Kentucky Overpass (at ICE Tracks)

From the Globe Gazette Editorial on Sunday, April 26, 2009, “No wonder City Councilman Scott Tornquist hesitated so long Tuesday before casting a vote in favor of Mason City spending federal stimulus money to erect an overpass at the Kentucky Avenue railroad crossing”.

I did NOT vote to spend any money on an overpass at Kentucky. I did cast the deciding vote to forward the potential project to Congressman Latham’s office for consideration, and to commence meaningful community dialogue on the validity of the concept. Background follows to put the discussion we had in proper context.

Towards the end of the council meeting on Tuesday, April 7th, Councilman Weaver asked a number of good questions regarding the status of federal stimulus funds available, and what our short list was for potential projects as funding sources became available. The response Weaver received was at best, weak. Weaver then put forward a couple of ideas, including an overpass at Kentucky.

I expressed reservation with an overpass at Kentucky, and went on to say that I’d never support such a project without significant input from the neighborhood and the community. Up until that moment in time we had never had any discussion (that I recall) regarding an overpass at Kentucky. I further suggested that with no workshops scheduled in April, we should take advantage of a slower month and schedule a workshop to discuss potential projects appropriate for federal stimulus funding. On Friday, April 10th, I emailed the city administrator a list of nine items that I felt would be appropriate for workshop discussions in the near future. This list included a review of the Comprehensive Plan for development of a strategy to bring the plan to life.

When I picked up my council packet on Friday, April 17th, I learned for the first time that we would be asked to support one of eight projects listed in the memo to council (Item 30 of the packet) for submission to Congressman Latham’s office. Applications were due Wednesday, April 22nd, the day after the regularly scheduled council meeting for the 21st. The cover memo identified $1.3MM in city funding available to support the chosen project in FY 2011 or 2012. At the council meeting we were informed the submitted project had to be a new initiative.

So, going into the meeting last Tuesday we were pretty much flying by the seat of our pants. Though I have not seen a tape of the meeting, I believe I expressed my position fairly clearly:
1). The federal stimulus money was a good deal if applied to a project the community needs; it is wasteful spending if we simply create an unneeded project to capture the federal funding
2). I am of the opinion funding should be spent on a project that will create opportunities for additional growth and development (residual private capital investment) in the community
3). An overpass at Kentucky would not, in my opinion create incremental opportunities for subsequent growth
4). I would not support an additional overpass without significant input from the people on Kentucky that would be directly impacted, as well as the community at large regarding the cost/benefit
5). I felt a better solution to the Kentucky crossing issues was to extend Illinois south, and 19th east, creating a new at grade crossing at S. Illinois, and opening up a new area for residential development. We could create a residential TIF district in this area, and use incremental proceeds to deal with remaining issues at Kentucky in the future. This would further benefit traffic patterns in the Stone Pillar neighborhood, and move some of the high school traffic from residential neighborhoods to arterial streets.
6). Realizing I have twice failed to move this concept forward, my personal preference was for the Roosevelt extension, as it was the one item on the list that created the greatest opportunity for residual investment following the project.

Moments later the Mayor asked for a motion. A motion was made and seconded to submit the Kentucky overpass as the chosen project. I was the final councilman polled: when it came time for me to vote, we had three votes for the motion, and two against. So, the motion hinged on my vote (a 3-3 tie is a failure of the motion). I took about 10 seconds to process my thoughts, and in that time reached the following conclusions:
a). If I voted no, the concept was for all intents dead, as we cannot accomplish such a project without federal funding.
b). Not knowing how the community felt about the project, a “yes” vote created an opportunity for community dialogue that could impact the ultimate decision. A “no” vote would also generate community discussion, but not in a manner that could impact decision making as the decision would have already been made (to kill the project).
c). A “yes” vote was reversible (there are still many opportunities to kill the project if that is the will of the community); a “no” vote was not reversible (the submission was due the next day).
d). I realized that if I voted “no”, we’d be there for another hour arguing over what project should or shouldn’t be submitted, and we still weren’t likely to have any more consensus. This had the potential to morph into a highly emotional and controversial meeting, and we have too many good things taking shape to let this become a negative diversion at this point in time.
e). Three votes supporting the motion had been recorded, signaling to me we had about as much support as I thought we could generate on any motion.

And so I voted “yes” in support of the motion, which I believe was the only intellectually responsible decision available to me based upon the information I had at the time. And this is where we have fallen short, as a council, and as a staff.

This council, like those that have come before us, has fallen into a trap of being reactive rather than proactive. If we were a responsible, visionary council, we would be spending time casting a five, ten, and twenty year vision for the community, and turning our Comprehensive Plan into an action list that can be traced through our five year CIP. Until we take that step, and actually start implementing a long term plan for the community, we will continue to drift as the wind blows. We do not, at this time, have a council composed of representatives that are willing to tackle this work. This task is long overdue; had we led in a timely manner, we would have been prepared for Item 30 on the last agenda with little need for discussion. Community pressure is needed to facilitate a change in attitude that will lead to creating a community poised to prosper.

Specific to the opportunity to submit a project to Congressman Latham’s office, staff really botched this one up. On April 22nd, the day following the meeting, I learned that our City Administrator received the request from Latham’s office on Thursday, April 9th. Why wasn’t a workshop scheduled for the week of 4/13 thru 4/17 so we could have discussed potential projects ahead of the council meeting on the 21st? The request I made for such a work session at the council meeting of the 7th was underscored by the opportunity that came from Latham’s office on the 9th. No discernable proactive steps were taken.

Then, on Thursday the 23rd I read in the Globe Gazette that city staff misunderstood the project guidelines communicated from Latham’s office. Wouldn’t you think if council was going to be pinned down as tight as we were we’d at least have an accurate understanding of the rules? I learned, by way of the newspaper (two days after the fact) that submitted projects didn’t have to be new initiatives. Do you think this information might have changed the council dialogue any? And isn’t it troubling that council members are receiving pertinent information from the newspaper? Is that the appropriate venue to post the council?

And so here we are, with one of my biggest concerns coming to pass. A project that may never come to fruition is circulating as a done deal, and misinformation is rampant. Last Thursday I suggested the Administrator schedule a community meeting to discuss the status of the proposed overpass at Kentucky, as well as the option and timing. We MUST hear from the people that would be most impacted, and from the community in general so we can evaluate the level of support for the project. I requested this meeting take place prior to the next council meeting. The sooner the better; the rumor mill is at full bore. (I’ve also requested a similar community meeting in May to discuss sidewalk locations associated with the Hwy 122 project scheduled to start next year).

There are many opportunities to kill the project, but at least we have it in the pipeline if it is indeed desired by the community. If the community doesn’t like the concept, we can withdraw our funding request. If we don’t make the federal cuts, the project will die for lack of funding. Even if we do get federal funding, I won’t support the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for any phase of the project (including preliminary engineering) if we have not had meaningful community dialogue.

As a council, and as a staff, we must continue looking for ways to enhance communication with the public. This latest “opportunity” feels a lot more like government doing “to the people” rather than “for the people”.

Scott Tornquist