The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About~Master - Packet of Communications to Council dated February 6, 2026 City Manager’s Office 515.239.5105 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811 515.239.5142 fax Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org MEMO To: Mayor and City Council From: Jeramy Neefus, Principal Clerk Date: February 6, 2026 Subject: Packet of Communications to Council Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of February 6, 2026: 1. Dale Higgins, City of Maxwell Mayor – January 20, 2026 RE: Request for Release from 28E Agreement for Solid Waste Services 2. Joyce Vegge, Irons Subdivision Resident – February 2, 2026 RE: Opposition to Annexation of the Irons Subdivision 3. Kody Olson, Ames Resident – February 2, 2026 RE: Suggestions for City Investment in North Grand Mall 4. Sam Brant, Ames Resident – February 3, 2026 RE: Query Related to Reassessing Current Rental Regulations 5. Jane Olson, Irons Subdivision Resident – February 4, 2026 RE: Opposition to Annexation of the Irons Subdivision 6. Clinton Richard Cabney – February 5, 2026 RE: Concerns Regarding Smart Meters in Ames 7. Justin Moore, Planning and Housing – February 6, 2026 RE: Request for Waiver to Subdivide Land in Story County within the Ames 2-mile Urban Fringe February 2, 2026 Dear Bronwyn, Tim, Gloria, Rachel, Anita, Amber, Emily and Mayor Haila: I am writing in regards to the annexation of Irons Way in North Ames. I cannot speak for the Ames Golf and Country Club or the residents of the single family dwellings on Irons Court, but I can speak on behalf of the owners of twin homes on Irons Way. I am requesting that you rethink the need to annex our parcel of land. We are now aware there was a reference in May 2013 that the City of Ames could at a later date annex our parcel of land. The builder apparently agreed to whatever was needed so he could begin development however, none of the homeowners remember a conversation with the builder about the future annexation possibility at the time of purchase. I did, after we received notiﬁcation to sign the annexation documents, pull out our deed and abstract. Something few of us read from cover to cover. On page 4 of Tim Gartin’s Title Opinion in bold he referenced Entry No. 40. I then poured over the abstract and in the middle of page 123 is Entry #40 which refers to homeowners bearing the cost of sewer lines should annexation occur. This annexation is not necessary for the well-being of the City of Ames. The church across the street is tax exempt so will probably never be annexed. To the north of us is the city of Gilbert. We are situated in a unique proximity to the Country Club and that is our only connection. All but two of the 17 twin homeowners on Irons Way are retired and our incomes will never increase. Let’s say for practical purposes if our current annual property taxes are $6,000 the addition of the $3,000 for the sewer construction fee prorated over ten years will raise our annual payment to $9,000 per year. What do we get for that??? NOTHING. Apparently our street is considered a private drive so no snow removal, no street repair. We already have utilities and water with septics that are working just ﬁne. In addition to the ﬁnancial hardship it will impair our future ability to sell our homes. Not many people are dying to pay $9,000 in taxes for a 2-3 bedroom townhome. Our future is in your hands. I do hope you will reconsider annexing Irons Way. Thankyou, Joyce Vegge 5527 Irons Way 1 Hall, Renee From:Kody Olson <olsondakota@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 1:45 PM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Invest in our Community [External Email] Dear elected members of the City of Ames, My name is Kody Olson and I am a resident of Ames at 2017 Northwestern Ave, Ames, IA 50010. I am interested in the well-being and success of my community. My children will grow up here. I love the North Grand Mall. I just celebrated my 30th birthday there with my closest friends and family. We played at Inside Golf and explored the mall. I showed them Tuneful Journeys, where my daughter participated in Kindermusic and my twins celebrated their first birthday party. I have been concerned about the economic volatility of the Mall and the repeated closures of stores. And yet I love to see local businesses thriving there and in our Main Street. I think our mall can be a regional and citywide destination with the proper investment and focus on community development. The City has taken significant steps to invest in our mall, including making it a transit hub for CyRide. We can center the mall as an economic hub for our community by promoting local investment into the North Grand Mall and making it as celebrated as our Main Street. I suggest two strategic investments: 1) The City of Ames should consider adding a library branch to the North Grand Mall. As a key transit and economic hub, the mall will draw new patrons of the library and we would claim further local ownership of the mall. I live just .5 miles from the mall. I would love a space to hang out and work or take my family to that does not cost money. This would be a phenomenal investment into the vitality and family wellbeing of this neighborhood of Ames. 2) Consider adding city-owned Electric vehicle charging stations to the North Grand Mall parking lot. This would further drive traffic to our mall and contribute to its wellbeing. The chargers I see around town are popular. We as a city should be working to rapidly expand our charging capacity to keep up with growing demand in the EV market. Thank you for your consideration and time. I appreciate any responds and would welcome further dialogue. With kind regards, Kody Olson Sent from Gmail Mobile 1 Hall, Renee From:Sam Brant <sam@fettrealty.