HomeMy WebLinkAboutA023 - Developer Incentive Request Follow Up from May 27To:Mayor and City Council
From:City Clerk's Office
Date:September 9, 2025
Subject:Developer Incentive Requests
Item No. 25
MEMO
Please see the attached staff report and supplemental materials regarding the
Developer Incentive Requests.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Incentives Staff Report Sept 9th.pdf
1 Attachment Response Auburn Trail.pdf
2 Attachment Response Domani I.pdf
3 Attachment Response Greenbriar.pdf
4 Attachment Response The Bluffs at Dankbar.pdf
5 Attachment Development_Project_Overviews.pdf
6 Attachment Development Incentive Maps for Pioneer & Oversizing.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
1
Staff Report
DEVELOPER INCENTIVE REQUESTS
September 9, 2025
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed a staff report at its May 27 meeting describing recent incentive
requests totaling approximately $10 million for residential developments within Ames. At
this meeting staff presented the following questions in effort to guide the Council in
prioritizing the incentive requests:
1) What types of development issues should receive City financial assistance?
2) What type of land use (single family, multi-family, commercial) should be
prioritized, if any, when determining who would receive financial assistance?
3) Should there be priority given to near-term housing opportunities (for example,
within three years) to receive financial assistance?
4) What is the maximum amount of financial assistance to which the Council would
be willing to commit to each year to accommodate the developers' requests? (By
total amount or by each fund)
Although the Council did not address these questions directly, it did request
additional information to help prepare for a continued discussion of the request.
Therefore, staff generated the following questions for the developers:
1) Are there any community benefits that extend beyond the boundary of the
project? (Example was given at the meeting of a water buyout applying only to
the project, but completing a missing street connection could benefit other areas?
2) What aspects of the project address City Council goals beyond land use
development goals, such as the Climate Action Plan initiatives, sustainability,
varied price points of housing, affordable housing, rental vs. ownership housing
opportunities?
3) What is the estimated incentive cost per dwelling unit within the project?
4) Are the incentive requests immediate needs to start a project or long-term needs
of the project over the many years of buildout?
5) What is the projected return on investment for the initial phase(s) as well as the
overall development returns?
2
6) Are there changes to zoning standards that would increase yield and reduce
incentive requests?
7) Some developers requested ending the single-family ownership housing tax
abatement program that was requested last year and allowing for a developer
TIF rebates instead. What is the benefit of changing from a property tax
abatement incentive to a developer TIF incentive?
Developers for Domani I, Greenbriar, Dankbar, and Auburn Trail provided
responses to questions 1-7. The responses are included in Attachments 1, 2, 3,
and 4. The developer of Hayden’s Preserve did not reply.
In addition to these seven questions for the Developers, staff identified another
important policy question to be examined by the City Council. This question,
researched by staff and addressed within the report, is below:
8) What are other communities’ approaches to incentivizing development?
This report includes: 1) the original development description and development
incentive requests from the May Council meeting, additional information provided
by developers in response to Council questions, 2) a summary by staff of short-
and long-term costs by funding source, and 3) proposed infrastructure
categorization of Pioneer Infrastructure and Oversizing.
PROJECT SUMMARIES:
Attached to the report is a project location map and identification of the specific requests
for each project (Attachment 5). The following is a summary of each project and their total
financial request. The descriptions have been updated since May, as appropriate.
Hayden's Preserve
This development is a 170-acre site with Master Plan approval for up to 620 units. The
developer intends to propose increasing the total units of this site to approximately 6 60
units with a split of approximately 550 single family and 110 multi-family, along with 5.5
acres of commercial. The single family is a combination of townhomes and detached
single family. The developer was focused on a large first phase development concept
that could include 50 detached lots, 176 townhomes, and 110 apartment dwellings.
It should be noted that staff was notified at the beginning of August that the current owner
has put the property up for auction. The developer indicated that their request for
assistance would still be important to whomever the future developer of site would be
and, therefore, wanted their requested incentives to continue to be considered by Council.
The developer's total ask is estimated at $3.5 million to $4.7 million, depending on
rural water territory buyout calculations. The developer indicates that this level of
financial support is needed to make development of the site competitive with sites
they are developing in other communities.
3
Auburn Trail
This development is 70 acres on the west side of Hyde with a master plan approval for
181 single family dwellings. The developer intends to increase density to approximately
200 units. Details regarding the first phase of development are unknown at this time.
The developer's total direct ask is estimated at $486,000 to $736,000, depending on
rural water territory buyout calculations. They also indicate that there is potentially
an additional financial gap depending on the final layout of the project and total
number of units to be developed.
Since May, Staff has reviewed a revised layout for the site the developer believes
improves the financial viability of the site. The developer noted in their responses that
based upon their recent subdivision layout updates, their request is now at the
lower end of the requested incentive range, $486,000.
Greenbriar
This development is a 150-acre site that is currently under consideration for
annexation. The City Council has directed staff to address infrastructure improvements
related to sewer, roads, and open space with a development agreement at the time of
rezoning.
No land use plan for development has yet been approved for the site. Based upon the
Ames Plan 2040 designations, it will include commercial, multi-family, and single family
attached and detached homes. Staff estimates the plan may include 450+ dwelling units,
split between 250 multi-family units and 200 single family units, plus 5-8 acres of
commercial land.
Development of the site requires extension of an east/west sewer from Hyde Avenue that
is related to the Hayden's Preserve project timing. The overall timing of Greenbriar and
the sewer extension is unknown.
The developers have indicated that a first phase of single-family homes could be
started next year without the Hyde trunk line extension if a "slip lining" project for
an existing sewer segment in Moore Memorial Park is completed independent of
the Hyde sewer extension. Staff estimates the slip line project would cost $250,000 and
could increase the capacity of this existing line to serve the southwest quadrant of the
site, which may yield capacity for 100+ single family housing units.
The developer's total direct ask is estimated at $4.3 million, plus additional park
development costs that are not yet estimated. Additionally, the developer believes
that even with the requested infrastructure assistance that the project is not
financially feasible without an opportunity to generate a 20% return on investment
of the land development. Therefore, they claim that a TIF rebate may also be
required to develop the project.
4
Bluffs at Dankbar Farms Corner Outlot
This site is 20 acres in size and has been recently approved for rezoning of 6 acres of
commercial and 14 acres for a Senior/Assisted Living facility.
