TIF Plan Details and My Opinions

RAGBRAI WATCH AND WAVE IS JULY 25th
incorrect date in my eMail!

With tonight’s approval of the TIF district and first approval of an ordinance identifying the district, City Council continues to move forward in the process to finalize and approve the One University Place development.

I think it is fair to say there has been a lot of misinformation about the project and the process of approving the TIF (tax increment financing) that goes along with it. In order to help explain what is happening I created a PowerPoint slideshow that I shared with the rest of council and the public at tonight’s council meeting. That PowerPoint can be found here.

Key information points from the PowerPoint:

1. Only the area of project itself is in the TIF District. Taxes collected on those properties, AFTER protected levies are paid to all entities, will be used to rebate the developer for construction costs.
2. All the major governmental entities (ICCSD, Johnson County, Kirkwood CC) will receive protected levies AND any leftover increment during the TIF.
3. With a very conservative 1.5% annual increase in valuation (last 10 years U-H has averaged a 5.5% annual valuation increase) TIF would be paid off in 13.5 years.
4. The Council is following recommendations from noted TIF critic, Peter Fisher, including bonding for the city community space rather than paying via TIF.

And here is my personal opinion based on the above:

TIF is justified as it will ensure that the project is built as a high quality residential/commercial development. 

The inescapable conclusion that I draw as I look over the long road we have taken to get to this point is this:

The Council and its staff have attained nearly every major concession or goal regarding the project that represents what a majority of University Heights seems to want. The City has repeatedly bent the developer to our will:

• The development is of a size that does not overwhelm the site or neighborhood
• The development includes commercial space that is desirable to many residents
• The development will have higher end residential space that will not be targeted to students
• The development will have a community center space at an attractive price
• The Melrose/Sunset intersection will be re-aligned at One University Place's expense
• The ravine east of the project will be protected in its current state

 

The Truth about TIF and the NDC

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the events leading up to our June city council meeting was the guest editorial by Silvia Quezada  that ran in the Press Citizen Tuesday morning. Tom Jackson, Director of the NDC, sent an email to all of City Council Tuesday afternoon. 

Silvia did start the meeting Tuesday night with an apology to Tom and the NDC. However since approximately 40 members of the public were at the meeting and I'm sure more than that read her editorial, I think it is fair to run his response here.

Subject:   RE: Follow-up University Heights From:   "Tom Jackson" <TJackson@nationaldevelopmentcouncil.org> Date:   Tue, June 9, 2015 12:05 pm To:   "silvia quezada" <smq130@hotmail.com> (less) "council@university-heights.org" <council@university-heights.org> Priority:   Normal Options:   View Full Header | View Printable Version  | Download this as a file

Councilmember Quezada – I was sorry to see in the paper this morning that you feel that “NDC was instructed to analyze the (One University Place) project assuming $4 million in TIF plus interest.)  That was not my direction from any of the members of the University Heights City Council and is not the way that NDC conducts gap analyses.  What I did do was review budgets, sales projections and operating revenues and expenses for multiple iterations of the project.  If, in my initial analysis of the project’s financials, I had found no evidence of a financing gap, I would have informed the City of as much and future considerations could have focused on zoning without any need to debate the use of tax increment financing (TIF).  Instead, I identified a financing gap in that initial submission that exceeded $9 million.  This number was well in excess of what I was told was the City’s total bonding capacity and it was a number that couldn’t be amortized with a TIF rebate in anything approaching the maximum available terms of private financing.    Councilmember Lane stated in the last council meeting, and I believe during a meeting that you and I had with him in the spring of 2014, that the City couldn’t risk more than $4 million in gap financing to help incentivize development on the St. Andrew’s site.  Given this feedback, the Developer had no choice but to rework and resubmit successive plans and associated financials to try to eliminate the majority of their financing gap.  Even the plan that included the one-story retail/commercial building that was reviewed by Council in early summer 2014 – and that received relatively favorable review from your residents – could not bring the financing gap below $5 million.  A rework of that plan led to the current Developer proposal and my analysis that it evidences a financing gap with a present value of $4 million dollars. I believe that you have, through the services the City contracted with the National Development Council to provide, received an independent review of the financing scenarios that have been associated with each iteration of the project’s design, unit count, unit mix, project budget, and projected sales and operating revenues and expenses.  This review couldn’t be independent of the proposals made by the Developer, because the current development team is the only one that has control of the St. Andrew’s site.  Given that control, the Maxwell team is the only one investing in the designs, construction estimates, proforma development, etc. that are necessary prerequisites to NDC’s analysis.  I’ll be in attendance at tonight’s City Council meeting to answer any questions you may have regarding my analysis of the current proposal’s gap financing needs.  All the best - Tom Tom Jackson, Director National Development Council 927 Dudley Road Edgewood, KY 41017 (513) 300-0886 Mobile tjackson@nationaldevelopmentcouncil.org www.nationaldevelopmentcouncil.org

My Vote on One University Place

I voted in favor of the PUD and the Developer's Agreement at our June City Council meeting tonight. Neither decision was taken lightly nor without considering the many details of both documents. I also considered how those documents work in light of the request for TIF that the developer has made.

