HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - letter to Frank Davis on necessary actions / I
4
City of AMES, Iowa-'
JOHN R. KLAUS Public SaletY' 50010
City Attorney s ld9 (515) 232-6210
R. MICHAEL HAYES
SANDRA M. ZENK
Assistant City Attorneys
September 6 , 1979
Mr. Frank Davis, Jr.
Gamble, Riepe, Burt, Webster & Fletcher
2600 Ruan Center
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
In Re: Proposed 13th Street Extension
Ames, Iowa
Your File: 1-21?
Dear Frank:
As you asked in your letter of August 2, subject as above,, I
am writing to advise you of . the City actions which need to be
rescinded, and how I intend to dispose of them, with a view
to the disposition of Story County District court case No.
27859 and Iowa Supreme Court case No. 58522 .
The city actions which are no longer appropriate in view of
the agreement between the City and the Chicago and Northwestern
for a crossing are as follows :
1. A street "grade ordinance" enacted as ordinance No.
2513 on July 1, 1975. (copy enclosed) This ordinance
undoubtedly establishes a grade for 13th street that
is inconsistent with the underpass configuration now
agreed on for the crossing. I propose that this
ordinance will be - repealed and replaced by one that
accurately states the grade for 13th Street in respect
to the underpass crossing to be constructed.
2 . Resolution No. 75-106 , styled as "Resolution of Necessity" .
(copy attached) This is obviously not a "resolution of
necessity" within the meaning of Chapter 384. The caption
is traditional in Ames, however, for the resolutions its
Council enacts to declare its intent to exercise its
powers of eminent domainuith respect to some particular
lard. This resolution initiated the eminent domain pro-
ceedings that are the su'oject of cases No. 27859 and
58522 . I propose that the Ames City Council enact another i
resolution to repeal resolution No. 75-106 as unnecessary
_ � r,�� ,ilrti.li;- "�ttucntio '� :rir��l 'ndustry ulith Hospitality
I
Frank Davis, Jr. 2 September 6 , 1979
I
in view of the agreement that has now been achieved.
3. The Council voted passage on two out of the required three
occasions of an ordinance purporting to order the trans-
portation company to construct an overpass. On the third
occasion the proposed ordinance was tabled on my request
(copies of the minutes of the three meetings enclosed) .
There was, therefore, no ordinance enacted and at this
date it certainly could not be brought back from the
table. I, therefore, do not believe any action is
necessary to rescind what is, I believe, a "non-action" .
However, if you wish I will ask the Council to adopt a
resolution to expressly rescind whatever effect the two
passages of the proposed ordinance may have had.
As your files will show, Story County No. 27859 joins two
cl lims:
1. A petition for writ of injunction to halt condemna-
tion of right-of-way and to halt construction or any
entry onto the railroad right-of-way.
2. An appeal from the award of the compensation
commission.
Supreme Court No. 58522 is an application for permission to
take an interlocatory appeal from the refusal of the Story
County District Court tp grant the temporary injunction. ' I
believe that your dismissal with prejudice as you propose in
your letter of August 2 , combined with the repealing and
rescinding actions of the City Council I propose should, in
the light of the agreement (which we intend to record as soon
as we get a signed copy back) effectively dispose of the
debris from past skirmishes.
Very truly yours,
'711JI: n R. Klaus
Ci-.y Attorney
cc L. Fellinger
T.V. Sprenkel
A.O. Chantland
JR_:/dls
Encls.