HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Packet of Communication to Council dated May 8, 2026City Manager’s Office 515.239.5105 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Renee Hall, City Clerk
Date: May 8, 2026
Subject: Packet of Communications to Council
Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of May 8,
2026:
1.Kyle Poorman, Ames Resident – April 29, 2026
RE: South Campus Redirection Area & other Parking Issues
2.Lynn Ballard, Ames Resident – April 30, 2026
RE: 72 hour parking restrictions
3.Brian Lawson, Postmaster, USPS – April 30, 2026
RE: 608 Burnett Parking Lot
4.Yong Han, Ames Resident – May 3, 2026
RE: Housing Resilience Materials
5.Kurtis Bower, Mayor of Roland – May 4, 2026
RE: Release from 28E Agreement for Solid Waste Services
6.Stacy Woodward, Ames Resident – May 4, 2026
RE: AirBnB/VRBO Guidelines
7.Ron McMillen, x – May 4, 2026
RE: Land Use Amendment
8.Kyle Poorman, Ames Resident – May 5, 2026
RE: Sidewalk Closures on Main Street
9.Mike McDaniel/Rob Carter, Lightedge – May 7, 2026
RE: Request for Development
10. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – May 8, 2026
RE: City Liability in Mass Casualty Event
11. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – May 8, 2026
RE: Potential Municipal Infraction – Landlord causes tenant displacement
12. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – May 8, 2026
RE: Right-of-Way Crosswalks
13. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – May 8, 2026
RE: Engine Brake Ordinances
14. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – May 8, 2026
RE: Smoking on Main Street
15. Justin Clausen, Public Works Director – May 8, 2026
RE: Resource Recovery & Recycling Campus Update
16. Justin Clausen, Public Works Director – May 8, 2026
RE: Federal Railroad Administration Grant Opportunity
17. Justin Moore, Planner – May 8, 2026
RE: Kwik Star Gas Station Text Amendment
1
Hall, Renee
From:Kyle Poorman <kylepoorman@mac.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:53 PM
To:City Council and Mayor; Schainker, Steve
Subject:South Campus Redirection Area and other Parking Issues - Look to other college towns
[External Email]
Dear Ames City Council, Mayor and City Manager,
After reading through the South Campus Redirection Area Report, I would like to urge you to study the parking and
zoning of other college cities like Fort Collins, CO; Champaign IL; Ann Arbor MI or Ithaca NY as prime examples. In
each of these cases, the college towns greatly reduced or eliminated minimum parking requirements. At the same
time, some instituted maximum parking requirements for other areas. Maximums try to mitigate areas that can be
blighted by too much parking infrastructure. The Duff Ave. corridor is significantly impaired by unrestricted parking
lot development right now. In fact, total parking in the Duff Ave. corridor grew by almost 700% between 1990 and
2026. Most of this parking development occurred within a 10 year period starting in the mid 90s. Duff Ave now has
the equivalent of more than 35 football fields worth of parking on it, around 55 acres. 30% to 40% of the Duff
corridor is covered by parking lots. If we only looked at the southern part of the corridor, parking lots cover 60% of
the area. This type of build out is not a-typical of a 20th century, American midwestern suburb.
Ames should have never been planned like a suburb, but such is life. The Duff Ave. corridor is disconnected,
congested, environmentally desolate, and creates significant amounts of run-off. Additionally, parking lots only
provide one service, parking. With many spaces going unused for a majority of the time. I would say the
development pattern of Duff Ave. needs to be greatly reformed and its development pattern should never be
emulated. To that end for commercial areas like Duff Ave., I would urge you to enact parking maximums.
To carry out broader reforms it is time to change our reference points.
I often times see city staff provide the council with examples of code from surrounding communities in Iowa.
Those examples often times miss the unique nature of a college town. We should be looking for inspiration from
our peer communities across the US and the world. These communities could be Fort Collins, Ithaca, Champaign,
Ann Arbor, Berkeley, or Davis just to name ones in the US. I would also love for the staff to present newer models
from the Netherlands (Utrecht and Wageningen) and the greening and pedestrian/bike policies that have occurred
in Paris and Barcelona. Paris only started reforming quite recently and has seen massive shifts in amount of bike
journeys and significant reductions in air pollution. For now, I will turn back to the US.
Lets take Champaign as an example - this text was generated via a query from Claude AI:
Champaign, IL is a college town and it is similar in scale and similar type of city to Ames. In 2015 and 2016,
Champaign removed minimum parking requirements in the university district and residential areas in the
downtown and midtown districts, including all of Campustown. The results were striking: of the 43 new major
developments built in the seven years following the parking reform, 84 percent provided less parking than previous
requirements, including eight developments with zero parking. Onsite parking construction in the deregulated
zones decreased dramatically, from 108 percent of the earlier requirement to only 46 percent — clearly indicating
that the prior minimum parking requirements enforced an oversupply of parking. In dollar terms, developers built
only 1,833 spaces when given market-based choices rather than the 3,975 that would have been required, saving
2
approximately $43–49 million in construction costs. And critically, the reform strengthened walkability: post-
reform developments had 31% higher unit density per floor area and were more likely to feature active frontages
on the ground floor, with residential, retail, or recreational spaces replacing parking.
Now let’s look at a comparison between Fort Collins and Ames.
Fort Collins is more than double the size of Ames and has embraced parking reforms in the last decade. Currently,
Ames has 30% more parking per capita than Fort Collins and that number is slated to grow. Here is a table of the
differences in parking ordinances.
3
4
Below is a summary of the findings from Claude AI:
Ames operates a fairly conventional Midwestern parking code — minimums by use type, no maximums, with
modest relief carved out for the Downtown (DSC) and Campustown (CSC) zones. The most recent significant
change came in 2023, when Ames reduced its retail parking minimum from 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft down to 2
spaces per 1,000 sq ft — a meaningful reform, but still a minimum-only system with no cap on how much parking a
developer can pour. The absence of a parking maximum is particularly significant: a big-box developer wanting to
build the maximum amount of parking has no constraint.
Fort Collins has moved much further. Fort Collins has added parking maximums, reduced parking minimums, and
in some zones removed them entirely — with parking maximums applying to all nonresidential uses and to multi-
family in the TOD Overlay Zone. The maximums are the structural difference: they prevent the developer who
wants to build a sea of asphalt to attract suburban shoppers from doing so. Per Colorado House Bill 24-1304, Fort
Collins no longer imposes any minimum on-site parking requirement on new multi-unit or residential mixed-use
developments, with developers free to provide parking according to market demand. Within the TOD Overlay, 25%
of gross leasable area is exempt from minimum parking requirements, and requirements can be further reduced
for affordable housing, car-share, transit pass distribution, or proximity to transit.
Critically, a change of use within an existing building in Fort Collins is fully exempt from parking requirements,
which is one of the most underrated provisions in urban planning — it means a vacant retail store can become a
restaurant or office without triggering a new parking calculation. City of Ames
Total parking area
Fort Collins is a bigger city by every measure — more than twice Ames's land area and roughly 2.5× the population
— so its absolute parking acreage is larger. But on a per-capita basis, Ames likely has about 30% more surface
parking per person than Fort Collins, which reflects the cumulative effect of decades of higher minimums and the
absence of any maximum to check the commercial corridor buildout we've been examining. The reform gap
between the two cities is still fairly recent (Fort Collins's most aggressive reforms accelerated from 2014 onward,
and the state law preemption for transit areas only took full effect in 2025), so the physical landscape hasn't fully
caught up with the policy difference yet. Over the next 10–15 years, as Fort Collins redevelops parcels in its TOD
corridor without replacement parking and Ames continues building to its minimums on greenfield sites, that per-
capita gap will likely widen considerably.