The current development agreement for this site requires turn lane improvements on
Cameron School Road and G.W. Carver Avenue at the developer’s cost. The site is also
subject to a sanitary sewer capacity limitation.
The developer's direct ask is estimated at $1.2 million to complete turn lanes along
Cameron School Road and GW Carver Avenue. Because of the existing
agreements, the developer is required to make these improvements with the next
Bluffs plat and development of the corner site, which is anticipated to be within the
upcoming year. The developer indicates that the City assistance would facilitate a
quicker rate of development for their project and potentially the Bluffs to the west.
Domani I
The project has an approved PRD plan that is partially built out. The extension of
Cottonwood is triggered with the next phase of development. The current development
agreement requires the extension at the expense of the developer. The remaining two
phases include 11 additional Domani lots and 12 custom home lots for a total of 23 lots.
The developer's direct ask is estimated at $371,000 for the cost of the Cottonwood
extension as a 31-foot residential collector street.
Ansley
Ansley is an approved Planned Unit Development with 170 residential lots. The approved
development is a mix of attached and detached single family dwellings with one site
intended for a commercial building. As part of the original subdivision approval, City
Council agreed to waive the developer’s responsibility to pave ½ of Cedar Lane
with the other half to be paid for by ISU. ISU had inherited the partial paving obligation
from buying land on the west side of Cedar Lane that was subject to development
agreement with the City.
While a development agreement has yet to be formally approved by the Council, the
waiver includes stipulations that Ansley’s engineers provide road construction plans to
the City at the time of a future final plat to then allow for improvement of Cedar Lane at a
time of the City’s choosing. The estimated cost to the City for half of the roadway
was $250,000.
5
FINANCIAL CATEGORIES:
The developers’ “ask” for incentives is based upon their financial need in relation
to their desired return on investment. They proposed specific cost savings in
relation to Water, Sewer, Roads, Trails, and Parks improvements. In some cases,
the requests are to waive water and sewer connection fees and, in other cases,
their request is for the City to directly spend funds.
Staff has prepared below a summary by “Funding Source” of the total requests, including
the previous Ansley approval. Attached are tables broken down by project for each
source of funding. Ultimately, Council will want to consider the financial impacts to the
various funding sources as well as the total dollar amount requested.
Table 1. Total of All Six Developer Incentive Requests by Source
Incentive
Category
Source Total
Requests*
Years 1-3
Projected
Year 4+
Projected
Sewer
Connection Fee
Waive
Sewer Utility
$475,044 $154,006
$321,038
Water Connection
Fee Waive
Water Utility $60,804 $18,241 $42,563
Road/Signals Fee
Collection Waive
Road Use Tax $291,000 $291,000 $0
Sub-Total Waived $826,848 $463,247 $363,601
Trail Construction LOST $250,000 $ 250,000 $0
Rural Water
Buyout#
Water Utility $1,410,000 $ 430,100 $979,900
Road
Construction
GO Bonds
(Property Taxes)
$5,391,000 $3,341,000 $2,050,000
Water
Construction
Water Utility $0
Sewer
Construction
Sewer Utility
$1,802,000 $1,802,000 $0
Parkland
Acquisition
LOST $265,000 $265,000
Sub-Total New $9,118,000 $5,823,100 $3,294,899
Total $9,944,848 $6,286,347 $3,658,501
*Constant dollars based upon developer estimates, costs may be greater at the time of
construction
# Assumes renegotiated buyout fee for Hayden’s Preserve and Auburn Trail at $4,000 per
acre. Greenbriar already has a buyout figure of $3,000 per acre.
6
Table 2. Summary Of Developer Incentive Request By Source
Total Requests
Projected Years 1-
3 Projected Year 4+
Sewer Utility $ 2,277,044 $ 1,956,006 $ 321,037
Water Utility $ 1,470,804 $ 448,341 $ 1,022,462
Road Use Tax $ 291,000 $ 291,000 $ -
Local Option
Sales Tax
(LOST)
$ 515,000 $ 250,000 $ 265,000
GO Bonds
(Property
Taxes)
$ 5,391,000 $ 3,341,000 $ 2,050,000
Totals $ 9,944,848 $ 6,286,347 $ 3,658,501
NOTE: There remain approximately $2,7748,750 of Federal ARPA monies that are
available to fund some of the requests.
DEVELOPMENT PHASES:
Based upon developer responses, staff estimated the following costs for each project and
unit production for three years. The three-year average would be nearly 110 units a year.
These figures are specific to the developments requesting incentives. Other housing
could also be developed on infill sites elsewhere in the City and within other previously
platted subdivisions.
Table 3. Development Costs and Phases
Name Buildout
SF/MF Est.
Units
Buildout
Total
Incentive
Request
Buildout
Total
Cost Per
Unit
Years 1-
3 SF/MF
Units
Years 1-3
Total Costs
Years 1-3
% of
Incentive
Total
Years
1-3 %
of
Units
Built
Hayden’s
Preserve
660 $3,534,748 $,5355 125 $2,782,824 79% 19%
Auburn
Trail
180 $486,000 $2,700 75 $223,600 46% 42%
Greenbriar 450 $4,103,100 $9,112 75 1,708,923 42% 17%
Dankbar
Farms at
the Bluffs
Assisted
Living and
Commercial
$1,200,000 NA -0- $1,200,000 100% NA
Domani I 23 new lots
(original
project total
63 units)
$371,000 $16,100
($5800
for total
units)
25 $371,000 100% 75%
Ansley
Council
previously
agreed to
waiver of
Cedar Ln
paving
162
remaining
lots (original
PUD
approval for
170 units)
$250,000 $1,470 25 -0- 0% 25%
Total 1,475 $9,944,848 $6,742 325 $6,286,347 63% 22%
7
PIONEER AND OVERSIZED INFRASTRUCTURE:
Ames Plan 2040 discusses growth policies and infrastructure needs within the Growth
and Land Use Chapter. The Plan describes the concepts of pioneer infrastructure and
oversizing of infrastructure to serve long term growth. No specific policy is established in
the Ames Plan 2040 as the timing and costs of infrastructure improvements were not
predictable, making it a decision of future Councils on how to proceed with infrastructure
related to growth.