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 4:36 PM To:Junck, Rachel; Gartin, Tim; City Council and Mayor Subject:Re: Sam Brant - Follow-Up Public Forum 1/27/26 [External Email] Mayor and Council Members Tim and Rachel, Thank you both for the quick replies. Tim — agreed: I’m not asking the City to change Iowa landlord–tenant law. I’m talking about City-level rental licensing/inspection requirements and related municipal code standards that can create large compliance costs (especially on older, lower-rent homes). Rachel — you asked for specific code items and how they compare to nearby communities. Below are a few examples where I think Ames is more prescriptive than it needs to be, and where a “same safety outcome, lower cost” approach could help keep rents down and preserve supply. 1. Driveways / parking areas: paving requirements tied to rentals In Ames’ Rental Housing Code, “all vehicle areas… and driveways” at rental properties must be paved (PCC/ACC or equivalent) and meet thickness standards, and permits are required for new parking areas regardless of surfacing. (Ames Municipal Code, Ch. 13, Sec. 13.406(6)–(7)) Also, Ames zoning standards now set minimum driveway width (on-site 9 feet; approach in the right-of- way 10 feet). (Ames Municipal Code, Ch. 29 driveway standards) Nevada comparison (this is the key difference): Nevada explicitly defines a residential “driveway” and “driveway extension” as an improved surface that can be concrete, asphalt, or gravel/crushed stone, and it allows side/rear yard parking on an improved surface that includes gravel/crushed stone. (Nevada Code, Sec. 69.19) In plain terms: Nevada allows stable gravel as a compliant driveway surface in situations where Ames’ rental code pushes properties toward full paving and specific construction standards. What I’d like Ames to consider:  A clearer grandfathering / safe-harbor path for existing.new rentals with stable gravel that isn’t causing drainage, dust, or nuisance issues.  A “performance” standard (no rutting/mud runoff onto sidewalks/streets, good drainage, no nuisance) rather than a one-size-fits-all paving requirement. 2. Foundation drains / sump discharge: required connection to storm infrastructure (and no discharge onto property) 2 Ames’ plumbing code amendments are very specific about foundation drain/sump discharge routing and describe discharge into a storm manhole/intake/storm main, and it also states that no foundation drain service line may be discharged onto property. (Ames Municipal Code, Ch. 5 plumbing amendments) This is the type of requirement that can be a major retrofit cost on older homes — and those costs tend to land hardest on the naturally affordable units. Boone comparison: Boone’s ordinance is explicit that sump pumps must discharge to a storm sewer/collection system or a natural outlet such as a grass yard area or creek abutting the property. (Boone Code, Sec. 96.07) That “yard/natural outlet” approach matches what most homeowners do today when it’s not harming neighbors — and it avoids forcing high-cost storm connections in many cases. 3. Handrails: prescriptive geometry vs. “safe and sound” maintenance standards Ames’ Rental Housing Code requires handrails on stairs with 4+ risers and specifies a height range (and it can effectively trigger upgrades when replacements occur). (Ames Municipal Code, Ch. 13, Sec. 13.409) Boone comparison: Boone’s rental code language is much more performance-based here — it requires stairs/handrails/guardrails be maintained in safe and sound condition and capable of supporting normal loads, without embedding the same geometry requirements directly in the rental chapter. (Boone Code, Sec. 171.10(10)) Nevada comparison: Nevada’s rental program adopts the International Property Maintenance Code framework rather than writing detailed handrail geometry into the rental chapter itself, and their published building guidance reflects the standard 34”–38” handrail height commonly used in residential codes. What I’m asking for: Would Council support a short, structured staff review of the highest-cost / most common rental inspection triggers (by frequency and typical cost) and bring back options like grandfathering, phased timelines, or alternative compliance paths that preserve safety but reduce unnecessary cost pressure? If helpful, I can put together a one-page memo with 3–5 real examples (photos + contractor quotes) showing the cost and the specific code trigger. Respectfully, Sam Brant On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 5:38 PM Junck, Rachel <rachel.junck@amescitycouncil.org> wrote: Hi Sam, 3 There is not a specific target/threshold of support that needs to be demonstrated in order to revisit rental regulations. What would be helpful for me would be to understand what specific regulations in the code you believe are contributing to higher rents, reduced housing supply, and unintended economic impacts on both tenants and property owners. If you could point to what regulations we have that differ from other surrounding communities, that would be a helpful point of comparison to understand if there are levers we can pull to improve. Sincerely, Rachel From: Sam Brant <sam@fettrealty.