January 15, 2017

October Council Meeting Update

University Heights Municipal website Dear U-Heights residents, City Council held their October regular meeting tonight, below are a few highlights. For more detailed information please see the October 11 Agenda & attachments. Go here to view a webstream of the September meeting.   Conflict of Interest Ordinance Passed Ordinance 193 version B (see the above agenda and attachments) passed its first reading tonight by a 4-1 margin, Quezada voted no. Second consideration will be at the Nov. 15 Council Meeting   Special Meeting Set Council will hold a special meeting on Monday Oct. 17 to consider a public information request policy.  Policy will be posted on the city website later this week. This meeting is to resolve a complaint filed with the Iowa Public Information Board. For more information (see the above agenda and attachments). Football Game Day Forum Don't forget next week's forum discussing football game day issues. That meeting will be held Tuesday October 18 at the University Club at 7 PM. Notice here, Questions here. Oct. 17 Council Special Meeting 6 PM City Office Oct. 18 Game Day Forum, 7 PM U-Club October 27, Leaf Vacuuming Nov. 8 Election Day, U-Heights votes at UI Athletic Hall of Fame       Early voting schedule: Johnson County Auditor November 10, Leaf Vacuuming November 15 City Council meeting Horn School November 17, Leaf Vacuuming Follow University Heights on Twitter Consider contributing to the University Heights Community Fund I also write a blog covering U-H and other timely topics, with my opinions expressed UHForward.blogspot.com Join the community at Nextdoor University Heights! As always it is a pleasure to serve as your city councilor. -Mike Copyright © 2016 Mike Haverkamp, All rights reserved.  unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences

Explaining My Actions

A very small part of tonight's meeting that I did not mention in my council write up was an item in the mayor's report called "Possible committee change." Mayor Wally Heitman announced he was removing Silvia Quezada from oversight of the zoning and sanitation committee for the remainder of the current term.  I voted in favor of this change and the measure passed 3-2. Earlier this year council confirmed the mayor's recommendation to remove her oversight of the Board of Adjustment and building and housing staff due to conflicts regarding duties and follow through on tasks.

There was much discussion of actions of councilor Quezada during other portions of the meeting, most notably a complaint she filed with the Iowa Public Information Board. I want to make completely clear that my decision regarding removal has absolutely nothing to do with the public information complaint.

I was extremely dismayed to have to vote on her removal from oversight, and am sickened by the way the operations of the council have devolved over the past 10 months. I am also not happy that I need to talk about this publicly here.

My reasons for pulling oversight are due to the need for the city to conduct it's business in a way that continues to provide services to its citizens. Here are three examples 

• We didn't have a leaf vacuuming schedule until Oct. 6 this year, a routine task that should have been handled much sooner. In fact Silvia was told about this Sept. 26 and it took 11 more days to follow up.
• Details of the 2016 Farmer's Market were not communicated to other council members 
•  A grant from DNR was awarded to U-Heights for recycling at Grandview. Despite numerous requests for a copy of the grant, over a year-long period, it was never shared

So that's why I voted as I did, given a pattern of not following through with tasks, and not communicating with others this was a step that needed to happen.

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.

What is the Impact?

Defeating Resolution 15-60 at last night's council meeting has serious impacts on future planning in University Heights. Here's a quick summary and recap:

With a 2 yes, 0 no, and 3 abstention vote, this resolution failed due to all resolutions needing to have 3 yes votes to pass. An explanation of the resolution can be found in the attorney's report section of last night's agenda and attachments.  Basically this was to amend the PUD to allow for 2 separate condo regimes for the North and South buildings. This change, has negligible affect  on city business. Defeating this resolution means that:

• Occupancy permits cannot yet be issued for the south building, which has residential units ready to be sold.

•  The special assessment which would be placed on OUP to repay the costs of the Public Works Project cannot be assessed.

• Without the special assessment, the city cannot proceed on our reduced price acquisition of the community center.

 

Here is what's critical to the financial well being of our residents. Without the special assessment ALL U-Heights taxpayers will have to pay for the $650K portion of the Public Works Project. With a special assessment in place ONLY property inside the OUP development will make payments on that. Without the special assessment in place our purchase price for the Community Center increases from $275K to $395K. The price of the Community Center will be paid by ALL property tax payers throughout U-Heights.

