexation until such time in the when the Irons subdivision
would become island as a result of an annexation. (Suggested by Daryle Vegge in a
March 9th email to the City Council)
ATTACHMENT(S):
Water Pressure Memo for CC - March 25 2025 Mtg._.docx
City Attorney Memo to Council.pdf
AGCC Letter to City Council March 11th
J. Schroeder - City of Ames & AGCC, Annexation Follow up.pdf
D. Vegge - Annexation of the Irons.pdf
City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
2
FIRE
MEMO
515.239.5109 main 1300 Burnett Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Fire Department
To:Ames City Council
From:Rich Higgins, Fire Chief
Date:March 19, 2025
Subject:Water Pressure Evaluation in Proposed Annexation Area of Ames Golf &
Country Club
During the March 11, 2025, City Council meeting, while discussing Item
#33 – "Update on Applications Received for North Ames Voluntary
Annexation of Multiple Properties Generally between George W. Carver
Avenue and Hyde Avenue," Council reviewed a letter from Jonathan L.
Schroeder of Fredrikson & Byron legal firm, representing the Ames Golf &
Country Club. The letter raised concerns about annexation, including
whether the Ames Fire Department could provide adequate fire protection
without assistance from the Franklin Township Fire Department's water
tanker truck due to potentially insufficient water pressure from Xenia fire
hydrants.
The Council requested that the Fire Chief evaluate the water pressure
concerns and report back at the March 25 meeting.
CURRENT FINDINGS:
The Ames Golf & Country Club and The Irons receive water service from Xenia
Rural Water District for both domestic use and fire protection. According to
Kevin Lyons, Distribution Manager for Xenia Rural Water District, this area is
served by an 8” water main. The 8” water main is fed by 10” water mains on
both the north and south ends. The static water pressure in that area from the 8”
water main is 90 – 110 PSI. The water system for that area was built using Iowa
SUDAS (Statewide Urban Design and Specifications), which specifies water
system components like water main size, pressure, hydrants, etc. This is the
same standard that the City of Ames uses.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Ames Fire Department is a career fire department that maintains 24/7
coverage with 12 – 18 full-time personnel on duty at any given time, operating
3
out of three strategically placed fire stations. As a career fire department,
personnel are already at the station, ensuring immediate and consistent
response capability at all times.
Based on communication with Xenia Water Distribution Manager Kevin
Lyons and consultation with COA Utility Maintenance Supervisor Dale
Weber, I can confirm that the existing water mains meet or exceed City of
Ames standards for size, pressure, and flow rates necessary for effective
fire suppression by the Ames Fire Department, without the need of a
tanker truck. The water supply system includes strategically placed
hydrants with spacing that complies with our City's fire code requirements
and SUDAS.
4
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146 main
515.239.5142 fax
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Legal Department
MEMO
Legal Department
To: Mayor Haila, Ames City Council
From: Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney
Date: March 21, 2025
Subject: Letter from Ames Golf & Country Club attorney
On March 11, 2025, the Council received a letter from Jonathan Shroeder,
attorney representing the Ames Golf & Country Club. At the March 11 City
Council meeting, the Council directed me to respond to the legal issues raised
in that letter.
By way of background, the Ames Golf & Country Club (AGCC) agreed to the
Covenant and Annexation agreement in May 2014. This was recorded with the
County Recorder’s office on May 22, 2014.
Covenants in Iowa are valid for a period of 21 years per Iowa Code 614.24.
We are now approximately 11 years since the covenant was agreed to and
recorded, so we are well within that 21-year time frame.
AGGC now maintains that the agreement/covenant expired after ten years,
citing Iowa Code section 614.17A. That Iowa Code section says that “an action
shall not be maintained in a court, either at law or in equity, in order to recover
or establish an interest in or claim to real estate if all of the following conditions
are satisfied: a. The action is based upon a claim arising more than ten years
earlier or existing for more than ten years…” [Underling added.] That Iowa
Code section then allows such a claim to be renewed every ten years if certain
steps are taken, and AGCC says the City did not take such steps to preserve
the claim, and therefore the agreement/covenant is no longer valid.
The problem with AGCC’s argument in this regard is that this Code section talks
about an action to establish an interest in or a claim to property, and an
annexation is neither of these. An interest or claim in property would be such
5
things as a claim to full or partial ownership, a right of first refusal, and option to
purchase, and the like. The agreement/covenant addresses annexation of
the properties – an annexation is not a claim on the property or the
assertion of an interest in the property.
In fact, the court decision AGCC cites in its letter, West Lakes Properties, L.C. v.
Greenspon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 908 N.W.2d 883 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) is a case
involving Iowa Code section 614.17A and a right of first refusal that had not
been extended following the procedure spelled out in the statute. The appeals
court held that a right of first refusal is an interest in a property, so the
underlying matter was subject to Iowa Code 614.17A. In the present situation,
the underlying matter is an annexation, not an interest in the property, so
section 614.17A is inapplicable.