In conclusion, I urge you to take the most aggressive approach in reducing minimums in the South Campus
Redirection area and instituted maximums elsewhere. I also urge the City Council to ask the staff for comparisons
from other college towns.
Sincerely,
Kyle Poorman
818 8th St.
Ames, IA 50010
1
Hall, Renee
From:Lynn Ballard <lynnballard36@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2026 5:03 PM
To:City Council and Mayor; LEE BALLARD
Subject:72 hour parking restrictions
[External Email]
I wanted to check that I thought it was in the works to change the ordinance on 72 hour parking for boats RVs,
etc. did that change?
Sent from my iPhone
1
Hall, Renee
From:Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:15 PM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
Attachments:20260430_080434.jpg; 20260430_080443.jpg; 20260430_080449.jpg; 20260430_080512.jpg;
20260430_080517.jpg; 20260430_080523.jpg; Screenshot 2026-04-30 115301.png; NORTH PARKING
LOT 3-29-2022.xlsx
[External Email]
Good afternoon,
I was informed that our landlord is in talks to sell the parking lot that we currently lease. Please seriously
consider not approving the rezoning of this parking lot. If we lose the parking lot, we will have no place to
park 53 vehicles each day. This will cause congestion on the side streets around the post office as well
as forcing us to park government vehicles on the roadway. We have tried to look at other options, but
don’t really seem to see much options for us. We have asked the landlord to purchase the property, but
she has refused to sell to us for some reason. Please assist if you can. Thank you.
Brian Lawson
Postmaster
525 Kellogg Ave
Ames IA 50010
(515)232-1113
From: Tebben, Thomas - Ames, IA <Thomas.Tebben@usps.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:04 PM
To: Ernst, Lisa M - Denver, CO <Lisa.M.Ernst2@usps.gov>; Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
Here are some pictures I took this morning along with a satellite picture of the North Lot and our current parking
allotments with the Postal and Personal parking spaces listed. Please let me know if you have other questions or
need additional information. I was in the middle a repair request and some carriers had started to move their
vehicles out of spaces before I was able to get pictures this morning.
Thank you, have a good day.
-Thomas
From: Ernst, Lisa M - Denver, CO <Lisa.M.Ernst2@usps.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:19 PM
2
To: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Cc: Tebben, Thomas - Ames, IA <Thomas.Tebben@usps.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
Sounds good – Thanks!
Lisa M. Ernst
United States Postal Service
Lisa M. Ernst | Real Estate Specialist | FACILITIES | LEASING
PH: (303) 227-5618 MST | FAX: (202) 406-4849
Email: lisa.m.ernst2@usps.gov
7500 East 53rd Place Rm 1108, Denver CO 80266-9918
From: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:05 PM
To: Ernst, Lisa M - Denver, CO <Lisa.M.Ernst2@usps.gov>
Cc: Tebben, Thomas - Ames, IA <Thomas.Tebben@usps.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
My Vehicle maint. Guy will be taking pictures of the parking lot in the morning full of vehicles. I will send
you the parking lot diagram with those pictures tomorrow. Thank you for your help on this.
Brian Lawson
Postmaster
525 Kellogg Ave
Ames IA 50010
(515)232-1113
From: Ernst, Lisa M - Denver, CO <Lisa.M.Ernst2@usps.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:59 PM
To: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Cc: Diede, Lauren - Des Moines, IA <Lauren.Diede@usps.gov>; Ethell, Robyn G - Newton, IA <essfor.G.Ethell@usps.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
Brian,
3
Thanks for sending below.
Lisa M. Ernst
United States Postal Service
Lisa M. Ernst | Real Estate Specialist | FACILITIES | LEASING
PH: (303) 227-5618 MST | FAX: (202) 406-4849
Email: lisa.m.ernst2@usps.gov
7500 East 53rd Place Rm 1108, Denver CO 80266-9918
From: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:48 PM
To: Ernst, Lisa M - Denver, CO <Lisa.M.Ernst2@usps.gov>
Cc: Diede, Lauren - Des Moines, IA <Lauren.Diede@usps.gov>; Ethell, Robyn G - Newton, IA <essfor.G.Ethell@usps.gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
Brian Lawson
Postmaster
525 Kellogg Ave
Ames IA 50010
(515)232-1113
From: Diekmann, Kelly <kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:28 PM
To: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question -608 Burnett
CAUTION: This email originated from outside USPS. STOP and CONSIDER before responding, clicking on links, or
opening attachments.
Hello Brian, we also got an inquiry from Lisa Ernst of the USPS about the same property.
4
A developer has stated to the City that they desire to buy the lot and redevelop it into an
apartment project for downtown housing. Although the use is generally allowed by
zoning, he has asked City Council to consider some changes to zoning standards and for
financial incentives. City Council will review the request on May 12th to decide it they
want to pursues any code change or incentives for the project. They will not be making
any formal decisions on final approval of the project at that meeting.
Council may take public comment at the meeting on the 12th, but they can always be
reached via email as well.
MayorCouncil@cityofames.org
Let me know if there is anything else I can do.
Kelly Diekmann
Planning and Housing Director
515.239.5400- main| 515.239.5181 direct|
kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org | City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org | ~ Caring People ~ Quality Programs ~ ExcepƟonal Service ~
From: Campbell, Benjamin <benjamin.campbell@cityofames.org>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 3:35 PM
To: Diekmann, Kelly <kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org>
Subject: FW: Question
Benjamin Campbell
Planner
Planning and Housing Department | City of Ames
Phone: (515) 239-5400
From: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 11:55 AM
To: Campbell, Benjamin <benjamin.campbell@cityofames.org>
Cc: Lawson, Brian D - Ames, IA <Brian.D.Lawson@usps.gov>
Subject: Question
[External Email]
Good afternoon,
5
The postal service leases a parking lot located at 608 Burnett. We have heard through the grapevine that there was
a developer that was looking to buy it and develop it. If this happens, we would lose parking for many of our postal
vehicles. Do you know if there is a planned meeting on this? And if so, how would we be able to attend this
meeting?
Thank you for your time
Brian Lawson
Postmaster
525 Kellogg Ave
Ames IA 50010
(515)232-1113
1
Hall, Renee
From:Yong Han <yhan.ameslab@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2026 7:17 PM
To:Gartin, Tim
Cc:City Council and Mayor; Schainker, Steve
Subject:Re: Request for consideration of long-term hail damage mitigation and housing resilience incentives
[External Email]
Dear Council Member Gartin,
Thank you for your thoughtful response and for the additional context regarding state limitations and
insurance constraints.
I understand that the City has limited authority over building codes and insurance rates, and I appreciate
the clarification.
My intention in raising this issue is not to suggest changes to those regulatory areas, but rather to
highlight the increasing long-term cost burden on homeowners caused by repeated hail damage events.
