A Hard Fought Campaign

Unofficial results from the Johnson County Auditor:

Candidate	Early Vote	Election Day	TOTAL
McGrath	145	141	286
Hopson	145	138	284
Leff	141	135	276
Haverkamp	94	179	273
Lane	97	171	268
Stewart	139	128	267
Yeggy	88	161	249
Whitmer	89	156	245

Speaking on behalf of Amanda, Jim and Pat we are gratified by the tremendous support we received while campaigning. It is a testament to the spirit and concern of our citizens  to have 60% turn out for the election.

Both Jim and I are humbled by your trust and will certainly work with everyone in city government to the best of our abilities.

Due to the one vote difference for the final seat on the council, a machine recount by the auditor's office is likely, before results of the election are certified.

Please Vote

U-H Polling Site:

St. Andrew Church
1300 Melrose Ave.

Polls open at 7:00 a.m.

Polls close at 8:00 p.m.

This is a request for you to participate in the greatest privilege in a democracy, and vote in our city election.

University Heights is at a crossroads and your vote is critical. In the 2009 election the margin of victory for the final seat on council was 2 VOTES. To say that your vote is important is not idle chatter.

One of the important things that makes University Heights great is that we participate in our local government to a degree unparalleled by our neighbors. A total election turnout of 60% of registered voters would not be surprising to any of us. Please do your part to contribute to our community.

And also remember that ALL NINE CANDIDATES for office in this election SUPPORT THE LIBRARY LEVY. VOTE YES TO SUPPORT LIBRARY SERVICES!

You Have to Laugh

The poor Iowa City Press Citizen, after listing in Tuesday's paper that Rosanne Hopson was in favor of the proposed One University Place Development, this morning they managed to switch the names of the two University Heights city Political Action Committees and how much revenue they had raised. The good thing about "new media" is that correcting an online version is quite easy. However in both cases above the print version is incorrect.

I'm reminded of the story of the baseball manager who complains to the umpire about the obvious bad call he made. The ump's response is "Don't worry about it, the next bad call will be in YOUR favor..."

A "Right Sized" Campaign for U-Heights

Until the 2011 special election no candidate in University Heights had ever had to file a finance report with the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board, because no one had ever had spent over the state regulated $750 limit.



In a report filed today, November 3, 2011, WeR4UH has raised $3,290.00 for the 2011 campaign and through October 19th had  spent $1,593.00. Their major expenditure was for 300 yard signs.

In addition to the above, four separate committees for Hopson, Leff, Stewart, and McGrath have also been created. These individual groups, will not have to report if they EACH stay under the $750 limit. 

To see all contributors and expenses so far, download the filed
We Are For UH Election Report

For the 2011 Special Election the Committee to Elect Rosanne Hopson raised $2,535 and spent $2,500

To see all contributors and expenses, download the filed Hopson Special Election Report

We believe that spending  $5,825 dollars for two elections, plus potentially up to $3,000 more ( from the 4 individual candidates) in a single year is too much.

As this blog shows, the candidates of "We Are University Heights Moving Forward" have tried to be informative and creative in explaining the complicated issues in this city election to members of our community.

What may not be quite so obvious is that we have also made a conscious effort to be frugal.

The decision for the five of us to work together in this election was not taken lightly. When it became apparent that we were faced with an organized, well funded campaign, we made a commitment to form a single group and not exceed the $750 expense limit that would require documenting expenditures and donations. We did this, not because we didn't want to disclose this information, but because our belief was that spending the equivalent of no more than 75 cents per resident was appropriate. We also consciously limited contributors to University Heights residents.

Our biggest expense has been 50 yard signs at $6 each.

However, the cornerstone of our campaign effort costs nothing. We have been going out door to door to residents and talking with them, as campaigns in a small town should. When demand for yard signs exceeded what was available, we took and re-made old signs left over from earlier elections. We have printed our own materials.  We have used "free" media such as this blog to express, expand and illuminate upon the ideas and facts behind the issues. Through these efforts we have tried to give as much detail as possible in order for U-H citizens to make informed decisions.