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:45 AM To: City Council and Mayor <mayorcouncil@amescitycouncil.org> Subject: Sam Brant - Follow-Up Public Forum 1/27/26 [External Email] Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you again for the opportunity to speak at the recent public forum. I appreciated being able to attend in person and see firsthand how the City Council process works. It was helpful to better understand how public input is received and considered. Following that discussion, I wanted to ask a clarifying question so that community members, including both tenants and landlords, can engage with the City in a way that is constructive and effective. Specifically, what level of demonstrated concern or support would the City consider sufficient to formally revisit or reassess the current rental regulations? For example:  Is there a target number of tenant signatures?  A target number of property owners or landlords?  A petition threshold or formal process that would trigger deeper analysis or review? The reason for this question is practical. Many residents are increasingly concerned that rental regulations, while well intentioned, may be contributing to higher rents, reduced housing supply, and unintended economic impacts on both tenants and property owners. There is also concern about broader effects on local investment and the overall Ames economy. If the City can clarify what level of organized participation would be required for these concerns to be taken under formal consideration, it would allow residents to engage productively and transparently rather than through speculation or frustration. 4 Thank you again for your time, your service, and your willingness to engage with the community. I look forward to your guidance on how residents can best participate in this process. Respectfully, Sam Brant -- To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Here's my schedule: https://calendly.com/sam-1273 -- To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Here's my schedule: https://calendly.com/sam-1273 1 Hall, Renee From:Jane Olson <janeolson5510@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 8:10 AM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Annexation of Irons Way [External Email] To the Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to support and echo the sentiments against the annexation of Irons Way in north Ames expressed by Joyce Vegge. This will cause an extraordinary financial burden to our community of mostly retired and widowed residents, including myself. As we age, change becomes more difficult. We all thought we were moving into a relatively maintenance free situation. This annexation idea is not only causing financial stress but emotional stress as well. Please put yourselves in our shoes and picture this situation as if this were affecting your parents or loved ones. We would appreciate your reconsidering this decision. Thank you for considering our concerns. Jane Olson 5402 Irons Way Sent from my iPhone 1 Hall, Renee From:Clinton Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com> Sent:Thursday, February 5, 2026 2:37 PM To:Gartin, Tim Cc:City Council and Mayor Subject:Re: DEADLY SMART METERS IN AMES! Attachments:Screen_Shot_2018-04-23_at_11.13.28_AM.png [External Email] Tim It's the Microwave Radiation that Pulses every few seconds from them, along with the much Increased Dirty Electricity going into peoples Homes from them, making them Sick. People are also Noting their electric bills Double or Triple once the Smart Meters are installed; SMART Meters are NOT saving Money for people, but doing Just the Opposite of what's claimed. In addition, Smart Meters are obviously a form of Survelliance/Spying as they collect Data continuously on Americans. There is NOTHING positive about Smart Meters for American Citizens at all, obviously, but just Higher Bills, Spying, and most Importantly Hurting people, making them very Sick, or Killing them. You can think of SMART METERS as LEGALIZED SOFT KILL GENOCIDE MACHINES! I have attached a Graph of how Smart Meters are Hurting American Citizens. PLEASE get these SMART METERS out of Ames! College Students also dont need these Meters Damaging them, and interfering with there Health, as the try to Earn Degrees here at ISU. Thank You, Clinton On 01/11/2026 12:14 PM CST Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org> wrote: Thank you for the e-mail Clinton. Could you clarify what makes the meters dangerous? Tim From: Clinton Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 12:14 AM To: Schainker, Steve <steve.schainker@cityofames.org> Cc: Beatty-Hansen, Bronwyn <bronwyn.beattyhansen@amescitycouncil.org>; Corrieri, Amber <amber.corrieri@amescitycouncil.org>; Betcher, Gloria <gloria.betcher@amescitycouncil.org>; Haila, John <john.haila@cityofames.org>; Junck, Rachel <rachel.junck@amescitycouncil.org>; Rollins, Anita <anita.rollins@amescitycouncil.org>; Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org> Subject: Re: DEADLY SMART METERS IN AMES! [External Email] 2 Steve, Mayor & AMES CITY COUNCIL: Smart Meters are Dangerous and Making people sick All across the USA, and Killing