I would like to ask one follow-up question for consideration:
Has the City discussed or considered exploring voluntary measures or incentive-based approaches that
could help improve residential storm resilience over time (for example, guidance or pilot programs
related to durable, impact-resistant building materials)?
I appreciate your time and your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Yong
On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 2:43 PM Gartin, Tim <tim.gartin@amescitycouncil.org> wrote:
Hi Yong,
Thank you very much for writing. I am sorry about the hailstorm. I am aware that several homes were
damaged as a result. I hope your home was spared. A few thoughts --
1. There are significant limitations on how cities impact the state-wide building code. See Iowa Code
103A.10. Local standards must comply with state standards.
2. We do not have the ability to dictate to insurance companies the rates that they charge. I completely
share your concern. Home insurance rates in Iowa have increased by 28% in the last year.
2
3. My belief is that most contractors remove construction debris.
4. Respectfully, any savings on greenhouse cases that we realize in Ames will have negligible impacts
on the frequency of hailstorms it the Midwest. The city has adopted a climate action plan. Here is a link
to the climate action plan dashboard. There is a lot of helpful material. The council approved this plan
unanimously.
https://www.cityofames.org/Resident-Services/Sustainability/Climate-Action-Plan-Dashboard
I hope this is helpful. Again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Thanks,
Tim
From: Yong Han <yhan.ameslab@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 12:35 PM
To: City Council and Mayor <mayorcouncil@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: Request for consideration of long-term hail damage mitigation and housing resilience incentives
[External Email]
Dear Mayor Haila, Members of the City Council, and City Clerk Renee Hall,
I am writing as a resident of Ames to share concerns regarding the increasing frequency and financial
impact of severe hail events affecting our community.
The recent major hailstorm on April 15 caused significant damage to residential roofs and exterior walls
across our area. This is not an isolated incident; in recent years, similar weather events have occurred
across different neighborhoods in Ames, resulting in repeated and substantial repair costs for
homeowners.
For many families, this has created a growing financial burden. In addition to direct repair expenses,
homeowners insurance costs have increased significantly over the past few years—rising from
approximately $1,000 annually to around $3,000 in some cases. Furthermore, wind and hail coverage is
increasingly separated with higher deductibles, in some cases reaching up to 2% of the home’s insured
value.
Given these trends, I believe it is important for the City of Ames to consider long-term strategies that can
reduce the cumulative financial impact of severe weather events on residents and improve overall
housing resilience.
One potential approach is for the City to explore policy tools such as incentives or guidance that
encourage the adoption of higher durability, impact-resistant, and long-life residential roofing and
exterior building materials. This could include reviewing building standards for storm resilience, as well
as considering incentive programs that reduce long-term repair cycles and insurance-related financial
3
pressure on homeowners.
Such measures could provide several long-term benefits for Ames, including:
* Reduced repeated reconstruction and repair costs after severe storms
* Lower long-term insurance pressure on residents
* Improved durability and resilience of the city’s housing stock
* Reduced construction waste from frequent roof and siding replacements
* Strengthening Ames’ long-term climate and storm resilience strategy
I respectfully encourage the City to consider whether this issue could be reviewed further as part of
ongoing discussions related to housing resilience, infrastructure planning, or disaster mitigation
strategies.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Yong Han
1917 Ada Hayden Rd
Ames, IA 50010-9552
1
Hall, Renee
From:Stacy Woodward <stacywoodward25@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, May 4, 2026 9:22 AM
To:City Council and Mayor; Haila, John
Subject:Re: VRBO/AirBnB
[External Email]
Mayor Haila -
Thank you for the response. I did email Sara, she was actually the first email I sent. I was hopeful
that there were some guidelines for AirBnB/VRBO set forth by the City. Sara informed me that
currently there are not.
Is this something the City is considering? With of the AirBnB/VRBO in my neighborhood it would be
nice to have a few rules. Our area is being taken over by these, rentals and "football houses" and it is sad
to see. The neighbors are concerned that we are becoming a very transient neighborhood.
Thank you again so reaching back out to me, Stacy
On Monday, May 4, 2026 at 08:43:58 AM CDT, Haila, John <john.haila@cityofames.org> wrote:
Stacy,
I suggest you contact Sara VanMeetren and see what she recommends or what process for filing a compliant may
exist.
John A. Haila, Mayor
City of Ames
From: Stacy Woodward <stacywoodward25@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 12:52:24 PM
To: City Council and Mayor <mayorcouncil@amescitycouncil.org>
Subject: VRBO/AirBnB
[External Email]
Mayor & Council -
I am writing to ask if there is a process with the City to submit a concern/complaint about
a VRBO/AirBnB house in Ames. This past Friday night we had a serious issue with a
house across the street from us. This is not the first issue we have had with this house - a large
party of 150+ people was held on Friday, May 1. The music and crowd were loud and out of control -
6 police cars arrived to break it up. Party goers were urinating in neighbors yards, sitting on their
steps/yards and being extremely loud. There is still (its Sunday) garbage up and down the streets from
2
the party and the owner are not making a very good attempt to clean it up despite being asked by
neighbors to do so and having seen photos. The lack of concern from the owners for what took place is
alarming to the neighborhood.
If there is anything that can be done, please let me know. I did file a complaint with VRBO and
Air BnB.
Thank you, Stacy Woodward
1
Hall, Renee
From:Kyle Poorman <kylepoorman@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 1:09 PM
To:City Council and Mayor; Schainker, Steve
Subject:sidewalk closure on main street illustrates need for more focus on sidewalk closure planning
[External Email]
Dear City Council and other city leaders.
There is a currently a long-term sidewalk closure on main street (near 220 Main St.) that is illustrative of the
need to develop better plans for sidewalk closures across the city and actually follow them through. Secondly,
there needs to be a commitment to only closing sidewalks when it is absolutely necessary and reopening them
as soon as possible. This may include intermittently closing and opening a sidewalk. The city is very
conscientious with roads closures and should do the same with sidewalks. I want sidewalk closures to occur
when they are absolutely necessary and have access restored ASAP. To be clear, this type of urgency to
ensure that access is restored in a timely manner is not occurring. Since this fence on Main Street has been
erected, I have not seen its necessity. The right to cut access should be strictly overseen.
I also want to be clear that this comment has nothing to do with the type of construction or development. I am
glad there is investment occurring along Main St. and welcome development.
What I do not welcome is a lack of planning and poor follow through on pedestrian access. If pedestrian
access is going to be limited, there should be a plan to safely reroute circulation. In this case there is no visible
plan, other than there is a sidewalk on the other side of the road and there are sidewalk closed signs. That isn’t
actually a plan, but I digress.
This specific closure also includes parking spaces that are blocked off. I believe these parking spaces could
have easily been used for rerouting the sidewalk, but that is not occurring. There could also be an attempt to
provide for safer crossing at the closure or provide for ADA compliant crossing at the closure. Or at least signs
to an ADA compliant crossing area.
The barriers extending into the parking spaces at this closure mean that an attempt to walk around them will
take pedestrians into the active traffic lane. To me that seems somewhat dangerous and in the little time I have
spent here, that is what is occurring.
Would it have been possible to ask for protective scaffolding be erected instead, maybe.
I believe many solutions could have been carried out, but none were.
What I find difficult to swallow is that road closure is treated so differently from sidewalk closures. This is true
city-wide.
