Main Street businesses air concerns over construction charges

Throughout the downtown area, there was a certain amount of anticipation about the first council meeting of February, which included on its agenda an item about the city’s billing of businesses on Main Street for the installation of the new sewer and water lines.  The lines were replaced as part of the streetwide infrastructure improvement project, which took place over most of the summer and fall.  The cost was largely covered by grants, but there were some components of the process that resulted in costs to the business owners.

As a part of the construction, businesses were billed for connections to water and sewer lines beneath the street.While some businesses were excluded as a result of having replaced the lines independently of the city, most were affected by the move, which cost an average of $6,000, based on a per foot cost, plus additional associated charges.  The city gave businesses the option to pay the amount back without interest over the next 3 years, as part of the city utility billing process.  

The meeting was incredibly well-attended, with representatives of the majority of Main Street businesses on hand to raise their concerns, or hear any potential outcome that came from the meeting.

In a session that at times became emotional on both sides of the council table, Main Street merchants expressed their frustration with the effects the construction has had on their businesses, as well as the additional strain of the recently issued construction bills.  City Council members acknowledged that the communication process between themselves and downtown businesses could have been better, and promised to learn from the experience moving forward.  

Over the course of the construction process, the city held a number of meetings, and City Engineer Alan Skinner sent email updates to the affected businesses.  In addition to the project discussions that occurred in the normal course of council meetings, at least one special meeting with businesses was held.  However, both the council and businesses acknowledged that clearly there has been some gap in the communication process.  “The only thing I can say is, we swung and we missed.  We’ll own that, and I apologize.  I thought we had better lines of communication.  That’s something that we’ll do better moving forward,” Councilmember Ryan Carpenter said, summing up what seemed to be the prevailing message from the council.

It was widely agreed that Tamra Henesh, owner of the Main Street Café, had faced the largest headwinds during the process, as the unique access and infrastructure involved with her building had made it most difficult to sustain normal operations during the construction process.

Bill Parris, owner of Porters Pub, and Irvin Christensen, owner of Eastman Drug, were among the many other Main Street owners who spoke during the meeting.  Parris spoke to the experience of many of the business owners when he said, “We’re hurting.  I have twenty employees, and they’re hurting right now.  I apologize for being a little more frustrated than maybe you’ve seen in the past.  Last year at this time my payroll was around 8 thousand, and now it’s about 4 and a half.  I’m starting to lose employees.”  

Henesh echoed the sentiment, and explained that the lost revenue had affected the Café’s ability to support local kids through sports sponsorships and other community programs.  “I am a resident and small business owner, and I am here to express my concern about the 6k fee,” Henesh said, reading from a prepared statement that itemized some of her areas of frustration, many of which were shared by the other owners.  Like other owners, her major points centered on the issue of clear communication, and the impact of the process.  “The fee has had a huge impact on businesses...We ask that you take this matter seriously, and work toward a
fair resolution.”

Council President Mitch Hart noted that years ago the council had resolved to set utility rates for downtown businesses at residential rates, rather than the higher commercial rates, which had resulted in savings over time to the downtown businesses.  It was also pointed out during the meeting that the longer life of the downtown infrastructure, the better street surface and parking, as well as lighting improvements and the eventual installation of a flashing crosswalk system would likely increase downtown business in the future.  The council, however, reiterated that they recognized the pain this had caused to business owners.  Councilmember Paul Gritton added, “As a business owner, I appreciate your concerns.  It was my understanding that the contractor tried to minimize the impact on the businesses as much as possible.  But it’s important to thank you all for coming out to express your concerns.”

In a bit of good news on the subject, while the city’s GEM grant application had been denied, the county’s was accepted.  In addition to paying the county’s portion of the hookup charges, additional funds were secured in addition to the grant remainder to help offset at least a portion of the cost to businesses.  During Monday’s County Commission meeting, roughly $1000 per business was set aside to help with the costs.