HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Packet of Communications to Council August 21, 2026
main
fax
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Renee Hall, City Clerk
Date: August 21, 2026
Subject: Packet of Communications to Council
Listed below are the communications to the City Council known to staff as of August 21,
2026:
1. Justin Moore, Planner – August 11, 2026
RE: Request to waive city subdivision standards & land use designations at
3500 560th Avenue
2. Tanner Hoegh, Ames Resident – August 19, 2026
RE: Data Center Ratepayer Protections
3. Chuck Winkleblack, Hunziker Companies – August 21, 2026
RE: Request for rezoning of land and sanitary sewer
4. Mark Lambert, City Attorney – August 21, 2026
RE: Unilateral Bidding Error
5. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Accessible Parking Regulations
6. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Cul De Sac parking
7. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Grand Avenue Shared Use Path at Allan Drive
8. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Lincoln Way Corridor Study Expansion
9. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Steve Bock Campus Ave Sewer Claim
10. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Street Parking Concern on Stonehaven Drive
11. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Food at First Parking Meter Enforcement Hours
12. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on Pedestrian Safety at Grave Ave & Sunset Drive
13. Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works – August 25, 2026
RE: Memo on North-South Railroad Quiet Zone
14. Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning & Housing – August 25, 2026
RE: Manatt’s Annexation Request Memo
Department of Planning & Housing
Memo
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Moore, Planner
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Request to Waive City Subdivision Standards and Land Use Designation at
3500 560th Avenue
On July 28, City Council forwarded a request from CDA on behalf of land owners Des Moines
Heavy Industrial LLC and Ag Land Specialist, LLC, requesting that the City’s subdivision
requirements and Urban Fringe Land Use Designation restrictions as a Natural Area be waived
to allow the properties just southeast of Ames at 3500 560th Avenue in Story County be final
platted (See Attached Letter).
The specific request is to allow for five new lots to be created out of two existing parcels at 3500
560th Avenue. Under City subdivision standards this requires a Preliminary and Final Plat.
Specifically, four of the five new lots will be designated as Outlots for future development and
one lot would be initially developed.
The City has control over subdivisions within two miles of its corporate limits. The Urban
Reserve designation applies to this property. This requires that any proposed subdivision
must comply with City subdivision standards and also must annex into the City. If the
adjoining properties between the City and these properties do not consent to be annexed
and the property cannot be served by City infrastructure, then annexation is usually not
possible.
The property is also located entirely in the Natural Area Conservation land use
designation. This designation has been in place since Ames Plan 2040’s approval five years
ago. Generally, subdivisions of land in these areas are not supported by Plan 2040 as the intent
of this land use designation is to conserve and maintain existing conditions as well as
maintaining natural undeveloped land.
The landowners have obtained prior approval to construct a Concrete Mixing Batch Plant
operation by way of a Conditional Use Permit from Story County late last fall which is to be
operated by CTI Ready-mix. The batch plant would be constructed on a portion of the existing
property being proposed for subdivision in this request along 560th Avenue at the far north edge.
This is an approved permit that can proceed without a subdivision. A Sketch Plan meeting
with the City’s Development Review Committee was held in June.
The owners desire to subdivide is not directly related to the Batch Plant proposal as outlined in
the letter (See Attached Letter). It is otherwise unclear to staff why the owners would like to
subdivide the land in such a manner at this time, although the representative with CDA has
indicated that the owners may choose to pursue mineral extraction on this site in the future. The
landowner does own land adjacent to this site and has mineral extraction rights on this land at
3500 560th as well as adjacent land to the north where extraction activities currently take place.
New mineral extraction would require a separate conditional use permit from the Story County
Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors have placed a condition on their permit issuance
that any new future mineral extraction operation in this area requires concurrent review
and approval of the City of Ames Water & Pollution Control Department given the
proximity to City Well fields.
Rural Subdivision Policies
Ames Plan 2040 states that the minimum lot size within the Urban Fringe is 35 acres (UF3-1
and UF4-3). Restricting the size of parcels serves to facilitate future growth by ensuring that
property lines and ownership do not become so fractured that development and annexation are
inhibited. It is easier to develop a large acreage than to develop, in a piecemeal fashion, many
small parcels. Council has also approved boundary line adjustments and divisions that result in
continued agricultural use as limitation with the division.
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 only for land conservation purposes is permissible with city approval. Land
conservation is typically for larger areas to be preserved within outlots under common or private
ownership or to transfer ownership to a governmental or non-governmental organization for its
management. Creation of private open space may not be appropriate under this designation.
Natural Areas adjacent to the city may still require annexation to further city goals for orderly
development patterns and resource conservation.
Options
Option 1-
Take no action on the landowners request. This would mean that the City would not approve or
entertain a proposal for subdividing land or changing the land use designation at this location.
Option 2-
Direct staff to proceed with discussing with the owner of the land regarding what the specific
purpose for the subdivision is and what projects are planned in order to better understand the
possible future uses and return to City Council with a report.
Option 3-
Allow for a waiver of Preliminary Plat with Public Improvements as well as a waiver of the
Natural Area Land Use designation rules and allow for a Final Plat to be submitted for 3500
560th Avenue.
Staff Comments
The Ames Development Review Committee (DRC) has had one initial meeting with
representatives with CDA and consultations with Story County Planning staff by way of a Sketch
Plan meeting. Staff does not have a full understanding of the timeline of the landowners
future plans nor how the proposed Subdivision relates to the already approved Batch
Plant permit or the desire to extract minerals in the future.
Staff recommends Option #2 that would first give the staff and Council the opportunity
for better clarity of the possible impacts to future extraction operations, other
development plans by the landowners, and the impact of the City’s water supply.
It should be noted that regardless of the decision made regarding the subdivision issue,
it is unlikely that the staff can support the approval for a sand and gravel extraction
operation because of its close proximity to future City drinking water wells.
Council Request Letter
KEN MARIL RD
SE 16TH ST S DAYTON AVE
SE 18TH ST
560TH AVE
245TH ST
250TH ST
TURING ST
241ST ST
S DAYTON PL
241ST ST
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
P ro posed Subd ivision & Future City/County P roperty´
Ag Land Specialists LLC Property
Des Moines Heavy Industrial Property
Future City Water Well Locations
Highway 30
1
Hall, Renee
From:Tanner Hoegh <tjhoegh@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:58 AM
To:City Council and Mayor
Subject:Request for August 25 Council Consideration – Data Center Ratepayer Protections
[External Email]
Mayor Haila and Members of the Ames City Council,
I am an Ames resident writing regarding the proposed Lightedge data center and the City’s ongoing
development of data center policy.
