Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Downtown property owner asks Marshalltown to share costs of vault removal; council orders survey of affected owners
Summary
A downtown property owner said relocating private utilities from sidewalk vaults for the Main/Center Street reconstruction could cost about $58,000 for his buildings and requested cost sharing; councilors requested staff survey similarly situated owners and consider a 50/50 cost‑share model.
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matt Garber, representing CGA properties and several downtown buildings, told the council that relocation and removal of sidewalk vault utilities for the Main/Center Street reconstruction could cost his ownership about $58,000. He described finished basement space, fire risers and backflow devices under the sidewalk and said options previously approved by council left property owners responsible for utility relocation costs.
"We just decided to pull it all the way in, take space out of our finished conference room in the basement, create a mechanical room, and just pull everything outside of the rightway...those are our estimates...about $58,000 for all of that," Garber said, asking whether the council would consider changing the policy that requires owners to pay 100% of relocation costs.
Council members discussed options, including retaining vault sections with the city stabilizing walls and providing easements, or a 50/50 cost share for relocation into privately owned interior mechanical rooms. Public Works staff said three of five affected properties already completed changes and the city could survey others to collect actual costs; the council directed staff to gather data on similarly situated properties and consider cost‑sharing options rather than immediately granting an exception to one owner.
Speakers from the public urged fairness and noted the complexity of the reconstruction project. No formal reimbursement or policy change was adopted at the meeting; council discussion focused on surveying costs and evaluating a principled cost‑share approach that would treat similarly situated owners equitably.

