HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Packet of Communications to Council as of June 19, 2026
main
fax
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Renee Hall, City Clerk
Date: June 19, 2026
Subject: Packet of Communications to Council
Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of June 19,
2026:
1. Deborah Pitt, Ames Resident – June 5, 2026
RE: Four way stops in Bloomington Heights
2. Shelley Ackermann, Ames Resident – June 8, 2026
RE: Consider Hyde Avenue as a snow route
3. Sharyl Black, Ames Resident – June 10, 2026
RE: Public Nuisance Code – Container Gardens
4. Katy Phelps, Ames Resident – June 12, 2026
RE: Duff Avenue proposal objections
5. Steve Shickell, Ames Resident – June 15, 2026
RE: 2702 North Dakota, request to split homestead
6. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – June 19, 2026
RE: City Assessor Term of Office
7. Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director – June 19, 2026
RE: Plan 2040 Urban Fringe Amendment
8. Steven L Schainker, City Manager – June 19, 2026 (REVISED)
RE: Impacts of SF2472 – Related to Property Taxes
1
Hall, Renee
From:Deborah Pitt <dpitt58@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2026 8:29 PM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Hyde Avenue From Stone Brooke to Welbeck
[External Email]
Thank you in advance for the opportunity to present this idea to you.
My main concern with the increase of traffic, especially during the school year, is Hyde Avenue. With the
upcoming increase of housing at the west end of Harrison (east of RR tracks) and the new upcoming
Auburn trail housing project, would it be possible to have the single mailboxes from Stone Brooke to
Welbeck on Hyde Avenue be consolidated into a collective USPS large mailbox as we have in other
areas of Bloomington Heights?
Stone Brooke to Harrison on Hyde has this.
I know change is not easy for anyone these days.
It may be time to think about 4 way stops in Bloomington Heights. Harrison and Hyde. Harrison and
Welbeck. Stone Brooke and Hyde. There are others.
Thank you for your consideration. My reason for presenting these ideas is first and foremost, safety.
Deborah Pitt
3911 Westlawn Dr
Ames
515 236-1583
dpitt58@gmail.com
Some people who received this message don't often get email from dpitt58@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
1
Hall, Renee
From:M S ACKERMANN <shelleyack@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2026 7:34 AM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Please consider making Hyde Ave a snow route
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from shelleyack@msn.com. Learn why this is important
at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
[External Email]
Good morning,
Please seriously consider making Hyde Avenue a snow route. It is a heavily traveled street in Ames for several reasons:
1) Families living north of Bloomington Road are part of the Gilbert school district. Many families and students use this
route to get to school.
2) There are many housing developments (including new ones coming soon) as well as Vintage CooperaƟve on the route.
3) Other than Grand/Hwy 69, it is the only major route to 190th, Gilbert, and other areas north of Ames.
In addiƟon, cars are constantly parked along family homes along the first several blocks just north of Bloomington Road.
Snow plows cannot clear the road to the curd resulƟng in heavy ice forming and staying for days and even weeks.
Because of these factors, I respecƞully request consideraƟon of making Hyde Avenue a winter snow route.
Thank you,
Shelley Ackermann
2015 Leopold Drive
Ames
515-240-5966
shelleyack@msn.com
1
Hall, Renee
From:Sharyl Black <sharylblack@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 6:56 AM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Public Nuisance Code
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from sharylblack@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Good morning
I have reached out to Sheryl Reynolds to inquire about my neighbors container garden (see attached photos).
I learned from Sheryl there are no guidelines for container size or quantity so the neighbor can continue to
maintain and add to this disaster.
Obviously my neighbors container garden is a significant eyesore.
I am asking you to set more specific and reasonable guidelines for container gardens to avoid allowing such an
eyesore that none of us, including you, would want to look at everyday in your backyard.
Thank you very much
Sharyl Black, owner
1002 Poe Ave Ames
(712)202-6685
2
3
4
1
Hall, Renee
From:Katy Phelps <katyleepatterson@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 12, 2026 10:07 AM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Duff Avenue: Objection to proposed changes
Attachments:Duff Avenue proposal objection.docx
[External Email]
To the Mayor and City Council, please find attached my strong objections to the ideas contained in the
survey about proposed chances to how vehicle traffic uses Duff Avenue.
Best,
Katy (Patterson) Phelps, resident NE Ames.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from katyleepatterson@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
To the City of Ames Leadership,
I am writing today in opposition to the proposed alterations to the Duff avenue traffic flow. I
am a liberal, progressive voter and am overall in favor of making cycling and walking easier in Ames.
However, these proposed alterations do not make anything better for anyone. The vast majority of
Ames residents are never going to adopt cycling or walking as their primary mode of transportation.