There seems to be no planning involved in how construction will impact walking, wheeling, or biking and no
plan to mitigate those impacts and I think there needs to be some effort to change that.
I think this is really about defining a culture around access that is inclusive. Walking, biking, or wheeling should
be treated similarly to driving. There should be plans for closures and closures should be well managed so that
access can be immediately restored. This should occur whenever there is the need for closures.
2
On a totally unrelated note, I don’t think the contractor for this specific project on Main Street should be able to
advertise on the erected fence. This is public property and advertising here should be regulated or at least
there should be some sort of benefit accrued back to the city.
Kind Regards,
Kyle Poorman
818 8th St.
Ames, IA 50010
1
Hall, Renee
From:Kyle Poorman <kylepoorman@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 2:47 PM
To:City Council and Mayor; Schainker, Steve
Subject:Re: sidewalk closure on main street illustrates need for more focus on sidewalk closure planning
[External Email]
Dear Ames City Council and city leaders,
As a follow-up to my previous email, I would suggest this action:
After reading the temporary obstruction permit (TOP) section of the city code, I would suggest the city council
amend the code to better codify access expectations around sidewalks and trails. This is especially important
in areas of high pedestrian traffic. In the interim, as the code gives a significant amount of discretion to the city
manager or designee, I would ask them to ensure temporary obstructions of sidewalks are undertaken
differently, especially in areas of high pedestrian activity like Main Street. In these areas, there should be a
plan for rerouting, safe crossing, and ada crossing compliance. I believe the current TOP stipulations only
involve signs. Additionally, obstructing the sidewalk needs to be monitored with an eye toward greatly limiting
closure lengths. In my opinion, with this case on Main St, the contractor has unnecessarily obstructed the
sidewalk for quite a few days. There needs to be greater oversight and a commitment to communicating
expectations that the area should only be closed when necessary for safety and not because it was expedient
to erect a fence at the beginning of the project. As discretion for this rests with the city manager, I hope
changes can be quick and I would hope the city works with this contractor to open up this sidewalk on Main
Street as soon as it becomes feasible to do so. Thank you very much.
Kind Regards,
Kyle Poorman
818 8th St.
Ames, IA 50010
> On May 5, 2026, at 1:09 PM, Kyle Poorman <kylepoorman@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Dear City Council and other city leaders.
>
>
> There is a currently a long-term sidewalk closure on main street (near 220 Main St.) that is illustrative of the
need to develop better plans for sidewalk closures across the city and actually follow them through. Secondly,
there needs to be a commitment to only closing sidewalks when it is absolutely necessary and reopening them
as soon as possible. This may include intermittently closing and opening a sidewalk. The city is very
conscientious with roads closures and should do the same with sidewalks. I want sidewalk closures to occur
when they are absolutely necessary and have access restored ASAP. To be clear, this type of urgency to
ensure that access is restored in a timely manner is not occurring. Since this fence on Main Street has been
erected, I have not seen its necessity. The right to cut access should be strictly overseen.
>
> I also want to be clear that this comment has nothing to do with the type of construction or development. I am
glad there is investment occurring along Main St. and welcome development.
>
2
> What I do not welcome is a lack of planning and poor follow through on pedestrian access. If pedestrian
access is going to be limited, there should be a plan to safely reroute circulation. In this case there is no visible
plan, other than there is a sidewalk on the other side of the road and there are sidewalk closed signs. That isn’t
actually a plan, but I digress.
>
>
> This specific closure also includes parking spaces that are blocked off. I believe these parking spaces could
have easily been used for rerouting the sidewalk, but that is not occurring. There could also be an attempt to
provide for safer crossing at the closure or provide for ADA compliant crossing at the closure. Or at least signs
to an ADA compliant crossing area.
>
> The barriers extending into the parking spaces at this closure mean that an attempt to walk around them will
take pedestrians into the active traffic lane. To me that seems somewhat dangerous and in the little time I have
spent here, that is what is occurring.
>
> Would it have been possible to ask for protective scaffolding be erected instead, maybe.
>
> I believe many solutions could have been carried out, but none were.
>
> What I find difficult to swallow is that road closure is treated so differently from sidewalk closures. This is true
city-wide.
>
> There seems to be no planning involved in how construction will impact walking, wheeling, or biking and no
plan to mitigate those impacts and I think there needs to be some effort to change that.
>
> I think this is really about defining a culture around access that is inclusive. Walking, biking, or wheeling
should be treated similarly to driving. There should be plans for closures and closures should be well managed
so that access can be immediately restored. This should occur whenever there is the need for closures.
>
> On a totally unrelated note, I don’t think the contractor for this specific project on Main Street should be able
to advertise on the erected fence. This is public property and advertising here should be regulated or at least
there should be some sort of benefit accrued back to the city.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Kyle Poorman
> 818 8th St.
> Ames, IA 50010
>
>
May 7, 2025
Dear Ames City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of Lightedge to request the opportunity to negotiate with the City of Ames
on the development of a new colocation data center at the Ames Regional Airport.
Lightedge is a Des Moines-based company with over 30 years of experience delivering secure,
reliable IT infrastructure. We serve more than 1,400 customers with a team of over 400
employees and operate data centers across Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas. Our
clients span healthcare, financial services, technology, consumer packaged goods, and
manufacturing. These are industries where the stakes are high and where system reliability is not
optional.
Our business is built around the companies that anchor regional economies. We work with local
and regional enterprises in heavily regulated environments, helping them manage complex IT
infrastructure and navigate demanding audit and compliance requirements. We handle mission
critical IBM and VMware platforms, and cloud connectivity under one roof, so our clients do not
have to juggle a dozen vendor relationships to keep their operations running. The business
leaders we work with are not shopping for more technology vendors. They want fewer, local
relationships, more accountability, and a partner they can count on. That is what Lightedge
offers, and it is the kind of support the businesses investing in Ames deserve to have close by.
Ames is a natural fit for our next facility. We already serve a dozen customers in the Iowa State
University Research Park, and we have watched this community grow into a serious technology
hub. The energy infrastructure is strong, property valuations are competitive, and the city has a
clear commitment to business growth. Add in the proximity to our existing Altoona operations
and the broader Des Moines market, and the case for building here is straightforward.
The facility itself would be a single-story, slab-on-grade building designed for efficiency and
long-term sustainability. We plan to use air-cooled chillers with high-efficiency fans to manage
heat, a design that keeps noise low, eliminates daily water consumption for cooling, and uses
environmentally responsible refrigerants. We would also incorporate economizer functionality to
take advantage of Iowa's cooler temperatures and reduce energy consumption further.
From a community standpoint, we think this project is a good deal for Ames. It generates tax
revenue without adding demand for housing, schools, or other population-driven services. More
importantly, it puts modern digital infrastructure in place for the companies already here and for
the ones considering a move to Ames. Businesses making significant investments in this city
should have the infrastructure to support them. We also plan to invest in STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education partnerships with local schools, because
we believe a project like this should connect to the next generation of people who will work in
this industry.
We would welcome the chance to sit down with the city and relevant stakeholders to discuss this
further. We are confident this can be a lasting, productive partnership for the Ames community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rob Carter
Chief Executive Officer
y
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
Legal Department
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Motion: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Rollins, to request staff provide
a memo on the topic of City liability as it concerns mass casualty or terrorist
events.