We have tried to campaign in a cost-conscious way. These skills should come in handy as we govern in the future, given the city's tight budget. We hope that you appreciate those efforts.

It USED to be True: OUP Building Height

I read the "Questions and Answers" flier I received in the mail yesterday with great interest. Right in the first two paragraphs were statements that I won't characterize as false but would rather say it used to be true. These assertions haven't kept pace with changes to One University Place. 

Plaza on 5th, Coralville

First I read "The existing structure that most closely resembles OUP's back building is the new "Plaza on 5th' building in Coralville" the flier noted that they were both 6 story buildings. However, a quick call to the Coralville building department found that the height of the condo portion of Plaza on 5th is 74 feet. The height of the major horizontal line of the top floor of residences at OUP is 50 feet. The small reception room has a height of 62 feet.

In 2009 when the zoning request for One University Place first went to council the plans for the back building were 76 feet tall. So it used to be true that Plaza on 5th would be a good comparison. 

Another major difference between the two buildings is that the Plaza on 5th sits 25 feet from the edge of 5th Street. One University Place back building will sit about 275 feet from the edge of Melrose. The FRONT building of OUP (at 38 feet roughly half the height of Plaza) will sit 33 feet from Melrose. 

Continue on to It USED to be True: Melrose Ave. Traffic

It USED to be True: Melrose Ave. Traffic

Continued from: It USED to be True: OUP Building Height

Then I read the statement "Traffic from OUP will add at least 1500 cars a day to Melrose Ave." This one takes more time to explain.  

According to the latest Iowa DOT traffic counts Melrose Ave. currently carries 13,000 cars per day. Given the reductions in height and length, as well as taking a portion of the commercial space for a community center, the number of total units in One University Place drops and correspondingly the traffic decreases.  The most glaring portion of the statement is “at least.” CURRENT estimated traffic counts, (see below) from MPOjc are 20% below this number. The type of commercial as well as the final occupancy of the residential units could result in even  lower numbers. 1,500 cars daily would represent the upper range of potential traffic rather than the floor. 

So like building height, when talking about a project that is nearly 30% smaller than it was, it used to be true that a prediction of 1500 cars could be made.

Another important factor is WHEN any vehicles from OUP would be entering/exiting. Furthermore one

Just the Facts, Ma'am

Here are some additional answers to the recent letter sent out by the opposition about One University Place and our Community.

1. The Opposition indicates that the developer will have “10 years before he has to start construction, with no time limit on when he must begin construction on the second building”. This time frame is not acceptable to the four councilors who want to Move University Heights Forward and will be voted on by the next city council since it has not been approved by the present city council. The developer has every incentive to complete construction. The longer a project goes on, the worse the profit margin.

2. All council candidates agreed at the recent Candidate forum that there needs to be a clause in the agreement with the developer that he cannot sell to a non-tax paying entity. Again nothing has been approved by the present city council.

3. The Opposition talks about a smaller development and used the term “moderately priced condos” in the candidate’s forum. A cost analysis of a smaller development is needed to prove that it would be profitable, but one has never been presented. “Moderately priced condos” would be in the same price range as the 90+ Grandview condos and would compete for sales with Grandview residences.

A Measured Endorsement

In what I thought was a well written summary of one of the major issues in the City Council campaign, the Iowa City Press Citizen endorsed the candidates of We are University Heights Moving Forward. Here is the text of today's editorial:


We usually avoid backing one-issue candidates in city council races, but in University Heights, the one issue on everyone’s mind seems to be developer Jeff Maxwell’s proposed One University Place.

If the members of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church decide to move from their property at 1300 Melrose Ave., Maxwell has proposed to build two buildings — one five stories and strictly residential, the other three stories and residential/commercial. The total

Candidate Profiles

Here are links to the our candidate profiles that were run in the 11/1/11 Iowa City Press Citizen.