I respectfully request that this correspondence be considered under Disposition of Communications at
the August 25 City Council meeting and that Council direct staff to place consideration of data center
electric-ratepayer protections on a future Council agenda.
My primary concern is the phased nature of the proposal. Lightedge would begin at approximately 3 MW
but could ultimately grow to 25 MW. I do not want approval of a relatively small initial phase to create
infrastructure investment, financial commitments, or political pressure that makes subsequent
expansion increasingly difficult for Ames to evaluate or refuse independently.
I appreciate that City staff has discussed mechanisms intended to ensure the data center pays the costs
attributable to its electric demand. I believe those protections should be established as binding policy
before any initial phase is approved. At minimum, I ask Council to consider:
Separate City approval for substantial increases in electrical demand.
Full recovery from the data center of infrastructure, transmission, capacity, and other
incremental electric-system costs attributable to its load.
Protections preventing Ames ratepayers from bearing stranded costs if the facility closes,
downsizes, delays expansion, or does not reach its anticipated demand.
A publicly available cost-of-service analysis demonstrating that existing residential and
commercial customers will not subsidize the development.
I also ask that the City evaluate the proposal based on its potential 25-MW buildout rather than treating
the initial 3-MW phase as an isolated decision. Decisions made at the first phase could have significant
consequences for the City’s municipally owned electric system and for future Councils.
I support the current pause on data center development and believe Ames should establish these
protections before allowing Lightedge or another large-load data center to proceed.
Please consider referring these issues to staff for a report and future Council agenda item.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from tjhoegh@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
2
Thank you for your consideration,
Tanner Hoegh, MS, LMHC
Ames Homeowner and Electric Customer
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
www.CityofAmes.org
515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
Legal Department
MEMO
Legal Department
To: Ames City Council, Mayor Haila
From: Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney
Date: August 21, 2026
Subject: Unilateral Bidding Error
Motion: Moved by Rollins, seconded by Junck (passed 6-0), to request that the
City Attorney examine “contract verbiage” for situations in which there is a “signed
contract” and it is subsequently discovered that there is an error. [From 1/14/25]
This motion arose because of a unilateral bidding error by Van Meter, Inc.,
involving the Electric Department’s purchase of six thousand feet of 750 copper,
15kV cable (“Cable”). The underlying facts were as follows: In November 2024,
the City issued Bid Invitation 2025-086 for the Cable. The City received six bids
in response, and Van Meter, Inc., was the lowest bidder at a price of $96,780
($16.13 per foot). All other acceptable bids1 were substantially higher ranging
from $167,700 ($27.95 per foot) to $185,045.40 ($30.84 per foot). On December
10, 2024, City Council selected Van Meter, the low bidder, for the purchase of the
Cable by Resolution No. 24-654. The City’s Purchasing Department subsequently
issued a standard Purchase Order to Van Meter to request the Cable materials
according to standard City policy for materials. Subsequently, Van Meter
contacted the City requesting a cancellation of the contract (the Purchase Order)
due to a unilateral error made by Van Meter in pricing the cable. City staff in both
the Electric and Purchasing Departments researched prior-year purchases of the
same Cable and determined that the Van Meter bid was truly an outlier and prior
purchases had been nearly double the Van Meter bid. This matter was then
brought before City Council and the City elected to cancel the Purchase Order
1 Two of the six bids were not approved manufacturers and are not addressed in this
memo.
with Van Meter and awarded it to the next acceptable low bidder at a price of
$167,700, which was roughly $76,000 more than the Van Meter erroneous bid.
Under current City policy, materials purchases of this type do not require a bid
bond and there was none required by the City’s invitation to bid. The contract
created by the Purchase Order is governed by Iowa’s uniform commercial code
(Chapter 554), which incorporates legal principles of law and equity, including the
legal defense of mistake. Iowa Code §554.1103.
The facts were undisputed that Van Meter made a substantial mathematical error
in its bid. Any remedy that the City may have had would have required that the
City pursue a legal claim against Van Meter. Iowa law on the issue of unilateral
mistake in contracts requires that the Court analyze whether Van Meter’s legal
defense showed that (1) the effect of the mistake was such that enforcement of
the contract would be legally unconscionable; or (2) whether the City had reason
to know of the mistake or caused the mistake. See Restatement Second of
Contracts §153 (accepted as valid law in Iowa under Homeland Energy Solutions,
LLC. V. Retterrath, 938 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 2020)). In this situation, the City
received six bids and five of them were roughly the same amount while the Van
Meter bid was some 43% less than the next lowest acceptable bidder.
Additionally, Van Meter’s bid was lower than the unit cost of the purchase of
similar Cable in prior years by the City. In my opinion, Van Meter would have been
able to provide evidence that the City had reason to know of the error at the time
of the contract. Furthermore, the City had limited time to purchase the Cable in
time to make the summer construction season and pursuing this claim would
surely have exceeded the time available. It is my opinion that the City Council
made a wise decision in allowing Van Meter to cancel the contract. In terms of
policy, the City typically will follow up with outlier low bidders to inquire whether a
mistake was made prior to City Council acceptance of a contract, but
circumstances here did not result in identifying the error prior to acceptance.
For the reasons set forth above, my conclusion is that this error by Van
Meter was an honest and extremely rare mistake that no contractual
language could have prevented. No further action is recommended.
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Accessible Parking Regulations
BACKGROUND:
At the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council referred to staff a request
from Mimi Wagner regarding Accessible Parking Regulations, particularly near the
Ames Public Library.
The requester had parked in a standard metered stall when they found the accessible
stalls occupied. The resident displayed a valid accessible parking placard but did not
pay for the meter use. She subsequently received a parking citation, which prompted
the request that the City Council consider allowing vehicles displaying accessible
parking placards to park in metered stalls without payment when designated accessible
stalls are unavailable.
CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE:
Parking regulations in metered stalls are regulated by Municipal Code section 18.28
which states:
During the hours when a parking space is controlled by a parking meter:
(1) No Person shall park a vehicle in any parking space for which a parking meter or
a parking station is installed, unless such person immediately deposits or causes to be
deposited in said meter such payment as shall be necessary to pay the rates stated on the
meter for the time said vehicle is to occupy said parking space.
(2) No operator of a vehicle shall permit a vehicle to remain in a metered space or a space controlled
by a parking station after the time for which payment has been deposited, unless such person
deposits additional payment at the rates stated on the meter for additional time provided such
additional time when added to the original time does not extend beyond the maximum time the
vehicle can remain at the meter.
Violation of each subsection of this section shall constitute a separate offense of “overtime parking”.
(Ord. No. 2466, Sec. 2, 1-22-74; Ord. 2774, Sec. 1, 6-16-81; Ord. No. 4113, 5-22-12)
The Municipal Code does not contain any provisions that allow for the use of an
accessible parking placard to supersede the requirement to pay for metered parking.
