Well Qualified Candidates

I will be voting early on my way home from work tonight at the County Administration Building.

Besides voting for myself, here is who  I will be voting for:

City Council
Jim Lane- Jim is completing his second 2 year term on council, he has served as finance chair for the past 4 years. His experience as a financial planner has paid off in how he has managed city assets in order to maximize returns, he has also made awareness of city budgets and budget planning much easier for the rest of council to follow. Jim's experience as a plant manager for Proctor and Gamble as well as his education as an engineer has been invaluable as the city has worked through the planning stages of the One University Place project. Construction Updates

Carla Aldrich- Carla was appointed to council in June 2014 to fill the seat of Zadok Nampala. She has served as co-chair of the Community Protection Committee. Carla's contributions and insight served the city well in the hiring of our Police Chief last year. Carla has also initiated our Community Watch program, a quarterly meeting of all interested citizens on community protection topics of interest. At the Kickoff Meeting in April, there was a surprise incident where participants suddenly were placed in situation where their "eye witness" recollections were tested. The July meeting featured tips on how to prevent identity theft, and the September meeting featured Iowa City Schools Equity director Kingsley Botchway speaking on cultural competence. Community Protection

Stepheny Gahn- Stepheny has served on the Zoning Commission for the past year. She was active in the amending of our building ordinance. Stepheny has also been a frequent attendee at council meetings, and has worked hard to make herself aware of the many issues that the council faces.

Mayor
Louise From- Louise has been an effective and tireless ambassador for our city. While she does not have a vote, she runs council meetings. Louise spends an incredible amount of time working with neighboring elected officials as well as staff to ensure that U-Heights' interested are represented. Mayor's Report

Ballot Initiative
YES I strongly favor adopting staggered four year terms for council. Being a small community with each council member expected to manage a department of city business (Finance, Building/Zoning/Sanitation, Streets and Sidewalks, Community Protection, eGovernment) it is hard to have continuity and stability when you must run for your seat every other year.

I would hope you would also consider these well qualified people and this reasonable ballot measure.

TIF Talk

City council will continue discussing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) at a work session on Tuesday April 28th. We held an informational session on TIF last month. Here is a link to the official minutes of the meeting as posted at the City of University Heights website:

http://university-heights.org/council/15/minutes/150323minutes.pdf

I recommend reading these. I also took notes at the meeting, here is what I recorded:

1. Explain difference doing TIF funding as opposed to doing a municipal bond to provide funding for a development.

Difference between fronting cash or a TIF rebate arrangement. When city has to front, they have to borrow, and puts city’s credit at risk. TIF rebate requires developer to front cash, and then offers future economic benefits, keeps risk on private side. Iowa law allows cities to define “necessary.” That includes infrastructure low-moderate housing.

2. What are the different types of TIF funding- Bond, tax rebate, tax abatement, et.al

Basic tenet: tool to repay obligations to a city or county of urban renewal projects. Has to have a public obligation. 1. Traditional banking (borrowing or a bond) general obligation can be paid by debt obligation levy. 2. Internal borrowing must have your own funds. 3. Negotiated TIF contracts or rebate agreements. 4. Statutory obligation for low income if you TIF market rate projects. One more tool “tax abatement” not a TIF. Keeps new valuations from going on the property tax roll.

3. What is a TIF district and who decides the location of the TIF district?

Location is defined by City Council and BOS have authority to establish urban renewal areas. TIF district is designated by ordinance.

4. Our town has a bonding capacity of about $5.3 million. How is our bonding capacity affected by the different types of TIF funding or a municipal bond?

Law sets debt limit. Interest is not legal debt. Utility borrowing, special assessments not considered debt. GO and TIF are debt. Annual Appropriations make it such that city’s payment liabilities are dependent on city council decisions and action. You can put specific concrete benchmarks to incentivize developers.

5. If TIF funding or a municipal bond is chosen as a gap funding mechanism, who determines how the repayment is used and where it goes. E.g. Johnson County, School District, University Heights.

All decisions are made by city council. Can’t control whether or not revenue comes in and the pace. Minimum assessment agreement establishes a floor of valuation with assessor. Makes TIF revenue stream more predictable.

6. How is University Heights' bonding capacity affected as new buildings are added to the tax rolls and a portion of the TIF or bond is repaid?