Staff would define the infrastructure described in Plan 2040 as follows:
PIONEER INFRASTRUCTURE consists of the large-scale improvements needed to
serve large areas of land consistent with growth areas of Ames Plan 2040. Such
infrastructure may fill a gap in development or be a type of improvement that must
be coordinated with multiple developments in one phase. Typically, Pioneer
Infrastructure would be pre-planned and included by the City Council within the 5-year
CIP.
Funding of Pioneer Infrastructure is dependent upon budgeting decisions of the
City Council on an annual basis. Pioneer Infrastructure costs may be recaptured in
whole or in part through property assessments, connection districts, and in-lieu-of
fees. In some cases, there may be no recapture of costs by the City.
Examples of Pioneer Infrastructure include the recent water and sanitary sewer
investments made by the City for the east, west, and south that either filled a gap or
allowed for development opportunities for multiple properties. These recent
improvements were financed with one-time ARPA funds.
Another example of Pioneer Infrastructure would include paving of a gravel road in two
situations. The first situation includes paving a road when its improvement is beyond the
scope or scale of any one project and there is a benefit to multiple development sites.
The second situation may be that a limited amount of frontage is improved along a longer
gravel road that does not connect to other paved roads and it would not be an
improvement of long-term value.
OVERSIZING is a more common infrastructure policy intended to help defray the
cost of infrastructure that is sized beyond the immediate development project
need, in order to serve other properties in the future.
Examples include increased pipe diameter, pipe depth, road width, and road thickness.
Other features of roads such as bike lanes and traffic calming could be included within
this category to implement complete streets policies. Typically, these costs are 20-30% of
the project construction costs.
For oversizing, the City has paid for the share of excess cost related to the greater
dimensions through completing off-setting projects, since payment to the developer is not
allowed for a public improvement.
The AEDC Taskforce letter discussed in December 2023 referenced a need for the City
to consider support for pioneer and oversized infrastructure. The letter urged a broad view
8
of Pioneer Infrastructure that included potentially widening of roads for turn lanes and
intersection improvements that otherwise might be viewed as development impacts. This
would relate to turn lanes on Hyde and for GW Carver as requested by developers.
In review of the developer requests, staff believes that some of the infrastructure
requests clearly fit within the concept of Pioneer Infrastructure and Oversizing as
described above. The following table identifies these projects and estimated costs.
Attachment 6 includes a map of these projects.
Table 4. Proposed Pioneer and Oversizing Projects
Improvement Development Project
Affected
Pioneer Est.
Cost
Oversizing Est.
Cost (% of total)
Hyde Avenue Trail-
Harrison to 190th
Hayden’s Preserve &
Auburn Trail
$1,000,000
(100%)
East/West Sewer -Hyde
to under the Rail Road,
could be considered
pioneer or as partially
oversizing
Hayden’s Preserve &
Greenbriar &
AGCC/Irons
$1,500,000
(100%)
Sewer Slip Lining Greenbriar $250,000
(100%)
Stange Road Extension
(assumed constructed in
phases and not at one
time)
Greenbriar $540,000
(30%)
Cameron Traffic Signal Greenbriar/ Dankbar $250,000
(50%)
Cottonwood Extension Domani I $92,750
(25%)
Total $2,750,000 $882,750
The Hyde Trail is part of the Hayden’s Preserve request for the City to take over the
obligation to construct an off-site trail across the Sturges and Iowa Natural Heritage
Foundation (INHF) property frontage at an estimated cost of $250,000. The remaining
segments are to be built by the developers of Hayden’s Preserve and Auburn Trail.
However, staff proposes that the entire project from Harrison to 190th be
categorized as a City Pioneer Infrastructure project rather than just the one
segment as requested, to avoid piecemealing.
The East/West Sewer project is unique because of the Hayden’s Preserve Development
agreement with the City. The current development agreement requires the majority of the
extension to be completed by the developer at their cost as they develop. In this scenario
it appears it would be a very long wait for the sewer line to be constructed and reach the
west property line at the railroad where it would then cross to Greenbriar. Additionally, as
originally contemplated, this was an extremely deep sewer that was not in a desirable
location, creating challenges both for the developer and the City staff who would be
required to maintain it.
9
Staff has investigated an alternate route south of Hayden’s Preserve that crosses through
INHF land before then going through the southern portion of Hayden’s Preserve and then
under the railroad to the Greenbriar site.
To accomplish this new sewer line route, an easement would be required from INHF and
Hayden’s Preserve. Preliminary discussions with INHF indicate this is possible. Hayden’s
Preserve would also have to agree to an alignment and easement to allow for this Pioneer
Infrastructure project to proceed. A portion of the sewer through INHF would clearly
be Pioneer Infrastructure as closing a gap, while the remaining length could be
viewed as Pioneer Infrastructure by serving two developments similar to the
recently built sewer extensions to the south and west.
HOW OTHER CITIES ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION IN GROWTH
AREAS
City Council requested information about how other cities address infrastructure
extensions for planned growth areas. Not all cities have the same utility and water territory
issues as Ames, which complicates comparisons. From staff’s experience there is wide
range of practices, from no City financial assistance to substantial financial
assistance (either directly or indirectly). At the time of the Council’s consideration of
the city-wide tax abatement program, staff discussed incentives being offered by various
cities. Generally, smaller cities were more inclined to offer incentives and larger
communities did not offer residential incentives to developers.
With that said, staff has a good understanding of how Ankeny and Waukee, two of the
fastest growing cities, approach development.
Ankeny
Ankeny will make “Pioneer” infrastructure investments as part of its CIP for
roadways, water, and sewer. The city does not provide direct incentives to
residential developers. Pioneer roadways are commonly constructed by Ankeny and an
assessment is applied to abutting properties, which, depending on timing and whether it
is an agriculture use, may or may not be partially recouped by the City based upon terms
of state law.
Ankeny also will provide financial assistance in limited situations for culverts, but the
financial support depends on timing and budgeting in response to a developer’s request.
Ankeny utilizes connection districts for water and sewer extensions where the city is
reimbursed from fee payments when a conne ction is made to its systems. Ankeny will
contribute to oversizing credit when applicable for water and sewer infrastructure. While
Ankeny does not have rural water territory that requires buyouts, it does require park
dedication or in-lieu-of fees with each subdivision.
