Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Packet of Communications to Council dated 03/24/2026 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: March 20, 2026 Subject: Packet of Communications to Council Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of March 20, 2026: 1. Tam Lorenz, Ames Resident – March 9, 2026 RE: Request for Pedestrian Safety Improvements for Crossing Lincoln Way in the Oak-Riverside Neighborhood 2. Merlin Pfannkuch, Ames Resident – March 10, 2026 RE: Opposition to the Creation of New TIF Districts for Developer Incentives 3. Sue Ravenscroft, Ames Resident – March 10, 2026 RE: Opposition to the Creation of New TIF Districts for the Linc Project 4. Ludmila Scott, Ames Resident – March 15, 2026 RE: Concern about Municipal Water Fluoridation 5. Patty Yoder, Food at First Executive Director – March 16, 2026 RE: Parking and Safety Concerns for Food at First Clients 6. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – March 20, 2026 RE: SF 579 1 Hall, Renee From:Tam Lorenz <talorenz1556@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 9, 2026 9:04 PM To:City Council and Mayor Cc:Brooke Whitehouse; deblee58@yahoo.com Subject:Pedestrian Safety When Crossing Lincoln Way in the Oak to Riverside Neighborhood [External Email] Dear Mayor and Council, I hope those of you who have patiently read my emails to Council over the years have noticed I am usually specific. This email is a bit different. My generalized plea to you is to do something to make crossing Lincoln Way in the Oak to Riverside neighborhood safer for pedestrians. Please make a start by putting the issue on a Council agenda. As you know, one of my neighbors was fatally injured while walking across Lincoln Way last month. When I arrived at her celebration of life shortly after it began, the large room at Reiman Gardens was already crowded and I stood in line to enter. When I left an hour and a half later, the room was more crowded and there was still a line. So many people in Ames have been affected by the accident on a stretch of Lincoln Way that runs through the center of my neighborhood. Please remember all of us as you consider the issue of pedestrian safety. Regardless of the specifics of the recent accident, this topic truly is a matter of life and death. Crossing a section of Lincoln Way should not be a safe activity reserved for able-bodied adults. The City’s Complete Streets Plan (p. 48) addresses the benefits of marked crosswalks. The Walk Bike Roll Plan discusses priorities for crosswalk enhancement on pp 67-68. I think one of the neighborhood speakers at the February 24, 2026 Council meeting referenced this Plan in her remarks. Still, it is important to repeat: the Lincoln Way crosswalks in my Oak to Riverside neighborhood were (A) identified as high stress (See Walk, Bike, Roll p. 28)and (B) not the subject of any recommendation to improve the situation (See Walk, Bike, Roll pp. 68, 70) I think your process, to decide whether the City will consider taking action to make Lincoln Way safer for pedestrians crossing it, should not use the efficient movement of wheeled vehicles as the controlling good. That kind of prioritization leads to real life circumstances where the most vulnerable individual on foot is required to yield to the most potentially injurious individual on wheels. Maybe the answer is a more marked crosswalks and an awareness campaign to remind drivers to yield to pedestrians therein. Maybe it is adding a stop light in the corridor or a combination of other ideas. But, the first step is to put the issue on a Council agenda. Please do that. Please help. Thank you for your attention. Tam Lorenz 311 S Maple Ave Sent from my iPadr 1 Hall, Renee From:Merlin Pfannkuch <me2magic@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 1:03 PM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Item 50 on tonight's agenda [External Email] Mayor Haila and members of the Ames City Council: Why is this ordinance necessary? The only thing it seems to do is to make it harder for the council to turn down a subsequent request for a TIF district or two. Offhand, I see little reason why two separate TIF districts would be necessary for this development -- unless Winkelblack/the developer are going to ask for a, say, a 20 year period for the first TIF, and a separate 20-year period for the second TIF. Schainker and staff should be embarassed, and perhaps admonished, that this item (to my knowledge) first appears before the public in this manner. Why is an ordinance being proposed at the outset? This is certainly not usual procedure. Sadly, the CAF does not mention a third possible action -- to just say "no". At minimum, this matter should be referred to staff. How much staff time/$$$$$ should the taxpayers be expected to support for this development? I was tempted to ask four or five years ago for such figures -- given the amount of time that staff must have spent on preparing documents for the reinvestment district application and the elaborate developer's agreement. Sincerely, Merlin L. Pfannkkuch 1424 Kellogg Ave. Ames, IA 50010-5447 (515) 509-8148 PS -- so the taxpayers pay for the publication of meaningless ordinances? 1 Hall, Renee From:Ravenscroft, Sue P [ACCT] <sueraven@iastate.