Our lives our too crowded and too harried to accommodate the time it takes to bike or walk
everywhere. Additionally, all but the most committed, or the most resource poor, are going to walk
or cycle when it is snowing, blisteringly hot, or pouring down rain.
The wholesale restructuring of one’s life to be focused around cycling, walking, or taking the
bus is either a privilege most of us simply cannot indulge in, prohibited by limited mobility, age, or
chronic health condition, or the consequence of means (or the lack there of). For most of us, going
for a bike ride or taking a walk is exercise, enjoyment of a pretty day, or a social event with friends.
Turning more of Duff Avenue into a congested mess isn’t helping the majority of Ames residents in
the course of their daily lives.
Additionally, creating longer lines of traffic increases driver irritation, meaning they are more
likely to act out against each other and against pedestrians or cyclists. The re-striping of Duff north
of 16th street has not accomplished what you wanted. No one uses that sorry excuse for a bike lane,
it is unsafe. It’s too narrow, a seam between asphalt and concrete runs right through the middle of
it, it is often full of debris and trash, people driving past go too fast and come too close for comfort,
and all too often drivers aren’t paying attention and they drive in the bike lane. A week ago I was
headed home from Ace Hardware and was behind a driver who I can only assume was driving on
mental autopilot because she exactly followed the old curve and lanes of Duff, putting her solidly in
that bike lane a lot of the time.
Additionally, forcing Duff to be one straight lane and one turn only lane at the intersection of
Duff and 16th has been an absolute nightmare. Traffic backs up south to nearly the intersection with
13th street. People often end up in the turn only lane accidentally and then try to slip into the
straight lane, or people who are aware of the turn only get into the left lane before the intersection
with 13th street and end up adding to the traffic being backed up. Again, increased driver stress and
agitation. Making that intersection into only a 2-way stop, though, doesn’t solve the problem either
because then the people one 16th street never get a chance to go. There are an awful lot of us who
live in this part of town who use 16th street to bypass the hideous messes of the Duff and 13th and
Duff and Grand intersections. It is also the primary way for many high school kids in these
neighborhoods to get to and from the high school (the high school traffic situation is a whole other
problem).
The idea of a round-about at the Duff and 16th intersection is an even worse idea. You
propose taking people’s HOMES to input a roundabout that no one wants, to solve a problem that
you all created, a problem that would easily be solved by simply re-striping Duff back to two lanes
in each direction?? That’s absolutely foul.
The addition of a 4-way stop at the intersection of Duff and 24th has worked out. That gives
pedestrians and cyclists a safe way to cross to the Miracle Park. There is a button-triggered
crosswalk for Meeker Elementary that can be sued by anyone just south of where O’Neil/East
O’Neil cross Duff. There’s the stop at Duff and 16th. Then the crosswalk button at Duff and 13th.
There are lots of opportunities for people to safely cross Duff north of 13th.
If you want to support pedestrian use of that corridor, fix the danged sidewalks, and at city
expense. There is already pedestrian infrastructure in place, but it’s all crumbling and so a pain to
walk or run on. Forcing individual home-owners on limited budgets, especially in this economy, to
pay to fix those sidewalks in untenable. Put some community resource into fixing those.
If you want to improve cyclist use of the area, and have a means for cyclists to travel
North/South across town, do more with the neighborhoods between Duff and Grand, similar to how
Clark was designated as a cyclist route. Another side note, the paving on Clark needs some
attention.
The population in Ames has grown considerably in the 24 years I have lived here. There are
more houses, more apartment building, more businesses, more ISU students, and yes more
vehicles. Shrinking one of the two primary ways for people to move N/S in this town is absolutely in
contradiction to that increasing population. I would actually say your proposals are
contraindicated, in the way certain medications are for some people.
Also, as someone who works with surveys for a living, I have to strongly object to how the
question about the 16th and Duff intersection was written. That question gave the respondent only
two options: which do you prefer, option A or option B. There was no choice to either leave the
question unanswered or to chose neither option. Forcing someone to make a choice between two
negative options in order to complete the survey is ignorant at best and deceitful at worst. Since you
have already published and promoted the survey this way, you must be extremely careful what you
do with or say about the resulting data. You cannot, for example, say something like “the majority of
respondents support the implementation of option A” because that is not the question you asked.
You asked (forced) respondents to choose between two distasteful options, and gave them no
ability to provide a null or neither answer. I truly expected better from what I know to be an
educated city council.
In summary, I not only am adamantly opposed to the entire suite of proposals put forth in
the survey, I encourage Ames leadership to also reconsider the modified striping you already put in
place north of Duff and 16th, and to wholesale reconsider this road diet tool you have apparently
made your favorite traffic strategy. There are other way to improve the pedestrian, cyclist, and
resident traffic safety and usage than by funneling all vehicle traffic from downtown to where Duff
meets Grand into a single lane in either direction.