Mike Haverkamp: Haverkamp running to finish what he started

Jim Lane: Lane calls for better understanding of the budget

Amanda Whitmer: Whitmer says she offers city financial expertise

Pat Yeggy: Yeggy wants to focus on independence

Candidate Forum Answers

Are you for or against the "One University Place" development project?

I am for the development and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, that it would bring. Easily enough to quantify is the benefit of the community room, the improvements to the Sunset/Melrose intersection and the opportunity for increased tax revenues. It is more difficult to quantify the diversification of neighbors, increasing commercial opportunities, or having a “downtown”. Imagine the opportunities and programs the community room alone would open up! I understand that those may not be seen as benefits to everyone, that some would like to keep University Heights a sleepy bedroom community. Frankly, I am not one of those: I find the opportunities a business district would offer exciting and evolutionary.


What kind of development is most appropriate at the St. Andrew Church site?

The church has been a wonderful neighbor and I would not be disappointed if they decided to stay. But they have been blessed with a growing congregation, and if they decide that a move is necessary for them, I am in favor of the property being used to advance the community, both financially and evolutionary. Financially, it is important to recognize what is economically feasible given today’s

Budgets and Local Option Sales Tax

Before running for council in 2009 I spent time going over city budgets to familiarize myself with what U-Heights financial history was. I noted during that campaign we ran a $39,000 deficit in the year ending June 30, 2009, but was able to cover that with carryover.

In July 2009 we started receiving Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) money.  That money seems to be hard to track since it is considered general revenue and resides in the general fund of our budget. Below is a snapshot at year end of our last 4 budgets. Two budgets without LOST, two with:
 

Budget Category	6/30/2008	6/30/2009	6/30/2010	6/30/2011
Total Income (minus LOST)	668,511.91	703,523.24	838,780.24	1,130,333.03
Total Expense	858,864.18	742,664.64	853684.96	1,221,674.74
Net Ordinary Income	-190,352.27	-39,141.40	-14,904.72	-91,341.71
Other Income/Expense
Sale of General Obligation Bond	240,000.00
Local Option Sales Tax			101,475.67	123,014.41
Repay Sidewalk Project Loan				-150,000.00
Loan Draws for Sidewalk Project				150,000.00
Total Other Income	240,000.00		101,475.67	123,014.41
Net Income	49,647.73	-39,141.40	86,570.95	31,672.70

I purposely separated out LOST from ordinary income so make it effect easier to track.

In each of the last four years our ordinary expenses have outpaced our ordinary income. In 2008 in our Other Income we had $240K in bonds to pay for the Highland Ave. street repairs. In 2009 we had no sources of other income. In 2010 and 2011 we have had local option sales tax money.

Watching our budget will be critical for our next city council.

Candidate Forum Answers

1. Are you for or against the "One University Place" development project?

Let me begin by saying that I believe St. Andrew has been a wonderful neighbor to our community and none of us like to see wonderful neighbors leave, so if the church decides  stay I will be pleased.

If they do decide to move I do support the One University Place Project. This Smart Growth development with Leed Certification will provide a community center for our city and support a walkable, liveable community impression. The resizing of the two units, minimal impact on the ravines and the exit only on to Melrose have helped to alleviate many prior concerns of citizens. Traffic congestion will be reduced and safety will be improved at the Sunset and Melrose intersection.

The diversity of housing being offered by the development and the limited, but appropriate commercial establishments will enhance the attractiveness of our

St. Andrew Church's Right of First Refusal

I met with a resident who asked me about the right of first refusal agreement that the University of Iowa has with St. Andrew Church that Amanda Whitmer mentioned at the Forum on Tuesday evening. This is best described by a letter University Heights received from St. Andrew Church in 2009. Here is a link to that letter.