people. The Elecrtric Companies & City Councils always downplay how Horrible Smart Meters are. The evidence is overwhelming how Horrible Smart Meters are, & I can send article after Article how Deadly they are! The Empirical Evidence how Dangerous/DEADLY they are is overwhelming! I realize they are being used for Depopulation/Agenda 2030, but can you Please reconsider, and Keep them out of Ames. This is College Town and should be Smart Enough to keep SMART METERS out of Ames and for the Students as well! Please Look at these Links: https://www.facebook.com/groups/optoutsmartmeter https://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com https://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/05/25/berkeley-emf-analysis-and-rip-shrub/ Clinton On 12/24/2025 2:37 PM CST Schainker, Steve <steve.schainker@cityofames.org> wrote: Hi Clinton! I certainly can understand the concerns you raised in your email to the City Council about AMI meters. Therefore, I asked my staff members who deal with these meters to comment about the issues you have raised. I am highlighting below the information that they have gathered regarding the AMI meters. Steve "Advanced Metering infrastructure radios are considered safe by regulatory bodies like the FCC, emitting very low-power, non-ionizing radio frequencies (RF) that are well below safety limits, similar to common devices like cell phones or remote controls, with transmissions lasting only seconds per day. While the technology complies with strict FCC guidelines and uses minimal power, users should ensure proper installation by trained professionals. (Note, both the water and electric technicians who will be installing and maintaining these systems have been trained by the manufacturer on the proper care of the radios.) -Aclara devices use a tiny fraction of the RF energy allowed by safety standards, often less than 1%. 3 -Transmissions are brief (e.g., seconds per day), significantly reducing overall exposure compared to constant-emitting devices. -The RF energy is non-ionizing, meaning it lacks the energy to damage DNA, unlike X-rays. -Aclara products meet all FCC guidelines for human RF exposure. -The systems also meet IEEE standards for safety. -RF emissions are typically lower than those from laptops, cell phones, or Wi-Fi routers. -The exposure levels are comparable to background exposure from everyday AM/FM radio and TV signals." From: Haila, John <john.haila@cityofames.org> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 6:48 PM To: Clinton Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com>; bronwyn_b@wheatsfield.coop <bronwyn_b@wheatsfield.coop>; City Council and Mayor <mayorcouncil@amescitycouncil.org>; Schainker, Steve <steve.schainker@cityofames.org> Subject: Re: Cashier at Coop Clinton, Your email has been forwarded to our city manager for him to review and consider what next steps might be. He has been copied on my reply to you. John A. Haila, Mayor City of Ames From: Clinton Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 5:21 PM To: bronwyn_b@wheatsfield.coop <bronwyn_b@wheatsfield.coop>; City Council and Mayor <mayorcouncil@amescitycouncil.org> Subject: Re: Cashier at Coop [External Email] 4 Im awaiting Your reply concerning my Health Concerns and how do I contact the Mayor about this. Who actually approved Dangersous Smart Meters for Ames. That was a horrible act of Betrayal for Citizens of Ames! https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/smart-meters-health-privacy/ Clinton On 12/21/2025 1:21 AM CST Clinton Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com> wrote: Who approved AMI SMART METERS For Ames? These are Very Dangerous for your Health! Is there a free Opt out if I dont want it installed??? Clinton On 03/29/2024 9:44 PM CDT Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com> wrote: Did You get my E-Mail I sent on March 23rd, or You dont reply back to Customer Complaints??? On 03/23/2024 1:11 AM CDT Richard Cabney <president@antiagingking.com> wrote: I was in the Coop last week in the Morning & I had a Black Lady as my Cashier. I usually pay with Cash in the store & I gave her a $100 bill. She immediately got out her Yellow Marker in front of me to see if the Bill I gave her was was counterfeit which Caring People  Quality Programs  Exceptional Service 515 Clark Ave. Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org Planning & Housing Department MEMO 515.239.5400 main To: Mayor and City Council From: Justin Moore, Planning & Housing Date: February 10, 2026 Subject: Request for a waiver to subdivide land in Story County within the Ames 2- mile Urban Fringe. Background: Brad McCartney of 50184 180th Street in rural Story County, recently contacted Mayor Haila and the Council Members regarding his desire to subdivide a single existing site into parcels smaller than 35 acres (Attachment A-Letter, Attachment B-Subdivision Proposal) and to have the Council waive City development standards. Any division of land within 2-miles of Ames is subject to City review for conformance to the City’s subdivision code or for consideration of a waiver of city standards (Attachment C- Location Map). The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to split the existing farmstead of approximately 7.67 acres of land into 2 parcels of 4.523 acres and 3.147 acres separately and build a new home on the new western parcel. An existing