Waukee
Waukee does not directly incentivize residential development and has variable
policies about extending infrastructure and oversizing. Waukee is generally similar
to Ankeny, but does not appear to have as proactive of a roadway improvement program
at this time.
10
Waukee has used commercial TIF to fund arterial street extensions that could benefit
growth areas, but does not utilize residential TIF. Waukee will assist in large box culvert
costs for stream crossings. Water territory buyouts do apply in Waukee, but the cost is
based on the depreciated value of rural water infrastructure, not on territory buyout
acreage basis.
Waukee does have a park dedication requirement.
Overall, it appears that there is some investment by communities in Pioneer
Infrastructure and Oversizing, but it is guided primarily by each city’s own planning
and budgeting with some costs recouped through assessments and connection
fees.
POSSIBLE OPTIONS:
1) The City Can Pay For The Cost Of Oversizing Projects As Described in Table
4 Of This Report
With staff’s categorization of Oversizing, $882,750 or 9% of the overall developer
requests are addressed with the City assuming responsibility for the projects as
shown in Table 4. These costs would be primarily allocated to utility funds, the
Local Option Sales Tax Fund, and the General Fund through General Obligation
bonds financed by property taxes.
2) The City Can Provide The Remaining ARPA Monies To Fund The Developers’
Incentive Requests
With the City’s $2,748,750 of remaining ARPA funding, 28% of the developers’
incentive requests will be addressed. This is the same source of funding that was
used recently to pay for Pioneer Infrastructure to the Ames 2040 Plan growth
areas.
These funds can be directed towards any of the individual developer infrastructure
requests.
3) The City Can Pay For The Cost Of Pioneer Infrastructure Projects As
Described in Table 4 Of This Report
With staff’s categorization of Pioneer Infrastructure, $2,750,000 or 28% of the
overall developer requests are addressed with the City assuming responsibility for
the projects as shown in Table 4. These costs would be primarily allocated to utility
funds, the Local Option Sales Tax Fund, and the General Fund through General
Obligation bonds financed by property taxes.
4) Short-Term Incentive Option
An additional option would be to create a short-term stimulus program for
development based TIF rebates. This approach would allow developers to rely
11
on TIF rebates that they generate through their own development to fill their
financial gaps that are not addressed by one of the other options.
In this model, regardless of verifying the financial need for additional funding
incentives, the City would establish a short-term policy to reward developers that
are able to develop property quickly for single family residential development to
maximize their benefit of receiving TIF incentives. To promote this option, the
recently approved single family tax abatement program would have to end
sooner for those new developments that receive the TIF incentive.
Staff patterned this option after the current 5-year sliding scale abatement
program for single-family, owner-occupied homes. The proposal is to allow for
100% of TIF generated from a single-family home value, up to a $300,000 per
unit, to be rebated to a developer for a period of five years from when the home
is completed. Eligibility would only be for homes built in the next three years as
short-term stimulus. This option would generate approximately $16,375 of
developer value per single family home over five years. The cost to the City of
lost tax revenue over five years would be similar to that of the current abatement
program for a $300,000 house.
Approval of the TIF Rebate would require a negotiated development
agreement that addresses the developers’ required master plans for uses
and identifies phasing of construction of infrastructure needed for the long-
term buildout of the project.
The intent of the rebate is to assure some of the needed infrastructure is built
concurrently with development and it is not solely an increase in profits for a first
phase of development. The TIF rebate policy would only apply to development
within the Plan 2040 Growth Areas.
4) Do Not Offer Any Additional Incentives To Spur New Residential
Development
STAFF COMMENTS:
• Due to the substantial amount of requested financial incentives and inability
to verify developer needs for assistance, staff finds it difficult to assume that
increasing utility rates and property taxes to cover all of the requests will be
palatable to City Council.
• The City Council must decide which developers should receive incentives
and how much should they receive. Even with this guidance, staff believes
the City Council will need to identify the timing to grant the incentives in
accordance with the guidelines established each year for the budget/CIP.
• It would appear fair that a developer is not asked to pay for the extra cost to
construct roads, sewers, or water mains that are oversized to serve other
developments.
12
• Since some of the larger cities in the state pay for Pioneer Infrastructure
projects, it appears appropriate for the Council to also provide this incentive.
However, in order to avoid a misunderstanding as to which project is
considered Pioneer Infrastructure, the City must identify which projects
qualify, which staff has done in Table 4.
In addition, even some of the larger cities require the developer to pay a
portion of the Pioneer Infrastructure projects. It will be up to the City Council
to decide what, if any, portion of the Pioneer Infrastructure project cost
should be assigned to the developer.
• Given these six developments are projected to yield 1,475 residential units,
the incentive package being offered should not be viewed as a precedent for
all future residential developments.
• The City Council can decide to combine some of the options identified
above.
• There has been no information offered to reflect how the incentives being
requested will help reduce the cost of housing.
• The ARPA funds can be utilized to either reduce the cost of the City’s
obligations for building infrastructure or the developers’ obligations.
• Should the Council wish to expedite the construction of new residential
housing units, the project to slip-line the sanitary sewer in Moore Memorial
Park has the ability to immediately facilitate the construction of 100+ housing
units at a relatively low cost ($250,000) compared to other developer
incentive requests.
13
Auburn Trail – Development Incentives Follow Up
August 5, 2025
1. Are there any community benefits that extend beyond the boundary of the
project? (Example was given at the meeting of a water buyout applying only to
the project but completing a missing street connection could benefit other
areas, It’s possible not all projects will have a benefit.)
Yes, the project provides a community benefit beyond its boundaries by enhancing
protections for the Ada Hayden watershed. The development will implement
stormwater management practices and environmental standards that are
significantly more protective than those associated with traditional row crop
agriculture. These improvements will help reduce nutrient runoff and preserve water
quality, benefiting not only the immediate site but also the broader Ames
community that relies on the Ada Hayden watershed as a critical resource.
2. What aspects of the project address City Council goals beyond land use
development goals, such as the Climate Action Plan initiatives, sustainability,
varied price points of housing, affordable housing, rental vs. ownership housing
opportunities?
The project supports several City Council goals beyond traditional land use
development, particularly in the areas of sustainability, housing diversity, and
energy efficiency.
Energy Efficiency & Climate Action Plan: All homes will be built to
significantly higher energy efficiency standards than the current average of
Ames’ existing housing stock. This will help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and support the goals outlined in the City’s Climate Action Plan.
