Old Main - Byrne Ltr & MVM
TI-JE ClT'r 01-
.,
Cit.v !vlal1dger's Office
50 West nth Street
Dubuque, Iowa 5200]-4-864
(583) 589-4110 phone
(563) 589-4149 fax
ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org
~c/te-~
January 9, 2006
Bob Byrne and Cynthia Nelms-Byrne
198 Main Street
Dubuque, la 52001
Dear Bob and Cindy,
I received the attached email from you on January 2, 2006 regarding your
concerns about the Historic Old Main district. I will try to address each of your
concerns individually.
First you mention the businesses that have recently left or reduced in size in the
Historic Old Main district. As you may know, Dubuque Main Street Ltd. (DMSL)
monitors economic activity in downtown and maintains a database of figures
such as job growth, new businesses, building improvements and public
improvements made in downtown. The recent numbers provided by DMSL show
that as of December 31,2005 there were a total of 435 employers in downtown
and over 7,211 employees working in downtown. While there are shifts that occur
in businesses locating in or out of downtown, this is an increase from January 1,
2000 when 6,369 people were working in downtown. That does not mean I am
not concerned about the recent losses you mentioned. I know we need to be
aggressive retaining existing businesses and attracting new ones.
The city of Dubuque is trying to invest in the revitalization of downtown through a
number of avenues. The city has helped to partner on projects that have help to
bring about the significant revitalization that we see today. Public improvement
projects that have happened since 2000 include the expansion of one parking
ramp, the construction of a fourth parking ramp, surface parking lots at 3rd & Main
and 4th & Central, resurfacing of Main Street from 9th to 1 ih, the nearly $3 million
opening of Town Clock Plaza and streetscape amenities, Gateway improvements
at Locust and 1st Streets, 5th & Central Avenue, historic lights in Cable Car
Square, purchase and implementation of Trolley service, improvements and new
lighting in Washington Park and of course our significant investment in the
America's River Project at the Port of Dubuque who's gateway is at 3rd & Main
Streets. Future public improvements include decorative railing replacement on
the Third Street overpass, new historic lights, street resurfacing and, with City
Council approval, new sidewalks in Historic Old Main.
Service
People
InkgTity
Responsibility
Inllovation
Teamwork
.
There has also been significant city participation in the private, economic
development efforts in downtown. The city of Dubuque has provided financial
incentives for individual projects such as the new Chamber of Commerce,
Bricktown, Platinum Services, Bishop Block, Cottingham & Bulter, D,B & T,
Grand Opera House and DuMA buildings to name a few. The city provides a
variety of financial incentives through the Downtown Rehab loan program, the
downtown fac;:ade grant program, tax increment financing and tax abatement
programs. The city has also provided assistance in identifying State and Federal
funding for individual projects and has assisted in filing the paperwork for this
funding. The city is working closely with Dubuque Main Street Ltd. on the
implementation of the downtown master plan, which has eight areas of focus
including a retail expansion component. The city has also provided $35,000 in
funding for a retail expansion initiative and is working closely with Dubuque
Initiatives and Greater Dubuque Development Corporation to implement this
retail recruitment program.
Second you mentioned an article in the Telegraph Herald that stated that
property taxes didn't increase in 2005 and then raised concern over the recent
increase in your property tax bill for property you own at 198 Main Street. Let me
first explain that article is referring to taxes paid by the average residential
homeowner on the city's portion of the property tax rate. As you are aware, your
property tax bill is based upon taxes paid primarily to the City of Dubuque,
Dubuque County and the Dubuque Community School District. Since 1995 there
has been no increase initiated by the city in the city portion of property tax to the
average homeowner and in five of those years there has been a tax decrease.
The State of Iowa has on three separate occasions underfunded the Homestead
Property Tax Credit causing a higher cost to the average homeowner.
I believe your property is zoned commercial. There have been increases to
commercial property, such as yours, as a result of a number of factors. First, the
State of Iowa issues equalization orders every other year for different classes of
property (residential, commercial and industrial). The State evaluates the taxable
value that the city assessor has assigned to commercial property and if it
believes the amount is undervalued or overvalued, the taxable value is adjusted
with the equalization order. The city has no input on this equalization order.
However, in an effort to reduce the impact to commercial property located in the
City of Dubuque, the city has adjusted the city tax rate to reduce the amount of
increase a commercial property would experience. For example, in 2003 the
State equalization order for commercial property was anticipated to reach 18%.
In response to this the City of Dubuque reduced the city tax rate so that the net
impact of the State increase to commercial property was 9.48%.
