Andy's final report is ready and will be reviewed by the city council Public Safety & Transportation Committee this Thursday. The committee will bring the option of moving forward on this project to the whole council on Monday night (July 12 council meeting).

Anyone who lives within FF city limits and wants to express their support of the project can contact their council representative before the July 12 meeting: http://cityoffairfieldiowa.com/Public/servicepage...

Their official name is the "Fairfield Train Safety and Quiet Zone Committee" because, as you said, increased safety is what leads to quieting the train horns. :)

Bob, the Quiet Zone in Burlington is considered by the Federal Railroad Administration, Iowa Department of Transportation, and even Burlington Northern (all the players who give input into creating quiet zones) to be an "exemplary" combination of upgrades. Here's what they did:

- Close two crossings.
- Installed concrete safety medians on both sides of six crossings and on one side of another.
- Left one crossing untreated.

This is very much like what is being proposed here in Fairfield. Andy used the minimum treatments simply to show that with just those changes alone the crossings as a whole would be safer than they are now with the horns. When more safety upgrades are added at more crossings we can create a Quiet Zone in Fairfield that is TWICE AS SAFE as what we have currently with the train horns.

Brian, good summary of the current status of this project and of Andy's initial report. You're very correct in stating that it's not a matter of "if" Fairfield will get a Quiet Zone but simply "when and how." Fairfield is very fortunate to have so many generous citizens who are willing to donate their time and money on worthy civic projects like this.

You spent a lot of the article talking about the potential closing of Court, which is still an option though not one with support from the city council. Once we get current traffic counts we'll then have an engineer update the cost estimates for each proposed crossing safety upgrade. If it makes sense to close Court from a safety angle then it could happen, but if it's just a matter of cost then my bet is the council will still want to keep it open.

Once the traffic counts data collecting is complete Andy will finish his report, which will be reviewed by the FF QZ Committee then go to the city Public Safety & Transportation Committee. The report will include several options for each of the eight crossings, so the preferred final plan that the QZ committee chooses might not match up with what the city PS&T committee recommends to the council. Because the quiet zone application must be filed by a municipality it will be the council's choice of which plan to approve and adopt.

At that point it will just be a matter of raising any additional funds and finalizing agreements with the few property owners who will be affected by the proposed installation of safety medians (all have been contacted and all are very cooperative and supportive of this project). If everything proceeds without any unexpected issues construction can begin by next spring.

If Will hadn't have banned me from commenting then I could respond to this... :(

;-)

Will, the City owns many buildings which were either purchased or constructed. It's part of what a municipality does.

As for the terms of the public/private partnership, I've already stated that the resolution passed by the council laid out the terms in detail. It stated that were the vote to pass and the Center were to raise $950K in private donations (which they have) then the City would take ownership of the facility once all debts had been cleared. The City would then enter into a lease agreement with the FACC board, who would be required to give periodic financial reports to the council. The lease contract would be ongoing as long as the FACC was able to manage the facility: pay the utilities, costs of maintenance, etc.

FACC board president Bob Moore is correct that the terms of the lease PAYMENT haven't yet been worked out. The council will review the Center's financials and propose a reasonable rate based on their overall profitability. He's very correct in assuming that if the Center were very profitable then the lease would be more than if they were still relying heavily on private donations. The City has no intention of taking on any further expenses beyond the $650K to purchase the facility, and that is very clearly stated in the resolution the council voted unanimously to approve.

Shannon, I'm not sure what you mean by your last line:

"Also, I don't like that those outside the city limits won't be charged the same as those within it!"

The tax funds that the purchase of the Center would come from are a SALES tax, which is indiscriminate. Anyone who pays for something in town contributes towards the tax, be it those within city limits, those who work in FF but live elsewhere, or those who are visiting town (possibly to attend an event at the Center).

Does that make sense to you? I hope you weren't led to believe that the purchase was based on property taxes, which would have been the case if the County got involved (which they didn't since their elected officials chose not to take it to a public vote). Fairfield's Local Option Sales Tax has absolutely nothing to do with property tax nor with where people live.

Hey Guest,

I really can't say anything about the BAF building (before my time on the council), but you pretty much answered your own question in that the purchase of the Civic Center building is part of a larger economic development issue. About 12 years ago the citizens of Fairfield voted to collect a Local Option Sales Tax, which is one penny of every dollar spent in town. At first it was a ten year tax to build the new Law Center, then a new vote was put forth two years ago to extend the tax another ten years with the following breakdown:

50% Street Repairs
25% Sewer Repairs
25% Community Betterment

The vote passed, and now the city has more funds to get our streets fixed (spending $3.5 million in the next two years, bonded from the LOST revenue), get our sewer lines repaired (before the state DNR fines us millions of dollars a year), and supplement the city's budget for everything from new police cars to helping out Little League, ArtWalk, etc.

Everyone's enjoyed the extra funds, especially the community betterment portion, so if there were any way to help grow those tax revenues then the city would like to do it. One way to do that is to make our city more attractive to visitors (tourism is a multi-billion dollar/year industry in Iowa and every town wants a piece of that action). Not every event/venue/facility has the same draw to visitors as others, and the Center probably has the most (or at least the biggest potential).

So for many civic leaders the idea of investing $650K to own a $1.5 million facility out-right, and to subsequently keep the momentum of bringing people to our community makes good economic sense. The tax base used to purchase the Center is the same one that the Center does/can/will help build, so in the long run this purchase could pay for itself many times over. That means more money for other community groups, more money for streets and sewers, more money for new and exciting projects that haven't materialized yet.

As for the FACC's tracking of demographics, I don't know enough about that to make an intelligent comment. I do know they track ticket purchases and possibly do informal surveys, but anything beyond that would likely cost money that they don't currently have to spend. The city council was given the same business plan that's currently on the FACC website, and it was enough to convince us to unanimously support a public vote. Even the Fairfield Economic Development Association, who usually deals with land and industry issues, donated six figures towards the $950K the Center needed to raise to hold up their part of the bargain. If you study the numbers you can see that in 2009 they were able to cover all their expenses, relying on continued donations, yes, but they covered them just the same. That was during a bad economic year and with many past issues to manage, so they're doing something right in terms of finding events that people are willing to pay to attend.

No one can promise that the FACC as an organization will definitely, without-a-doubt be able to stay viable (though there are many strong signs that they can). But this vote is to decide if the City should purchase the facility for $650 of LOST revenue and lease it back to the FACC IF they can honor the terms of the lease. That doesn't put the City in a bad financial position - quite the opposite: we will own a facility that cost $10 million to build for only $650K, and we can decide who manages the place (and by "we" I mean everyone, since all citizens have access to their representatives on the council).

I'm not trying to convince you to vote Yes (well, maybe a little). I just want you and everyone to fully understand as much of this situation as possible. This vote is democracy in action, so whichever way you choose to go I'm glad that our local government made the decision to give everyone the chance to decide.

The point I was making is that to invest $650K in public funds to own a facility recently appraised at $1.5 million is a good real estate deal. This has nothing to do with the viability or profitability of the FACC.

If the FACC wasn't able to pay for the maintenance costs of the facility and/or their lease with the City, then the City would allow other organizations to make proposals to take over management. Other city-owned facilities are under contract with private management firms (e.g. the airport) and those contracts are renewed or changed from time to time. The same would be true in this case.