Thank you all for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Katy Phelps, Northeast Ames resident.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
j
515.239.5146
Legal Department
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
At the April 14, 2026 Conference Board meeting, the Board engaged in a
discussion with Ames City Assessor Shari Plagge about her term of office.
Ms. Plagge’s current term as City Assessor ends December 31, 2026. In
discussions with the Iowa Department of Revenue (IDOR), the IDOR suggested
that the Ames City Council should consider creating an ordinance clarifying that
the City Assessor serves a six-year term (as established by state law), and that
the next term begins on January 1, 2027.
The Conference Board (which includes the Ames Mayor and Council members)
passed a motion referring the matter to the Council.
Staff requests that the Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance
clarifying the City Assessor’s term of office, to be considered on the July
14 Council meeting agenda.
(I’ll note that we’ll be asking the Council to suspend the rules and do all three
readings at the meeting on July 14, as the Conference Board will be discussing
the re-appointment of Ms. Plagge at its July 23 meeting.)
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515 Clark Ave.
MEMO
main
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kelly Diekmann, Planning & Housing Director
Date: June 19, 2026
Subject: Request for Plan 2040 Urban Fringe Amendment to Change from Urban
Reserve to Rural Residential
Background:
City Council received a request (see attached) from Chuck Winkleblack and Justin
Dodge, Hunziker Companies, regarding a 35-acre parcel of land in Story County on the
south side of W 190th and north of the Bella Woods development. The site is to the
southeast of Alluvial and known as the Mangels property based upon prior ownership.
A location map is attached.
Hunziker Companies purchased the property in the fall of 2024 with an interest in
developing rural housing on the parcel without annexation into the City of Ames. Earlier
this spring, Hunziker Companies applied for a Story County land use change to
their C2C Comprehensive Plan to allow for rural residential development of up to
20 homes. The Board of Supervisors voted to approve the change on April 14th.
Although the County has approved changing the use of the site, the developer is
still subject to City subdivision review standards because the property is within 2
miles of the City. Staff advised the applicant, that without City Council approval
of a change to Plan 2040 there would be no basis for the City to support waivers
of subdivisions standards, such as sanitary sewer service requirements, to allow
for rural development. Because of this, the Developer requests the City approve a
policy change related to the site that would support applying in the future for a
rural subdivision.
Ames Plan 2040
Ames Plan 2040 designates the property as part of the City’s Urban Reserve. The
designation was the result of City’s scenario planning for Ames Plan 2040 and the,
since abandoned, Ames Fringe Plan discussion with Story County.
Urban Reserve is described as areas not intended for immediate annexation and
development, but are areas where City services could be feasibly extended in the
future. Because this potential to meet urban development interests, Plan 2040 does not
contain policies that support rural development within the Reserve designation. See
attached Plan 2040 Policy Framework excerpts.
Plan 2040 also identifies Rural Residential areas intended for development in
unincorporated locations. These areas are located in existing Rural development area
and beyond the Urban Reserve to avoid limiting future annexation opportunities. If a
property is designated Rural Residential, Plan 2040 policies allow for
consideration of rural subdivisions without meeting City standards because there
is no expectation of future annexation. This is the request of the applicant, to
become Rural Residential with no plan for annexation.
Staff Comments
Urban Reserve properties do not typically abut the City as they are viewed as
development areas for later in the life of Plan 2040. The Mangels property is situated
uniquely in that it does not currently abut the City, but could be annexed in combination
with Bella Woods subdivision to the south that is subject to annexation covenants with
the City. The Bella Woods subdivision was approved under the old Ames Fringe Plan
as a Residential Transition Area and included waivers of completing full urban
infrastructure with the development and to have covenants to annex at the direction of
the City.
Without Bella Woods, annexation would rely upon the Christ Community Church to
voluntarily annex some or all of their land to connect to the City along George
Washington Carver Avenue. The closest property City property would be the AGCC
after the City completes the planned annexation of AGCC later this year. Staff is not
aware of any interest by Christ Community to annex to the City, they do not require or
desire any City services.
The Urban Reserve designation is meant to coincide with the City’s planned urban
service area where municipal services, most notably sanitary sewer, that could be
feasibly extended without excessive costs. This area of the Urban Reserve would be
served by Xenia to City standards for water.
Although the applicant has not addressed the feasibility of utility services to the
property, City staff did estimate the feasibility in relation to the recent review of options
to extend sanitary sewer to the Irons Subdivision. Staff determined that gravity fed
sewer for the Mangel’s would be unlikely based upon the current sewer extension plan.
However, a private force main could be to used to make a connection to City sewer.
Design issues for utilities are formally considered with subdivision review, but this
information does help to guide the policy discussion for the amendment.