A citizen appeared during Public Forum of a City Council meeting and noted
that there had been no police officers present at a Pride Day event held in the
City. He asserted that the City could be held liable if there was a shooter or
mass casualty event at the Pride event, and essentially criticized the City for not
having police officers present. His belief that the City could be liable was
seemingly based on the argument that LGTBQ people are subjected to violence
at a rate greater than the general public (this assertion may be true, and likely
is, but the citizen did not provide documentation of this claim).
The bottom line is that the City would have no liability for a mass casualty
event that happened at the Ames Pride Event or elsewhere.
Simply the fact that LGTBQ people have been targeted for violence does not
mean that the City has an obligation to provide the presence of police officers at
an LGTBQ event. I note that we’ve had no issues at Ames Pride Events in the
past. Too, the organizers of the event have never requested police presence,
so it’s safe to assume they do not have concerns that would result in them
requesting police to be present.
The potential liability issue cited by the citizen lacks “proximate cause.” A
person (or the City) would be liable for harm only if proximate cause exists.
“Proximate cause” is the primary or legally sufficient cause of an injury,
establishing a direct link between an act and the resulting harm. Proximate
cause is a standard used to determine whether a person’s actions (or inactions)
are sufficiently connected to an injury to hold them legal responsible. It’s a
question of whether the hard would have occurred “but for” a party’s actions, by
considering whether the cause is foreseeable and not too remote to justify
liability. There is no direct link between the City not providing a police presence
at the event, when none was requested and no prior incidents had occurred,
and any mass casualty situation.
Again, any mass casualty or terrorist event, in the absence of some
specific reason to think a threat exists, would mean that proximate cause
did not exist and the City would not be liable.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
Legal Department
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Motion: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Rollins, to request a memo from
staff “on what we might consider for either a Municipal Infraction for a landlord
who is negligent in the upkeep of their property in such a way that it displaces
someone” or “what kind of information we might proactively provide to tenants in
a situation like that. Just to help educate them on their legal options and
obligations.”
This referral resulted from actions taken by the City’s Inspections Department to
revoke a landlord’s Letter of Compliance (LOC) issued under Chapter 13 of the
Municipal Code. The result of this action was the displacement of multiple tenants
on thirty-days’ notice at 228 & 232 Welch Avenue.
Existing law: Myriad ordinances and state law regulate landlord-tenant
relationships in Iowa. Additionally, private contracts (leases) typically
memorialize this relationship between landlord and tenant and impose
obligations between the parties to the lease.
A. Chapter 13 – Rental Housing Code This chapter of our Code
comprehensively regulates rental housing in Ames, and creates a rental
registration and inspection program that is administered by the City’s
Inspections Division. Landlords are required to complete a rental
registration application and receive a LOC as a condition to offer a unit for
rent. Inspections of the units occur on a cycle, based largely upon results
of prior inspections. §13.301(3). The purpose of rental inspections is “to
B. secure compliance with all relevant codes and standards.” §13.302. The
Rental Housing Code sets forth “minimum conditions and the
responsibilities of persons for maintenance of structures, equipment and
exterior property.” §§13.400-411. Light, ventilation, and occupancy
limitations are set by Division V of the Code. §§13.500-503. Plumbing
facilities and fixtures are set by Division VI of the Code, §§13.600-605;
mechanical and electrical requirements are set by Division VII of the Code,
§§13.700-704; and fire safety requirements are set by Division VIII of the
Code, §§13.800-802.
Violations of any provision of the Rental Code may be prosecuted as
Municipal Infraction. §13.104(2). The penalty is $500 for a first offense,
$750 for a second offense, and $1,000 for each succeeding offense.
§5.501. The Building Official has emergency powers under §13.107 to
close a structure that presents an imminent danger, and portions of the
Building Code are also incorporated into the Rental Code enabling the
Building Official to declare a structure dangerous and unfit for human
habitation. §13.106.
C. Chapter 5 – Building Code This chapter of our Code, in the context of
rental properties, regulates the construction, alteration, replacement,
enlargement, use and occupancy, and maintenance of every structure in
Ames. §5.100. It establishes minimum safeguards for structures within the
City, including but not limited to, accessibility, fire prevention, electrical,
mechanical, plumbing, and gas piping. Violations of any provision of the
Building Code may be prosecuted as a Municipal Infraction. §5.500.
Penalties are $500 for a first offense, $750 for a second offense, and
$1,000 for each succeeding offense. Additionally, Division IV of the
Building Code (Dangerous Buildings) sets forth standards and a process
for the Building Official to declare a building dangerous and unfit for human
occupancy.
D. Chapter 30 – Public Nuisance Code Rental properties are also subject to
the City’s Public Nuisance Code. See §30.2 (applies “to all properties
within the City of Ames”). The nuisance conditions regulated are fairly far
removed from those types of conditions that may “displace tenants,” and
private leases may typically shift the burden for maintenance to the tenant.
For example, a lease may shift the obligation to mow to a tenant. However,
violations of any provision of the Public Nuisance Code may be prosecuted
as a Municipal Infraction. §30.3. Penalties are $50 for a first offense, and
$100 for each succeeding offense.
E. State Law (Chapter 562A) – Uniform Residential Landlord & Tenant Law
(URLTA) With limited exception, the URLTA regulates every rental in the
State. Tenant remedies are set forth in §§562A.21-26, and they include
the tenant’s termination of the lease and recovery of monetary damages,
and in some cases attorney fees, from the landlord. A full examination of
URLTA is beyond the scope of this memorandum.
New Ordinance: As I understand the question, the City Council has asked
whether the City could adopt a new ordinance that makes “the displacement of
tenants” by a landlord a municipal infraction. As set forth above, the Municipal
Code already contains multiple avenues for holding a landlord responsible
by municipal infraction. Additionally, the City Council would have to consider
carefully and define specifically what type of “tenant displacement” would result
in an infraction to avoid an overlap of penalties for the same conduct.
Furthermore, any infraction adopted must be rationally related to a legitimate
governmental interest in public safety and health or welfare, and the conduct
targeted cannot be vaguely defined.
Cities may adopt municipal infractions with civil penalties of up to $750 for a first
offense and up to $1,000 for repeated violations. Iowa Code §364.22. The City
Council will need weigh the efficacy of adding another penalty on landlord conduct
resulting in tenant displacement considering the existing regulatory framework. In
my opinion, municipal infractions previously adopted by the City Council
and a robust rental inspections program should adequately penalize
landlords, as may be appropriate.
Legal assistance/education for tenants The City Attorney’s office may not
provide legal advice to private individuals. Our office will refer tenants to private
attorneys, Story County Legal Aid, and the Iowa State Bar Association Find-A-
Lawyer service when such questions are directed to our office. Other
departments provide outreach to tenant organizations and educate both landlords
and tenants about various City requirements.
As you may remember, the City Council has made the provision of legal
services to low-income individuals a priority and allocated up to $160,000
to Story County Legal Aid last fiscal year through the ASSET funding
process.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
www.CityofAmes.org
515 Clark Ave.
mes, IA 50010
Legal Department
MEMO
Legal Department
To: Ames Cit Council, Ma or Haila
From: Mark O. Lambert, Cit Attorne
Date: May 8, 2026
Sub ect: Ri ht of Wa at Crosswalks
Motion: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to refer to the City
Attorney for memo on the issue of pedestrian safety as discussed by Mr. Colin
Larter.