Another factor that is impacting your tax rate is the efforts to have assessed
values reflect the actual market value. For example, in 2000 your property at 198
Main Street had an assessable value of under $100,000 but the market sale of
the property was $290,000. As of 2005 this property now has an assessable
value of $288,900 and the $188,900 increase in the value of your property is
what has caused your tax bill to increase. I visited with City Assessor Rick
Engelken regarding your concerns over the increased tax bill and he indicated
that property values in the Historic Old Main district have been undervalued for
some time and that they have been closely monitoring the values for this district
since 2000. He indicated that in some cases, the values were still at the 1978
rate and that real estate sales since the year 2000 have supported the increase
in assessable value. In addition to your property, the following properties are
examples of how values in the Historic Old Main District have increased based
upon real estate sales:
80 Main Street - 1986 assessable value $23,870
2002 assessable value $40,000
2002 sold for $130,000
101 Main Street - 1999 sold for $51 ,500
2000 sold for $145,000
164 Main Street - 2000 sold for 62,500
2002 sold for $175,000
180 Main Street - 1999 sold for $50,000
2000 sold for $75,000
2002 sold for $190,000
Lastly, a property is classified as commercial if there are three or more residential
units in the building, such as is the case with your property at 198 Main.
The third item you raise is in regard to a backflow checkvalve device that you are
being required to install. The City of Dubuque water utility is mandated by the
Safe Drinking Water Act guidelines established by Congress, passed down to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and executed by the State Health
Department via the State Plumbing code to take such action. Under these
guidelines cities are required to monitor commercial or industrial facilities to
ascertain compliance with these guidelines. There are a number of activities that
can "trigger" the requirement for a backflow checkvalve device including
industrial processing, use of certain chemicals or if the building has a boiler for
the heating application. A inquiry into your property indicated that you have hot
water steam for your heating system, which usually indicates the presence of a
boiler, thus the requirement for a backflow checkvalve to comply with EPA
regulations. If this is incorrect, I would encourage you to contact Water
Department Manager Bob Green at 589-4291.
Fourth are the issues you raise about parking meters, the time limits and use of
permits for parking at a meter. I believe the larger issue is one of managing
parking in downtown. The city works closely with organizations such as
Dubuque Main Street Ltd. to manage parking for downtown employees,
residents, owners and visitors. Parking meters historically have been put in
downtown to help manage short-term parking and to facilitate turnover of this
parking so that visitors and shoppers to downtown have parking close to the
businesses they frequent.
Parking ramps and surface parking lots (public or private) are intended to provide
long-term parking for employees and owners downtown who rarely need their
vehicle during the day. While this long-term parking is not outside the employee
or owner's front door, it is usually within a block or two of walking distance. The
city works closely with DMSL and businesses to strategically locate these parking
ramps and surface lots.
In the evening, however, many businesses are closed and the availability of
parking at meters or in lots increases. In response to this, the city developed the
residential parking permit program to encourage downtown living. Many
downtown buildings were built before vehicles were invented and so few have
parking spaces or garages. By allowing residents to have a permit to park in the
evening when they come home we continue to encourage downtown living.
Developing a similar program to allow business owners or employees to parking
at a meter would negatively impact the amount of short-term turnover parking
needed for downtown customers and ultimately impact downtown business
sales.
You also mentioned the time limits on meters. Currently the city offers 20-minute
and 40 minute meter at $ .60/hour, 1-hour and 2-hour meters at $ .50/hour and
10 hour meters at $ .25/hour. A recent survey of similar sized downtowns in
Iowa showed that our rates were equal or less than these communities. In
addition, Dubuque is one of the only cities that provides 20 minute and 40
minutes meter options because of input from DMSL and downtown businesses
on the need for these times. I believe that the city is trying to assist downtown
businesses and not hinder them as you state in your letter.
Your fifth issue was in regard to the sidewalk improvements planned for the
Historic Old Main District. In fact the city is planning a number of public
improvements for this district. Included in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget is a
$135,000 street overlay and $265,000 in historic lights which are not being
assessed to property owners.
In reviewing these projects, city staff determined that approximately 25% of the
sidewalk would be disturbed as part of the historic light installation. Since this is
along Main Street and is included in the standards for downtown sidewalks
previously approved by the City Council, city staff have recommended that the
entire sidewalk be replaced to match the Main Street pattern to minimize the
impact the construction of these projects may have on downtown property
owners and businesses. The cost for the sidewalk improvements would be
assessable to property owners. For any sidewalk improvement (residential,
commercial or industrial) the property owner is responsible for the cost of the
sidewalk. In this case, the city will be disturbing 25% of the sidewalk as part of
the lighting project and so would be responsible for 25% of the costs for the
sidewalk improvements.
In 2005, DMSL submitted an application for the use of $100,000 of Historic
District Public Improvement Project (HDPIP) money to help defray the cost of the
sidewalk assessment for property owners located in the Historic Old Main
District. This application for funding was approved and would significantly reduce
the cost of the estimated assessment for property owners from 15t to 4th Street for
the installation of sidewalk that matches the Main Street pattern. City staff has
held several meetings with stakeholders from the district to try and answer any
questions regarding these projects. Currently staff is working on gathering
additional information regarding the sidewalk project and will be providing this
information to the City Council for consideration along with a request to hold a
special worksession on this matter. I will make sure that you are informed about
when this worksession will take place. In the end it will be the decision of the City
Council if this project proceeds and in what form.