Sustainability: By incorporating modern building practices and efficient
home systems, the project promotes long-term environmental sustainability
and reduced energy consumption.
Housing Diversity & Affordability: The development will offer a range of
housing options across 3 price categories, creating opportunities across a
range of demographics and price points.
Ownership & Rental Opportunities: The project will likely include both
rental and owner-occupied units, addressing the needs of different
household types and supporting greater housing choice within the
community.
14
3. What is the estimated incentive cost per dwelling unit within the project?
Based on the most recent conceptual layout, if the City is successful in
renegotiating the Xenia water buyout agreement to align with the Greenbriar rates,
the estimated incentive cost savings would be approximately $1,481 per dwelling
unit.
4. Are the incentive requests immediate needs to start a project or long terms
needs of the project over the many years of buildout? (Essentially please
address phasing of the developments to understand timing and cost of when
assistance is needed for the project and what it takes to get it started)
The incentive request related to the Xenia buyout agreement is an immediate need
tied to the initial phase of the project. Renegotiating the agreement does not require
a financial contribution from the City but would need to be addressed prior to
approval of the first final plat. Taking this step early would help remove a key barrier
to getting the project underway.
5. What is the projected return on investment for the initial phase(s) as wells as
the overall development returns?
As with most developments, the initial phases are expected to carry a negative
return due to upfront infrastructure and entitlement costs. Our objective is to
achieve a return that is reasonable in relation to the level of risk involved. However,
given the uncertainty of long-term lot demand and broader economic conditions—
such as the potential for a recession—it is not possible to accurately project the
return on investment over the full buildout period at this time.
6. Are there changes to zoning standards that would increase yield and reduce
incentive requests?
Yes, we are currently working with City staff on a layout that allows lots along the
spine road. We believe that this change—combined with a successful renegotiation
of the Xenia water agreement—will significantly improve project feasibility and
reduce the need for additional incentives, enabling us to move forward with
development.
7. Some developers requested ending the single-family ownership housing tax
abatement program that was requested last year and allowing for a developer
TIF rebates instead. What is the benefit of changing from a property tax
abatement incentive to a developer TIF incentive?
15
The original single-family property tax abatement program had several limitations
and, as initially implemented, did not achieve the desired impact on homebuyers. In
contrast, transitioning to a developer-based Tax Increment Financing (TIF) incentive
offers several key advantages:
• Better Alignment with Infrastructure Needs: A developer TIF provides more direct
support for funding essential infrastructure improvements—critical for getting
projects underway.
• Flexibility and Administrative Efficiency: TIF is a more flexible tool that is generally
easier for the City to administer compared to individual property tax abatements,
which can be complex and less predictable in their impact.
• Accelerated Project Timelines: TIF incentives can help move projects forward
more quickly by eliminating the need for the City to pre-fund infrastructure through
its Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
• Performance-Based Benefit: TIF is only paid out if the development is successful
and results in increased property tax revenues. This ensures the City receives a
return on its investment while supporting growth.
• Difficult to Measure Current Abatement Impact: Given recent economic
conditions and market slowdowns, it has been challenging to measure the
effectiveness of the current tax abatement program, further supporting the need for
a more impactful and responsive tool like TIF.
16
Keith Arneson <keithdarneson@gmail.com>
1. Are there any community benefits that extend beyond the boundary
of the project? (Example was given at the meeting of a water buyout
applying only to the project but completing a missing street
connection could benefit other areas, It’s possible not all projects will
have a benefit.) It seems to me that the goal of the City is to divert
traffic to University in the most expedient way. The completion of
Cottonwood would certainly meet this objective. Having a second exit
from Cedar to University is overdue. I believe this will create a much
more desirable/safer thoroughfare for people in the Ringgenberg,
Suncrest and Ansley subdivisions (as well as Domani). If left to
complete Cottonwood based on current sales velocity and absorption
(in a very challenged housing environment) will take 3-4 more years I
estimate.
2. What aspects of the project address City Council goals beyond land
use development goals, such as the Climate Action Plan initiatives,
sustainability, varied price points of housing, affordable housing,
rental vs. ownership housing opportunities? Domani is a new type of
housing in Ames. It is generally homes on small lots for people 55 and
older. It is a PUD housing development meaning significantly smaller
lots than conventional development. PRD was not available to me at
the time of development. This would have significantly changed my
cost structure and I believe increased the absorption rate of sales.
3. What is the estimated incentive cost per dwelling unit within the
project? Currently there are 33 lots left to develop in Domani. The total cost of
completion of Cottonwood is $370,496. Completion of just the paving and
curb for Cottonwood is $214,100. This means the impact to each of the 33
remaining lots in Domani would be a "contribution" of $6,485 to $11,227.
4. Are the incentive requests immediate needs to start a project or long
term needs of the project over the many years of
buildout? (Essentially please address phasing of the developments to
understand timing and cost of when assistance is needed for the
17
project and what it takes to get it started). If required for funding, I will
move up the development of the remaining lots from 3-4 years to
2026.
5. What is the projected return on investment for the initial phase(s) as
well as the overall development returns? It will increase customer
choice as I will open up 12 custom lots with the last 11 lots of Epcon
housing. The 12 custom lots will open 7 lots sized 0.5-1.0 acres in
size. This lot type is not currently offered in the area. My interest
charges/holding costs will likely be equal to the reduction in expense
for a contribution to completing Cottonwoods extension early.
6. Are there changes to zoning standards that would increase yield and
reduce incentive requests? Yes, increased density would increase
yield. However, when I met with the neighborhoods prior to
development it was made abundantly clear to me that the neighbors
were dead set against any type of rental property, especially attached
or multi-family. Even though this area was a "buffer" from all the multi-
family buildings on University and abbuting Domani, there was active
resistance to "transition" from Residential High Density to Residential
Low Density. In addition, the Burgason's would not allow the Epcon
style housing bordering any portion of Ansley. This is the reason I
have 12 full custom home lots at the south end of Domani. This is a
typical example of why infill development is so difficult in Ames. I have
developed 260 lots in Ames and most of it was infill.
7. Some developers requested ending the single-family ownership
housing tax abatement program that was requested last year and
allowing for a developer TIF rebates instead. What is the benefit of
changing from a property tax abatement incentive to a developer TIF
incentive? This is not of interest to me unless this is the only way
forward.