While sewer service is a primary component of the decision process for the City
regarding development options, the City Council could also have concerns about how
rural development adjacent to the City affects City resources that are nearby.
Substantial increases in rural development do impact the City street systems on the
fringe of the City and affect the use of resources and ag land around the City.
Option 1:
If Council believes that the long-term potential of annexing the Mangels property is likely
not desirable for the City, the request for a land use change should be put on future
agenda to discuss initiating an amendment process for Plan 2040 that would allow for a
Rural Residential land use designation for the property.
Option 2:
If Council believes that this land may be desirable to be annexed sometime in the
future, then no further action will be needed and the current Urban Reserve designation
will remain in place.
To: Honorable Mayor and Ames City Council
From: Chuck Winkleblack & Justin Dodge, Hunziker Companies
RE: Mangels farm
Date: April 9, 2026
Hunziker Development Group owns 35 acres of land just West of the Ames Country Club
and North of the Bella Woods development. Story County planning and zoning
commission recommended the change, and the Story County Supervisors amended the
C2C plan and passed the rezoning from agricultural to rural residential on 1st reading on
April 7th. The 2nd reading is already scheduled for Tuesday, April 14th.
Our request is to amend the City of Ames 2040 plan to allow housing on this tract of land.
We intend for this to be a rural subdivision and not be annexed into the city of Ames. Our
intention is to preserve the wetland areas and to develop the parcel into 16 to 18 single
family homes. The parcel has adjacent single-family development on the South and West
and Prairie Moon Winery to the North. We have attached an aerial photo from Beacon
identifying the parcel.
RN-3
RN-3
NC-MU
NC
OS
OS
RN-4
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
RN-3
OSCAMERONSCHOOLRD
M ATHEWS RD
VALLEYRD
CARTIERAVE
POLOAVE
PINE
GROV
E
L
N
G
E
O
R
G
E
W
C
ARVER
AVE
W 190TH ST
Ames Plan 2040
0 0.1 0.20.05
MilesIN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
LINCOLN
24TH
13THONTARIO
INTERSTATE
35
D
A
Y
T
O
N
ST
A
N
G
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
16TH
GEORGEW CARVER
SO
U
T
H
DA
K
O
T
A
AIRPORTHY
L
A
N
D
LINCOLN
WAY
¯Legend
Parcels
Subject Property
Future Land Use Designations
Residential Neighborhood 3 -
Expansion (RN-3)
Residential Neighborhood 4 -
Village (RN-4)
Neighborhood Core (NC)
Neighborhood Core - Mixed
Use (NC MU)
Open Space
Story County Urban Reserve
70
P L A N E L E M E N T S G R O W T H & L A N D U S E
A M E S P L A N 2 0 4 0
Guiding Principles for the
Urban Fringe
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING
UF1-1: Designated Limited Area for Rural Development.
Designate areas of existing rural development and limited
areas for new rural development as they relate to future potential expansion for the city. A fundamental objective is
for new development to occur within an urbanized area of the city after its annexation, limiting impacts to rural uses and
providing urban infrastructure and services that support a
compact and efficient development pattern for urban
services.
UF1-2: Regional Partnerships. Work on regional
partnerships for mutually beneficial planning of recreational
uses, conservation areas, and watershed management.
RURAL CHARACTER AREAS
UF2-1: Existing Development. An Existing Development designation applies to previously developed areas of varying density below three dwelling units per acre. These areas were primarily developed through rural subdivisions and lack urban infrastructure. They are subject to county zoning for limited levels of residential development. Only limited development of existing lots or minor subdivisions of existing lots with existing zoning are anticipated during the life of this Plan. Minimum lot sizes should reflect the rural character of the area and limited infrastructure capacity to
support development intensification. Annexation of these areas is undesirable due to the low-density of development and minimal infrastructure improvements. These developments fall under the Rural Character category of the land use plan.
UF2-2: New Rural Residential. Rural Development Areas
reflect county planning interests and are limited to areas that are well beyond the potential Urban Reserve areas and city
limits. Designation of this land use should consider impacts to
infrastructure, adjacent agricultural uses and natural areas;
changes to storm water runoff and drainage basins; and
cumulative effects of development near other cities on
county and state highways. The low suitability of the site for
agricultural uses due to a CSR score of a LESA score does not
alone justify change of use to rural development. County
zoning will vary for density and use; typically, a rural
subdivision would be limited to a minimum of one unit per net acre and a maximum density of 2.5 units per net acre and are
to be developed as a subdivision plat. The city will review infrastructure needs for rural development and consider
case-by-case waivers of urban infrastructure standards.