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 3:46 PM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Regarding a proposed pair of TIFs for the Linc [External Email] Hello Mr. Mayor and Council members: Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend council tonight because of prior obligations, but I am concerned about the prospect of TIFs being accommodated for the perpetually missing Linc project that like the phoenix, is rearing its head yet again. Initially the developer asked for about $20 to @25 million, which eventually rose to $52 million dollars. That seemed excessive to me for a project with a price tag that ranged from 150 to 200 million dollars. But that initial project included a parking deck north of the railroad tracks and also involved a $10 million dollar sales tax rebate from the state, which the city planned to fund part of the Aquatic Center. So there was some tangible benefit to the city. However, as we know, that project has died. In its newest incarnation there is no parking deck north of the railroad tracks and the possibility of getting that sales tax rebate from the IEDA is gone because IEDA's deadlines were missed. Iowa is the state with the most TIFS and I think we have gone overboard in granting them. I also find it concerning that as cities face real pressures from the state government to reduce property tax revenue growth, we would amplify the problem by basically giving a substantial amount of property tax back to the developer. Is the city so flush with revenues that it can afford this? I think this issue should be discussed really carefully with the public. My sense is that people do not understand TIF and need a lot of education about why and how we could use them. Please do not rush any proposals relating to TIF through, and provide the public with enough information and education to help make this decision that has impact on all of us. Thank you. Sue Ravenscroft 1 Hall, Renee From:Ludmila Scott <luda_vit@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 15, 2026 6:05 PM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Request for Immediate Suspension of Water Fluoridation in Our Community [External Email] Dear Mayor John Haila and City Coucil Members, I am writing to urge the City Council to immediately suspend the addition of fluoride to our municipal water supply. New federal findings, a landmark EPA lawsuit outcome, and a growing body of scientific research—including extensive evidence of neurodevelopmental harm—make it clear that continuing fluoridation is no longer a responsible or evidence-based public health practice.  1. Federal Court Ruling: Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children In 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that fluoridation at the current U.S. “optimal” level of 0.7 mg/L “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children” and ordered the EPA to take regulatory action. This is the first time in U.S. history that a federal court has required stricter fluoride oversight. ��� 2. Strong Evidence That Fluoride Lowers IQ in Children A large body of government-funded research now shows that fluoride is a neurotoxin, especially harmful to the developing brain:  The National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “consistent inverse associations between fluoride exposure and IQ in children” after an 8-year systematic review.  Out of 72 human studies reviewed, 64 found lower IQ associated with higher fluoride exposure.  A 2019 Canadian study (Till et al.) found that formula-fed infants in fluoridated communities had significantly lower non-verbal IQ scores.  Harvard researchers warned in The Lancet that fluoride is a “developmental neurotoxicant” (Choi et al., 2012).  The federal court cited this evidence directly in its ruling. Damage to a child’s brain is permanent and irreversible, unlike cavities, which are easily treated. ����� 3. EPA Is Now Re-Evaluating Fluoride’s Safety Following the court ruling, the EPA has begun a new toxicity assessment of fluoride, acknowledging the need to re-examine health risks. When the nation’s top environmental agency is reassessing safety, local governments should not continue exposing residents—especially infants—to a chemical under federal scrutiny. 艏艎 4. Other States and Communities Are Ending Fluoridation 2 Across the U.S., communities are halting fluoridation in response to new scientific and legal developments. Some states have enacted or proposed bans, and many cities have independently discontinued the practice. Internationally, over 95% of the world’s population does not drink fluoridated water, including nearly all of Europe. ����� 5. Fluoridation Chemicals Are Industrial Waste By-Products According to EPA documentation, the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation are not pharmaceutical-grade. They originate from pollution scrubbers in phosphate fertilizer and aluminum production and may contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, and aluminum. 膆루룩 6. Fluoridation Increases Corrosion and Can Elevate Lead Exposure Silicofluorides are highly acidic and can increase corrosion in water systems, contributing to the leaching of heavy metals from pipes—especially in older infrastructure. Lead exposure is already a major public health concern, and fluoridation may worsen it. ꩪꩫꩬ 7. Fluoride in Water Is a Drug—Administered Without Consent The FDA classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent disease. Adding it to drinking water is a form of mass medication without dosage control, medical oversight, or informed consent—contradicting modern medical ethics and individualized care standards. 젋젌젍 8. Fluoride Works Topically, Not Systemically Modern dental science confirms that fluoride’s benefits come from topical application, not ingestion. Swallowing fluoride exposes the entire body to risk while providing no added dental benefit—especially for infants and fetuses, for whom the CDC acknowledges no known benefit. 궪궨궫 9. No Meaningful Reduction in Cavities Large, high-quality studies show no significant difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Worldwide, tooth decay has declined at the same rate in countries that do not fluoridate. 풆풇품풉풊軈풋풌車풍軋풎풏풐풑풒 10. Widespread Overexposure: 70% of U.S. Teens Have Dental Fluorosis CDC data show that over 70% of adolescents now have dental fluorosis—a visible sign of systemic fluoride overexposure during childhood. This condition can weaken enamel and increase decay risk. 굏교굑굒굓굗굘굔굕굖 11. Fluoridation Wastes Taxpayer Money Cities spend significant funds on fluoridation equipment and chemicals, even though 99% of treated water is not consumed (used instead for bathing, irrigation, etc.). These funds could be redirected to effective, targeted dental programs. 