18
The Greenbriar – Development Incentives Follow Up
August 5, 2025
1. Are there any community benefits that extend beyond the boundary of the
project? (Example was given at the meeting of a water buyout applying only to
the project but completing a missing street connection could benefit other
areas, It’s possible not all projects will have a benefit.)
Yes, the project offers several community benefits that extend beyond its
boundaries:
• Enhanced Watershed Protection: The development will implement stormwater
and environmental standards that far exceed those of existing row crop production,
improving the long-term protection of the Ada Hayden watershed.
• Catalyst for Off-Site Improvements: The project will trigger much-needed
infrastructure upgrades at Cameron School Road and Stange Road, benefiting the
broader transportation network.
• Improved Connectivity: By connecting Stange Road from Northridge Heights to
Cameron School Road, the project will provide a new north-south route, easing
traffic congestion on the southern portion of Stange Road and George Washington
Carver.
• Sanitary Sewer Expansion: The project enables a sanitary sewer connection for
existing development near the Ames Golf and Country Club, supporting responsible
growth and improved service in that area.
• Substantial Increase to Tax Base: With an estimated $300 million in new
valuation, the project will significantly increase the City of Ames’ tax base, helping
to support city services and infrastructure over the long term.
• Potential Site for Public Safety Facilities: The project area may serve as a
strategic location for a future fire station or outpost, which would improve
emergency response times for residents on the north side of Ames.
2. What aspects of the project address City Council goals beyond land use
development goals, such as the Climate Action Plan initiatives, sustainability,
varied price points of housing, affordable housing, rental vs. ownership housing
opportunities?
The project supports several City Council goals beyond traditional land use
development, particularly in the areas of sustainability, housing diversity, and
energy efficiency.
19
- Energy Efficiency & Climate Action Plan: All homes will be built to
significantly higher energy efficiency standards than the current average of
Ames’ existing housing stock. This will help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and support the goals outlined in the City’s Climate Action Plan.
- Sustainability: By incorporating modern building practices and efficient
home systems, the project promotes long-term environmental sustainability
and reduced energy consumption.
- Housing Diversity & Affordability: The development will offer a range of
housing options across 5 to 6 price categories, creating opportunities across
a range of demographics and price points.
- Ownership & Rental Opportunities: The project will include both rental and
owner-occupied units, addressing the needs of different household types
and supporting greater housing choice within the community.
- Neighborhood-Serving Commercial: Planned neighborhood commercial
space at the intersection of George Washington Carver and Stange Road will
provide local services and amenities, supporting walkability and daily
convenience for residents.
3. What is the estimated incentive cost per dwelling unit within the project?
It is difficult to accurately estimate the incentive cost per dwelling unit without
further guidance from the Council on the types and levels of support that would be
considered. However, a preliminary estimate is in the range of $10,000 to $15,000
per dwelling unit.
4. Are the incentive requests immediate needs to start a project or long terms
needs of the project over the many years of buildout? (Essentially please
address phasing of the developments to understand timing and cost of when
assistance is needed for the project and what it takes to get it started)
Several of the requested improvements are immediate needs required to initiate
development, while others can be phased over time as the project builds out:
• Immediate Needs:
o Sanitary Sewer (South): Repairs in Moore Park must be completed before any
development can occur in the southern portion of the site.
o Sanitary Sewer (North): A new connection to the east is required before
development can begin in the northern portion.
o Traffic Improvements: Off-site improvements to Cameron School Road and
George Washington Carver are likely needed in the early phases—within the
first one or two phases of the project.
20
• Longer-Term Needs:
o Stange Road Improvements: These can be phased over time and constructed
incrementally as the project progresses and demand increases.
o Xenia Rural Water Buyout: The City’s water utility fund could be used to
purchase water service rights from Xenia, allowing the City to provide water
service to new customers in perpetuity. This cost could be addressed over
time.
This phasing approach allows for strategic investment in infrastructure aligned with the
project’s growth while addressing the most critical barriers to starting construction.
5. What is the projected return on investment for the initial phase(s) as wells as
the overall development returns?
At this time, the project is projected to have a negative return overall, particularly in
the initial phases. This is primarily due to the significant upfront infrastructure and
development costs. While we aim for a return comparable to industry standards
given the level of risk, current projections indicate a negative return.
We are seeking a partnership with the City to help make the project viable and allow
it to move forward.
6. Are there changes to zoning standards that would increase yield and reduce
incentive requests?
It is too early to determine whether changes to zoning standards would increase
yield or reduce incentive requests, as the parcel is currently anticipated to be zoned
RN-4. A more accurate assessment will be possible once the zoning designation is
finalized and detailed site planning is underway.
However, based on our preliminary discussions with Planning staff, we are
optimistic that through continued collaboration, we can identify opportunities
within the RN-4 zoning framework to support a successful and viable project.
7. Some developers requested ending the single-family ownership housing tax
abatement program that was requested last year and allowing for a developer
TIF rebates instead. What is the benefit of changing from a property tax
abatement incentive to a developer TIF incentive?
21
The original single-family property tax abatement program had several limitations
and, as initially implemented, did not achieve the desired impact on homebuyers. In
contrast, transitioning to a developer-based Tax Increment Financing (TIF) incentive
offers several key advantages:
• Better Alignment with Infrastructure Needs: A developer TIF provides more direct
support for funding essential infrastructure improvements—critical for getting
projects underway.
• Flexibility and Administrative Efficiency: TIF is a more flexible tool that is generally
easier for the City to administer compared to individual property tax abatements,
which can be complex and less predictable in their impact.
• Accelerated Project Timelines: TIF incentives can help move projects forward
more quickly by eliminating the need for the City to pre-fund infrastructure through
its Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
• Performance-Based Benefit: TIF is only paid out if the development is successful
and results in increased property tax revenues. This ensures the City receives a
return on its investment while supporting growth.
• Difficult to Measure Current Abatement Impact: Given recent economic
conditions and market slowdowns, it has been challenging to measure the
effectiveness of the current tax abatement program, further supporting the need for
a more impactful and responsive tool like TIF.
22
The Bluffs-Development Incentives Follow Up
August 5, 2025
1. Are there any community benefits that extend beyond the boundary of the
project? (Example was given at the meeting of a water buyout applying only to the
project but completing a missing street connection could benefit other areas, It’s
possible not all projects will have a benefit.)
