Background on Resolution 16-50

I received a question from a citizen yesterday asking why was One University Place divided into two parcels, and two condominium regimes. The questioner wondered if it had to due with who would control a home owner's association, commercial owners or residential owners. Below is my response. Of course after sending it, I remembered the most important reason, for this occurring, which is this:

In December, 2015 the development team was informed that if the property was to be assessed on Jan. 1, 2016, then a condominium regime had to be filed with the State of Iowa by Dec. 31, 2015. The simplest way to file that was to make the south building, already under construction, a separate entity. Without a filing by 12/31 there would be no assessment of the property as commercial or residential and to be taxable until Jan. 1, 2017, meaning any taxes generated would come an entire year later. Remember than an assessment on Jan 1, 2016 will result in an initial property tax payment in Sept. 2017. Since the property had previously been assessed at $0 valuation due to it's use as a church, there would have been no taxes paid.

The issue of dividing the property into two plats really has nothing to do with commercial owners vs. residential in a condo association. Council first heard about this at the Dec. '15 council meeting. At the Jan. 2016 Council meeting there is a considerable explanation of why this was done. In the Jan 16 Legal Report the city attorney explains what the issues are at length. Look at his report, item 6, are on pages 6-8 of the linked document.

In the Feb 16 Legal Report city attorney also outlines details of what should happen to ensure that all PUD and TIF document details are carried out by two condominium regimes instead of one. Item 2, pages 8-13 outline these opinions.

The March 16 legal report states that the city attorney and developer's attorney had begun working through those details. The April 16 legal report says the process between the attorneys is still underway but not complete. The May 16 legal report says the process is close to completion and a chart showing all provisions of the PUD and TIF agreement and how they are addressed in North and South condo declarations is being created.

The June 16 Legal Report states that due to the fact that the financing proposals (GO Bond and special assessment) being considered will also include amending the PUD and TIF documents, council should wait until those actions are complete so as to consider all amendments to the PUD and TIF at the same time. Item 6 on page 65 outlines this.

That brings us to the September meeting when the GO bond work was complete, so council was to consider all the PUD and TIF amendments. What Resolution 16-50 does is finish that process and allow us to go forward with a special assessment of OUP to repay the Public Works project, which is the larger portion of the general obligation bond that was let on 8/29. It also allows us to take advantage of better pricing on the community center due to that special assessment. I've written in more detail about that on my blog: What is the Impact?

The Sept. 16 Legal report gives a summary of the process and more details. Item 2 pages 188-191 refer to this. The chart mentioned in the May legal report can be found on pages 61-64.