UF2-3: Rural Non-Residential Development. Certain areas
adjacent to the city but in the county may include activities such as mining that are not desirable as an urban use or typically compatible with surrounding uses. In addition,
limited areas of pre-existing commercial or light industrial
uses also occur within two miles of the city. The largest such
areas are within Boone County. The Urban Fringe Area
recognizes these existing uses. However, further expansion
of these non-residential uses is undesirable, especially within the growth areas, as they can impact the future plans for city
expansion. Further development in these existing areas will be limited by current infrastructure improvements. The city will review infrastructure needs for rural development and consider case-by-case waivers of urban infrastructure standards.
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 the 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.
URBAN RESERVE AREAS
UF4-1. Urban Reserve District. Create an Urban Reserve area
for the short- and long-term expansion of the city. These areas
fall within the urban service area where municipal services,
most notably sanitary sewer, can be feasibly extended. Only
subdivisions that meet full urban development subdivision and
improvement standards would be allowed.
UF4-2: Annexation. Urban Reserve Areas are appropriate for annexation to the city to meet future growth needs of the city.
Areas are planned for residential, commercial, and industrial
expansion based upon the scenario and Tiers analysis of this
Plan. A precise determination of use will be determined upon
annexation.
UF4-3: Lot Subdivision. Land divisions are permissible only
to allow for splitting off an existing homesite or farmstead
from a farm area. Divisions should not create parcels that can
limit future annexation options. Land Divisions within the
Urban Reserve Area shall meet a minimum lot size of 35 acres.
UF4-4: Infrastructure. All developments are subject to urban
infrastructure standards unless a conditional waiver is granted by the City Council.
URBAN FRINGE: POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following policies are the foundation for planning related to the two-mile Urban Fringe Area. Note that the two-mile Urban Fringe Area expands with every annexation of land by the city. These policies are intended to guide actions regarding development
proposals subject to City of Ames review as well as the coordination of policies with other jurisdictions. In addition to the Future Land Use Map designations designed to guide annexation and development of the primary growth areas, the city has established land use classifications for the Urban Fringe Area to guide decision making prior to annexation. See Urban Fringe Area classifications within the map on page 71 and also references on pages 50-52.
UF3-3: Park Areas. Natural areas may allow for future recreational opportunities within the city or the county. The area south of Highway 30 and west of I-35 that is currently a quarry may be an area suitable for a future regional park. This is identified within the Parks, Trails, & Greenways Element.
Staff Report
IMPACTS OF SF 2472 - RELATED TO PROPERTY TAXES
June 19, 2026
At the June 9, 2026 meeting, the City Council passed a motion requesting a
memo from staff regarding how the City’s current property tax abatement and
Tax Increment Financing incentives work with the new state tax laws and what,
if any, suggestions staff might have for changes.
During the 2026 legislative session, the Iowa Legislature adopted Senate
File 2472 (SF 2472), a comprehensive property tax reform bill that
significantly modifies Iowa's property tax system. The legislation includes
changes affecting local government levy authority, property tax
calculations, classifications, Urban Revitalization Areas (URAs), and
Urban Renewal Area Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
For many years, Iowa cities have utilized property tax incentives as a means of
encouraging housing construction, redevelopment, business expansion,
infrastructure investment, and economic development. Programs such as
Ownership Housing Property Tax Abatement, Industrial Property Tax
exemptions, Urban Revitalization Areas, and Tax Increment Financing have
been designed to encourage private investment that may not otherwise occur
by temporarily reducing property tax obligations or providing additional
incentives associated with new development or redevelopment projects. Both
Tax Abatement and TIF apply to increased value of properties due to
improvements and neither of them impact the existing value of a property.
Historically, communities have viewed these programs as a collaboration
between the public and private sectors. In exchange for financial assistance or
temporary reduction in new property tax revenues, communities anticipated
long-term benefits such as additional housing units, job creation, private capital
investment, redevelopment of underutilized property, and future growth in the
taxable property base to provide for community services and betterment. The
primary motivation for cities was that once tax abatements expired or TIF
districts reached the end of their collection periods, the increased
valuation would return to the tax rolls and contribute additional property
tax revenue to support city services.
While SF 2472 does not eliminate the City's authority to utilize tax
abatements, Urban Revitalization Areas, or TIF, the legislation
significantly changes the long-term fiscal outcomes associated with
these programs. As a result, the new legislation no longer provides to the
City the same opportunity for future General Fund revenue growth that
existed under the prior law.
It should be noted that the information contained in this report reflects
staff's current understanding of SF 2472. This understanding is based upon
a comprehensive review of the legislation, discussions with the Iowa League of
Cities, consultation with legal and financial advisors, and information provided
by other local government organizations.
Because implementation guidance continues to evolve and certain provisions
of the legislation have not yet been fully interpreted or administered, future
guidance may result in different interpretations of the law. Should additional
information become available that materially affects the City's incentive
programs or financial planning, staff will provide updated information and
recommendations to the City Council.