METERED PARKING IN OTHER COMMUNITIES/UNIVERSITY:
Staff reviewed parking regulations of peer communities in central Iowa to ascertain if
other cities had policies that allow for the use of an accessible parking placard to be
used in lieu of payment at a metered stall. While not every community has metered
parking that is directly comparable to Ames, staff did not identify any peer
communities in Iowa that allow a valid accessible parking placard, by itself, to
exempt a vehicle from payment at a metered parking space.
Ms. Wagner indicated that Rochester, Minnesota allows this type of parking. Staff
confirmed that Minnesota Statute §169.345 provides this privilege statewide without
payment when an accessible placard or plate is displayed.
Iowa State University (ISU) is the one exception that appears to differ from a
policy standpoint. ISU allows for parking in metered spaces when displaying
BOTH a valid accessible placard AND an ISU Medical Permit for up to two (2)
hours without payment. The requirement for both the accessible placard and ISU
Medical Permit is a notable distinction that doesn’t allow for unpaid meter parking
simply with the display of an accessible placard. Both must be displayed.
Of note, the University of Iowa, University of Northern Iowa, and their respective
cities of Iowa City and Cedar Falls do not allow for this privilege.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Currently, it does not appear that the City of Ames differs from other peer communities
within the State of Iowa regarding the need for payment at a metered stall regardless of
an accessible placard being displayed. Iowa State University is the one noted exception
that allows for up to 2 hours of parking without pay when a placard AND an ISU Medical
Permit is displayed.
If desired, the City Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the City Council
consideration that would allow a vehicle displaying an accessible placard to park in a
metered stall for predetermined amount of time.
Such a change would result in some reduction in parking meter revenue, although staff
is unable to quantify the potential impact without additional information regarding usage.
The Parking Fund is historically challenged to generate enough revenue to support the
on-going and future maintenance needs of the parking system. The current metered
parking stalls are intended to generate parking turnover in areas of high demand. This
turnover then allows for additional customers to utilize those parking spaces as patrons
of adjacent businesses or services.
Alternatively, the City Council could request additional research to find examples from
other communities regarding this topic. The City Council could also decide to take no
action and rely on current policies regarding payment for use of meter spaces.
For additional context, there are currently 11 designated accessible parking spaces in
the immediate vicinity of the Ames Public Library, including both on-street spaces and
spaces within public parking lots. While not all are located immediately adjacent to the
Library entrance, the map below illustrates the distribution of accessible parking
available in the surrounding area.
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Request to Prohibit Parking in Cul-de-Sacs
BACKGROUND:
At the May 27, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council referred to staff a request from
Aaron Rodriguez to prohibit on-street parking within the circular turnaround portions of
cul-de-sacs.
Currently, there are no blanket restrictions regarding on-street parking in the nearly 250
different cul-de-sacs across Ames. There is considerable variation among these cul-de-
sacs in terms of size, shape, roadway width, and the availability of on-street parking.
Some cul-de-sacs have an interior raised island area while others do not. Some of
those islands contain spaces that allow neighborhood parking.
The request also cited concerns related to the maneuverability of large vehicles,
including snowplows, sanitation, and emergency response vehicles, when on-street
parking occurs within a cul-de-sac. Additional concerns included potential damage to
curbs and pavement infrastructure caused by larger vehicles hitting curbs when
navigating cul-de-sacs that have been narrowed due to on-street parking.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has observed similar operational challenges as noted in the request. Snow
plowing in cul-de-sacs often requires smaller equipment, and effectively removing snow
and ice can be more difficult and time-consuming. Some of these challenges result
from the geometry of individual cul-de-sacs and can be compounded when on-street
parking is present.
Staff has also made repairs to cul-de-sacs with interior islands due to larger delivery,
sanitary, and emergency response vehicles that need to operate within the cul-de-sac
and cannot properly navigate within the curb lines.
The presence of on-street parking only narrows the available roadway width and can
lead to vehicles contacting the curb, which at times causes damage that needs to be
repaired by City maintenance staff. While on-street parking can create challenges with
larger emergency response vehicles, staff has not heard those concerns from any
emergency response personnel.
Staff believes that parking regulations should be applied in a consistent and
understandable manner so residents have common expectations and restrictions
can be efficiently enforced. However, given the significant differences in cul-de-
sac geometry, roadway width, neighborhood parking needs, and existing
configurations, developing a single citywide restriction applicable to all cul-de-
sacs may be challenging.
While some operational challenges do currently exist, any consideration of parking
restrictions within cul-de-sac areas would require a broader evaluation of operational
impacts, individual neighborhood considerations, and enforcement implications.
If the City Council wishes to explore this issue further, staff recommends placing
this item on a future agenda for discussion. That discussion would allow the
Council to provide direction regarding the desired scope of the effort, policy
objectives, and intended outcomes prior to initiating additional analysis or public
engagement activities.
It should be noted, however, that addressing this issue comprehensively would
require considerable effort by staff and substantial public engagement, including
surveying each of the nearly 250 cul-de-sacs. A consensus of opinions may
prove challenging to achieve a policy goal.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Administration 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
To: Mayor and Ames City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Grand Avenue Shared Use Path at Allan Drive
BACKGROUND:
At the June 9, 2026 City Council Meeting, the Council referred to staff a request from Victoria
Blumen regarding the Grand Avenue path at 5th Street (Allan Drive) and concerns about
changes that may make biking in the area more uncomfortable. City staff had responded to a
similar request in February 2026 and is including that response below.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES AT GRAND AVENUE AT ALLAN DRIVE:
The crossing for multimodal traffic (pedestrians and bicycles) at Grand Avenue and Allan Drive
is proposed to be reconfigured to better align the crossing to meet Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements for accessibility within the right of way. The crossing is being moved
further to the west and will be aligned closer to 90 degrees. This is necessary to shorten the
crossing and meet the required design slopes for an accessible pedestrian crossing. In the
image below, the existing, non-complaint crossing is illustrated in orange. The proposed
crossing is illustrated in blue.
FEBRUARY 2026 CORRESPONDENCE:
City staff was contacted in January 2026 by Carol Williams and Grant Olsen asking to review
proposed plans for the Grand Avenue path, specifically in the area of 5th Street/Allan Drive.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Administration 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Staff provided a copy of the proposed cross section, with the caveat that the project is still
under design and review and could be subject to change.
Mr. Olsen requested to implement a demonstration project that would restrict vehicular
movements at Allan Drive/5th Street connection from Grand Avenue in subsequent
communication. Staff reviewed the request and declined to include the demonstration project
as part of the project.