Yes, this request focuses on the offsite improvements that provide benefits well beyond
the project boundaries. In particular, the lane widening being proposed improves traffic
flow and safety, not just for future residents of the development, but for the broader
traveling public. This improvement enhances connectivity in a designated growth area
and aligns with long-term transportation planning goals.
While these enhancements serve a clear public interest, the cost burden is currently
placed entirely on the developer, even though the benefits extend well beyond the
project itself. A more balanced cost-sharing approach would better reflect the
community-wide value of the improvements.
It is important to note that the property was originally going to be Luther Church of Hope.
That was a tax exempt property. Now that it is going to be developed with commercial
and residential focus-that is new tax dollars for the community.
2. What aspects of the project address City Council goals beyond land use
development goals, such as the Climate Action Plan initiatives, sustainability,
varied price points of housing, affordable housing, rental vs. ownership housing
opportunities?
The Buffs Subdivision supports several City Council goals beyond traditional land use
development, particularly in the areas of sustainability, housing diversity, and energy
efficiency.
Energy Efficiency & Climate Action Plan: All homes will be built to significantly higher
energy efficiency standards than the current average of Ames’ existing housing stock.
This will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support the goals outlined in the
City’s Climate Action Plan.
Sustainability: By incorporating modern building practices and efficient home systems,
the project promotes long-term environmental sustainability and reduced energy
consumption.
Housing Diversity & Affordability: The development will offer a range of housing options
across 5 to 6 price categories, creating opportunities across a range of demographics
and price points.
Ownership & Rental Opportunities: The project will include both rental and
owner-occupied units, addressing the needs of different household types and supporting
greater housing choice within the community.
23
Commercial Opportunities: There will be neighborhood commercial services at the
intersection of GWC and Cameron School Road.
3. What is the estimated incentive cost per dwelling unit within the project?
It is difficult to accurately estimate the incentive cost per dwelling unit. It is fair to say
that the incentive will accelerate building activity.
4. Are the incentive requests immediate needs to start a project or long terms needs
of the project over the many years of buildout? (Essentially please address
phasing of the developments to understand timing and cost of when assistance is
needed for the project and what it takes to get it started)
This project could be better coordinated with the development activities at The
Greenbriar. By the city leading the project, there can be a more integrated and
controlled process and coordination.
5. What is the projected return on investment for the initial phase(s) as wells as the
overall development returns?
Unknown at this time. We generally target market returns for the risk associated with the
investment.
6. Are there changes to zoning standards that would increase yield and reduce
incentive requests?
Unknown at this time. We have been able to work alongside city staff to achieve our
mutual goals.
7. Some developers requested ending the single-family ownership housing tax
abatement program that was requested last year and allowing for a developer TIF
rebates instead. What is the benefit of changing from a property tax abatement
incentive to a developer TIF incentive?
The original property tax abatement program had some limitations when it was
established and, as originally designed, it has not had the intended impact on buyers.
Transitioning to a Developer TIF (Tax Increment Financing) incentive would better
support the funding of necessary infrastructure improvements. Additionally, a TIF
program is more flexible and streamlined, making it easier for the City to administer while
ensuring that the development has the resources it needs to proceed efficiently.
24
Development Overviews
•Hayden’s Preserve
•Auburn Trail
•Greenbriar (former Borgmeyer farm property)
•Commercial Area of Bluffs at Dankbar Farms
•Domani I (south)
25
North Development Area
26
South Development Area
27
Hayden’s Preserve
•City complete east west sewer trunk line
•City pay for road creek crossing
•City complete turn lane improvements
•City reduce collection of water/sewer connection fees related to undeveloped open spaces (aprox. 21%)
•City reimburse developer for park land
•City waive traffic signal fair share payment
•City purchase Xenia Territory Buyout in lieu of developer
•City construct off-site trail along Hyde (Sturges/INHF property)
•Potential for TIF as developer rebate, exempt site from property tax abatement program
Existing Master Plan and Development Agreement- maximum of 620 units total for 170 acres
Proposed to change Master Plan, allow for more, townhomes, single family, reduce MF, keep commercial
Phase 1-Proposed 176 townhomes, 50 SF lots, 84 Multi Family Units, 24 MF units 5ac commercial
28
Auburn Trail
•City purchase Xenia Territory Buyout in lieu
of developer
•City waive traffic signal fair share payment
•City reimburse developer for park land
•Developer did not identify other specific
costs reductions noting there may still be
a potential gap
•Proposed TIF as developer rebate for other
reimbursements, exempt site from
property tax abatement program
Approved Master Plan Zoning and
Development Agreement
Allows for single family dwellings
180-200 units projected
29
Greenbriar
•City complete east west sewer trunk line to west side of Railroad
•City assist in extension of trunk line west through the property
•City complete off-site Moore Park sewer slip lining for first phase development
•City purchase Xenia Territory Buyout in lieu of developer
•City construct Stange Road Extension
•City construct all GW Carver improvements for turn lanes, shared use path, traffic signal
•City acquire parkland from developer
•Potential for TIF as developer rebate, exempt site from property tax abatement program
•NOTE-City may have an interest in acquiring site for temporary Station 4 facility, developer is willing to sell a property for a station house
Initiated Annexation, to include development agreement for sewer, road improvements, parkland, etc.
Plan 2040 designates as RN-4 for walkable mixed use and density neighborhood
Development Concept- 5-8 acres commercial//200 Multi Family Units//250 single family attached/detached dwelling types
Phase 1- May include SF units and/or Commercial
30
Bluffs at Dankbar Farms
•City complete Cameron School and GW Carver improvements for Turns Lanes and any needed widening
•Traffic study indicated a need for an additional lane to create left turn lanes at Cameron School Rd and for turning access to the site.
•Previously evaluated roundabout option that was preferred improvement but deemed to not be feasible for a single developer. City accepted a traffic signal plan as future improvement. Developer has contributed to traffic signal already.