IMPACT OF SF 2472 ON GENERAL FUND REVENUE GROWTH LIMITATIONS AND
TREATMENT OF NEW VALUATION:
One of the most significant provisions of SF 2472 is the limitation on annual General Fund
property tax revenue growth. Beginning in FY 2027/28, cities generally may not increase
General Fund property tax revenues by more than 2% annually, except for revenues
generated from certain categories of "NEW CONSTRUCTION", which includes:
• New construction.
• Improvements to property that are not normal maintenance and repair.
• Annexations.
Under the legislation, valuation that returns to the tax roll following the expiration
of a tax abatement or Tax Increment Financing District is not considered "new
construction" for purposes of exceeding the 2% cap on the General Fund revenue
growth.
While the City will continue to receive property tax revenues associated with that
valuation, the valuation does not create the same future revenue growth
opportunities that traditional new construction, qualifying improvements, or
annexations provide under the legislation.
The following sections summarize the impacts of SF 2472 on each of the City's major
incentive and redevelopment programs.
CITYWIDE OWNERSHIP HOUSING TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM:
The Citywide Ownership Housing Tax Abatement Program is administered through a
citywide Urban Revitalization Area adopted by the City Council in 2024 pursuant to Iowa
Code Chapter 404. The program was established to encourage new owner-occupied
housing construction throughout Ames and to support the housing goals identified in
Ames Plan 2040.
The program is currently set to run through the end of 2028. Houses that are issued
building permits before December 31, 2027 and completed before December 31,2028
are eligible for the partial property tax abatement on the first $500,000 of improvement
value. This means that the City may be approving qualified tax abatement applications
through February 2029 to account for completed projects in 2028.
Eligible projects generally include new single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums,
accessory dwelling units, and two-family homes that satisfy the requirements established
within the Urban Revitalization Plan as owner occupied housing.
The current exemption schedule is:
• Year 1 – 100%
• Year 2 – 80%
• Year 3 – 60%
• Year 4 – 40%
• Year 5 – 20%
Since the creation of the program, the issuance of building permits has not
changed substantially.
Single Family Building Permits Issued:
In 2023 61- preceded incentive
In 2024 59 - incentive for 7 months of the year (Program started April 28, 2024)
In 2025 68 - full year of incentive
The annual certification process in February 2026 for initial tax abatement applications
was for 52 properties, which is less than any one year of permits issued. This is due to
lag of construction timing and that not all constructed homes meet the criteria of being
the primary residence of the property owner.
Due to the 100% abatement in year one, under the new law, the City will not
realize any new construction valuation for homes in this program.
Because returned valuation after completing the abatement schedule does not qualify
as new construction, the long-term fiscal benefits historically associated with the
expiration of residential tax abatements are reduced.
A review of the building permit data does not seem to indicate that this incentive
spurred additional single-family housing construction. Additionally, at the time of
housing development incentive discussions in December some developers
indicated appreciation for the program, but instead preferred direct incentives
them as a method to increase housing production as they did not feel the
abatement had created additional demand.
If the City Council chooses to modify this program, no existing beneficiary would be
impacted. A change would only impact the receipt of new applications for abatement.
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM:
The City of Ames also offers an Industrial Property Tax Exemption Program
authorized under Iowa Code Chapter 427B. This program is separate from the
City's Urban Revitalization Area program and is intended to encourage
investment in industrial, manufacturing, research and development,
warehouse, distribution, and technology-related facilities. This program applies
citywide regardless of zoning. Not only does it apply to a limited set of specific
uses it is based upon completion of improvements in one year and only applies
to longer buildouts if granted prior approval by Council.
The City currently offers a five-year declining exemption schedule on the value
added by qualifying industrial improvements:
• Year 1 – 75%
• Year 2 – 60%
• Year 3 – 45%
• Year 4 – 30%
• Year 5 – 15%
The purpose of the program is to reduce the initial tax burden associated with
significant capital investments, encourage business expansion, support job
creation, promote research and innovation, and enhance Ames'
competitiveness for industrial and technology-related development projects.
Most communities within Iowa utilize this program.
Similar to residential tax abatements, valuation returning to the tax roll following
expiration of an industrial property tax exemption is not considered new
construction for purposes of calculating allowable General Fund revenue
growth.
City staff reviewed data from the City Assessor from the past 14 years and
determined that approximately 18 properties benefit from the program for an
average of about two per year. Two in the last four years, Wyffels and
Chevron/REG requested, and were granted, the two year preapproval in order
to get the maximum benefit of the program. Year 1 abated improvement value
ranged from $294,000 to $21,600,000.
Currently, there are four properties receiving this benefit. If the program is
eliminated, they would continue to receive the abatement benefit. Staff is only
aware of potentially one project starting construction in 2026/2027 that may be
eligible for this program.