In a case not cited in the AGCC’s letter, 129 State L.L.C., vs. Howard 209, L.C.,
943 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020), the Iowa Court of Appeals addressed the
issue of whether use restrictions in a covenant were subject to the 10-year
limitation in section 614.17A and held that they were not. One party was
alleging a violation of a use restriction in a covenant, and the other party
asserted that the use restriction had expired after the 10-year deadline in
614.17A, which had elapsed and had not been renewed. The court held that
Iowa Code section 614.24’s 21-year effective period applied to the use
restriction in the covenant, not the 10-year period in section 614.17A. A
covenant requiring voluntary annexation of a property is much more akin to a
use restriction than an interest in the property.
So, because the annexation agreement is a covenant, covenants are
effective for 21 years and we are within the 21 years, and Iowa Code
section 614.17A is not applicable because an annexation is not an interest
in or claim to property, the agreement/covenant for annexation is valid and
enforceable.
6
The AGCC letter, in numbered paragraph 2, also asserts that the City Council
was proceeding with the annexation without making a finding that said
annexation would “serve the best interests of the City” as stated in paragraph 4
of the agreement/covenant. Paragraph 4 states “The City Council may
conclude that the annexation of said Real Estate to the City on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth would service the best interests of the City." I
do not read this as a specific requirement that the Council formally make a
finding or approve a statement that the annexation would serve the best
interests of the City. Rather, the Council deciding to proceed with the
annexation is indicative of the fact that the Council believes it would serve the
best interests of the City. However, if the Council decides to proceed with the
annexation now, the Council can make such a determination as the matter
progresses.
#
7
March 11, 2025
Sent via email only to MayorCouncil@cityofames.org
City of Ames
Attn: City Council and Staff
515 Clark Ave
Ames, IA 50010
RE: Proposed annexation of Ames Golf and Country Club
Dear Council Members and City Staff,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing on behalf of my client, Ames Golf and Country Club
(“AGCC”), regarding the proposed annexation currently under consideration by the City of Ames
(the “City”). AGCC is aware of the Covenant and Agreement for Annexation (the “Annexation
Agreement”) that was entered into by the City and the then-President of AGCC.
We understand and appreciate the City’s efforts to grow and enhance its community. That said,
after careful consideration and discussions with AGCC, we feel that the current timing is not the
best practical moment for moving forward with the annexation. Please understand that none of the
same leadership that was around when the Annexation Agreement was signed are still apart of
AGCC, so the current Board is getting up to speed on the Annexation Agreement and the City’s
annexation process. As a result, the Board has had a fair number of questions for City Staff, and
they have been helpful in providing answers.
Please note that while my firm does not represent The Irons subdivision owners or The Irons
Townhomes Owners Association, Inc., or The Irons Owners Association, Inc., AGCC’s goals may
align with The Irons owners due to the proximity with AGCC and the City’s intent to annex The
Irons with AGCC’s land.
The request by the City for AGCC to annex into the City of Ames came as a bit of a surprise; first,
that the Borgmeyer farm was selling to developers and being annexed into the City of Ames, but
also that the City decided now was the time for AGCC to be annexed in as well. AGCC has several
concerns with the timing of this request, which is why AGCC has asked its many questions and
did not immediately submit an application for annexation. Those concerns include, but are not
limited to:
8
March 11, 2025
Page 2
1. The Annexation Agreement appears to no longer be enforceable under Iowa Code section
614.17A and West Lakes Properties, L.C. v. Greenspon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 908 N.W.2d
883 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). Iowa Code section 614.17A states that “an action shall not be
maintained in a court, either at law or in equity, in order to recover or establish an interest
in or claim to real estate if all the following conditions are satisfied:
a. The action is based upon a claim arising more than ten years earlier or existing
for more than ten years.
b. The action is against the holder of the record title to the real estate in possession.
c. The holder of the record title to the real estate in possession and the holder’s
immediate or remote grantors are shown by the record to have held chain of
title to the real estate for more than ten years.
All of these factors are present with the Annexation Agreement. Under the West Lakes
ruling, an interest in real estate is not enforceable if the holder of interest did not file a
verified claim within 10 years of when the agreement was made of record. It does not
appear the City filed a verified claim to preserve its interests in the Annexation Agreement.
2. Even if the Annexation Agreement was enforceable, it appears the City based its decision
to pursue annexation at this time either based on (1) traditional annexation factors as
outlined in the January 14, 2025 council minutes; or (2) ease of administration in the
annexation process as outlined in the Staff recommendations for the March 11, 2025
meeting. The City should have to make the determination that the annexation “would serve
the best interests of the City” as outlined in Section 4 of the Annexation Agreement.
3. The City abruptly decided to add annexation of AGCC and the Irons to its recent
annexation efforts of the Borgmeyer farm. The addition of the AGCC land was not City
Staff’s original recommendation. AGCC was not aware that annexation of AGCC’s land
was being explored by the City until Kelly Diekmann emailed Scott Nugent, General
Manager of AGCC, on January 27, 2025 after City Council already directed City staff to
move forward with annexation steps. None of the leadership that was around in 2014 when
the Annexation Agreement was signed is still at AGCC, so the entire leadership team is
having to get up to speed quickly.
