Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council initiates large annexation application including Borgmeyer properties; staff to pursue developer agreement
Summary
The Ames City Council directed staff to pursue annexation of a large unincorporated area that includes the Borgmeyer properties and related tracts, and to begin drafting a developer agreement. Council considered three timing alternatives and selected the option to annex the larger area at once.
The Ames City Council voted to initiate annexation of a large portion of the city’s urban growth area that includes the Borgmeyer properties and other adjacent tracts, and directed staff to begin drafting a developer agreement related to that annexation.
City planning staff presented three alternatives for timing and composition of the annexation: a phased approach focused first on the Borgmeyer parcels; a single, comprehensive annexation that would include all identified properties at once; and a hybrid fast-tracked option. After discussion about potential “island” parcels, the status of prior agreements with the Irons subdivision and Ames Golf and Country Club, and the typical six-month processing timeline for annexations, the council selected the comprehensive option to bring the full area in at once if necessary.
Staff warned the council that voluntary annexation covenants with some existing property owners could still be changed by those owners, and that the city would need to complete owner outreach before the formal hearing process. Staff also noted technical constraints: the former “west yard” city property and the former coal yard were evaluated but found unsuitable for the proposed facility because of size, active electric utility plans for one site, and extensive historic landfill/dump material under the other site.
A member of the public who owns affected property, Mark Taylor, told council that prior annexation attempts had led to a unanimous city development board decision to reject an earlier proposal because the board found the application did not adequately account for financial hardship on nonconsenting landowners. Taylor urged the council to consider fairness and potential costs for rural landowners who would be required to connect to urban utilities in the future.
City staff responded that state law governs whether a property must connect to sanitary sewer based on distance to sewer lines, and that annexation itself does not automatically require immediate service hookups or force buyouts from rural water providers.
Council voted in favor of the single, comprehensive annexation approach and asked staff to begin outreach and prepare documentation and the developer agreement for future council review.