URBAN REVITALIZATION AREAS:
The City of Ames also maintains several Urban Revitalization Areas pursuant
to Iowa Code Chapter 404 that are intended to encourage reinvestment,
redevelopment, historic preservation, and economic activity in targeted areas
of the community. The City utilizes qualifying criteria to control the types of
eligible projects within an area.
Urban Revitalization Areas are designed to encourage private investment by
providing temporary property tax exemptions on the value added by qualifying
improvements. In general, improvements must increase the assessed value of
a property by at least five percent in order to qualify for tax abatement.
Applications are administered by the Department of Planning and Housing and
are reviewed by the City Council and City Assessor as part of the verification
process.
Property owners generally may select from one of three exemption schedules:
Year 3-Year Schedule
100% 100% 80%
100% 80% 70%
100% 60% 60%
N/A 40% 50%
N/A 20% 40%
6 N/A N/A 40%
7 N/A N/A 30%
8 N/A N/A 30%
9 N/A N/A 20%
10 N/A N/A 20%
The following are the urban revitalization areas currently accepting applications:
Downtown Urban Revitalization Areas
The Downtown Urban Revitalization Area, created in 2001, is intended to
encourage rehabilitation and reinvestment in Downtown properties through
building improvements and redevelopment projects. The program focuses on
improving building facades, promoting occupancy of vacant buildings,
encouraging retail and commercial activity, preserving historic building
character, and supporting continued investment in the Downtown district.
Eligible projects must increase property value by at least five percent and satisfy
design, occupancy, and use requirements established by the City. The program
also requires compliance with Downtown Design Guidelines. The program was
established in conjunction with the Downtown Facade program. Its criteria was
recently adjusted to apply to broader range of project types, including residential
mixed use. The program has been rarely used for tax abatement purposes
because generally rehabilitation does not increase the value of the building as
an improvement.
Campustown Urban Revitalization Area
The Campustown Urban Revitalization Area, created in 2001, and substantially
amended in 2006 and later years, is intended to encourage redevelopment of
underutilized and blighted properties, support mixed-use development,
increase structured parking, improve urban design, and strengthen the
commercial core serving Iowa State University and surrounding
neighborhoods. Projects may qualify through redevelopment of blighted
properties, construction of mixed-use projects with structured parking, or
adaptive reuse of older buildings. Additional design standards encourage
pedestrian-oriented development, high-quality building materials, commercial
activity, and compatibility with the Campustown district.
This program supported a number of student housing projects in the prior
decade, but has since not been used for redevelopment. Currently, the Cranford
apartment building at the corner of Lincoln Way and Stanton is benefitting from
approximately $300,000 of abatement value attributed to the rehabilitation of
the historic building when they made improvements to the building.
North Sheldon Urban Revitalization Area
The North Sheldon Urban Revitalization Area, created in 2006, is intended to
encourage preservation and rehabilitation of historically significant residential
structures. Eligible projects generally require retention of a substantial portion
of the existing structure and preservation or restoration of original architectural
materials and design features. This program has not been used.
Other
The City has two small URAs within existing the HOC zoned area of SE 16th and SE
5th. Furniture Mart on SE 5th is currently benefiting from a tax abatement schedule over
five years. There are no other lots available for development with Furniture Mart.
Additionally, the former Deery auto dealership development on SE 16th Street includes
five total properties with a benefit of being eligible for a 3-yr 100% tax abatement. This is
the location of the recently completed Olive Garden. There is one more lot planned for
development of McDonald's with the Deery area. A development agreement is in place
with this URA that is also applicable to development in this area. Olive Garden will apply
for tax abatement in January 2027
The City also has a commercial and vacant land policy for consideration of establishing
new URAs. This policy is limited to HOC zoned land and among other standards focuses
on brownfields, land vacant for 7 years or more, or development complicated by City well
head protection and stormwater requirements. This policy has not been used to
incentivize any project since 2015 when the Squeaky Clean laundromat building on
Lincoln Way was approved. As being only a policy, no project benefits from it without
Council formal approval of a URA, but at this time staff does present it as an option to
developers that may be consistent with the policy.
URBAN RENEWAL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF):
Historically, TIF has been one of the City's primary tools for encouraging select
project-specific redevelopment, infrastructure investment, economic
development, neighborhood revitalization, and public improvements necessary
to facilitate private investment. TIF has been used throughout Iowa to finance
public infrastructure, site preparation, utility improvements, streets, developer
rebates and make other improvements that support development and
redevelopment projects.