Jim Lane and I voted "yes." on resolution 15-60. Dotti Maher, Silvia Quezada, and Jerry Zimmermann all voted "abstain." Jerry said his abstention was due to his exploring purchase of a commercial space in OUP. Silvia said her abstention was due to her being opposed to TIF funding. Dottie declined to explain her vote at the time.

Later in the meeting council decided to schedule a special meeting on 9/19 to reconsider this item. A major sticking issue was the wording regarding a city seat on the North condo board:  "yes, if desired." Striking "if desired" could likely result in an approval of the resolution. 

In my late night email summary last night I stated that: Only someone who voted on the prevailing side can bring the item up for reconsideration. That is not correct. Since the special meeting is a new event ANY councilor may move the resolution for adoption.

I am hopeful that council will do the right thing and adopt resolution 15-60 on Monday.

The Name is BOND, G.O. BOND...

Unlike James Bond, City Council on Monday night approved General Obligation or "G.O." Bonds to pay for items related to the One University Place project.

There are two parts to the bond, one for the Public Improvement Project (realignment of Sunset/Melrose, turn lane into OUP, etc.) the other for the purchase of unit 103 in the South building to be used for City/Police offices as well as a multi-purpose room. This has been commonly referred to as the Community Center. The combined total of these two projects was estimated at $950,000. 

The largest portion of that is for the public improvements. By letting the bond, the city will pay for these improvements now, and then there will be a special tax assessment on OUP Property ONLY that will repay those costs. No current University Heights property owner will pay for any of the costs of the Public Improvement project. That project was estimated at $625,000.00

The smaller portion is for the community center space. That will be repaid by ALL city property owners via their property taxes. OUP property owners will also pay this assessment.

The city put their 10 year bond out for auction on Monday, Aug. 29th. When that happens banks and other entities bid to get the bond. The lower the bid, the LESS the city has to repay in interest. We were hopeful that we could get bids in the 2% to 2.25% interest range. There were 6  bids submitted. The winner, Banker's Bank of Madison, WI, bid 1.7%. That bid saved the city of University Heights $115,000.00 in projected interest payments. Due to how we structured our agreement with One University Place developers, the lower interest rate reduced the cost of the community center from $390,000.00 to $275,000.00. The lower rates saved U-Heights tax payers 29.5% on the cost of the community center. I remarked at the meeting that we are purchasing a community center for roughly the median house price in University Heights.

Full details of the financing can be found here: 
Aug. 29 Special Meeting Agenda & attachments

Council Webstream/ Construction Update 10

Two posts for the price of one!

Thanks to the folks at Iowa City Cable City Channel 4  U-Heights council meetings are broadcast Thursday evenings at 9:00 PM on Channel 4 AND are available as webcasts. Here is the link to July Council meeting:

Here is a link to the July Agenda and attachments

At our August meeting this week we also heard updates on the One University Place construction project:

OUP Construction Page Index

One University Place Construction Update 10

8/11/16

The One University Place South building is nearing completion. Landscaping for the South Building facing Melrose is underway and will be completed in next two weeks. Pavement for parking on the north side of the South Building for commercial businesses is being installed along with some of the internal roadways for the project. Initial occupancy by residents of the South Building is expected to begin in September. Commercial business announcements are expected in the next two months.

The Sunset/Melrose intersection traffic lights are being installed this week. The City will be working with MPOJC on the timing for the street lights which will take about a month.  The North Sunset road is expected to be open late August before school starts.

 A model unit on 3rd floor of the South building is open for prospective buyers to inspect, through Blank/McCune realtors. U-Heights resident, Clayton Hargrave will coordinate interior design and furnishing for the community space at no charge to the City. 

Excavation of the foundation on the North Building has begun. Footings will be installed in the next few weeks and the foundation for the two tier parking garage will begin after the footings are in place.

Attached is the August City Engineer’s report detailing the upcoming work schedule, and other OUP related items.

Independent Project manager Glen Siders sent council an amended report detailing site work.

 

Construction Update #10