February 20, 2009 Letter to City of University Heights

The gist of that agreement is that if any other developer would make an offer for the St. Andrew Property, which the Church feels is acceptable, then the Church would have an obligation to go to the University of Iowa to see if they would want to match the offer and purchase the property. The University of Iowa declined to match Mr. Maxwell’s offer in 2007 when the Church went to the University officials. Would they do so now since we have had the floods of 2008 in Iowa City and the University now owns the University Athletic Club plus the land north of the church? I would expect this high and dry land adjacent to their other properties to be desirable to them.

Since Mr. Maxwell has dropped all his contingencies and will own the property if the Church decides to sell then I doubt if the University will need to be asked. However, is pretty clear to me that there is little chance of any other private developer being able to purchase this land before the University would step in and purchase.

Candidate Forum Answers

1. Are you for or against the "One University Place" development project?

St Andrew has been an important part of University Heights for fifty years.  It’s fine with me if they decide not to move.  But in the event they do decide to move, the next use of this parcel needs to be a tax paying proposition.   There has been much discussion about what type of project should be supported here, but the city does not set the value of the property and the value of the property will drive the type of development.

We have all heard that Maxwell has offered the church $4 million dollars for this property.  The “One University Place” development is based on this value.   At the present time the final design is still not decided.  There have been many changes made to the original plan, many of them at the request of the community such as the height of the building, the setback, the number of units, the number of parking spaces.

When the plans for the “One University Place” development are agreed upon by the developer, the council and members of the public, I will be for this project.  I did not come to this decision lightly. I gave it a lot of thought.  Like it or not, our community is at a turning point.  I want the

Candidate Forum Answers

Below were my notes from the Candidate's Forum. While my answers may have been slightly different, this is the gist of how I answered each question.

1.  Are you for or against the "One University Place" development project?

I am for this for several reasons. Some “hard” reasons are we have a small budget and are both landlocked and have nearly no empty buildable space left to develop. We have the oldest average aged housing stock in the county, and residential tax valuations are projected to be flat. If the church decides to move, a nearly 5 acre parcel on the intersection of our two arterials is the best place for a slightly more dense mixed commercial and residential development. Some “soft” reasons are that without significant commercial or public space we have no place to easily congregate and become a true community. In the absence of an identified sense of University Heights “SELF” we are basically just another Iowa City neighborhood. The benefits of this development will help to guarantee the financial independence as well as the high quality living standards that make University Heights a treasured home.

2.  What kind of development is most appropriate at the St. Andrew Church site?

As I said in my first answer, the intersection of our two arterials, one of which is a major arterial for the greater metropolitan area, is a good one for mixed commercial and multi

The Use of Tax Increment Financing

I am generally not in favor of TIFs. I do not like the idea of subsidizing free enterprise with public funds, and forcing businesses to pay taxes to their competitors. I also feel that if a project won’t be profitable without public money, it’s not a worthwhile project.


However, there are some facts that are unique to our situation that mitigate these concerns. For the first concern, our community has only two other businesses that might be affected, and I would be in favor of requesting that no businesses go into the development that compete with our existing commercial properties. As a landlord, I am not particularly concerned with rental competition: I feel my location and property are not in direct competition with any rentals the condo might contain, and they would fall into a higher price range than Grandview.


For the second concern, I think it’s important to ask if THIS developer will go ahead with the project if the TIF is not offered. This question is important because if Maxwell does not do the project, the right of first refusal falls to the University. If the University buys the property, it definitely falls off the tax rolls and many of the benefits associated with developing the property are lost. It will continue to be exempt from the tax rolls, and you can be sure the University will not solicit the amount of input into whatever project they decide to build that Maxwell has. While there is no way to know for sure the answer to “will it go ahead without public money?”, my guess is “no” because despite the amount of money Maxwell has already spent in development to date, he has disclosed his profit margins to us with and without the financing. If I were Maxwell, I would use my time and resources to complete a project with a margin more consistent with industry norms instead of this one if the TIF is not granted.