20 Acre Outlot corner of GW Carver/Cameron School
Approved Development Agreement for Developer paid Road and Sewer costs
Development Concept- 6 acres commercial and Change zoning to FS-RM for Senior Assisted Living (Staff evaluating impacts of proposed change to City resources)
31
Domani I
Request-City construct extension of
Cottonwood as 31-Foot Street
Approved PRD Plan-
Final two phases include Domani Lots and
larger custom lots
Total of 23 Single Family lots to be platted
32
Ansley
Cedar Lane is unpaved south of Middleton
Road. Council agreed to waive developer
requirement with future phase to pave south
of Middleton. Half of the paving cost is an
obligation of ISU. Estimated City cost for ½ of
project was $250,000.
Development Agreement for paving is
pending. Developer to provide engineered
drawings for City to bid and construct road at
a time determined by City Council
Approved PUD and Plat
Previous approval by Council of Cedar Lane paving
May request sidewalk waivers or deferrals in the future
33
Financial Estimates -Hayden’s Preserve
Hayden's Preserve 170 ac
Preliminary City Cost
Estimates
Source Of Funds Options,
If a share is the City
15 Inch Sewer INHF Segment 1320 ft $ 792,000 ARPA/Sewer Fund
12 Inch Sewer Developer Use 900 ft $ 360,000 ARPA/Sewer Fund
Shared Use Path INHF/ Sturges 1320 ft (offsite gap)$ 250,000 ARPA, GO Bonds/Road Use
Greenway trail bridge already city cost future, previously agreed Park Development Fund/Grant
Water Connection Fees July 1 $1,689.00 /ac Reduce 21% for Open Space $ 60,297 Water Fund/no collection
Water buyout (Xenia) renegotiated per acre 4k assumption ($1.2 million
savings for developer if not City)$ 680,000 Water Fund
Sewer Connection Fee July 1 $2,554.00 /ac Reduce 21% for Open Space $ 91,178 Sewer Fund/no collection
Trafic Signal Bloomington (does not escalate)$ 85,000 ARPA, GO Bonds/Road Use
Turn Lane Hyde Into Site $ 200,000 GO Bond/Road Use
Park value of land 30k for 5.5 acres $ 165,000 Park Develoment Fund
East West Road Crossing Culvert $ 750,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 3,534,748
Also requesting 10 years TIF up agreed upon limit for each Phase of
development
May propose redesign that also increases density of units to a total of 650
34
Financial Estimates -Auburn Trail
Auburn Trail (70 acres west of Hyde)
Preliminary City
Cost Estimates
Source Of Funds Options, If
a share is the City
Traffic Signal-Off Site Bloomington/Hyde (escalates per year)$ 106,000 ARPA, GO Bonds Streets
Water buyout (Xenia) renegotiated per acre assumption ($250k
savings for developer if not City)$ 280,000 Water Fund
Park land purchase and improvements $ 100,000 Park Develoment Fund
Other unspecified requests
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 486,000
Other requests or savings estimated at $400,000 depending on final
site design and unit counts//May request TIF
35
Financial Estimates -Greenbriar
Greenbriar 155 acres
Preliminary City Cost
Estimates
Source Of Funds Options, If
a share is the City
Stange Collector Street Extension 3300 ft $ 1,800,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Off site 12 inch sewer - ARPA/Sewer Fund
Off site 15 inch sewer - ARPA/Sewer Fund
12 Inch sewer extension under RR 500 ft to this site $ 250,000 ARPA/Sewer Fund
Sewer Connection Fees $4,419.00 /ac $ 662,850 Sewer Fund/no collection
Water Connection Fee (none required)none NA
On site sewer size 12 inch 500 feet oversized $ 150,000 Sewer Fund/GO Bond
Construct Slip Line of Sewer in Moore Memorial for 1st Phase $ 250,000 ARPA/Sewer Funds
Offsite Traffic Improvements(e.g. turn lanes, signal costs)$ 820,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
City acquisition of parkland and improvements no estimate available Park Develoment Fund
Xenia water buyout at $3000 per acre, previously negotiated $ 450,000 Water Fund
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 4,382,850
Request for TIF rebate for remaining infrastructure costs, developer
estimate of $4,000,000 of potential need
36
Financial Estimates -Bluffs at Dankbar
Bluffs at Dankbar -20 Acres (6 ac commercial and 14 ac senior living)
Preliminary City
Cost Estimates
Source Of Funds Options,
If a share is the City
Cameron School Road and GW Carver Turn Lanes $ 1,200,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 1,200,000
37
Financial Estimates -Domani I
Domani I-(23 single family units remaining)
Preliminary
City Cost
Estimates
Source Of Funds Options, If a
share is the City
Constructed Cottonwood Road as 31 foot Residential Collector Street $ 371,000 GO Bonds/Road Use
Total Ask Amount of City Assistance $ 371,000
38
Legend
Development
Parcels
PARCELS
Ames Corporate Limits
Incentive Request - Pioneer
Infrastructure
East/West Sewer
Extension
Hyde Avenue Trail
Extension
Sewer Slip Lining
Incentive Request -
Infrastructure Oversizing
Stange Road Extension
Cameron School Traffic
Signal Intersection
Improvement
Development Incentive Requests - North Ames
WESTON DR
G
E
O
R
G
E
W
C
A
R
V
E
R
A
V
E
H
Y
D
E
A
V
E
SE D W IC K S T
S TO C K BU RY ST
ALDRIN
AVE
W 190TH ST
A u b u r n T r a i l
B o r g m e y e r / G r e e n b r i a r
H a y d e n ' s P r e s e r v e
´
0 0.1 0.20.05
Miles
VEENKER DR
Approximate Sewer Slip
Lining Location
Moore
Memorial
Park
´
0 0.07 0.150.04 Miles
39
GREE
N
HILL
S
D
R
WHITE
OAK
DR
COTTONWOOD R D
WESSEXDR
C
E
D
A
R
L
N
C O T TO N W O OD RD
WHITETA
IL
LN
OAKWOOD RD
SUN CR E S T DR
S
5
3
0
T
H
A
V
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
IT
Y
B
LVD
A
U
R
O
R
A
A
V
E
UNIV
E
R
S
I
T
Y
B
LVD
BOBCAT DR
COYOTE DR
UNI
V
E
RS
I
T
Y
BLV
D
Domani I
A n s l e y
Development Incentive Requests - South Ames
´Legend
Incentive Request -
Infrastructure Oversizing
Cottonwood Road
Extension
Development
PARCELS
Ames Corporate
Limits
0 0.07 0.150.04
Miles
40