City Council members were provided with a copy of the email correspondence and a brief
summary prepared by the Public Works Director. The text of that email correspondence is
attached.
ATTACHMENT
Good morning Bronwyn!
The email correspondence between Mr. Olsen and others and Mark Gansen from our
Traffic Engineering staff is below in italics. Here is a brief summary:
The City was contacted about the shared use path expansion project along Grand
Avenue, and in particular the crossing at Allan Drive. Staff provided working drawings
which had been designed and engineered to meet requirements for ADA accessibility
in the public right of way. In particular, to the point in Mr. Olsen’s email below, the
proposed crossing at Allan Drive has been moved farther back from Grand Avenue and
is a 90 degree crossing for a number of reasons. It removes the required change in
direction in the middle of the current crossing, it shortens the crossing length which
makes for a much safer crossing, and allows the required design slopes to be achieved,
which were non-complaint in the existing configuration.
From a technical and engineering standpoint, the crossing is in the most appropriate
location to meet the competing needs for bus turning movements, emergency vehicle
access, and pedestrian/bicycle safety. I would disagree with the assertion that the
design goes against the spirit of the Walk Bike Roll Ames plan. This design is fully in
alignment with making safer crossings at high stress locations, which aligns with the first
stated goal of “Safe and Comfortable” in the Walk Bike Roll Ames plan. While I can
certainly understand the 90-degree turn as not being as convenient for a user, it is
necessary for safety and to meet the required slopes for ADA. Safety should always be
the priority over convenience.
Lastly, regarding the proposed demonstration project, staff did review the option and did
not believe it was a viable alternative to the project design of extending the shared use
path along the corridor. To the contrary, it suggested closing down street access, which
in turn limited vehicular, and emergency response vehicle movements off of a major
arterial street and mixed vehicular traffic with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The mixing
of the modes of transportation with the continued bus traffic in staff’s technical view
would not create a safer corridor.
For demonstration projects in general, they have a place where it makes sense to utilize
them. Typically, those are in areas or at times where proven engineering solutions
either do not meet the goals we are trying to achieve, or the current standard don’t really
exist to solve the problem. When these demonstration projects propose solutions that
are novel, staff needs to ensure that the treatments don’t create a false sense of safety
for users of the project and that all potential liability issues are vetted. This is one of the
reasons we look to proven engineering standards and methods to solve
problems. When solutions don’t exist within those standards, demonstration projects
are a way to find an answer that may exist outside of conventional methods.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions!
Justin
From:Gansen,Mark
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:33 AM
To: 'Grant Olsen' <radioemergency@gmail.com>
Cc: Carol Williams <carolbwilliams@gmail.com>; Pregitzer, Damion
<Damion.Pregitzer@cityofames.org>; Bernard Lidicky <bernard@alderan.cz>;
Victoria Blumen <veblumen@gmail.com>; Jeri Neal
<leopold.ecology@gmail.com>; Jeremy Withers <jeremyrwithers@gmail.com>;
Steven Libbey <slibbey@netins.net>
Subject: RE: Grand Shared Use Path
Hi Grant,
Thank you for sharing the additional thoughts and the proposed demonstration concept.
At this point, City departments have already provided input supporting maintaining the
Grand connection in both directions. Due to the space required for CyRide buses to
maneuver at Grand, southbound right-turn movements would still be expected
regardless of signage or a temporary one-way treatment. In addition, driver expectancy
is a concern, particularly given the proximity to a DOT highway, where inconsistent or
non-standard operations can introduce safety issues.
With the current design, we are able to preserve the important Allan Drive / 5th Street
connection to Main Street while addressing safety through geometric modifications that
reduce conflict points and improve visibility. Given these considerations, a one-way or
pilot configuration is not something we are planning to pursue.
We appreciate the input and interest in improving safety at this location as the design
continues to advance.
Thanks,
Mark Gansen, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
Public Works
City Hall, 515 Clark Ave. | Ames, IA 50010
515.239.5291 direct
515.239.5160 main
515.239.5404 fax
mark.gansen@cityofames.org
Mailing: 515 Clark Ave. | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Help make the City of Ames better!
Download the Ames on the Go app today!
From: Grant Olsen <radioemergency@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:34 PM
To: Gansen, Mark <Mark.Gansen@cityofames.org>
Cc: Carol Williams <carolbwilliams@gmail.com>; Pregitzer, Damion
<Damion.Pregitzer@cityofames.org>; Bernard Lidicky <bernard@alderan.cz>; Victoria
Blumen <veblumen@gmail.com>; Jeri Neal <leopold.ecology@gmail.com>; Jeremy
Withers <jeremyrwithers@gmail.com>; Steven Libbey <slibbey@netins.net>
Subject: Re: Grand Shared Use Path
[External Email]
A full closure is not necessary to reduce conflict points and blind spots.
I propose a month-long test during May 2026 of this one-way concept (minus the
bioswales) to allow all of us to observe actual outcomes in alignment with the city value
"Data Driven".
This demonstration project could be completed in-house with flex posts, a few concrete
barriers for the mode filter, and standard street signs.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 12:52 PM Gansen, Mark <Mark.Gansen@cityofames.org>
wrote:
Hi Carol,
The closure was considered by the various City Departments and there were enough
concerns to prevent the closure from moving forward. I do know that Police and CyRide
had the biggest concerns due to their current operations.
Thanks!
Mark Gansen, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
Public Works
City Hall, 515 Clark Ave. | Ames, IA 50010
515.239.5291 direct
515.239.5160 main
515.239.5404 fax
mark.gansen@cityofames.org
Mailing: 515 Clark Ave. | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Help make the City of Ames better!
Download the Ames on the Go app today!
From: Carol Williams <carolbwilliams@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:31 PM
To: Gansen, Mark <Mark.Gansen@cityofames.org>
Cc: Pregitzer, Damion <Damion.Pregitzer@cityofames.org>; Bernard Lidicky
<bernard@alderan.cz>; Victoria Blumen <veblumen@gmail.com>; Jeri Neal
<leopold.ecology@gmail.com>; Jeremy Withers <jeremyrwithers@gmail.com>;
Steven Libbey <slibbey@netins.net>; Grant Olsen <radioemergency@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Grand Shared Use Path
[External Email]
Mark, a couple questions.
When you write "was determined that the road connection is too significant and routing
everyone to 6th Street would be too impactful" I am wondering;
1. Who determined that? (city staff or consultant)
2. What was used to determine the impact? (Were cars counted? Businesses
surveyed?)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 10:17 AM Gansen, Mark <Mark.Gansen@cityofames.org> wrote:
Hi Carol,
Here is the current design sheet that has some comments I made for our design
consultant:
While these plans are not finalized yet, our options at this intersection are extremely
limited due to grades. I did propose closing the intersection to eliminate any conflicts
between path users and vehicles; however, it was determined that the road connection
is too significant and routing everyone to 6th Street would be too impactful. We do show
a significant tightening of the SB RT radius which should help things.
