Charles City Council looks at bonding to pay most of trail bridge replacement cost

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

A general obligation bond issue of about $1.5 million will be needed to pay off the Charley Western Recreation Trail Bridge replacement project, Charles City Council members learned at a workshop meeting Monday evening.

City Administrator Steven Diers said the cost of the bridge replacement will be about $1.75 million. The cost to demolish the previous structure, which was removed for safety reasons, was $325,000, making the project total about $2.075 million.

“To date we have grant funding of $329,000 in hand with potentially more forthcoming, and other funds added in that total $654,000 in total revenues,” Diers said. “This leaves a difference of $1,421,000.”

Diers estimated a property tax increase of about 36 cents per $1,000 of assessed taxable valuation would be required to pay the debt service on the bonds, but said that was based on current total city valuation.

A number of significant projects will likely be finished in the next couple of years, plus some previous projects that were receiving tax rebates will be ending the rebate period, so the taxable city valuation could be growing, Diers said.

An increase in total valuation would spread the debt service payments out more, potentially decreasing the cost to individual property owners.

The council will decide at the next regular meeting, Dec. 7, whether to set a public hearing on the sale of general obligation essential services bonds.

Diers said interest rates on GO bonds are about 2% now, and the city has relatively little other bonded debt and a very good bond rating.

Also at the council workshop meeting Monday, Realtors Dean Stewart and Veronica Litterer of Stewart Realty in Charles City, and Charles Chandler of Wrightwood Properties Inc. in Arlington, Virginia, all participating electronically, said a government client is interested in leasing a currently empty building in downtown Charles City, but it would require four reserved parking places for staff vehicles, in what is currently a public parking lot.

The government entity has not been identified, but the real estate agents said it would potentially also need up to 31 additional parking spots for visitors and clients, although those spots would not be reserved and there is ample public parking to meet that need.

Chandler said it would be a service agency, and its location would be a boon to downtown by occupying an empty building and by bringing additional staff and clients to the area who would also take advantage of restaurants, shops, banks, etc.

Litterer said the building would be purchased by a private owner then leased to the government agency, so the property would pay property taxes.

Diers said the city has historically not allowed reserving space in its public lots, and council member Jerry Joerger said if they allow reserved spaces for this entity, he could see other downtown businesses also asking for reserved spaces.

“It could be a real potential problem,” Joerger said.

Chandler said he hoped the council would treat this as a courtesy one government agency extends to another. Although the lease arrangement for the government agency would be with the building owner, the parking agreement would be with the city.

Council member DeLaine Freeseman said with the amount of parking available downtown there shouldn’t be a problem finding four spaces to park at any time, but Chandler said the proposal requires reserved spots and the agency won’t consider locating in downtown Charles City without them.

Council member Keith Starr said he would rather reserve four parking spots and have a downtown building occupied than an empty building.

The agency also requires a space large enough for a pickup pulling a trailer to park nearby, for the use by clients of the agency, although that doesn’t have to be as close as the staff vehicle parking.

The council is likely to consider the proposal at its next regular meeting Dec. 7. The council cannot take formal action at a workshop meeting.

City Council member Phillip Knighten said he would like to see a proposed written agreement before he makes a decision, and Chandler said he would work with Stewart and Litterer to come up with something.

Also at the meeting Monday:

• City Engineer John Fallis reported that the city’s share would be about $1.09 million for a Highway 18 state resurfacing project through Charles City next summer. The city has received $278,000 in SWAP funding and can use local option sales tax funding for the rest, Fallis said. Total project cost is about $3 million.

• The council heard a request from Tony Lessin to be allowed to connect with city sanitary sewer although he lives outside the city limits. City staff has already approved him connecting to the city water supply, but it requires council approval to connect to the sanitary sewer from an unincorporated area.

Council member Joerger said a better answer would be to annex the property into the city, but Lessin said if that was the only option he would forego the sewer connection and install a septic system.

• Discussed purchasing a truck for the city water department, and whether the city should buy for the established bid price negotiated by the state, buy from a local dealer, or seek actual bids.

Council member Freeseman said he had hoped a policy would have been decided after a similar situation with a recent Police Department vehicle purchase, and Joerger said in the future he would like to see bids.

Diers said it’s unlikely other dealers would be able to often beat the state price, which is based on the purchase of many vehicles from the same dealer.

• Discussed the demolition of structures at 806 N. Grand Ave. that the city acquired after it was determined to be a nuisance property, and also a home the city owns at 302 Shaw Ave., which is outside the city limits.

Diers said once the North Grand structures are demolished that lot could be offered for sale. He also said the Shaw Avenue home is structurally sound and that property could be put up for sale.

Or, he said, in a “food for thought” suggestion, the properties could be marketed together with the stipulation that the purchaser move the Shaw Avenue home to the North Grand lot.