I have spoken at length lately about the merits of commercial development, how a rebate TIF is a best way to make sure this project succeeds, and why this project is good for our town. Tonight it is time for me to go back and reflect on what started me on this path 6 years ago.

When I first ran for council in November 2009 I spoke at length about our city budget and my concern over it. The fiscal year that had ended in June 2009 had a $39K annual deficit. I had spoken in favor of the proposed development as a citizen who saw walkable commercial as important to maintaining our town's quality of life. The more I studied the situation the more I realized that the economic impact was critical as well.

Even though the development has not progressed, we as a city received a reprieve in the form of the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) that was collected in Johnson County from July 2009 through June 2013. We received roughly the equivalent of a 10% increase for those four years. We managed to bank quite a bit of those proceeds, even though our annual carryover was always smaller than the amount of LOST received.  In conversations with Finance chair Jim Lane and City accountant Steve Kuhl 100% of the City's current carryover is attributable to LOST.

It is time to move this project forward. We need this to continue as a vibrant community and we need this be economically viable in the future.

We also scheduled a Public Hearing for July 14th to discuss TIF district. I will have much more to say about how this TIF is structured and how it works in the coming month.

Details, Details, Details

I think its fair to say attention regarding the One University Place development has ratcheted up bit in town this week. With fliers appearing at doors and citizens being encouraged to contact councilors, I thought it would make sense to remind people what is happening. Many statement I've read lately are not the reality of what is happening.

City Council will consider a PUD (planned unit development) document and developer's agreement at the June 9th council meeting. At the special meeting we decided to have the City's TIF attorney, John Danos, begin the process of preparing documents to consider a rebate TIF. 

Council has heard from citizens and at least one council member that a TIF is unnecessary for this project. I disagree and would cite two pieces of evidence to support my thoughts. One would be the NDC Gap Financing Report we received. The other would be what is happening around us. 

The City of Iowa City recently announced the awarding of a contract to CA Ventures to developed the city-owned property at the old St. Pat's school site. Much was made of the fact that this development would NOT receive any TIF funding. This 1.1 acre parcel will be home to a 15 story condominium tower AND a 14 story hotel tower. 

Here is some of what the March 23, 2015 Press Citizen story had to say:

The proposed building, called RISE at Riverfront Crossings, is a $102.5 million, nearly 560,000-square-foot project that includes two towers: a 15-story residential tower and a 14-story, 152-room hotel. Designs for the towers include 127 one-bedroom units, 149 two-bedroom units and 44 three-bedroom units. Designs also include more than 23,000 square feet of office space and 6,000 square feet of retail space.

Davidson said Core Campus, which proposed HUB at Iowa City, was named an alternate preferred developer, in case an agreement cannot be made. Plans for HUB at Iowa City include a 15-story mixed-use building with 31 efficiency units, 75 one-bedroom, 83 two-bedroom and 161 three-bedroom units. Plans also include a 153-room hotel, 4,000 square feet of retail space and 20,000 square feet of office space.

Davidson said that although the two projects are similar, the mix of housing options offered by CA Ventures project, particularly the one- and two-bedroom units, made the project more desirable.

"(RISE at Riverfront Crossings) housing options include about 90 percent one- and two-bedroom units, and almost half of Core Campus' units are three-bedroom," Davidson said. "Usually when we hear three-bedroom units, we think of college roommates living together, and we'd like to make the residential space more available."

CA Ventures has offered the city $6.5 million for the almost 60,000-square-foot property, $1.5 million more than Core Campus' offer. Neither project currently requires tax increment financing assistance from the city.

Davidson said, due to the developer's interest, construction could begin at the site as early as this year.

"The developers are trying to stay on track with the (University of Iowa's) plans to expand," he said.

This parcel, is one fourth the size of the St. Andrew site. To get a quality development, that is not focused on student housing, it has to have a mass that is much larger than what has been approved on the St. Andrew site.  It is also important to note the yellow highlight I used to show what real student housing looks like. A predominance of 2 bedroom units is NOT a student property. Also students want to be close to downtown, the east campus and other students. A west side site would not do that. The last sentence of the above article is important, as UIHC expands we need to be ready to bear the pressure of increased housing needs due to expanded hospital staffing.

I also want to remind people what TIF expert Peter Fisher had to say when he spoke to council on April 28th. Here is a link to my write up on that: A Closer Look at TIF. We are following the recommendations he made at this meeting.

This project remains high quality project with 104 units, and 5 story and 3 story buildings. By contrast the RISE project is 320 residential units and 152 hotel units. I don't think our town is willing to double or triple the size of the project in order to not have a TIF request.

The current TIF request is 40% of what was asked for in 2010. I have consistently told this developer to bring in a high quality project and if there is to be gap funding that the city's participation be modest. A rebate TIF that is equal to 10% of the projected valuation while not exposing the City to any risk, meets that criteria.