As buildings are added debt limits goes up 5% of assessed valuation of new construction. Have to wait for assessment to catch up. 18 month lag. Bond rating of city won’t be an issue.

7. Are there any employment requirements for any TIF funding or bonding?

Required? No but cities could say that if jobs are created in commercial projects the TIF could be higher. 

8. What are the circumstances in which TIF could go totally wrong and result in "bankrupting the city" that we hear from some individuals?

TIF negotiated contract shouldn’t ever hurt a city, since it isn’t the public credit put at risk. However fronting cash is risky but with debt limits and savvy lenders it shouldn’t be an issue either.

9. When does Affordable Housing come into effect for TIF projects?

Lower and moderate income set aside if used for public infrastructure related to new market rate housing then must have additional funding for low/moderate income. Amount is county specific due to rates. In negotiated contract that developer gets percentage after LMI (low moderate income) is first required. TIF for commercial does not require set aside.

What triggers that obligation (TIF used in residential project or for residential purposes, I believe);

How much funding is involved (how is the obligation computed); and

How is the obligation paid – over time, as TIF is rebated, etc.

Questions from audience

When should city not use TIF?

Each community has to make that decision about what is appropriate use and when.

Any implications for public space not subject to taxation?

2012 leg says analysis has to be done to find feasibility. Keeps discretion at local level.

In determining increment on tax exempt property how is increment measured?

County assessor starts from zero when counting in similar projects but must involve assessor to know for sure.

Coralville’s Bond Rating drops 6 levels in 2 years What about U-H? What about local banks not wanting to loan to us?  

Doesn’t work for a rating agency and has a hard time considering how we might need a bond rating agency. Are you making a good policy decision and a good fiscal decision?  Banks generally will enter with municipalities. 

20 year TIF collection limit under current law. For market rate housing TIF limit is 11 years.

 

Housing Costs, Density and You

I don't think its an overstatement to say that the One University Place development project has always been on my mind for 6 years. It is the single issue that has occupied a majority of time in my 3 terms on city council. 

This past week council voted to refer to the Zoning Commission the developer's latest request to increase the

number of residential units and parking spaces allowed for the project. The size of the buildings remains the same however so that there will be smaller units created. This has understandably raised concern among our citizens some of whom have voiced that at our meeting, others who have contacted me directly. I wrote last month about some of my thoughts regarding this latest proposal.

It is impossible to also consider our project without looking at housing costs. On January 19th City Council held an affordable housing work session. I asked about "workforce housing" options at that meeting. Median household income in U-Heights has declined from $67,430 in 2000 to $59,018 in 2012, similar declines are found throughout Johnson County. Our median household income is the highest in the county. The county-wide median in 2012 was $53,993. I always benchmark these against what a first year teacher with a BA degree makes in the Iowa City Community School District. In 2014-15 that is $39,200.

While median income was dropping median household value was increasing from $216,100 to $246,800 in the same time period. By definition a person is considered "cost burdened" if they pay more than 30% of their income in housing costs. After adjusting for inflation housing costs in U-Heights have increased 14.2% from 2000 to 2012. At the same time, again adjusted for inflation, incomes have decreased 12.5%. More home owners are now considered cost burdened than in 2000. So the most important figures to me are these: 

• 20% of U-H home owners pay more than 30% of their income in housing in 2012
  Up from 16% in 2000
• 50% of U-H renters pay more than 30% of their income in housing in 2012
  Up from 29.3% in 2000

This and much more useful information can be found at the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County's website. This data above came from their Update to the 2007 Affordable Housing Market Analysis for the Iowa City Urbanized Area (published September 2014).

Given these concerns about affordable housing, I proposed at at our work session and later in a private meeting with the developer that if the City should consider an increase in the number of proposed residential units only IF 5% (6 units) were specifically marked for workforce housing.

I also continue to read and hear national stories that become filtered through my "local lens" to consider their impact here in U-Heights. Here are three that I've run across this week, that I found interesting:

Small Homes Make Better Cities
This article looks at several projects around the country (I'd already heard of the "apodments" but the others were new to me.) At 350 sq. ft. these units are half the size of the smaller units proposed for the front building. 

