Around Maquoketa: Community Updates as of Dec 4.

Building Code: At the Dec 3 City Council meeting, the Council passed the third reading of an ordinance which adopts a building code for the City of Maquoketa. The third reading was changed in order to make it effective on July 1, 2002. The third reading passed on a 4-3 vote.

(Pictured to the right are several citizens who attended the Dec 3 Council meeting.  Some in the audience came to oppose the proposed rezoning of property at the corner of S Matteson and E Pleasant.  Most came to oppose that proposed adoption of a City building code.  The proposed rezoning failed, while the proposed building code ordinance passed.)

The change in the effective date is meant to allow the Council more time to either work-out a formal arrangement with the City of Asbury on the shared use of a building inspector or find some other method of staffing and paying for the position if an arrangement with Asbury can't be achieved.

Two Council members who voted for the code, Tom Schueller and John Cressey, stated that, if the City could not find a way to finance the hiring of a building inspector before the effective date of July 1, they would be the first to make motions to rescind the ordinance passed on Dec 3.

The July 1, 2002 effective date resulted from a meeting at the Asbury City Hall between the City Council's Municipal Enterprises Committee and representatives of the City of Asbury on Nov 28. Maquoketa and Asbury have previously discussed the possibility of sharing a building inspector on a 75% Maquoketa/25% Asbury cost-sharing basis. These numbers would then be adjusted at the end of each year to more closely reflect each town's true use of the inspector.

The Committee's goal was to see if the City of Asbury was willing to share the costs of the inspector to a greater extent. Since the second reading of the building code ordinance on Oct 15, the Council has discussed trying to find a way to finance the building inspector department in a way that would not involve property taxes.

Before going to the meeting in Asbury, city hall staff from Maquoketa set up a comparison of actual building permit experience from both communities for the 2000 Calendar Year. City staff then applied Maquoketa's current building permit fee structure to each town's experience in 2000. A division of the combined experience of both towns showed that, in 2000, 60% of the revenue from inspection activities would have come from Maquoketa and 40% would have come from Asbury. This is significantly different than the 75/25 split that was envisioned earlier.

On Nov 28, the representatives from Asbury told Maquoketa's Committee that their town has not yet approved its own version of a building code ordinance and had not developed any plans as far as a new building permit fee structure or a job description for an inspector. They also stated that, as a committee, they could not commit their city government to any agreements on that night.

On Nov 30, the Committee met again in Maquoketa. It decided to recommend to the Council on Dec 3 to pass the third reading of the ordinance with the July 1, 2002 effective date. The time between now and July 1 can be used to allow Asbury to develop its ordinance. The extra time can also be used to develop a formal joint agreement between the two communities and hire a building inspector. If an arrangement cannot be reached, the Maquoketa Council could also vote to rescind its new building code ordinance before its July 1, 2002 effective date.

The City's Tax Exemption Program for Property Improvement: The City's urban revitalization ordinance is under consideration for modification. This ordinance sets up a program with tax exemptions for residential and commercial properties if the properties' taxable values are increased by 40%.

While the State law allows this program to set minimum levels of improvement as low as 10% for residential and 15% for nonresidential property, the City's current ordinance sets the minimum level of increase in taxable value at 40% for both residential and commercial property. The City's plan offers the applicant a choice between a 3-year, 100% tax exemption on the new taxable value or a graduated tax exemption over a 10-year period.

After working with our urban revitalization program for 2 years, the Council is looking at modifying the program to address the main concern that the program is a "rich guy's" program because new homes and other new construction are the only types of projects that seem to qualify. The Council is interested in lowering the 40% requirement in order to allow some of the older homes in the City a chance to qualify for the program if they are improved in some way.

The Council's Finance Committee has discussed changing the current program. The Committee is currently waiting for legal advice as to how that City can proceed with some of the options that the Committee has identified.

Cable TV and Channel 22. Mediacom, the local cable TV provider for Maquoketa, has finished an upgrade of its system. The company refers to the upgraded system as the "state of the art." The system has a new fiber backbone and receives programming from the Mediacom headend in Clinton, IA. A new channel line-up was launched on Nov 30 which included several new networks on what was the "expanded basic tier" along with several new channels is the subscriber chooses to select digital service.

One consequence of the upgrade was the shifting of the City's "public-educational-governmental" channel, Channel 22, to Channel 99. The City will operate Channel 99 as a governmental programming channel. For example, broadcasts of City Council meetings will be on this channel.

Also as a part of the upgrade, the City received a new channel for its use. Channel 37 will be used as a Community Channel for community/public access programming. The City's Cable TV Commission may also experiment with the sale of classified advertising space on Channel 37.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Project. Bids were opened on Nov 29 for a project to renovate the wastewater treatment plant. The projected project cost was $2.2 million. The low bid came in at about $2.5 million, including recommended alternates.

The project is to expand the capacity of the plant and change its treatment process to a more predictable, stable, and more economical method of operation.

The City plans to fund the project with a $600,000 grant from the State and a $2 million State Revolving Loan (SRF) from the DNR. The interest rate on the loan is expected to be 3%.

The City is working with the State on a loan payment structure that would allow us to have payments of no more than $98,000 per year for the first 15 years and payments of about $219,000 over the last 7 years.

This payment structure should allow the City to use the combination of annual revenue from the local option sales tax and old/current debt being replaced by new debt as old debt is retired to pay for the renovation project without raising the City's sewer rates.

ATV/Motorcycle Track: It appears that the chances of an ATV/Motorcycle Track that was being considered for a city-owned site at the end of Birch Drive are more dim than they were one or two months ago. An appraisal of the site's 21 acres came in at about $33,700. The total number of acres was significantly more than previously estimated. Gary Kleppe, the possible buyer of the site, has made a counteroffer at a significantly lower price. The Council's Finance Committee will consider this offer later this month.

In the meantime, the developers of the proposed track are still holding out the possibility that they may apply, once again, to the County's Zoning Board for a special exception that would allow the track to operate on a site that is just south of the City Limits and along Old Highway 61.

Generac Drive and Lary Court. At the November 19 City Council meeting, two new streets, Generac Drive and Lary Court, were officially accepted as City Streets. Both streets are located in the new Highway 61 Industrial Park and abut the Generac Power Systems property. The maintenance of the streets is now the responsibility of the City.

East Half and West Half At-Large Council Seats. As of now, the City will no longer officially refer to itself as having an East and West Half At-Large City Council Wards.

When the City had to re-apportion its 5 Council Wards and 2 At-Large wards due to the results of the 2000 Census, a new ward plan had to be drawn up and submitted to the Iowa Secretary of State's Office. The City was then contacted by the Secretary of State's Office. That office told us that Iowa law doesn't support the concept of "super wards" being mixed with smaller wards.

The City was advised, however, that it could have 5 wards and 2 At-Large Council members if they were elected from throughout the town, rather than by 1/2 of the town.

A review of previous City Council minutes showed that, prior to 1964, the City had a mayor and 6 council members. In the election in Nov 1963, an East Half At-Large member was added on Jan 1, 1964. A West Half council seat was added later.

In 1973, the Council adopted a new ordinance and went to 5 wards and 2 at-large members, but apparently, although the City changed its system on the books, it didn't change the way that it did elections.

The solution, according to the Sec of State's office, is to have the Council amend the City's redistricting plan and accompanying ordinance to delete their references to the East and West Half At-Large seats.

Since the current East and West Half seats held by Tim Chapin and John Cressey, respectively, were elected at-large across the whole City, the City Attorney, after consulting with an attorney from the Iowa Attorney General's office, believes that no new elections for these seats are required.