Despite a last-minute plea from city officials and developers behind the Linc redevelopment project, the Iowa Economic Development Authority Board today denied the city of Ames’ Iowa Reinvestment District Act application and rescinded its provisional approval that was granted in 2021.

In its decision, the board and IEDA staff cited several hurdles that prevented approval of the application.

The absence of a hotel feasibility study, the lack of funding detail that was needed and insufficient information to confirm the amount of retail is less than 50% of the total investment for all projects doomed the city’s application, despite several changes and revisions made since the city submitted its initial application in 2021. It was granted provisional approval for $10 million in June 2021.

Linc is a $150 million development along Lincoln Way between Kellogg and Clark avenues in Ames. The city has acquired more than  20 properties and cleared the site for the development, which would include a hotel, shopping and restaurants. A second phase would add apartments to the development.

Kelly Diekmann, the city of Ames’ director of planning and housing, attended the meeting and made a plea for the IEDA board to give the city more time.

“This is an important and transformative project for Ames as well as for the communities and counties north of the metro area,” he said. “We act as an economic hub for some of the smaller, medium sized communities in the counties there. We’re looking at an urban redevelopment project that really amplifies the existing downtown.”

Diekmann said the city has worked with the development team to complete the process necessary to get final application approval, and that the project “really cast a vision and there is great buy-in in the city.”

He said the city was seeking conditional approval to provide more time to complete the required components needed for final approval.

Chuck Winkleblack, the managing partner of the developer working with the city, took the blame for much of the delay in getting critical information to the board to get final approval.

“Regrettably, the ownership group, of which I am a part, has made some not great strategic decisions over the past three to four years as we were moving through this,” he said. “Our group tried to take on too much of this project ourselves and that proved to be a costly mistake.”

Winkleblack said new people were brought onto the team to move the project forward, but a development group out of Sioux Falls was unable to take on the project in 2024 because of its existing caseload. The decision was made to wait until 2025 to give the company time to clear its schedule, but in January its owner died unexpectedly. So  the decision was made to pivot and bring in a new development partner.

“So fast forward, we’ve got a new developer partner, a new team and we’re actively working with two hotel franchises,” Winkleblack said. “I think once the hotel piece is settled we believe it will come together very quickly.”

Despite their pleas, the IEDA board said they are restricted by state law from approving any Iowa Reinvestment District Act applications after July 1, 2025 because the program ends June 30, 2025. That does not give them enough time for Ames to compile the information that is required, have staff review it and then hold a special meeting for the board to approve the city’s application, staff and members of the board said.

Debi Durham, IEDA director, said denying Ames’ application “was not a decision I wanted to make.”

“Our culture is to find a path forward,” she said.

But it’s the right decision based on the information staff provided, Durham said.

“This is one of the hardest decisions I have ever made,” she said. “I don’t see a path forward. As much as I want to give a path forward I just don’t see it.”

Following lengthy discussion on what options the board had that included questions about whether it could table the decision to give the city more time, or whether it could approve the final application with conditions, the board voted to reject the application and rescind its provisional approval.

Board member Doug Boone also said it was a difficult decision, but one that left the board no choice.

“Numbers can be presented, but I don’t know the confidence will be there to say it fits the criteria, and checks the box … it’s not a practical next step, especially when we’re not dealing with what our heart wants,” he said. “We’re dealing with what the code says and what the rules are. What I’m hearing [from staff] is this has been a project that has had bumps in the road but the same bumps still seem to be there.”

Attempts to reach Diekmann and Winkleblack for comment on the board’s decision and the future of the project were unsuccessful.