Walking: The Secret Ingredient for Health, Wealth, and More Exciting Neighborhoods
It's no secret one reason I've pushed for a mixed use development with commercial property is we need somewhere for people to walk to!

With Porches And Parks, A Texas Community Aims For Urban Utopia
Our older portions of town already have this and we have continued to build community among our citizens, our location near the UIHC will always make us attractive, but we do need continue to think about what else can we do to enhance our community. See also the next day's follow up regarding racial tensions in this community.

So those are a few more of my thoughts, I'm always interested in hearing other people's feedback.

Keeping an Eye on IC

As has been reported in the Press Citizen this week, the City of Iowa City will be exploring the possibility of a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) vote. This has major implications for U-Heights. to find what I've said about this before, find "LOST" from the topic list at the right.

The P-C story is here: Iowa City officials talk adding local option sales tax

When all of Johnson County voted on LOST in 2009, University Heights passed their measure with 80% support. As stated on the ballot at the time, money would be used for wide sidewalk projects and other purposes. Both the Melrose and Sunset wide sidewalks were constructed with 20% of funding coming from LOST money. The other 80% of those projects were funded by Federal dollars.

The 2009 LOST had a sunset date of July 2013. We received our last payment in September, and then got another one in October. From 2009-14 our share of LOST revenues averaged $10,000 dollars per month. It had been the equivalent of 10% of our annual revenues from 2009-2013.

Unlike Iowa City we *probably* won't be as hurt by property tax changes as they will. However as a small landlocked community our budgets are extremely tight.

I contacted the county auditor's office on Tuesday and asked the following questions. Their answers are in RED

Is it still true that LOST has to be voted on county-wide? 

YES

Does each municipality in the county get to hold a LOST vote if they desire?

YES

Would all taxes collected among LOST approving communities be pooled and re-allocated as they were in 2009?
YES, it would go through the Department of Revenue and then dispersed to each of the LOST approving communities.

I will say this as plainly as I can: If Iowa City decides to hold a LOST referendum it is imperative that we decide to put up a ballot initiative and to pass it. We will have to pay the tax in any community that passes an initiative and because food and medical services are exempt, we won't be collecting any tax in University Heights.

What's Up in Other Small Towns

I happened to run across two news stories today that made me go hmmm.... Tiffin and Riverside at population 1,900 and 1,040 respectively are similar to U-Heights in size and in the issues they face.

The first story is about Tiffin's new city hall which will open in two weeks. This is from the North Liberty Leader/Solon Economist. The new city hall sounds similar in size to a proposed city facility that could be part of  a U-Heights One University Place project. The article mentions that this site would also be available to rent for private functions, or as a meeting site for groups such as scouts. The print edition of the paper has a photo, but the web version doesn't.

New City Hall to Open in Tiffin

The second story is much more cautionary. This one ran in yesterday's Cedar Rapids Gazette:

Distrust and Tension Continue to Plague Riverside

Since the opening of the Riverside Casino in 2006 city government has had to respond to major changes in city revenue and operation. This had led to a lot of tension among residents and has played out in city government and council meetings. The proposed One University Heights development would significantly increase U-Heights tax revenue. While any increase would not be as dramatic as Riverside's, we would do well to think about how changes would need to be handled.

Press Citizen Coverage of Council Race

Yesterday's Press Citizen featured the University Heights City Council race:

One University Place development is 'a tipping point' in U Heights
A decade ago, a typical city council race in University Heights wasn’t much of a race at all.
In each of the 2003 and 2005 city elections, for instance, just five candidates ran for five seats, meaning the only Election Day decision voters had to make was whether to write in another name.
That’s no longer the case in this enclave of about 1,100 residents, where a high-profile development proposal along Melrose Avenue has stirred up local political passions in recent years. There now are yard signs, websites and candidate forums — big-city campaigning in a small town.

On Tuesday, nine residents will vie for the council’s five spots, including all five incumbents, with the dominant issue remaining One University Place, which for nearly five years has been poised to be built on the property of the outgoing St. Andrew Presbyterian Church.

While the central question in past years was whether developer Jeff Maxwell should be allowed to build a large-scale project at the site, now that the church has voted to finalize the property sale, the remaining questions include just how big One University Place should be, whether there will be a commercial component, and how much, if any, financial assistance the city should provide.