Thanks,
Mark Gansen, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
Public Works
City Hall, 515 Clark Ave. | Ames, IA 50010
515.239.5291 direct
515.239.5160 main
515.239.5404 fax
mark.gansen@cityofames.org
Mailing: 515 Clark Ave. | Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Help make the City of Ames better!
Download the Ames on the Go app today!
From: Carol Williams <carolbwilliams@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:11 AM
To: Gansen, Mark <Mark.Gansen@cityofames.org>; Pregitzer, Damion
<Damion.Pregitzer@cityofames.org>
Cc: bernard@alderan.cz; veblumen@gmail.com; leopold.ecology@gmail.com;
jeremyrwithers@gmail.com; Steven Libbey <slibbey@netins.net>; Grant Olsen
<radioemergency@gmail.com>
Subject: Grand Shared Use Path
[External Email]
Good Morning and Happy New Year,
I am wondering if there are plans drawn for the Grand Avenue shared use path from
Lincolnway to 6th? Specifically, the area at Grand, Allen, and Fifth Street?
If so, would it be possible to share?
Thanks,
Carol Williams
628 8th Street, Ames
515-520-7197
Carol Williams
628 8th Street, Ames, Iowa 50010
515-520-7197
Justin A. Clausen, PE, CPWP-M
Director of Public Works
515 Clark Ave | Ames, IA 50010
515.239.5165 office
justin.clausen@cityofames.org
www.CityofAmes.org
Help make the City of Ames even better!
Download the Ames on the Go app today!
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Lincoln Way Corridor Study Expansion
BACKGROUND:
At the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting, a request was made by Mayor Haila to
explore the possibility of expanding the Lincoln Way Corridor study to include the area
between Grand Avenue and University Boulevard. This request was in response to a
staff presentation following a fatal pedestrian crash at Lincoln Way and South Russell.
EXISTING STUDY:
The existing study includes the Lincoln Way corridor from Grand Avenue to Duff
Avenue. This study was approved by the City Council on June 23, 2026 in the amount
of $125,000. The funding included a combination of Ames Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (AAMPO) federal planning funds and a local match of Road-Use Tax
funding. Because this project included those federal planning funds, a rigid federal
procurement process was utilized to select a consultant for the work.
ADDITIONAL STUDY AREA:
A quote to add the corridor from Grand Avenue to University Boulevard is expected to
cost $116,500. Because of the federal procurement processes, staff does not believe
the additional area can be added to the existing study and instead a separate
agreement would be necessary. Staff would support utilizing the same consultant so
that coordination of the work would be simpler and provide more consistent analysis
and results. This study would also include a review of lighting standards as requested
by the City Council. Funding for the study is identified in the available balance of the
Accessibility Enhancements Program in the CIP.
STAFF COMMENTS:
If the City Council desires to move forward with the additional study area, staff
recommends placing this item on a future agenda to consider a professional service
agreement for the additional study of Lincoln Way from Grand Avenue to University
Boulevard.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave.
Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
MEMO
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Justin Clausen, Public Works Director
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Request from Steve Bock - 203 Campus Avenue Sewer Claim
At the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council referred a request
from Steve Bock to staff for a memo (Attachment 1). The request relates to a
property owned by Mr. Bock at 203 Campus Avenue, which experienced a
sanitary sewer backup in 2024. Mr. Bock is requesting reimbursement for his
expenses relating to the backup, which total $9,422.12.
BACKGROUND:
The property at 203 Campus Avenue has a sanitary sewer service line that
extends from the south side of the property to the southeast, where it connects
to a north/south sanitary sewer main in the intersection of West Street and
Campus Avenue. Approximately 10-15 feet before the service lateral empties
into the sanitary sewer main, it crosses above two storm sewer mains (see site
sketch on following page).
City records indicate the service line is made of clay tile and is original to the
1920 construction of the building. In 1980, a broken portion of the service line
was replaced with cast iron and connected with neoprene couplers. Throughout
the City, service laterals are the property of the customer rather than the utility’s
responsibility to own and maintain.
In 2016, the City contracted with Con-Struct to complete a project on West
Street to replace utility lines and street pavement, including replacing the storm
sewer mains that cross under 203 Campus Avenue’s sanitary service line. City
staff does not have any record that describes the repair by Con-Struct to the
203 Campus Avenue service lateral during that project. No record of a replaced
service lateral exists in the as-built drawings for the 2016 project.
2
Site sketch.
Solid green lines – Sanitary sewer mains
Dashed green line – 203 Campus Ave. sanitary sewer service lateral
Brown lines – Storm sewer mains
In 2024, a sanitary sewer backup occurred at 203 Campus Ave. Mr. Bock hired
Draintech to investigate the issue. Dye testing was also performed, which
resulted in dye entering the storm sewer system and appearing in a nearby
creek. Draintech televised a nearby storm sewer main and determined the storm
sewer had collapsed, and that this collapse was related to the damaged sanitary
lateral.
Draintech contacted Public Works Operations staff about the concern of a
collapsed storm sewer. Operations staff televised the same lines to
determine the cause of the issue and found no damaged storm sewer pipe
in the vicinity of the sanitary lateral. Staff presented this information to
Draintech, who excavated the sanitary lateral and made repairs.
The original contractor hired to patch the street was unable to complete the
patching until a later time, which would have affected traffic during an ISU home
football game weekend. This delay was not known until the excavation had
already begun. To expedite the repair, Public Works staff participated in the
replacement of the street pavement at no cost to Mr. Bock instead.
3
Mr. Bock ultimately filed a claim with the City for the backup, which was turned
over to ICAP to investigate. In January 2026, ICAP denied the claim under the
rationale that Iowa law provides immunity for claims against cities on the basis
of alleged negligent design, specification, or construction of a public
improvement.
STAFF INVESTIGATION:
Following the denial by ICAP, Mr. Bock requested that the City staff reconsider
the decision and pay the claim. In June, the City Attorney reviewed ICAP’s
decision and agreed with the conclusion that under Iowa law, the City is not
liable for the claim. Staff further investigated the situation to determine whether
there was evidence of a failure of City infrastructure that would have caused the
damage, regardless of the City’s legal exemption from liability.
Shortly after the failure of the sanitary service line and Draintech’s televising of
the storm sewer main in 2024, City staff televised three storm sewer mains: the
two storm sewer mains that cross the sanitary sewer service and the storm
sewer main heading the opposite direction from the sanitary sewer service line
(intersecting at manhole STMH03946 on the site sketch above).
