Ames council halts further consideration of airport solar project after land-use, timing concerns

The City Council of the City of Ames on May 26 voted to discontinue further consideration of a proposed utility-scale solar array at the Ames Municipal Airport after a heated public discussion and developer briefing.

The proposal, advanced in a lease-option agreement approved last week, aimed to site up to a 24.9-megawatt (MW) solar farm on airport land to supply renewable energy to the city. City staff told the council that preliminary engineering by the developer indicated the parcels originally identified — about 80 acres — were not economically viable and that adding a 53-acre parcel currently leased to John Deere would be necessary to make the project work.

Eric Bergstrom, representing the developer (Recall Strategies / Ames Greenfield Development Company), told the council the project would likely be a roughly $50 million investment and that, without inclusion of the John Deere parcel, the economics were “far enough out of market that we cannot proceed at this point in time.” He said the developer needed to start construction work before the federal safe-harbor deadline of July 3, 2026, to qualify for tax credits that materially affect project pricing.

Public commenters and climate advocates urged the council to move quickly. Caitlin Leanne, a member of the Ames Climate Action Team, said the city is behind on its climate goals and argued that “time is really of the essence” and that failing to act would look like the city prioritized private interests over community benefits.

Staff clarified legal and lease constraints: the 53-acre John Deere parcel is under a ten-year lease (begun about 2019) with several extension options and a 360-day cancellation notice. According to staff, the city had not yet had direct discussions with John Deere about shifting the lease area.

Council members cited competing priorities. Councilmember Bronwyn said she did not “feel like we are in a good position to be making a decision so quickly here,” adding that it would be inappropriate to commit land subject to a mid-term lease without first discussing options with the tenant. Others noted the sharp cost impacts if the project proceeded without the tax-credit safe harbor: staff estimated that excluding the additional land could raise project energy costs roughly 25%, and losing the federal tax-credit safe harbor could add another ~30%, creating a roughly 50–55% increase over the developer’s original price assumptions.

After deliberation a motion to discontinue further consideration (alternative 4 as listed in the staff packet) passed on roll call with five affirmative votes.

The council’s vote does not permanently foreclose solar at the airport; staff and council members suggested using the interval to better plan, engage key stakeholders (including John Deere), and identify alternative sites or schedules that preserve the city’s options while protecting ratepayers from severe cost escalation. The developer requested that the council reconsider availability of the John Deere parcel; staff said they had not yet contacted John Deere and noted the lease terms provide a 360-day notice option.

Next steps identified by council members included more robust outreach to the tenant (John Deere), additional analysis of alternative municipal sites (staff noted wastewater treatment site was considered but found problematic), and further work to position the city to act if comparable incentives return in the future.

Outcome: Council approved discontinuing further consideration of the proposed airport solar project (motion passed by roll call).