The three council members who have opposed the development — Rosanne Hopson, Jan Leff and Brennan McGrath — say their position has shifted toward compromise now that the church’s move is imminent. Although Maxwell’s vision has been for a two-building development — one five-story residential building and one three-story mixed-use building — the three opposing council members are calling for a scaled-down version.

“The three of us began our journey on this council feeling strongly that we did not want any development there, and if we did, it should be very minimal,” said Leff, who is seeking a second term. “I think over time we’ve evolved, understanding this (as) an opportunity to oversee a development that would really enhance our community both financially and aesthetically, as well. I think we’re ready to compromise with whomever else (is) on the council.”

Hopson, who has served on the council since winning a special election in January 2011 and earning re-election later that year, has taken a hard stance against the $6.5 million in tax-increment financing assistance the developer has said he would require for the project.
“When you ask for a $6.5 million TIF, that leaves us with zero bonding capacity,” Hopson said. “I really wouldn’t feel comfortable with that as a councilor. What do you do in case of an emergency?”

McGrath, who has served eight years on the council, said he would like to see the council find middle ground with a project that would be “the least disruptive” to University Heights.
“It seems like in this process it’s been what’s best for the developer or what’s best for the community — not both,” McGrath said. “That’s what I’m trying to get back to — an ‘and’ in there and not an ‘or.’ That’s the biggest challenge.”

On the other side of the issue stand incumbents Mike Haverkamp and Jim Lane, who have backed the Maxwell project during their time on the council. Haverkamp says public perception of the project has shifted in recent years, with more people — particularly younger residents — favoring walkable neighborhoods close to their workplace and amenities.

“I’m encouraged as I walk around and talk to people,” said Haverkamp, who is seeking a third term. “I think in 2008 and 2009, a five-story residential building and a three-story, mixed-use commercial building seemed pretty big. I think what’s happened in the greater Iowa City-Coralville area in those intervening years has also shaped perception in terms of other projects that people are seeing.”

Lane, who narrowly edged Rachel Stewart for the fifth and final seat in the 2011 election, said that with the church’s decision behind it, this is a key moment for University Heights. He said many longtime residents are recognizing the benefits the development could bring in the form of new amenities, as well.

“It’s young and old folks who are saying, ‘We have this opportunity, so let’s take it,’ ” Lane said. “I think the majority are speaking out and saying we want some things in there. This is a tipping point.”

Stewart, who missed winning a spot on the council by just one vote two years ago, favors a scaled-down version of the development that would require no TIF incentive from the city.
“My main concern has always been that I don’t like TIF being used for inappropriate developments,” Stewart said. “They were traditionally developed for areas of large cities that were blighted, where no one would do anything there unless they got some incentive. I can’t say the corner of Melrose and Sunset is a blighted spot.”

The other challengers are voicing support for a larger version of One University Place more in line with Maxwell’s original vision.

Zadok Nampala, a father of two young children who is running for the first time, says he and others are excited about the possibility of a market within walking distance. Local businessman Jim Mondanaro has expressed interest in opening up a location similar to downtown Iowa City’s Bread Garden in One University Place.

“I would be one of those people who would say a mixed commercial property would be ideal for us so that the young community, young families, can walk here and have that little corner store,” Nampala, a Kenya native, said at a candidate’s forum earlier this month. “I just imagine those small towns where I come from where we have a store in the corner, and everybody walks there in the evening.”

Virginia Miller, who is challenging for a council seat, also has vowed to bring a voice for younger families to the council and is stressing the importance of including a public space in the developer’s plans, be it a park or a community center.

“To me, St. Andrew functioned as a public space for our community where we’ve had our picnics, farmers markets and community meetings for a long time, so I think it’s important for us to retain that public space in our community rather than losing it to strictly residential development,” Miller said.

Silvia Quezada, who is making her first bid for the council, backs the developer’s “five-and-three” vision for One University Place. She said there are concerns that still need to be worked out, “but nothing that a city council couldn’t overcome and work together to close a chapter on a very long journey.”

“I think the vision is coming from the residents; the vision is not being driven by the developer,” Quezada said. “The developer is proposing an idea, and folks are improving on that idea. People are seeing an opportunity for adding more convenience to the quality of life in University Heights.”

