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.
4. No one has suggested that financial planning experience is required to be on the city council. However if there were individuals on the council with financial expertise, we would not have to spend as much money for an outside firm to interpret reports. We should have the ability to monitor finances internally, as opposed to outsourcing our fiscal responsibility. This is especially important in the next few years as tax dollars get tighter and expenses will likely go up.
5. It will be important that we hire an accounting firm that is knowledgeable about municipal finances to do any type of financial analysis. The most recent firm the city hired had little experience with municipal finances and their bid was five times higher than the next bidder. Financial expertise of council members can help in the selection process.
6. There has been no approval of any TIF proposal. No candidate has suggested that a TIF be approved without proper investigation of the developer’s financial resources and the viability of the development from a financial profitability standpoint.
7. No part of the project has received more enthusiasm from the residents than the Community Center. Yet the opposition acts like it is not needed. Are they out talking to the residents?
8. The coffee shop is not “off the table”. The developer wants to include a coffee shop/grocery store as an amenity for the condo residents and University Heights residents. There has been no study of the rent schedule to determine that they will be too high for a coffee shop. Are rents really going to be higher than in Downtown Iowa City, home of many coffee shops?