home on the property would occupy the new eastern parcel. The existing parcel, based on the location and wooded area, is designated Natural Area Conservation with some Agricultural Preservation by the City’s comprehensive plan Ames Plan 2040. The property is not located in an Urban Reserve Area. The future land use map in Ames Plan 2040 does not fully extend to this property. The property is northwest of the City, at the northern edge of the City’s 2-mile jurisdictional boundary on the south side of 180th Street slightly east of County Line Road (500th Avenue). Attachment C depicts the location of the land ownership. The property where the existing home is located is interpreted as being in the Natural Area Conservation designation due to it’s proximity to Ioway Creek. The western portion where the second lot would be created and a new home constructed is also interpreted as being in the Natural Area Conservation and also classified as partially being in the Agricultural Preservation Area. Mr. McCartney is seeking a waiver of the City’s Subdivision standards for minimum lot size and to subdivide in the associated land use designations. Both of the identified land use designations do not support subdivisions based on the intended land use. Rural Subdivision Policies Ames Plan 2040 states that the minimum lot size within the Urban Fringe is 35 acres (UF3-1 and UF4-3). Restricting the size of parcels serves to facilitate future growth by ensuring that property lines and ownership do not become so fractured that development and annexation are inhibited. It is easier to develop a large acreage than to develop, in a piecemeal fashion, many small parcels. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL AREAS UF3-1: Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural areas are designated to preserve appropriate land for farming and limit the encroachment of residential and other uses into these areas. Land divisions are permissible only to allow for splitting off an existing homesite or farmstead from a farm area. Minimum lot sizes are proposed at 35 acres matching Story County A-1 zoning standard. UF3-2: Natural Area Conservation. Natural areas include sensitive areas of natural habitat, steep slopes, and waterways. Natural area designations are informational based upon the Environment Element and the 2006 AUFP. Creation of new parcels within these areas for new development is prohibited. Property divisions for land conservation purposes is permissible with city approval. Land conservation is typically for larger areas to be preserved within outlots under common or private ownership or to transfer ownership to a governmental or non- governmental organization for its management. Creation of private open space may not be appropriate under this designation. Natural areas adjacent to the city may still require annexation to further city goals for orderly development patterns and resource conservation. Options: Mr. McCartney is requesting a division for his property. In Sketch Plan letters to Mr. McCartney dated November 13th, 2025 (Attachment D), city staff advised Mr. McCartney that: “Creating a new buildable parcel requires a referral from the Ames City Council to consider waivers and covenants before a Final Plat is submitted. You would begin by writing to the Ames City Council requesting a waiver from the City’s subdivision requirements”. Based on staffs review there are a couple options for consideration below. Option 1: Approve Waiver of City Review This option would waive the City review of this subdivision, thereby releasing it to Story County for their review. It should be noted that the subject subdivision cannot be accomplished under the City’s regulations and as it is approximately right on the line of the Urban Fringe. With a release of subdivision review, the applicant may proceed with submitting an application to Story County for review. Option 2: Decline to allow a subdivision at this location This option would rely on the fact that the Natural Area Conservation and Agricultural Preservation Area is not to be subdivided for new residential purposes. Terefore, the City Council would deny the waiver request from Mr. McCartney and not allow any subdivision at this location. Staff Comments: Mr. McCartney has communicated to staff his desire to subdivide his farmland in Story County. Ames has a policy of only subdividing land in the Urban Fringe into parcels that are at least 35 acres for areas seen as Agricultural and Farm Service classifications and not allowing subdivisions in designated Natural Area Conservation Subdivisions that intensify use near the City and do not include urban development standards can be counter to the City’s plans for growth and expansion. However, upon review of the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use and the location of this property, staff does not believe that this property will ever be brought into the City. The location of this division is at the edge of the City’s 2-mile jurisdictional boundary. The area in general is highly unlikely to be incorporated into the City in the future due to existing development patterns in this area. As such, given the distance near the edge of the 2-mile boundary, staff supports waiving of City review entirely. Attachment A Letter to Council Attachment B Proposed Subdivision Attachment C Property Location Attachment D Sketch Plan Letter