Mr. Larter suggested changes to ordinances to make clear that pedestrians in
crosswalks have the right of way, and to require traffic to stop when a pedestrian
is in the crosswalk. From his comments at the Council meeting, I understood that
he wished traffic to stop if someone was waiting to enter a crosswalk, for example,
if someone is in the median strip between crosswalks.
These requested changes cannot be done, as they would conflict with Iowa law.
Pedestrians have the right of way once they enter the crosswalk, assuming there
is sufficient time to cross considering oncoming traffic. Drivers are required to
yield to pedestrians in the right of way at any marked crosswalk or any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection but are not required to yield to pedestrians otherwise.
(See Iowa Code §§321.327 and 321.328). The City cannot change how this works
because it is set by state law. And, a median, such as exists on part of Lincoln
Way, is not part of the crosswalk, even if there is a crosswalk on each side of the
median.
City of Ames Traffic Engineer Damion Pregitzer offered the following:
Traffic engineering staff support the idea of Iowa adopting legislation to
become a "Stop" state for pedestrian crossings, as this would align with national
best practices and provide a clearer legal standard that improves pedestrian
safety. Under current law (Iowa Code §321.327), drivers are required to yield—
but not stop—for pedestrians already within a marked crosswalk, and not for
those waiting to enter. This distinction creates ambiguity for all road users and
limits the effectiveness of education and enforcement efforts.
Because Iowa Code §321.252 and Iowa Administrative Code 761—
130.1(321) adopt the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as the
official standard for traffic control signage, including the R1-6 pedestrian crossing
signs, any local ordinance requiring a full stop could result in conflicts with state
law and MUTCD compliance. Regulatory signs must reflect enforceable state law,
so a mismatch could reduce driver compliance or create legal challenges.
Additionally, Council should expect any cultural shift—whether resulting from
code changes or new signage—to occur gradually. It will take time for motorists
and cyclists to adjust their behavior and consistently stop for pedestrians,
especially if such practices differ from long-standing expectations.
Finally, the City’s Walk Bike Roll Plan comprehensively identifies
pedestrian safety needs and outlines priority locations for improvements. The
plan recommends more than 100 crossing enhancements and emphasizes safer
intersection design as a central strategy to increase walking and biking across
Ames.
The bottom line is that only pedestrians in a marked crosswalk or unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection have the right of way currently. The City is
bound by state law and cannot make any of the changes that Mr. Larter
proposes.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
Legal Department
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Motion: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to refer to the City
Attorney for a memo on an Engine Brake Ordinance
Two citizens residing at 1405 Coconino Road wrote nearly identical emails to City
Council complaining of an increase in semi-trucks using their engine brakes at
the Highway 30 exit 144 onto South Dakota Avenue. Both individuals requested
that City Council “think about or look into passing an engine-brake ordinance
within City Limits or to please at least pass an ordinance on Exit 144.”
An engine brake ordinance is essentially a noise regulation that prohibits truck
drivers from using unmuffled compression-release engine brakes (often referred
to as “Jake Brakes”) or other transmission brake or engine retarding brake
system. Engine brake ordinances have been passed in other jurisdictions in Iowa,
either at the municipal level or county-wide. The efficacy of such ordinances is
unclear. One jurisdiction, Avoca, installed a noise camera system last year to
assist in the enforcement of their ordinance. In an Iowa Public Radio (IPR) article
from 2018, the Sac County sheriff admitted that their ordinance was “really difficult
to enforce”. To his knowledge, no citation had been issued over the three-year
period that the Sac County ordinance had been in effect. Similarly, the
Pottawattamie County sheriff also told IPR that he didn’t recall a time when an
officer had issued a penalty for violating the Pottawattamie County ordinance.
While an engine brake ordinance could be enacted in the City, it would not have
the desired effect at the exit ramp that is the subject of the complaint from the two
citizens. Half of that ramp from Highway 30 to South Dakota Avenue is outside of
the City limits. The City has no jurisdiction outside of its city limits and would not
be able to enforce the ordinance on half of the ramp. If City Council is interested
in enacting an engine braking ordinance, more data should be collected to show
the need for such an ordinance in the City. Additional information should also be
gathered about the effectiveness of such an ordinance in the jurisdictions that
have enacted them.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
Legal Department
To: Ames City Council, Mayor Haila
From: Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney
Date: May 8, 2026
Subject: Concerns Regarding Cigarettes and Smoking on Main Street
Motion: Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Rollins, to request a memo from
the City Attorney regarding cigarettes and smoking on Main Street.
A citizen made a complaint to City Council regarding cigarette butts and cigarette
smoke while walking east along the north side of Main Street from the former
location of Marmalade Moon to Oak Lane Candles. The citizen wanted the bars
to place their smoke pots in the alley behind the bar or establish a smoke room.
Alternatively, the citizen proposed that “the City prohibit it and enforce it.”
Presumably, the citizen is proposing that the City prohibit smoking on the
sidewalks along Main Street.
The placement of smoke pots is up to the private business owner and/or the
private property owner so long as the smoke pots are on private property and do
not otherwise violate the City’s nuisance code. The City already has two
ordinances addressing the deposit of cigarette stubs on public sidewalks.
Sec. 17.9. DEPOSITING GUM, TOBACCO.
(1) It is unlawful to deposit any gum, tobacco quid, cigar or cigarette stubs
in, upon or against any sidewalk or upon the floor, of any public building,
hallways, steps, cellarway, stairway, windows, public motor bus or depot
platform.
(2) Violation of this Section shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a
penalty of $50 for a person’s first violation and $100 for each repeat
violation.
(3) Alternatively, a violation of this section can be charged by a peace officer
of the City as a simple misdemeanor.
(emphasis added).
Sec. 17.10. DEPOSITING DEBRIS ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
PROPERTY, IN VEHICLES.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit or allow to be thrown or
deposited, any garbage, refuse, litter, or yard waste, into or upon any public
or private property, or in or upon any motor vehicle or bicycle while parked
on public property.
. . .
(3) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following terms shall
have the meanings stated:
. . .
(b) “Litter” means any organic or inorganic waste material, or portion
thereof, which has been discarded, whether made of aluminum,
glass, plastic, rubber, paper, or other natural or synthetic material, or
any combination thereof, including, but not limited to, any bottle, jar
or can, hull, cigarette, cigar, match, newspapers, magazines,
advertisements, dead animals, or intentionally or unintentionally
discarded material of any kind.
(d) “Public or Private Property” means the right of way of any road or
highway; any body of water or watercourse or the shores or beaches
thereof; any park, playground, building, grounds of public buildings,
public sidewalks and walkways, refuge, or conservation or recreation
area; timberlands or forests; and residential, commercial, industrial,
or farm properties.
(e) “Refuse”: means all other miscellaneous waste materials except
“yard waste” not specifically defined as garbage or litter.
. . .
(4) Violation of this section shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a
penalty of $100 for a person’s first violation and $200 for each repeat
violation.
(5) Alternatively, a violation of this section can be charged by a peace officer
of the City as a simple misdemeanor.
(emphasis added)
In addition to the ordinances prohibiting the deposit cigarette butts on public
sidewalks, the City’s public nuisance code (Chapter 30), also addresses waste
materials on private property.