Mr. Bock contacted Public Works prior to initiating a claim with the City in June
2025 alleging that the collapsed storm sewer had caused the damage. City staff
again televised the storm sewer segments to ensure that decisions were made
based on the most accurate information. The storm sewer pipe was found to
still be in good condition consistent with the 2024 televising information.
Although Draintech’s televising concluded that one of the storm sewer
mains that cross the sanitary service lateral had collapsed, City staff’s
televising showed: 1) those two storm sewer mains to be in good
condition, and 2) the storm sewer main heading the opposite direction of
the sanitary sewer service line had collapsed instead and was at least 50
feet away in an different storm sewer pipe. Staff’s conclusion from this
result is that Draintech’s video of a collapsed storm sewer main must have
been of an older line that travels in a different direction and does not cross
the 203 Campus Avenue sanitary sewer lateral.
4
Images from the storm sewer line televising performed by City staff showing the
pipe in good condition where they cross under the sanitary lateral are below:
August 2024 storm sewer condition June 2025 storm sewer condition
Based on this information, staff did not believe there was a failure of City
infrastructure that would allow staff to authorize payment of Mr. Bock’s
claim. Staff provided this explanation to Mr. Bock on June 17, along with an
invitation to contact the City Council if he wished to appeal further (Attachment
2).
Mr. Bock responded and contended that the dye testing indicated a connection
between the storm sewer main and the failed sanitary sewer service
(Attachment 3). Mr. Bock also maintained that the service lateral had worked
properly for decades and had failed as a result of the City’s contractor’s work in
2016.
Staff reviewed these claims and provided a response to those two issues
(Attachment 4). First, regarding the dye testing, staff responded that the sanitary
service line is above the two storm sewer mains. The storm sewer piping is not
sealed but is instead designed with joints and openings that are intended to
allow for infiltration of groundwater adjacent to the pipe. These include holes
directly on the top of the pipe segments (pick holes) that allow each segment to
be lifted into place. These openings would easily allow dye from a broken
sanitary sewer service line to infiltrate the storm sewer system and appear in
the creek.
Regarding the allegation that the 2016 work caused damage, City staff
explained that in its experience, an improper connection or repair to a sanitary
service line that took place in 2016 would become apparent immediately, rather
5
than functioning properly for a decade before failing. Based on these facts, staff
again explained that the claim could not be approved at the staff level, and that
the decision to deny could be appealed to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
The City Council may choose to place this item on a future agenda for
discussion. The City Council may then consider whether to approve payment
of Mr. Bock’s claim. Any payment would need to be accompanied by a waiver
releasing the City from liability for any future claims that may arise relating to
this matter.
ATTACHMENT 1
7
ATTACHMENT 2
8
ATTACHMENT 3
9
ATTACHMENT 4
10
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Street Parking Concerns along Stonehaven Drive
BACKGROUND:
At the July 28, 2026, City Council meeting, the Council referred to staff a request from
Craig Sackett regarding street parking concerns along Stonehaven Drive.
The request described concerns regarding safely navigating the curve along
Stonehaven Drive and a request to further restrict on-street parking along the outside
curbline of the curve.
CURRENT ON-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS:
Parking restrictions currently exist along the north and west sides of Stonehaven Drive
as noted in Municipal Code section 18.31. With these restrictions, parking is prohibited
along the inside radius of the curve, which is consistent with standard practice for
restricting parking along curved streets. “No parking” signs are clearly visible on the
inside part of the curve.
Additionally, staff is authorized to install yellow paint on the curb up to five additional
feet from any driveway to assist users of those driveways with ingress and egress. The
outside portion of the curve also contains driveways on either end of the curve. These
driveways contain yellow paint on either side, further restricting on-street parking in the
area.
SAFETY ANALYSIS:
Staff pulled data from the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) Crash Analysis
Tool to further determine whether the crash history indicates a safety concern
associated with the curve. The data identified three property-damage-only crashes
during the past ten years. All three occurred west of the curve and do not indicate
a crash pattern associated with the area identified in the resident's request.
Staff also visited the area following the request to ascertain if any other sight triangle
issues or safety concerns exist that were not readily apparent. Staff did not identify any
additional concerns in the area.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The existing parking restrictions are in alignment with the Municipal Code,
standard industry practices, and have been augmented by the painted yellow
curb on the outside portion of the curve. A crash history review and a site
visibility review did not reveal any additional safety concerns.
The City Council may direct staff to add additional on-street parking restrictions on the
outside of the curve as requested by the requestor. This would require modifications to
the parking restrictions contained in section 18.31 of the Municipal Code and would
likely require yellow curb markings to delineate the restricted area.
Typically, the first step when considering additional on-street parking restrictions
is to survey surrounding residents to gauge neighborhood support for the
proposed change before preparing an ordinance to modify the parking restriction.
The image below shows the details of the existing parking restrictions and the request.
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Director of Public Works
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Parking Meter Enforcement Hours
BACKGROUND:
At the March 24, 2026, City Council meeting, the Council referred to staff a request from
Patty Yoder, Executive Director of Food at First, regarding downtown parking meter
enforcement near First Christian Church.
The request described parking challenges experienced by Food At First clients and
volunteers particularly in Lot N (west of First Christian Church, north of City Hall) during
food distribution periods and requested consideration of modifying the current parking
meter enforcement hours.
PARKING METER REGULATIONS:
Parking meter regulations are defined in the Municipal Code. Section 18.4 of the
Municipal Code establishes parking meter enforcement hours applicable to Lot N as
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except City holidays or as otherwise
provided.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Parking meter hours and regulations are intended to remain consistent throughout the
downtown parking system, providing users with predictable expectations regardless of
where they park.
The Council could choose to modify parking meter hours by directing staff to bring back
a modification to the Municipal Code for the Council’s consideration. The change could
be systemwide or lot-by-lot. A systemwide approach would continue to provide
uniformity and predictability across the downtown parking area. A lot-by-lot approach
would create different operating rules depending upon where a vehicle is parked and
could increase user confusion and enforcement complexity.
The impact of any timing change should be considered in the context of how the
metered parking is intended to provide turnover for business patrons and service
providers across the system. Additionally, any change would also result in
additional operational expenses due to the need to update parking signage and
rate plates inside of several hundred meters themselves plus the potential for
loss of revenue. While these changes may solve the immediate issue, they could
potentially lead to other, unintended issues.
The Council could alternatively direct staff to evaluate a permit or temporary hangtag
program for Food at First users. Such a program would require additional development
regarding eligibility, administration, permitted locations and times, enforcement, and
safeguards against misuse.
Alternatively, enforcement could be modified on a complaint basis only. This solution
presents challenges in the context of equitable enforcement and the potential for
appeals in other park enforcement circumstances.