Mayor Louise From, who served a dozen years on the council beginning in 1994 before taking over as mayor in 2006, also is up for re-election. Though she is running uncontested for the non-voting mayor’s seat, From said she doesn’t want to take residents’ support for granted.
“I’ve always tried to tackle the issues with honesty and respect for all,” From said.

More Press Coverage Than You Can Shake a Stick At!

I don't know if there has EVER been a day with TWO feature stories about University Heights in the Press Citizen.

The inside story was on Monday night's candidate's forum:

Development divides hopefuls

U. Heights council candidates talk plans for St. Andrew Church land

University Heights City Council candidates delivered their ideas for the town’s hottest issue at a forum on Monday night.
St. Andrew Church, 1300 Melrose Ave., plans to relocate, leaving city officials with a choice about what to do with one of the most accessible parcels in University Heights. Nine candidates in the race — four incumbents and five challengers — spoke to about 50 residents at Monday’s forum, which took place at St. Andrew Church.
READ FULL STORY HERE

The Front Page Headline was:

Mondanaro interested in U. Heights development

Says he hopes to open something similar to his Bread Garden Market

 

What One University Place will look like if and when it’s built is unclear, but the controversial development along Melrose Avenue has drawn the interest of at least one potential commercial occupant.

Local restaurateur Jim Mondanaro, who owns the Bread Garden Market in downtown Iowa City, says he hopes to open a similar business as part of the University Heights project, which has been debated among residents and the University Heights City Council for nearly five years.
READ FULL STORY HERE

More Media Coverage

The Community Focus Group meeting from September 18 is still generating news. A piece appeared in today's Cedar Rapids Gazette:

Discussion on University Heights Development Resumes

The link above to the story has a good write up. 

Remember that online feedback is still being collected by MPOjc (Metropoliton Planning Organization of Johnson County) staff until midnight Tuesday October 1st.

Here is a link to the Focus Group page along with footprint images of each scenario and a webcast of the presentation of each scenario from the meeting:

Focus Group Feeback

The fiercely  debated Melrose Ave. development project that divided the University Heights community several years ago has resurfaced following a series of new proposals by the developer.
Plans for One University Place, 1300 Melrose Ave., to be a mix of residential and commercial development stalled in 2011 after vocal opposition from residents and a city council unwilling to support the project with tax increment financing.
Developer Jeff Maxwell released two additional proposals, along with his original plan, for the 5.3 acres of land where St. Andrew Presbyterian Church currently stands. The church has agreed allow Maxwell to purchase the land for $4.3 million, which the city council rezoned for development in 2010.
Maxwell said the residential-only designs are alternatives for those concerned about commercial space.
- See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dpuf

The fiercely  debated Melrose Ave. development project that divided the University Heights community several years ago has resurfaced following a series of new proposals by the developer.
Plans for One University Place, 1300 Melrose Ave., to be a mix of residential and commercial development stalled in 2011 after vocal opposition from residents and a city council unwilling to support the project with tax increment financing.
Developer Jeff Maxwell released two additional proposals, along with his original plan, for the 5.3 acres of land where St. Andrew Presbyterian Church currently stands. The church has agreed allow Maxwell to purchase the land for $4.3 million, which the city council rezoned for development in 2010.
Maxwell said the residential-only designs are alternatives for those concerned about commercial space.
- See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dpuf

e fiercely  debated Melrose Ave. development project that divided the University Heights community several years ago has resurfaced following a series of new proposals by the developer.
Plans for One University Place, 1300 Melrose Ave., to be a mix of residential and commercial development stalled in 2011 after vocal opposition from residents and a city council unwilling to support the project with tax increment financing.
Developer Jeff Maxwell released two additional proposals, along with his original plan, for the 5.3 acres of land where St. Andrew Presbyterian Church currently stands. The church has agreed allow Maxwell to purchase the land for $4.3 million, which the city council rezoned for development in 2010.
Maxwell said the residential-only designs are alternatives for those concerned about commercial space.
- See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dpufDiscussion

Discussion on University Heights development resumes - See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dpufDis

Discussion on University Heights development resumes - See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dpuf

Discussion on University Heights development resumes - See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dpuf

Discussion on University Heights development resumes - See more at: http://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/#sthash.9ZxtIi2y.dphttp://thegazette.com/2013/09/27/discussion-on-university-heights-development-resumes/