Lastly, you raised concerns regarding the status of redevelopment of the German
Bank. Last year the city initiated a series of inspections on this property in
response to what we observed to be a lack of progress in the redevelopment.
Since that time the property owner, Mr. Althoff, has hired a new architect and is
working with John Gronen on a renovation plan that includes a lower level
upscale tavern and a first floor restroom. A set of plans have been submitted to
the Building Department for review but no permit for construction has been
issued at this time. It is my understanding Mr. Althoff and Mr. Gronen have met
with financial institutions and investors and are finalizing the proforma statements
so that they can proceed with construction. The project has also received a
State of Iowa Main Street Challenge grant and according to the terms of the
grant, the project must be significantly completed by January 2007 to qualify.
I hope that this information is helpful and that I have been able to adequately
address your concerns. Please feel free to contact me at 589-4110 if you have
any questions or would like to visit further with me and Assistant City Manager
Cindy Steinhauser, who leads the city's efforts on implementation of the
Downtown Master Plan. Any ideas you can share will certainly be helpful.
. . . .
Sincerely, .
/ I&j~
/
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
Cc: Mayor and City Council Members
Dan LoBianco, Dubuque Main Street Ltd.
Rick Engelken, Dubuque County
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
iian.ne?ChneidEl~Thedown side of_~ower Main_~
~PagElJ_1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Cynthia Nelms-Byme <cbyme@dubuque.net>
<pcline@Cityofdubuque.org>, <jconnors63@mchsi.c...
01/02/200611:14 am
The down side of Lower Main
cc:
January 2, 2006
To: Mayor Roy Buol, Mike Van Milligen, Dan Lo Bianco, and Dubuque City
Council Members:
<ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org>
Despite the many gains made on Main Street since we moved here about
five years ago, being a property owner on Lower Main is getting to be
more difficult and expensive. Several businesses that opened in the
past five years have moved out. My Back Yard has moved to the west
side, and Big John's Leather Shop has vacated. The Grape Harbor is only
half as big as it used to be, and the rest of the spaces in that
deteriorating building remain vacant, as they have for years. The
remaining retail businesses report declining sales. The gift shop on
the first floor of the Platinum Building might be vacated in 2006
because of the illness of owner -operator T eri Burdt. While there has
been progress, there has also been deterioration.
'-.,,'
On our side of the street between First and Second, three of the six
storefronts are vacant
I read in the Telegraph-Herald last week that one piece of good news is
that property taxes didn't increase in 2005. That made us laugh because
the tax bill for our building jumped during the year from $3,500 to
$10,5001 The increase was a financial shock and greatly depressed the
value of our building (as well as us). Shouldn't such large tax
increases be imposed in steps? Since this property is partly our
residence, is there no tax relief as a residential property owner?
Our building contains four units: our own living space, two studio
apartments, and a storefront for retail or offices. Yet it is
classified as a commercial building. The City recently informed us that
we must buy and install a backflow checkvalve that costs between $500
and $1,000 plus the cost of a plumber, despite the fact that the
building does not produce any industrial contaminants that could affect
the water supply. This new demand from the City comes on top of the
tripling of our tax bill and has made us think about leaving downtown.
While we realize that parking meters are needed downtown, they should
give potential customers more time for their money. There are plenty of
empty metered spaces on Lower Main during the day, possibly because it
costs too much to feed the meters. Residents can buy a permit from the
City to park at meters, but the owners of the shops and businesses
cannot. One problem we face in renting our storefront is that the shop
owner will have to feed the meter all day. Allowing one
residential-type parking permit for each business would show that the
City is trying to assister rather than hinder small business owners and
operators.
Now the City intends to install the trendy new sidewalks with the
property owners forced to pay a big share of the cost. With property
I Jeanne Schnejder~_ThEl_d()'IoIn~ide of~~'IoIer_~ain_.
__ __..-_______________n_______
-.
~~~Jle_2 .
assessments having gone up so much. why can't the sidewalks be paid for
from those new funds? Furthermore. the material used in the decorative
sidewalks is hard to keep clean and becomes dangerously slippery in icy
winter weather. I have fallen on the similar Riverwalk surface three
times in the past two years. Installing the new sidewalks on Lower
Main will put additional burdens on property owners.
Two of the buildings between Third and Fourth on Main are eyesores and
one of them is right next to the Chamber of Commerce headquarters and
the Visitor's Center. The current appearance of the old German Bank
building is an embarrassment. We keep hearing that it will be
rehabilitated, but years go by with no sign of progress. The City's
attention on Lower Main should be focused on the many empty storefronts
and their deplorable condition rather than on pretty sidewalks.
We have an uneasy feeling about the future of living in and trying to
rent residential and commercial space on Lower Main. Possibly you have
some suggestions on these issues. Because we have a new mayor and some
new city council members, we hope awareness of our neighborhood's
situation can make a difference. You all should be aware of the dark
side as well as the bright side of Lower Main.
Sincerely,
Robert Byme
Cynthia Nelms-Byme