Cedar Rapids City Council deploys the double tem-tem

This week’s Cedar Rapids City Council meeting was steeped in history.

For one thing, the council voted to table two measures that would have cleared the way for the Cedar Rapids County Club to build a large indoor tennis facility, add parking and reconfigure its driving range. The delay was due, in part, to concerns the plan isn’t compatible with the historic character of the Country Club Heights neighborhood and could jeopardize its potential status as an historic landmark.

Also, four members of the nine-member council recused themselves from discussing and voting on the measures, in what had to be the largest recusalpalooza in the city’s history. Mark it down.

Council member Marty Hoeger owns Ogden Adam Lumber, which has bid on country club projects in the past and hopes to bid on the proposed project. That’s a pretty clear conflict, given the possibility he could profit from the vote. Hoeger is also a country club member.

Mayor Pro-Tem Ann Poe, who lives in the Country Club Heights neighborhood was advised to recuse by City Attorney Vanessa Chavez, who said her status as a club neighbor makes her an “interested party.”

Council member Tyler Olson, who is a club member, and Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell, whose husband is a club member, also recused. Olson requested advice from the city Ethics Board, which recommended that Olson and O’Donnell recuse, even though it’s “not possible” to quantify how they might benefit financially from the club’s project. But they could receive “other consideration that is not otherwise a benefit or other consideration to the general public.”

That left the remaining five members to consider a rezoning request and vacating a street to make way for the project, led by Mayor Pro-Tem-Tem Dale Todd. That’s the rarely used two-tem configuration.

Several residents in or near County Club Heights expressed concerns about the project. They wondered how a hulking 35-foot-tall tennis facility would fit into their historic neighborhood. One homeowner described how her property had ties to the city’s founders before statehood. The project would mean removing some homes owned by the club. Others worried about storm water runoff, parking, lighting, traffic, etc.

The short-handed council shared many of those concerns, especially with how the tennis facility’s architecture would match the historic club and neighborhood. Renderings made it look like a warehouse.

So the council voted 3-2 tabled the measures while they wait for developers to address these concerns. “It just seems incomplete,” Council member Ashley Vanorney said.

The recused sat by quietly.

Hoeger was right to recuse. And I respect the Ethics Board and the city attorney for doing their jobs.

The council’s job is to debate and vote on stuff. I bet Poe’s neighbors want her to weigh in on issues affecting the neighborhood. Recommending recusal for the mayor and Olson due the potential for a nebulous “other consideration,” I think, sets a bad precedent. For a part-time council, the ethics system should be looking for ways to allow them to vote. Now reasons, or excuses, to duck votes may be plentiful.

“It is worrisome,” the mayor pro-tem-tem told our editorial board this week.

(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com