Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.02.2001COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 2, 2001 4:30 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: Mayor Rooff, Anders, Jordan, Krizek, Murphy, Gronen, Getty, Berry. Moved by Jordan, seconded by Gronen that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Terry Poe-Buschkamp, Executive Director of Main Street Waterloo, reviewed the Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID). The district is bounded by Franklin Street from East Third to the Union Pacific Railroad across the river to Jefferson Street, along Jefferson to West Fifth to Washington Street, along Washington Street to West Third. The assessment program would be renewed from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2006. There is no increase in the levy, with the rate remaining at $2.75 per $1,000 assessed valuation for a period of five years. Ms. Buschkamp reported that Waterloo's $2.75 per $1,000 assessed valuation is the lowest in the state. It is estimated that $98,972 will be raised in FY 2002 from the SSMID. Ms. Buschkamp reported that to date Main Street Waterloo has retained petitions in excess of 25 percent of the parcel owners and 25 percent of the value within the district. Ms. Buschkamp stated that the value of the property in the SSMID has a total assessed value of $35,990,150, and the petitions contain over $9 million in assessed value. Ms. Buschkamp stated that there is concern that some of the assessed value would be lost with the Riverfront Renaissance Plan. Mayor Rooff stated that the SSW!) is a self-imposed tax that is used to promote the downtown area, and he does not believe the Riverfront Renaissance Plan will affect the district. Ms. Buschkamp reported she has only received one letter from a property owner stating they would not sign the petition. Ms. Buschkamp stated that there is some opposition to renewal of the SSMID for five years rather than the current two years. Bryan Nichols stated that he does not think it is fair that the SSMID can be renewed with support from only 25 percent of the property owners. Mr. Nichols asked how much percentage would they need to say they don't want it. Ms. Buschkamp stated that under State Code the city council cannot renew the SSMID if at least 40 percent of the downtown property owners sign a petition against it. Joe Vich spoke in favor of the SSMID. Mr. Vich stated that Main Street Waterloo was put in place a few years ago and has made and continues to make improvements. Mr. Vich stated that over the last two or three years, there have been a lot of improvements, and that the SSMID is critical for the survival of the Main Street program. Mr. Vich stated that Main Street wants to focus on efforts in the downtown and help with the Riverfront Renaissance Plan. Mr. Vich urged the council to vote for the SSMID. Chuck Orr stated that he owns three parcels in the downtown and is excited about the possibilities with the Riverfront Renaissance Plan, and we need to boast our support of Main Street with what is going on. Mr. Orr stated that Main Street is an unique entity, and they need the SSMID. Mr. Orr stated that he feels it is fiscal responsible to go with the five year renewal, and that Main Street's SSMID is the lowest in the state. The reestablishment of the SSMID will be on the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission agenda next week and will be forwarded to the council to set a date of hearing. Once the hearing is held, there is a 30 day waiting period to allow public input before the council can approve the SSMID. Fire Chief Frank Magsamen and Police Chief Tom Jennings reviewed the proposed revisions to the alarm monitoring sections for the Police and Fire Departments. Chief Magsamen stated that the proposed amendments to the Fire Department ordinance will change how fees are collected for the businesses license and monitoring fees, and that the Council Work Session January 2, 2001 Page 2 Dispatch Center will collect those fees. Chief Magsamen stated he is not recommending any changes to the false alarm fees for the Fire Department. The current fees are $175.00 for two to three false alarms, $250.00 for four to eight false alarms and $400.00 for ten or more false alarms. Chief Magsamen stated that the business owner would not be charged for alarms caused by smoke, but only failure to maintain the equipment. Chief Magsamen is recommending that monitoring of the alarms be transferred to the Dispatch Center, and that there is a $76.00 per year fee for a business to hook up to the Dispatch Center. Police Chief Tom Jennings stated that he is recommending the same amendment as the Fire Department except charging the false alarm fee when it is because of human error but not when it is an act of God. The new ordinance would charge a fee of $50.00 for the first false alarm and $75.00 for each subsequent false alarm. The new fee would only apply to alarms caused by careless use or employee mistake, not for malfunction due to telephone company repairs, lightning strikes or the equipment itself. Chief Jennings reported that the Police Department responded to 1,962 security alarms last year, and only 370 were false alarms caused by human error. Chief Jennings noted that this is not a revenue maker for the department, but it does help to recoup some of the city's costs. Joe Vich stated he wanted to compliment the Police Department. Mr. Vich stated that in the past 18 to 20 years the security systems have changed, with the devices far more complicated, and the likelihood of a business setting off a false alarm is high. Mr. Vich stated that the banks don't want the Police Department to think a call is just another false alarm, and he believes the banks have a responsibility. Mr. Vich stated the ordinance grants the alarm user two false alarms without a fee charge during the first fiscal year of use only, and he is concerned that it doesn't restart each year. Chief Jennings stated that he would not be opposed to allowing two free calls each year. Assistant City Attorney Sang-Ki Ilan stated that the free call could be recycled each fiscal year. Councilperson Getty recommended that the ordinance on tonight's agenda be tabled and the proposed changes be added and the ordinance be brought back to the council next week. With no further business before the council, it was moved by Getty, seconded by Jordan that the meeting be adjourned at 5:17 p.m. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Nancy Eckert City Clerk