Polly Jones Funeral Home TIF request paused after council seeks sewer-cost details
July 07, 2026 | Denison City, Crawford County, Iowa
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Polly Jones Funeral Home representatives asked the Denison City Council for tax-increment financing (TIF) assistance to help cover substantial utility and site costs for a proposed funeral home, but councilors said they needed more information before committing public funds.
At the meeting the applicant’s representative said the parcel lacks city sewer and that the existing sewer line on an adjacent Finneran property is privately owned. The representative said delays in obtaining DMU (the utility) estimates had stalled a concrete cost estimate and that installing a lift station or buying access to the private sewer would be expensive. “We haven't been given the cost because that's a DMU project,” the applicant representative said, adding that connecting sewer could be a large share of the project’s cost.
Russ Karsh, a construction manager who has worked with the applicant, described the project as a roughly $2 million build using local labor and materials and estimated that removing and restoring the existing cul-de-sac and private water lines could add tens of thousands of dollars. “That's about another 5 or 6% of the cost of the project to put that lift station in,” Karsh said.
City staff told council that TIF is typically structured as a rebate: the developer incurs costs up front, the city rebates (or bonds) those costs, and property-tax revenues generated by the improved property repay the debt service over time. Staff also said the parcel’s inclusion in any urban-renewal plan and the precise mechanics of a rebate or abatement would require more legal and bond-counsel work.
Council members expressed concern about allocating TIF dollars to a single private business when alternatives—such as using TIF for larger projects that benefit more residents—exist. One councilmember said the city had other priorities and that taxpayers should not shoulder disproportionate costs for one business. Council members also asked staff to verify whether the parcel falls within the existing urban-renewal area and to obtain DMU cost estimates and easement options before any decision.
Because the applicant did not have firm DMU cost estimates and several technical questions remained, a council motion to table the TIF request passed. Council asked staff to return with: the DMU lift-station or easement cost(s); confirmation of whether the parcel is in the urban-renewal area (and if not, what updates would be required); a breakdown of potential costs for connecting to sewer versus alternatives such as septic (with DNR input); and an analysis of who would benefit from any rebate or tax incentives.
The item was tabled; council did not approve any TIF assistance at this meeting.
At the meeting the applicant’s representative said the parcel lacks city sewer and that the existing sewer line on an adjacent Finneran property is privately owned. The representative said delays in obtaining DMU (the utility) estimates had stalled a concrete cost estimate and that installing a lift station or buying access to the private sewer would be expensive. “We haven't been given the cost because that's a DMU project,” the applicant representative said, adding that connecting sewer could be a large share of the project’s cost.
Russ Karsh, a construction manager who has worked with the applicant, described the project as a roughly $2 million build using local labor and materials and estimated that removing and restoring the existing cul-de-sac and private water lines could add tens of thousands of dollars. “That's about another 5 or 6% of the cost of the project to put that lift station in,” Karsh said.
City staff told council that TIF is typically structured as a rebate: the developer incurs costs up front, the city rebates (or bonds) those costs, and property-tax revenues generated by the improved property repay the debt service over time. Staff also said the parcel’s inclusion in any urban-renewal plan and the precise mechanics of a rebate or abatement would require more legal and bond-counsel work.
Council members expressed concern about allocating TIF dollars to a single private business when alternatives—such as using TIF for larger projects that benefit more residents—exist. One councilmember said the city had other priorities and that taxpayers should not shoulder disproportionate costs for one business. Council members also asked staff to verify whether the parcel falls within the existing urban-renewal area and to obtain DMU cost estimates and easement options before any decision.
Because the applicant did not have firm DMU cost estimates and several technical questions remained, a council motion to table the TIF request passed. Council asked staff to return with: the DMU lift-station or easement cost(s); confirmation of whether the parcel is in the urban-renewal area (and if not, what updates would be required); a breakdown of potential costs for connecting to sewer versus alternatives such as septic (with DNR input); and an analysis of who would benefit from any rebate or tax incentives.
The item was tabled; council did not approve any TIF assistance at this meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