4. Annexation at this time does not make practical sense from a utility services standpoint.
Water and sewer are not likely going to be available to AGCC or The Irons for several
years, potentially over 10 years, as development of all of the land to the South has to happen
before utility lines are extended to AGCC’s border.
9
March 11, 2025
Page 3
5. Fire protection will be inadequate under the City’s jurisdiction without proactive
coordination with Franklin Township Fire Department. The hydrants in AGCC and The
Irons do not hold sufficient water pressure from Xenia to allow City firetrucks to utilize
them in the event of a fire. This would require a water tanker truck, which the City does
not currently have. The Frankin Township department, which is currently the closest
department by almost 2 miles, has a tanker truck and would be immediately dispatched in
the event of a fire. If a fire were to occur at AGCC, the City would have to immediately
contact and coordinate with Franklin Township in order to avoid a potentially devastating
fire.
6. The annexation of AGCC and The Irons does not make sense until water and sewer services
are available for connection, or at least until a connection is imminent. There most likely
has to be 160 acres of residential development before that is a realistic possibility.
While my client remains committed to the idea of annexation, we would like to explore the
possibility of re-evaluating the timeline based on the above concerns. We recognize that
annexation is a significant step for both the City and property owners, and i t is our goal to ensure
that the process works effectively for all involved. Our intention is not to delay or derail this
process, but rather to suggest that a more thoughtful approach might benefit both AGCC and the
City in the long run.
We would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the City to discuss these concerns and work
together toward a mutually beneficial solution. We believe that through open communication and
collaboration, we can find a timeline that works better for everyone involved while still achieving
the shared goal of annexation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to having a constructive
conversation with you.
Sincerely,
Jonathon L. Schroeder
Direct Dial: 515.242.8972
Email: jschroeder@fredlaw.com
10
1
Hall, Renee
Subject:RE: City of Ames and AGCC - Annexation Follow Up
From: Schroeder, Jonathon <JSchroeder@fredlaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Schainker, Steve <steve.schainker@cityofames.org>; Diekmann, Kelly <kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org>; Lambert,
Mark <mark.lambert@cityofames.org>
Subject: City of Ames and AGCC - Annexation Follow Up
[External Email]
Good afternoon,
I am following up on the attached correspondence that was sent to the City prior to the March 11th Council
meeting. I know that Mark is putting together a brief to the Council regarding the legal issues that were raised in my
correspondence. However, I think it would be beneficial for the City, AGCC, and The Irons to discuss a mutually
beneficial resolution to the matter. It is not in any party’s interest to litigate this matter, and AGCC does not want it
to come to that point.
As outlined in my correspondence, AGCC would like to have a discussion with the City on the timing of the
annexation as it does not make practical sense at this time given that sanitary sewer and water lines are likely to
take anywhere from 5 to 20 years to reach the boundary of AGCC’s property. AGCC would propose that AGCC, The
Irons, and City agree that AGCC and The Irons voluntarily annex into the City once sanitary sewer and water main
reach the Southern boundary of The Irons. This new agreement would be recorded with the County, and the City
would be able to preserve its rights by filing verified claims.
AGCC would like to set a meeting with the City to discuss these potential terms and solution. Please let me know if
that is agreeable.
Best,
Jonathon L. Schroeder
Shareholder Attorney
Fredrikson & Byron P.A.
1601 Golden Aspen Drive, Suite 108
Ames, Iowa 50010
515-242-8972 (office)
515-242-8950 (fax)
jschroeder@fredlaw.com
Attorney Profile
**This is a transmission from the law firm of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney-client
privilege or attorney work product privileges. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this
message is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at our telephone number 612-492-7000. The
name and biographical data provided above are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be a signature or other indication of an intent by the
sender to authenticate the contents of this electronic message.**
11
1
Hall, Renee
From:Daryle Vegge <darylevegge@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 9, 2025 7:04 PM
To:City Council and Mayor; Schainker, Steve
Subject:Annexation of the irons
[External Email]
I had a chance to read the city council agenda for this coming Tuesday. I am disappointed in the City
Manager's recommendation for annexation, actually disappointed in all three alternatives mentioned.
There should be an "Alternative #4" and that is to proceed with annexation of the Borgmeyer land
separately; annex the Irons at such a time in the future (if ever) as we may become an island.
This annexation of the AGCC and the Irons (Irons Court and Irons Way) seems like a land grab by the City
of Ames. Annexation of the Borgmeyer land is a win-win for both the City and for the owners of the
Borgmeyer land. If you proceed with annexation of the Irons, it may be a win for the City, but definitely a
loss for the residents of the Irons.
I ask each of you to consider on a personal level if you would like to have your property taxes increased
by 20-25% and be assessed a large bill to have city sewer replace a fairly new and smooth running septic
system and then reconsider something other than the three alternatives presented.
Thank you.
12