Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alley Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances alley‑vacation measures after heated debate over CIP funding and access
Summary
Council considered multiple alley‑vacation measures and associated ordinances for downtown parcels; council and property owners debated whether earmarked CIP funds could be used to fence police parking and whether vacating alleys would impair business access. The council moved some items forward and scheduled others for further readings.
The Clinton City Council spent an extended portion of its meeting debating proposals to vacate portions of downtown alleys adjacent to several properties, with councilmembers and staff sparring over whether related fencing and parking improvements are consistent with the capital improvements program (CIP) approvals that originally funded ADA improvements.
Councilmember Kearns said vacating an alley so the police department could erect a fence felt premature because the CIP approval listed ADA accessibility and restroom improvements, not fencing; he urged returning the question to the council for explicit approval if the use changes. City staff and the chief responded that the funds had been earmarked, contracts were in place, and some work or materials were already procured; they said the proposed fence and parking improvements relate to previously approved CIP work tied to the annex acquisition.
Several property owners and a nearby resident, including Tom Thiessen, spoke in the meeting. Thiessen asked the council to consider selling the vacated strip to adjacent property owners at a low price to allow timely fencing and to avoid delaying contractors. Council members asked staff for maps and clarified that the proposed vacation would leave a through route for most businesses, with only a small segment gated for security. Staff said there would be swing gates, signage and controlled access to preserve general alley circulation.
Council debated procedural issues as well: a motion to waive two prior readings under Iowa Code section 380.3 failed because the required three‑quarters vote was not reached; as a result, some ordinance readings remained at second consideration and a third reading was scheduled for May 26. On one east–west‑alley ordinance the council proceeded to third consideration and adopted that ordinance on roll call. Council votes on related resolutions recorded dissent from Council member Kearns and Council member Lee on at least one alley vacation vote.
The council asked staff to circulate maps and underlying CIP approval emails so members could review whether the fencing and other intended uses fall within the originally approved CIP scope. The council did not adopt a blanket policy change to CIP procedures but signaled a need for future discussion of how CIP allocations should be managed and how leftover funds are reallocated.
Next steps: staff to email maps and CIP correspondence to council and to return with clarifying documentation before some vacation ordinances reach final adoption.