What are we receiving in exchange for TIF? This is difficult to quantify, because we would receive both tangible and intangible benefits from our investment. Easily enough to quantify is the benefit of the community room, the improvements to the Sunset/Melrose intersection and the opportunity for increased tax revenues. What else are we receiving? It is more difficult to quantify the diversification of neighbors, increasing commercial opportunities exponentially, or having a “downtown”. I understand that those may not be seen as benefits to everyone, that some would like to keep University Heights a sleepy bedroom community. I am not one of those: I find the opportunities a business district would offer exciting and evolutionary. How much I am willing to part with my tax dollars to fund those opportunities is a matter for consideration and will be based on the numbers.


As a landlocked community with limited opportunities for growth, I feel that TIF is a tool to purchase a much-needed benefit. The current structure limits the City’s liability upfront by refunding only the tax revenues generated, and I believe there is enough public good in this for-profit enterprise to justify the use.

OUP: How Big is the Back Building?

To continue the look at the One University Place project's buildings started in an earlier post, OUP How Big is the Front Building? we can now focus on the back building.

At a city council meeting, during public comment, it was  stated that the back residential building is as large as the Levitt Center on the UI campus.Let's compare those two buildings

One University Place:

http://www.university-heights.org/

Levitt Center:

https://www.uifoundation.org/lcua/

Here is a breakdown of their comparative sizes:

Building	Height	Width	Length
OUP back bldg	Reception room 62’ 5th floor 50’	83’	280’
Levitt Center	Peaks- 92’ Parapet 84’	Office- 62’ Rotunda-102’	274’

In length and width One University Place is similar to the Levitt Center. The significant difference is in the height. The top of the major horizontal line at the Levitt Center is at 84', while the major horizontal at the top of One University Place is 30 feet lower.

Another good visual comparison is that the top of the cross at the current St. Andrew Church is 57'.

The closest home to the back building is at Birkdale which is 240 feet away.

Given that the building is sited at the back of the property and that ravines and mature trees are found on both the east and west sides, it seems to me that the back building is not over-sized for its surroundings.

University Heights Needs to Move Forward--Press Citizen Guest Opinion

This Guest Opinion appeared in the Iowa City Press Citizen on August 29, 2011

As a citizen who attended the recent work session for the University Heights City Council, I would like to offer my observations.

This work session was called after discussion of the 34 points in the Maxwell Developer's Agreement was deferred at the Aug. 9 regular council meeting. Based on the progress that occurred at this work session, I feel the citizens of University Heights have finally received a great deal of clarity about One University Place and what it will offer.

Candidate Forum Updated 10/21/11

The eight city council candidates and one mayoral candidate will all appear at a forum on October 25th, from 7:00 to 9:15 pm at the University Club, 1360 Melrose Ave.

We strongly encourage you to please attend this highly informative program.

Here are the questions to be answered by all the candidates:
UPDATE 10/21/2011 : The organizers for the University Heights Candidate Forum have modified the questions in response to public input.

1. Are you for or against the "One University Place" development project?
2. What kind of development is appropriate at the St. Andrew church site?
3. Are you in favor of TIF financing for development at the St. Andrew church site?
4. How do you view the financial condition of University Heights and how would you monitor and make adjustments in the future, if necessary? Are you in favor of the City using the PUD process, development agreement, TIF and/or other means as a way to prevent ownership of the church property by a tax-exempt entity?
5. Do you think city services and city infrastructure are adequate in University Heights? How do you view the financial condition of University Heights and how would you monitor and make adjustments in the future, if necessary? Do you think city services and city infrastructure are adequate in University Heights?
6. What are your favorite things about University Heights?

Candidates answers are to be no longer than 2 minutes each.
The candidates will rotate in their order of answers.
There will be a break after question 3.
Candidates will be available to speak with individuals after the forum.