Sec. 30.5. NUISANCE DEFINED; CERTAIN ACTS, CONDITIONS
DECLARED AS NUISANCES.
Nuisances shall include the following:
. . .
(2) Refuse, garbage, or junk that is not contained in a trash disposal
container; noxious substances; or hazardous wastes remaining in any
outdoor place for more than 72 hours.
. . .
The nuisance code provides the following definitions for refuse, garbage,
junk, trash disposal container and outdoor area:
Refuse. All other miscellaneous waste materials except “yard waste” not
specifically defined as garbage.
Garbage. Every waste accumulation of animal, fruit or vegetable matter,
liquid or otherwise, that attends the preparation, use, cooking, dealing in
or storing of meat, fish, fowl, fruit or vegetables, and including tin cans or
similar food containers. Dead animals are not included in the term
garbage.
Junk. Items including, but not limited to, building materials not part of an
active building project authorized by a current city building permit, vehicle
parts, miscellaneous steel, plastic, rubber or metal parts, tires, packing
boxes, wooden pallets, discarded lumber (not including neatly stacked
and cut fire wood), plastic tarps, or any other discarded or miscellaneous
item or items.
Trash Disposal Container. A closed, water-tight, hard receptacle that
cannot be ripped open by animals. Containers that shed rain when their
lids are completely closed shall satisfy the requirement for a water-tight
receptacle.
Outdoor Area. All exterior areas of a property, including porches, partially
enclosed sheds, lean-tos or other structures not totally enclosed by
structural walls, roof and properly functioning doors. A porch is not
considered to be an outdoor area if it is completely enclosed by fully intact
glass or fully intact screens.
If City Council wants to expand the locations of smoke free public places in Ames,
it can do so under Iowa Code § 142D.5 of the Iowa Smokefree Air Act. Iowa Code
§ 142D.5 allows “an owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody
or control of an area otherwise exempt from the prohibitions of section 142D.3
may declare the entire area as a nonsmoking place.” If an area has been declared
as a nonsmoking place, signs would have to be posted for smoking to be
prohibited in that area.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5165 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
To: Mayor and Ames City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: May 12, 2026
Subject: Resource Recovery and Recycling Campus Update (R3C)
This memo is intended to provide the City Council with an update on recent activities at the
R3C project. No Council action is necessary. Staff plans to provide project updates at major
project milestones or when direction is necessary to continue with the project. These updates
will likely not occur at regular intervals unless requested by the City Council.
RIBBON CUTTING:
Construction activities for the Resource Recovery and Recycling Campus (R3C) began shortly
following the groundbreaking ceremony on April 9, 2026. It was exciting to see so many
involved with the groundbreaking ceremony for this project!
R3C Groundbreaking Ceremony
SHOP DRAWINGS AND SUBMITTALS:
The City’s construction manager, Story Construction Co., and design engineer, HDR, Inc.,
have been rapidly reviewing and processing shop drawings and submittal documents. Story
Construction has prioritized reviews based on items on the project critical path. Currently, this
includes the pre-engineered metal building and concrete foundation reinforcing drawings.
Review of major processing equipment and modifications made during the value engineering
process is well underway to ensure timely delivery of major equipment to meet project
milestones.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5165 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
SITE PREPARATION:
Earthmoving equipment arrived the week of April 13 and site preparation activities commenced
shortly thereafter. Work has progressed steadily through early spring weather and remains on
schedule. The majority of onsite excavation has occurred for the stormwater detention ponds,
and fill is being placed for the building pad in anticipation of site utility installation and building
foundation work beginning in the next few weeks.
The previous use of the site primarily involved storage and yard waste processing. As such, a
significant amount of partially deteriorated yard waste was encountered, particularly on the far
eastern side of the project site. This material was located below the existing ground surface
and is not suitable for use as fill or topsoil. Staff tested the material to determine whether it
could be composted; however, the material was not suitable for that purpose. Staff identified
an offsite disposal location for the material so construction activities could continue. A photo of
this material is shown in Figure 1.
Additionally, contractors encountered an area containing buried concrete rubble that was not
suitable for fill or construction purposes. The material was removed from the area, and staff
identified onsite locations to relocate the rubble so it would not impact construction activities or
any building foundation. This material is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1 Figure 2
These two unforeseen conditions will require a change order for the additional work. Staff is
currently evaluating the associated costs and working through the process to formalize the
change order.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5165 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
TRANSFER STATION EXTERIOR COLOR:
The pre-engineered metal building requires selection of exterior building colors. During design
development, a combination of dark gray, light gray, and an accent red color was shown on
the design plans as the color palette. This concept is illustrated in Figure 3 below. City staff
received color samples from the pre-engineered metal building manufacturer and determined
that the available red color differs significantly from the color shown during design
development. Due to project budget constraints and future maintenance costs, staff believes it
is better to utilize standard colors rather than painting the facility a custom color.
Figure 3
Staff recommends replacing the red accent color with a blue accent
color. The blue would reflect on the color selected by the public for
the recycling carts procured for the residential curbside recycling
program. Additionally, due to maintenance concerns associated
with light-colored panels near the base of the building, staff
recommends extending the darker gray panels to ground level.
A photo of the color chips of the three selected colors is shown to
the right. An updated rendering of the building with these specific
colors and the alterations to the office area horizontal accent stripe
is shown prepared and will be shared once available.
Figure 4
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
An overall project schedule has been assembled by Story Construction Co. indicating
substantial completion in April 2027. Fabrication timelines for the major processing equipment
and the pre-engineered metal building remain favorable to support the current project
schedule.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5165 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Site work and building pad preparation are currently on or ahead of schedule based on current
progress. Site utility work is anticipated to begin in mid-May, and foundation work for the
transfer tunnel and pre-engineered metal building is anticipated to begin before the end of May,
featuring multiple foundation crews working at once.
Onsite paving work is scheduled to commence in June. Paving of Freel Drive will begin later in
the summer. Building erection will likely kick off in September with the goal of enclosing the
building prior to the winter of 2026/27. This will allow for interior process equipment and office
construction and finishes to be built during the winter months.
R3C Earthwork Overview
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
To: Mayor and Ames City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: May 12, 2026
Subject: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Grant Opportunity
BACKGROUND:
Staff has become aware of a grant opportunity through the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) under the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Program. This federal program provides
funding for planning and construction activities related to the elimination of railroad crossings.
The application window for this grant is very short. The Notice of Funding Opportunity
was issued on April 27, 2026, and applications are due by June 8, 2026.
DUFF AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSING:
City staff is currently conducting a corridor study along Duff Avenue between 6th Street and
16th Street. Data gathered through this study will help guide future planning efforts for the Duff
Avenue corridor, particularly in relation to vehicular and multimodal transportation needs. Staff
intends to present an initial review of the study and public input to the City Council during a
workshop in July 2026, with finalization of the study anticipated in fall 2026.
There is a railroad crossing on Duff Avenue just south of the corridor study area. Initial public
feedback has identified this crossing as an impediment to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
One potential next step following completion of the Duff Avenue Corridor Study would be to
evaluate the feasibility of a grade separated crossing. A similar study was completed in 2003
to review options for a grade separated crossing at Duff Avenue; however, the project
did not move forward at that time.