While staff recognizes the difficulties described in the letter, small changes in the
parking system regulations can have significant impacts particularly in the
context of user expectations, enforcement, and expenses and revenues. It is
typically recommended that the parking system regulations be as standardized as
possible for users. Staff would recommend any changes that are considered
remain as consistent as possible for all users.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Administration 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
To: Mayor and Ames City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 25, 2026
Subject: Pedestrian Safety at Gray Avenue and Sunset Drive
BACKGROUND:
At the April 28, 2026 City Council Meeting, the Council referred to staff a request from Claire
Hosch for review of pedestrian and driver safety conditions at Gray Avenue and Sunset Drive.
The intersections in question are located south of Lincoln Way adjacent to high density college
fraternity/sorority housing. Gray Avenue and Sunset Drive have a curving roadway geometry
and the existing pedestrian crossings do not meet current standards for crossing location or
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) slope and elevation requirements.
Over the past ten years (2016-2026) there have been five crashes reported to the Iowa
Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Crash Analysis Tool database. The crash data
does not indicate a common crash pattern or an increasing trend in reported crashes.
Additionally, no pedestrian-involved crashes were reported during this period.
CITY RECONSTUCTION PROJECT:
The timing of the request coincides with a reconstruction project on Sunset Drive adjacent to
Gray Avenue that began in May 2026 and is anticipated to be completed in fall 2026. This
reconstruction is intended to upgrade underground utility infrastructure, reconstruct the street
pavement, and upgrade pedestrian crossings, bringing them up to current standards.
While the curving geometry of the roadway will remain, the project design already
included modifications to the pedestrian ramp locations prior to receipt of this request,
including the crossing along Sunset Drive near Gray Avenue identified by Ms. Hosch.
Pedestrian crossings and associated curb ramps are subject to specific ADA requirements
related to slope, elevation, and alignment. The crossing is being relocated further east to
meet those requirements, improve visibility, and place it closer to the eastern stop-
controlled intersection at Gray Avenue. Additionally, this will help improve the visibility
of the crossing and align it closer with the eastern stop-controlled intersection at Gray
Avenue as shown in Image 1 below.
MEMO
Public Works 515.239.5279 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Administration 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Image 1:
Existing pedestrian crossings are shown in orange. Relocated pedestrian crossing locations
are shown in blue and identified with red arrows.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The reconstruction project currently underway is already designed to address concerns
noted in the referral to staff from City Council. Staff recommends completing the
improvements currently under construction and evaluating their effectiveness before
considering additional modifications at this location.
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Justin Clausen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 14, 2026
Subject: North-South Railroad Quiet Zone
BACKGROUND:
At the August 25, 2026, City Council meeting, the Council referred to staff a request
from Scott Ripperger regarding a desire to silence the train whistles on the north-south
railroad line in Ames similar to the east-west railroad line.
QUIET ZONE DESIGNATION:
The east-west rail line is owned and operated by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
company and facilitates over 40 trains per day. This rail line is a primary east-west
transportation route across the United States for the UPRR.
The City worked with UPRR in the early 2000s to establish the existing east-west Quiet
Zone. That system utilizes supplemental safety improvements and wayside horns at
individual crossings rather than relying solely on locomotive-mounted horns. The Quiet
Zone was put into practice in 2010 following several years of study, funding, and
infrastructure improvements at crossings.
The Quiet Zone does not completely eliminate the use of the horns as the locomotive
engineer still has discretion in terms of emergency or safety to utilize the locomotive
horns to warn those in the area.
NORTH-SOUTH RAIL LINE
The north-south rail is also owned by and operated by the UPRR, however, this line
experiences on average fewer than four trains per day. This line primarily serves an
agricultural hub north of Ames and the number and frequency of trains tends to vary
with agricultural seasons.
To establish a Quiet Zone, the City would be required to demonstrate compliance with
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety requirements. The FRA evaluates the risk
associated with each crossing and the corridor as a whole. Supplemental safety
measures, such as raised medians or four-quadrant gate systems, may be necessary to
sufficiently reduce risk when routine locomotive horn sounding is eliminated.
There are six (6) crossings within the City along the north-south rail line. The table
below indicates the crossing locations, major challenges, potential solutions, and a
planning level cost estimate for the necessary improvement:
Crossing
Location Challenges Solution Planning Level
Estimate
9th Street Adjacent streets too close Four-Quadrant Gate $1,000,000
13th Street Multi lane street Four-Quadrant Gate $1,000,000
16th Street Adjacent streets too close Four-Quadrant Gate $1,000,000
20th Street Adjacent streets too close Four-Quadrant Gate $1,000,000
24th Street Multi lane street Four-Quadrant Gate $1,000,000
Bloomington
Road
Multi lane street but the
median helps
Median Improvements $250,000
TOTAL $5,250,000
Several crossings have adjacent intersections or driveways located too close to the
railroad tracks to accommodate lower-cost treatments such as raised medians. Other
crossings involve multilane streets where more extensive protection, such as four-
quadrant gates, would likely be necessary.
It is difficult to estimate costs for installation of four-quadrant gates. However, several
projects across the Midwest from the early 2020s saw prices around $700,000 for each
four-quadrant gate. Therefore, the estimates above provide an order of magnitude
which Council may consider for the project. Actual costs will depend on site-specific
railroad design.
STAFF COMMENTS:
In the early 2000s, when the east-west rail line Quiet Zone project was
implemented, the north-south rail line was also considered for a Quiet Zone.
However, there was no direction to move forward with the north-south line due to
high implementation costs.
As the table above indicates, cost remains a significant factor in order to implement a
Quiet Zone. While FRA grants exist to help with some of the costs, those grants are
competitive and are often awarded to projects that close a crossing or provide a grade
separation to eliminate any interaction between the modes of transportation. The
grants often have a local match as well and have traditionally been an 80/20 split
meaning for a $5,250,000 project, the City would need to fund 20% of the cost, or
$1,050,000.
Should the City Council desire to explore a north-south Quiet Zone in more detail,
it would be appropriate to retain a consultant to study the corridor in more detail
and produce a more detailed preliminary design and cost estimate. Staff
anticipates a study would likely cost several hundred thousand dollars to
implement and coordinate with the UPRR. Funding would need to be identified or
prioritized from existing programs in order to study the area.
Department of Planning & Housing
Memo
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kelly Diekmann, Planning and Housing Director
DATE: August 21th, 2026
SUBJECT: Request to Consider Annexation of a Manatts laydown area south of HWY 30
at the Dayton Interchange (1901 S Dayton)
Council received a letter from representatives of Manatts dated June 29th requesting the City
Council consider annexation of their property to continue with use of the property as a laydown
yard (See attached). The site abuts the City to the north and is accessed from South Dayton
(see location map).