Historically, one of the significant benefits of TIF was that upon repayment of
an obligation, the full taxable value returned to the taxing jurisdictions and
contributed to future tax base growth. While the valuation still returns to the tax
rolls under SF 2472, that valuation is not considered new construction for
purposes of calculating allowable General Fund revenue
growth. Consequently, although the City will continue to receive property tax
revenues associated with the released valuation, it does not generate additional
General Fund levy authority beyond the annual 2% limitation. This change
substantially alters one of the traditional long-term fiscal benefits
associated with TIF districts and should be considered when evaluating
future urban renewal projects.
Urban Renewal Areas for collection of TIF exist across the community.
However, currently, the City uses TIF for only two active projects. Barilla was
granted a TIF rebate as a matching incentive for a plant expansion in 2019.
More recently, the City entered into a development agreement for a TIF rebate
for development along Bailey Avenue in the North Dayton Small Lot Industrial
Subdivision.
Based upon City Council direction on incentives from December, staff believes
that use of some TIF is likely to support the Greenbriar, Bluffs, Scholl Road,
and Hayden Preserve projects. The TIF for these projects is tied to construction
of infrastructure. Additionally, the Linc project planned along Lincoln Way as a
catalyst project to the area is planned to include some level of TIF incentive, but
the terms of this deal are not yet known.
STAFF COMMENTS:
While SF 2472 does not eliminate the City's authority to utilize tax abatements
and TIF incentives, it significantly changes the long-term fiscal outcomes
associated with these programs. Therefore, as requested, staff would offer the
following policy changes for the City Council to consider to mitigate the impact
of SF2472:
OPTION 1: CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
(Ownership Housing Tax Abatement, Industrial Property Tax Exemption,
Urban Revitalization Tax Exemption, and Tax Increment Financing Programs)
The City Council could support this option if you are optimistic that, no later than the next
state legislative session, the property tax law will be revised or clarified so that valuation
coming off of an abatement or TIF incentive will be considered new construction for
purposes of exceeding the 2% cap.
In the short term, the City has the ability to transfer some eligible expenses in the General
Fund to the Trust and Agency Levy from the General Levy thereby improving the City’s
ability to meet the 2% General Fund revenue cap. However, there is a finite amount
available for transfer, so that this cannot be a long-term strategy to avoid the impact of
the existing law.
OPTION 2: TEMPORARILY DISCONTINUE THE USE OF TAX ABATEMENT OR TIF
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS UNTIL VALUATION COMING OFF OF ABATEMENT OR TIF
IS CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION
A recent article in the Des Moines Register indicates that in response to this new
legislation, the City of Des Moines suspended the use of use of TIF and is now
considering discontinuing its tax abatement program as well. In addition, a small city,
Pleasant Hill, has halted indefinitely its tax abatement program.
Given the City’s ability to transfer expenses to the Trust & Agency in the short-term, this
option to discontinue all incentive programs appears to be too drastic. However, one
incentive that could be considered relates to the Ownership Housing Tax Abatement
program.
Since a review of the building permit data does not seem to indicate that this incentive
spurred additional single-family housing construction and the local developers who the
City has been working with recently to promote more housing starts have indicated a
preference for direct incentives as a method to directly increase housing production, a
case can be made to discontinue this program. If the City Council chooses to terminate
this program, no existing beneficiary would be impacted. A change would only impact the
receipt of new applications for abatement.
OPTION 3: REDESIGN THE TAX ABATEMENT AND TIF INCENTIVES SCHEDULES
WITH NO EXEMPTIONS OR PAYMENTS TO DEVELOPERS IN FIRST YEAR.
The current legislation only counts new construction in the first year when the valuation
is added to the tax rolls. For example, if the City’s abatement or TIF incentive program
grants a 100% tax incentive in the first year of ten year schedule, the City will never be
allowed to count this valuation as new construction. Given the fact that most of our most
significant projects are seeking either a tax abatement or TIF incentive, this option will
prove helpful to the City.
Under this option, the City will realize the valuation as growth when
the improvement is added to the tax rolls in the first year. The incentive
schedules will have to be redesigned for this option.
Option 3 appears to be a viable option for the Council to consider. Meeting the 2%
cap will prove more difficult in the coming years, especially should the Council in
the future support new facilities and/or services that will be require
additional General Fund subsidy not included in the base budget.
OPTION 4: ESTABLISH NEW PRIORITIES AND REVIEW EACH OF THE PROPERTY
TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
This option could be pursued should the City Council desire to establish more
performance related eligibility criteria for City property tax incentives such
as: housing production, workforce housing objectives, wage levels, project
timing, private capital investment, job creation, building preservation,
redevelopment, etc.
This option would likely result in fewer awarded incentives, assuming that the
criteria are more selective, but incentivized projects would be more in line with
the Council’s priorities.
Should the City Council desire to pursue Options 2,3, or 4 the changes should be
implemented by December 31, 2026.
I