Staff believes this FRA program could provide an opportunity to obtain grant funding for a
planning level study of a grade separated crossing. Funding opportunities through this program
are offered irregularly due to federal funding constraints, and it has been several years since
the FRA last released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for this program.
While this grant program presents an opportunity to revisit this important crossing, several key
challenges would need to be addressed before submitting an application:
• The current Duff Avenue Corridor Study has not yet been completed. It would be
premature to rely on information from the study at this time, as several months of
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
additional work remain before the data and recommendations would be available for
use in a grant application.
• The grant requires 20% local matching funding. Staff estimates that a grade separation
study would cost approximately $500,000, requiring a local match of $100,000, which is
not currently budgeted. Staff would need to present the City Council with options for
reprioritizing and/or delaying other projects in order to accommodate the local match.
• The timeline for preparing the application and securing approval of the local match prior
to the June 8, 2026 deadline is very limited. Staff would need additional time to prepare
materials and bring the item before the City Council at its next regular meeting on May
26, 2026.
Additional FRA grant opportunities, while irregular in timing, are likely to become available in
future years. Staff will continue to monitor and evaluate those opportunities as they arise.
LINC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RAILROAD CROSSING:
The proposed Linc development project along Lincoln Way between Clark Avenue and Kellogg
Avenue includes the installation of a grade separated pedestrian bridge crossing over the
railroad. In order for this project to be considered for grant funding it would need to
involve completely closing existing crossings or greatly improve the safety of the
existing crossings. It is staff’s understanding that the Linc project only proposes to
include new crossing infrastructure.
Several key challenges then exist in order to consider the Linc crossing project for the FRA
grant:
• A planning level study would likely need to be programmed to study railroad crossings
along the entire downtown corridor, including the crossings at Clark Avenue, Kellogg
Avenue, and Duff Avenue to identify deficiencies and propose improvements at these
locations. This would allow an application for grant funding that could meet the
requirements to close or improve existing crossings in conjunction with the Linc’s
proposed grade separated pedestrian bridge.
• The grant requires 20% local matching funding. Staff estimates that this downtown
corridor study would cost approximately $750,000, requiring a local match of $150,000,
which is not currently budgeted. Staff would need to present the City Council with
options for reprioritizing and/or delaying other projects in order to accommodate the
local match
• Even with the corridor study, staff believes that the grant funding would require either
the closure of or significant improvements to the existing crossings in the corridor. The
costs of the improvements and/or implications of potentially closing any existing
crossings have not been vetted at this time. There is no guarantee that any of the Linc’s
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
dministration 515.239.5404 fa Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
improvements would score high enough to obtain grant funding, and guidance in the
grant documents lead staff to believe by itself the Linc’s pedestrian bridge crossing by
itself is not likely to be awarded funding due to these constraints.
STAFF COMMENTS:
City staff recommends that the City Council pass on this grant opportunity during the
current funding cycle due to the challenges noted above. Doing so would allow time for
the completion of the Duff Avenue Corridor Study, provide the City Council with additional
opportunity to consider whether further study of the railroad crossing is desired, and allow for
potential programming of such a study in future fiscal years. Additionally, it is unlikely that
grant funding for the Linc’s pedestrian bridge crossing will be considered without considerable
improvements or closing of other crossings in the area.
Should the City Council still desire to pursue this grant opportunity during the current
funding cycle despite the challenges noted above, the Council should direct staff to
place this item on the May 26, 2026 agenda for further discussion and direction.
Department of Planning & Housing
Memo
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Moore, Planner
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Kwik Star request to initiate Zoning Text changes to increase the allowed
number of fuel pumps within the “CGS” Convenience General Service Zone
On April 28th, City Council forwarded the request from Kwik Star to modify the cap on fueling
points at convenience stores in the “CGS” Convenience General Service zone as a priority for
the Planning Division to provide a background memo. The request seeks to modify the number
of fueling points allowed for cars at convenience stores in the CGS zone.
The specific request is to raise the maximum limit from 10 to 20 fueling points, or effectively 5
pumps to 10 pumps. Under current standards in the CGS zone, a maximum of 10 vehicles can
be filled at a given time at a convenience store where the maximum of 5 fuel points are
constructed. (Section 29.810(3) CGS zoning table development standards)
The CGS standards were implemented in 2010. The zoning district was established for a
commercial node at corner of Stange Road and Bloomington, which includes the Fareway
Store, a Credit Union, Carwash and Caseys General Store, which was the only
convenience store/gas station in a CGS zoning district. CGS was created to address
commercial compatibility adjacent to residential development, which may differ from
other areas of the City where HOC zoning applies to larger areas of commercial lands
along arterial roadways.
Kwik Star intends to construct a store in a newly zoned CGS area at the corner of GW
Carver and Cameron School Road. Their typical model for a facility in this type of context
is for a maximum of 20 vehicles. Staff explored the use of the 20% alternative design rule for
the project, which would allow one additional pump for a total of six pumps and 12 vehicles.
Staff has reviewed recent convenience store construction across Ames and the number of
fueling points varies based on location and design. Many stores range from 5-10 fueling points
with 10 being the maximum number identified by staff in Ames.
Options
Option 1-Initiate changes to CGS zoning standards for maximum Fueling Points (Kwik
Star request)
This option would grant the request of Kwik Star and allow for them to apply for text
amendment to increase the maximum to serve 20 vehicles. No outreach would be part of
this process due to its minor nature. The process includes consideration by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and approval by City Council of zoning text amendment ordinance.
Option 2- Eliminate the maximum limit of fueling points at convenience stores in CGS
and create a Special Use Permit for review of convenience stores in CGS
This would eliminate the cap on the number of fueling points in the CGS zone and require that
a convenience store go through a review for a Special Use Permit with Site Plan review at the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. The review process would determine that any proposed
convenience store development be harmonious with the neighborhood and would
consider the size and context of the use to determine its compatibility. The applicant would
apply for this text amendment.
Option 3 -Take No Action
This option would keep the current standards in place. Kwik Star could pursue a 20%
adjustment through Alternative Design Review which could allow Kwik Star to an
additional fuel point that could serve up to 2 additional vehicles at a time bringing the
allowed number of vehicles served at one time to 12 with 6 fueling points. No text
amendment would be needed.
StaƯ Comments
Staff notes that on all recent new convenience store sites Kwik Star has constructed in Ames,
10 fueling points for 20 vehicles were approved/constructed. Two of the recent sites were in the
Highway Oriented-Commercial (HOC) zoning district along South Grand Avenue and Southeast
16th And Dayton Avenue and one was in the Community Commercial Residential (CCR) zone at
South Dakota and Mortensen.
Staff believes that in this case, changing the allowed number of fuel points will not affect
the size of the site design for Kwik Star at Cameron School Road and GW Carver Avenue
based on the approved Preliminary Plat. The proposed extra pump area would be about 2500
square feet of additional canopy area on a 2+ acre site. The property size has already been set
by the platting of the lot.
The key issue is if Council believes the extra vehicle service capacity could be detrimental
to surrounding residential use due to additional, noise, traffic, etc. In that case Council
would either consider the Special Use Permit process or make no changes. Option 1
would be selected if Council does not have concerns about compatibility and that CGS
design standards would mitigate issues with landscaping, lighting controls, and other
design requirements.
From a workplan prioritization viewpoint, all the options are minor in scope and could be done
at any time.
Council Request Letter