Waukon Council holds special meeting to discuss city administrator possibilities, economic development and other items

by Dwight Jones

The Waukon City Council met in special session the evening of Monday, November 8 to address a six-item agenda. Councilman Steve Wiedner was absent.
The first item involved a presentation by Jeff Schott and Dick Hierstein from the Institute of Public Affairs to discuss the position of a City Administrator. Recent discussions throughout City management and related boards have expressed an interest in at least inquiring into how the possible implementation of someone in such a capacity could benefit the city.
Schott did a majority of the speaking, explaining that these positions are different in every situation, and each city needs to determine what their expectations are as far as job duties, authority and compensation. Schott explained that in normal situations, an administrator “is not there as a political crony”, but rather as an impartial manager who can work directly with the mayor, city council, department heads, city clerk, etc. in various capacities.
They are becoming more and more common, and he suggested that they are now more common than not in cities similar in size to Waukon. Discussions on duties, differences between a city manager and a city administrator and qualifications were discussed.
Councilman Joe Cunningham asked what could happen if a city is not properly managed. According to Schott, “Worst case scenario – you can get yourself in a lot of trouble”. Schott was referencing a number of things that a city can overlook, do incorrectly or simply ignore because that particular duty is no one’s real responsibility.
Currently, the mayor and all five council seats are not considered nor compensated as full-time positions. Hierstein suggested that people in city administrator positions can “oftentimes find efficiencies” and help save money, though Schott strongly discouraged anyone from believing that this is a position that can entirely pay for itself whether it be through identified efficiencies, grant dollars, etc.
According to Schott, if a city is going to move in this direction, “everyone needs to be on board”, and suggested that the public be involved with the concept to provide input and/or concerns that should be addressed. Additional discussions included how a city can best determine a current level of efficiency, anticipated costs and more.
There was no action taken, but the Council seemed much more comfortable with the concept, what additional investigation needs to be done and the additional work needed to determine the feasibility of creating this position within Waukon.
Next, Laura Olson with Allamakee County Economic Development provided the Council information on what would be needed to implement and an estimated number of dollars that could be generated via a hotel/motel tax, which the city of Waukon does not currently have. Per State law, of the annual dollars generated, 50% needs to be spent on economic development or tourism-type expenditures. Such taxes are commonplace throughout Iowa and beyond.
Based on very rough numbers, Olson explained that with current projected hotel/motel financial data, the City of Waukon could receive around $29,000 annually with a 5% tax, $41,000 with a 7% tax. Implementing such a tax can only be done following a public vote.
Additional discussions involved what type of businesses and/or lodging expenditures would qualify to be taxed. The Council did not take any action, but will continue to discuss the concept at future meetings.

The Council then approved a sanitary sewer easement agreement between Verle Fish, Gil Hunstad and the City of Waukon to allow Fish to hook onto the line that connects Hunstad’s property to the city sewer line. The easement detailed who was responsible for what, and that should the City ever run a sewer line on the front side of his property, Fish would connect to it at that time. Fish will also pay Hunstad $1,000 for allowing the connection. Hunstad had a much larger expense when he originally connected, which made the “piggy back” connection costs seem reasonable.
Moving on, the Council approved an anticipated expenditure of $750-$1,000 for ground testing on property being considered for storm water retention basins. Both areas are actually on property owned by the Allamakee Community School District. There are concerns that there may be issues with rock that could make the proposed projects difficult to impossible to complete, so testing before the project begins made good sense.
In the final item on the agenda, the Council addressed a proposed development agreement between Waukon Economic Development Corporation, the City of Waukon and Dean and Lynn Sorenson that would eventually involve the Sorensons relocating their Kitchen Krafts business into the Waukon Industrial Park. Their current location is east of Waukon on Elon Drive.
Per the agreement, the City would agree to sell the land to the Sorensons for $100, do some grading/landscape work, pay roughly 35% for drainage improvements, reimburse up to $3,000 for seeding and offer four years of tax abatement. The Sorensons would agree to build a minimum 12,000 square foot building and employ no fewer than 15 employees, including management.
According to Mayor Loren Beneke, the Sorensons have outgrown their current facility and have plans to expand, which would mean even more quality jobs within the city. Lynn Sorenson spoke that their five-year business plan involves hiring up to 15 more employees, many management level positions.
Councilman Dave Sanderson expressed concerns with the City paying for grading. Cunningham asked Sanderson if his concerns were strong enough that he would vote against the agreement. Sanderson replied, “Other votes have passed by 3-2 or 4-1 votes, why would this one be any different?” Cunningham explained that “there are individuals in the room (Sorensons) that are interested in economic development. I think showing them full support on behalf of the City is important”.
City Attorney Jim Garrett then explained that, due to the fact that the City would be agreeing to possibly taking on some debt due to the agreement, a public hearing would need to be held before the City could approve its portion of the agreement. The Council did then approve a “motion of support” for the agreement, with additional action to occur at a special council meeting scheduled for November 29.