3 골곩곪곫곬 12. Safer, More Effective Alternatives Already Exist Topical fluoride toothpaste, dental sealants, nutrition programs, and school-based dental care provide cavity prevention without systemic exposure. Requested Actions I respectfully ask the Council to: 1. Immediately suspend the addition of fluoride to our municipal water supply. 2. Conduct a public review of the latest federal court findings and scientific evidence. Protecting public health requires adapting to new scientific and legal realities. The evidence is now overwhelming that fluoridation poses unnecessary risks—especially to infants and children—while offering minimal benefit. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your leadership in protecting our community. Sincerely, Ludmila Scott 5328 Tabor Dr, Ames, IA Resources & Citations Federal Court Ruling (2024): https://fluoridealert.org/articles/tsca-trial/ National Toxicology Program (NTP) Review: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/fluoride/index.html (ntp.niehs.nih.gov in Bing) Till et al. 2019 (Canadian IQ Study): https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP5871 (ehp.niehs.nih.gov in Bing) Harvard Meta-Analysis (Choi et al., 2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov in Bing) Reasons to End Water Fluoridation (PDF): https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Reasons-to-End-Water-Fluoridation.pdf CDC Dental Fluorosis Data: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db53.htm (cdc.gov in Bing) WHO International Fluoridation Data: https://www.who.int 4 1 Hall, Renee From:Patty Yoder FAF <patty.foodatfirst@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 16, 2026 3:57 PM To:City Council and Mayor Subject:Parking ticket issues for Food At First clients [External Email] Hello all, I am reaching out about an issue Food At First clients have been having in the last week or two. More and more people are needing a little extra help with our Free Market (food pantry) which is Monday and Thursday afternoons as well as Saturday mornings. They have a hard time finding places to park and have used the new City of Ames parking lot to the West of First Christian Church where we are located. There are multiple different kinds of parking there, E-car, 24 hr. reserved, 6am-5pm as well as meters that need paid until 6pm. Our clients (and volunteers) have used this lot, most of them arriving between 3:45-4:45pm parking in probably all the different spots because our lots and the streets fill up fast. Until recently, there was seldom a parking ticket issued but last week there were many. This was only exasperated by the fact that the church had a funeral also. We are working as hard as possible to keep food from going to the landfill and in the process getting good food into the hands of those that are in need. I realize that there are some parking spots to the West of City Hall, but with children and huge boxes of food, carts and wagons, I would be afraid of safety issues. I am wondering if it could be at all possible to at least change the parking meters to 5pm. That is still going to be a challenge for some folks but it would be most helpful. I am just not sure what else to do. Thank you for your consideration, -- Patty Yoder Exec. Director Food At First 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 20, 2026 Subject: SF 579 As reported at the March 10, 2026 Council meeting, late that afternoon Governor Reynolds signed into law SF 579, titled “An Act relating to implementing the Iowa civil rights Act of 1965, local civil rights commissions, and local civil rights agencies, and including effective date provisions.” There are several provisions in this legislation. The first is a provision that a “city or local government shall not enact any ordinance or other law which is broader or has different categories of unfair or discriminatory practices than those provided in this chapter.” [“This chapter” being Iowa Code chapter 216, the Iowa Civil Rights Act.] There was discussion at the last Council meeting about whether the Council should repeal the recently-passed ordinance adding gender identity as a protected class under the Ames ordinance. I am aware that there are discussions of possible litigation (by a city and by an advocacy organization) challenging the enactment of this new law (I do not know the legal theories being considered), and there has been some discussion about various interpretations of the law. Given this, I believe it would not be prude nt for the Council to repeal the ordinance at this time. Therefore, my recommendation is that the Council not repeal the ordinance now and instead wait a while for any further legal developments. The new legislation has some additional provisions that do the following: - Makes it optional (instead of mandatory) that cities with populations of 29,000 or more have a local civil rights commission. - Requires that any complaint against a governmental entity filed with a local commission be referred to the Iowa Office of Civil Rights. - Specifies certain notice requirements in handling a complaint. - Changes the terms of local commissioners to two years. The City currently has three-year terms for our Human Relations Commission members, so this will need to be changed. From my initial readings of this law, most of these provisions don’t affect City of Ames operations, because discrimination complaints, except for gender-identity cases, are referred to and handled by the Iowa Office of Civil Rights. But the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office together need to think through whether any changes are needed to our ordinance beyond the change in length of terms of the commissioners. A motion to keep the gender-identity portion of the ordinance in place is not necessary. (Also, I note it is not currently being enforced). Therefore, I ask the Council to adopt a motion that City staff prepare an ordinance to address changing the terms of Ames Human Relations Commission commissioners, and also to address other requirements of the new law that staff determine must be addressed by ordinance.