The Ames City Council will vote Tuesday night on whether to grant Alliant Energy the power of eminent domain as part of a new 25-year natural gas contract. The proposal has sparked controversy, in part because such a transfer of power is a relatively new idea.

“Coming off a 25 year franchise, the law has just changed so much in the interim,” said Sheila Lundt, assistant city manager.

But controversy also stems from the way eminent domain has been misused across the country, allowing cities to seize private property to make way for shopping malls and big box stores.

“Unfortunately, it’s been used in some bad ways, and that’s gotten a lot of press,” said Scott Drzycimski, spokesperson for Interstate Power and Light. “People hear ‘eminent domain’ and they assume the worst.”

But Drzycimski said the way his company would use eminent domain is vastly different from these examples.

First, he said Alliant doesn’t want ownership of any property. It only wants to ensure it can access its underground lines. In the event of an eminent domain suit, the land would remain in possession of the property holder, available for use as long as safety of and access to the underground lines are maintained.

Second, he said the area of land to which Alliant needs access is very small.

“When we need land or we need to have access to our pipes, you’re talking about a matter of feet,” Drzycimski said.

Often, gas lines are in the space between the curb and the sidewalk — called the right-of-way. Such land is usually city property. But Drzycimski said that in older neighborhoods, cities sometimes ceded these strips of land to property owners, because cities could cut costs by transferring maintenance responsibilities to the residents.

This was the case, Drzycimski said, in the two instances in which the company has used eminent domain in the past.

“We had lines that went through what had been a right-of-way,” Drzycimski said. “The amount of money they wanted us to pay [for access to the property] was well above the market value.”

But if the company has only used eminent domain twice in its whole history, some question the need to explicitly give the power — especially when the company can approach the city for eminent domain on a case-by-case basis.

Lundt said these concerns have prompted the City Council to look at modifications to the contract.

Eminent domain rights could be granted for a short period, such as 5 years, after which the policy would be reevaluated.

Or the Council could implement an advise and consent clause — granting the company eminent domain rights, but requiring Alliant to get the Council’s final consent before exercising them.

“Several of the Council members feel that there should be some opportunity for residents to approach the Council about it,” Lundt said.

But Drzycimski said explicit rights are an important negotiation tool for the company, which can actually decrease the use of eminent domain, since property owners are more inclined to offer a fair price for an easement if they see that eminent domain is the “end game.”

For them, it’s all about negotiation.

“We’re willing to pay for [an easement],” Drzycimski said. “But we’re not willing to overpay for that access.”

So when faced with what it sees as an unreasonable offer, the company would prefer to let the court decide.

In the event of an eminent domain case, “there would be a public hearing and a court case,” Drzycimski said. “The court would determine what the fair price is.”