One University Place PUD My Thoughts

In the past week City Councilors received the National Development Council's report analyzing whether a TIF proposal would be warranted for the One University Place project. We also received the latest Developer's Agreement draft document.  Both of these will be helpful as Council holds it's Public Hearing and Special Meeting on Wednesday May 27. This meeting will be at the University Club at 7:00 PM. All citizens are invited to attend and comment.

Here is a link to the Agenda and Attachments for the hearing and the meeting. Also in this document are all the reports submitted to Council covering various aspects of the plan. This packet runs 138 pages, so here is a chronological listing of what's in it:

1. Agenda
2. Attorney report
3. PUD Submission 4/17/15
4. PUD Submission 5/21/15
5. MPOjc report
6. MPOjc traffic report
7. NDC gapfunding report
8. UH Building Inspector report
9. UH City Engineer report
10. Coralville Fire Department report
11. Iowa City Water Division report
12. UH Police Department report
13. University of Iowa report
14. Development team responses to city reports
15. Resolution 15-30
16. Development Agreement revised 5/21
17. Resolution 15-31
18. Resolution 15-32

While I think reading the entire packet is informative, I would especially recommend reading the two documents that I made into links above.

Here are my thoughts: I'm comfortable with the PUD plans as amended in the submission of 5/21/15. I will support Resolution 15-30 with the considerations listed (some of which have been addressed by the developer's response.)

I'm also comfortable with the Developer's Agreement as presented. I will support Resolution 15-31.

I'm also willing to support a rebate TIF as outlined in the NDC gap financing report. What that amounts to is a 10% support level, based on the final value of the project. 

Gap Financing Report

It is fair to say the most anticipated report for next week's PUD public hearing was the gap financing report from the National Development Council. Tom Jackson from NDC has worked with the City and the Development group for over a year. His report came to councilors today and can be found here:

Gap Financing Report

I've had a quick read through it and will need to look more closely again tomorrow. Jackson does recommend that the city allow a $4M rebate TIF to the developer. That represents roughly 10% of the projected tax value of the project.

The PUD Public Hearing will be Wednesday May 27th at 7:00 at the University Club.

All of the reports for this hearing as well as other project information can be found here:

http://university-heights.org/BuildZoneSanit/OUP/15/index.html

I hope to see a good turnout of city residents.

A Closer Look at TIF

Council held a work session last night on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as we continue to consider the One University Place project. We had two speakers talk with us, and it was a very informative and illuminating meeting.

The first presenter was Dr. Peter Fisher, Research Director of the Iowa Policy Project. Peter is national expert on public finance and is a frequently cited commentator on what is viewed as the abuse of TIF projects.

I spent a good deal of time speaking with Dr. Fisher in 2010 when in my first term on city council and the idea of TIF was proposed for One University Place. I find him to be very approachable and gracious with his time and expertise. Last night he had a PowerPoint presentation that he shared with the council and public who attended the meeting.
The slideshow can be downloaded from the U-H Municipal website:  TIF Presentation

The portion I found most helpful were the last two slides he shared. The first slide was guidelines for Responsible TIF Use:

These guidelines generally correspond with what I've said I would support in a TIF: a project based, rebate TIF with a definite time/cost ending. The only area above that I haven't supported is the last one in that I have mentioned TIF as a means to pay for the Community Center which would be a tax exempt facility. I will now need to consider bonding for a center in light of Dr. Fisher's suggestions.

The last slide was Questions to Ask:

These are the questions we should apply to One University Place, some I can answer now, others not yet:

Question One: YES ( we are only considering a rebate TIF, for the project site only)
Question Two: YES (I view the commercial space as a public benefit. The developer has said they could build a residential only project without TIF. I believe the public benefit of commercial space justifies a TIF)
Question Three: Not Yet (I'll talk about this down below)
Question Four: To ensure public benefit (This can be explained in my answer to question 2 as well as my firm belief that this property, which currently generates zero taxes, should be on the city rolls. If this development does not take place there is a high probability that it could be purchased by the University of Iowa, which would effectively remove any possibility of it generating taxes)

The second speaker was Tom Jackson of the National Development Council. City Council has hired Tom evaluate the One University Place project and recommend whether or not a TIF would be necessary. Tom has also performed this duty for the City of Iowa City as they consider re-development projects. Tom's work will heavily influence how I judge the answer to question 3 above.

Tom said he will have a full written report delivered to the City prior to our May 27th Public Hearing on the One University Place Planned Unit Development (PUD). He did have some preliminary remarks last night. Here are what I considered major points of what he said last night:

• While Tom didn't say outright that the project deserves a TIF, he did talk in general terms about amounts and time limits, so I am assuming he has deemed the project as viable and worthy of TIF
• Financing model is predicting an 8% return on the project 
• Local bank financing would be approximately 5% which would be paid first
• Private equity firms are not interested in projects generating under 15% return
• A TIF time limit of 12 years is the rough projection
• The payment would be a flat amount per year, so that after the first several years of payment, any excess amount generated from site would flow through normal channels to all other entities: county, city, school district
• A gap amount of $4 million is the rough projection

As I said at the beginning of this post, I found last night to be extremely helpful and what I learned will certainly influence and clarify my judgement regarding this project.