The request was in response to a 2025 rezoning request to Story County to change
zoning for the site to allow permanent industrial use of a laydown area instead of its use
as temporary use. The temporary use approval has expired by County standards and
Manatts needed to either discontinue the use or receive a zone change to industrial to
make the use permanent.
The City of Ames provided comments to the Board of Supervisors noting the site abutted the
City and that joint planning of the area for annexation was part of the County’s Comprehensive
Plan when new development is proposed. The intent of the City comments regarding the
rezoning was to fulfill the vision for this area as a gateway to the City and have the area
developed with commercial uses rather than industrial. As a result, the Supervisors
deferred a final decision on the rezoning request until Manatts had approached the City about
a timeline for being annexed to the City, either immediately or at deferred date.
Manatts indicates that their desire is to continue with industrial use on the site
indefinitely and they have no plans for commercial. Manatts finds the laydown area
beneficial to their operations in relation to the quarry to the east, which has many years
of permitted use remaining. Long term, Story County and the City believe that the quarry
area may become public open space administered by Story County Conservation when the
mining operations ceases.
The purpose of annexation for Manatts is to ensure that the use would be approved
since they do not know if the County would approve the use indefinitely if there is no
plan for annexation. If no agreement on annexation is reached with the City, staff does
not know how the Supervisors would proceed regarding their rezoning request to the
County.
OPTIONS
Option 1-
Take no action on the landowner’s request to initiate an annexation. If the City has no interest
in the request the applicant can then proceed with their rezoning request to Story County.
Option 2-
Direct staff to evaluate options and consult with Manatts regarding conditions related to
annexation that may be beneficial to the City and still allow for the continued use of the
property as laydown area. This option could result in a minimum taxable valuation or payment
in lieu of taxes, use restrictions, site enhancements for landscaping and buffering, and/or a
sunset date to discontinue use. Staff would then provide a report to Council to determine
whether to initiate an annexation with or without any specific conditions for a pre-annexation
agreement.
Option 3-
Place the item on a future agenda for discussion regarding annexation as requested by
Manatts.
STAFF COMMENTS
Establishment of the use as a laydown yard was considered temporary by Story County at the
time it was approved in support of local road projects. The site is partially in the flood plain
with a limited area of approximately 10 acres used for the laydown yard. The laydown yard is
used for storage of materials and for temporary batch plant operations. No permanent facility
is planned.
The City has long held an interest in improving the image of the community at this southwest
gateway. Development north of the Hwy 30 has fulfilled this vision over the past 15 years.
Development opportunities to the south have been more limited and the former Cyclone Truck
stop site that is vacant has not been commercially redeveloped. The sites to the south of
Highway 30 have reasonably good visibility and regional access, but do not currently have
momentum to transition to commercial development with the surrounding quarry, laydown
yard, and vehicle storage/repair facility.
Ultimately, if Council agrees to annexation with no limits on future use, the area would likely
need a comprehensive plan amendment to industrial/employment to acknowledge the use
pattern of the area.
It should be noted that the owner of the former truck stop property has previously urged that
the Manatts site revert to open space and not a laydown yard to help market the site for
commercial. They recently indicated that if Manatts continues with industrial use they
feel that industrial zoning would be the best use for their site as well.
At this time staff believes that Option 2 is worth investigating over the next few months
to determined what is in the best interest of the City.
Location Map
Manatts
Laydown
Area
1
Hall, Renee
To:Hall, Renee
Subject:FW: Non-agenda Communication - FW: Annexation of 1901 South Dayton Avenue
From: Joel Mills <joelm@manatts.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 1:46 PM
To: Diekmann, Kelly <kelly.diekmann@cityofames.org>
Cc: Chris Sawin <chriss@manatts.com>; Mona Bond <monabond51@gmail.com>
Subject: Annexation of 1901 South Dayton Avenue
[External Email]
Mr. Kelly Diekmann,
Please accept this email and provide it to Ames City Council for their review of our annexation proposal.
Manatts has operated a laydown yard at 1901 South Dayton Avenue for approximately the past decade.
We respectfully request that the Ames City Council approve the annexation of this property, currently
located in Story County, into the City of Ames and designate it as industrial zoning.
This site enables Manatts to efficiently deploy portable asphalt and/or concrete production equipment.
The use of portable equipment at this location allows us to take full advantage of nearby natural
resources, including the Manatts-owned quarry to the east, which is operated by Hallett Materials.
Utilizing this yard for portable equipment reduces the need to transport materials over long distances,
improving efficiency and helping control costs.
We recognize that this annexation request represents a departure from the Ames Plan 2040. However, it
is important to note that the 1901 South Dayton Avenue site is identified in the Ames Plan 2040 “Existing
Land Use, 2019” map as industrial. We believe it is appropriate to reconsider the future land use
designation for areas south of Highway 30, given the long-standing industrial activity and available
natural resources in this corridor.
Currently, the Ames Future Land Use Map designates this property and surrounding areas as general
commercial and notes the adjacent quarry to the southeast. We respectfully request that this
designation be reevaluated by Ames City Council. Considering the quarry has and anticipated lifespan of
another 50+ years and the area’s consistent industrial use, it would be more appropriate to maintain
general commercial development north of Highway 30.
The 1901 South Dayton Avenue site allows Manatts to meet local infrastructure needs by utilizing locally
sourced materials, significantly reducing costs compared to transporting rock, concrete, or asphalt from
more distant locations. Manatts does not intend to construct permanent vertical structures at this site.
Instead, operations will continue using portable equipment, with stockpiles of recycled asphalt,
aggregate, and sand maintained year-round to support rapid production without delays associated with
material delivery.
2
Manatts has worked closely with Story County Conservation regarding the western portion of the
property. The existing timbered area will be preserved and designated within the Greenbelt District,
ensuring it remains undeveloped. The current yard size is sufficient for operational needs, and there are
no plans for yard expansion. Additionally, Manatts has collaborated with Story County Conservation to
select appropriate shrub species for planting along the north and east sides of the existing block wall to
enhance visual screening.
It is also important to note that this request is solely for annexation and does not include a request for
municipal utility extensions such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, or water service. As such, the City of
Ames would not incur costs to expand infrastructure to serve this property. The Ames Plan 2040 states
that “annexation of other areas may be justified due to readily available infrastructure.” We believe the
improvements made to the 1901 South Dayton Avenue site over the past decade position both Manatts
and the City of Ames to continue a strong partnership, enabling the efficient deployment of portable
equipment and supporting cost-effective paving projects.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joel Mills
Environmental Manager
641.501.1399 cell
641.522.9206 ext. 1239
manatts.com