UH ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO UH CITY COUNCILRECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF REZONING APPLICATION

CONCERNING 901, 905, AND 909 MELROSE AVENUE

This report consists of transcriptions of two segments of the audio recording of theZoning Commission’s meeting of August 1, 2017. The day before the Chair provided thefollowing explanation of these segments in an email sent to the other four commissioners:

Subject: Explanation of Some Segments of Tomorrow Night’s Agenda

* * *[S]o as to provide residents with a final opportunity to address any newlyadvanced consideration that might be materially influencing how any of us maybe thinking of voting at the end of tomorrow night’s meeting, I’ve inserted fifteenminutes for concluding public input between “Initial Commissioner Explanations of Considerations and Concerns” and “Determination of Substance & Format of Zoning Commission Recommendations & Report to City Council on RezoningApplication.”

As I mentioned when we initially were getting into this, I think that someexplanation of the reasons for our voting the way that we end up doing might behelpful in providing residents with some indication that regardless of outcome theviews they expressed received some consideration. Such explanations can beshort and simple or long and complicated, and I believe each of us should feelcomfortable speaking our mind and/or heart as we see fit.

Our neighbors hearing us share our thinking with each other needn’t entail eitherdebate between commissioners or debate between commissioners and residents,and I will try my best to articulate that thought at the outset of tomorrow’smeeting and as chair to keep things within those guidelines as the eveningunfolds.

The short interval between tomorrow night’s Zoning Commission meeting andnext Tuesday’s City Council meeting probably will prevent a detailed writtenreport of what may turn out to be different reasons behind our votes, and onepossibility could be a combination of (1) excerpts from the audio recording of ourmeeting and (2) as many of us as are able to do so being at next Tuesday’scouncil meeting to answer any questions councilors might wish to ask us.

* * *

The full audio recording of the entire audio recording will be available on the citywebsite’s ULP Development Project webpage<http://www.university-heights.org/BuildZoneSanit/ULP/index.html >,

but the following transcriptions have been prepared in lieu of audio excerpts of the referencedsegments of such recording.

-1-

INITIAL COMMISSIONER EXPLANATIONS OF CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCERNS

[@ audio recording time stamps 1:48-2:22 ]

Commissioner Stepheny Gahn:

I'm a member of the Zoning Commission, but I also live at 62 Highland Drive. Pat hasasked that we speak from the heart and I've been fairly quiet and observant, taking in all of theperspectives and emails and listening to speakers, keeping an open mind like he has asked untilthe final moments here to make my final decision.

I have many personal reasons as well as trying to represent what the city's best interestsare. I'll start off with saying that one of my personal reasons is that I personally doctor at theMayo Clinic and have for over two decades. I've experienced the need and also the satisfactionof having a hotel near where you're doctoring. I know there are many families that would benefitfrom a hotel in this particular area. I think there's a need for it, a demand for it, I don't think it'smet yet.

I also I have a six year old, a three year old, and a nine month old at home that arealways on my mind, they are my priority in my life. Their future is always what is driving mydecisions. The future of University Heights is what I am thinking about right now and I knowsomething that Jim Lane said has been kind of referenced already once, that he said right now weare surviving and we are surviving day at a time, day by day, not being able to plan for futureopportunities, like purchasing the Swisher property which is going to be coming up for purchase,the Visioning program, maintaining streets, sidewalks, parks, etc. We're surviving right now butwe're not thriving and I want to be part of a community that thrives, that is growing.

I want to thank Kent and Emily and your team for your report that you got out so quickly. We didn't give you very much time to do it and I feel that they did a fantastic job. I feelconfident that the traffic's not going to be an issue. I feel like this is a great opportunity becausethere is no TIF, I think we're going to be making money, the city will be making money rightaway. We don't have to wait for a TIF like this project, the building we're in. And then l also likethe fact that the developers are local, they're kind of down-to-earth guys that have been ownersand developers for years. They have a vested interest in the community, are not outsidegentlemen from some other town coming in and then just trying to make money because there isan opportunity. I just really don't think we can afford to miss out on this opportunity for ourcommunity and I plead with the rest of the commissioners to vote yes.

Commissioner Stuart Rosebrook:

My name is Stuart Rosebrook and I live at 426 Ridgeview Avenue and I believe we'velived here since June 2011

Just a little background about myself. Outside of living in a rural boarding schoolbasically 35 miles from a city in central Arizona, I've lived most of my life in what I define assuburban America but many of you might define as urban America. I lived in Phoenix, Arizona,

-2-

North Holland, California, Williamsburg, Virginia, and Tempe, Arizona which has the mostparallel to living in a university town that has grown exponentially.

One of my great interests in University Heights is its role not only as a community untoitself but as we review this rezoning, is what our position is in the greater community. I greatlyappreciate the report from Johnson County and I think it's very important that we keep our earsopen to what is happening from the university. As someone who is a Tempe/ASU graduate, assomeone who lived in Tempe for many years, I am very aware of the strength and power ofuniversities and how they can directly or indirectly dominate a community and its residentialpatterns, as well as its rentals and in high rise developments. The one thing that we always talkabout is our relationship with our cities, Iowa City and Coralville, we are neighbors of those, but I would challenge my fellow members of the zoning commission as well as the city council andour residents to realize that the fourth entity is the university, that they act in their own interests. They have to work with the city but because they have the nonprofit status, there is the long termfinancial issues, just as we have here at One University Place, they are in a position to be theunnamed municipality that surrounds us and can dominate our area.

And so I have not made the final decision. I am very concerned that University Heightsreceives development opportunities like this that could benefit us in the long run in many waysfinancially. How it changes us, and as someone who has lived in urban/suburban neighborhoodswith multiple zoning areas within it like in Phoenix if anyone here has visited Phoenix, Arizona,the zoning was very ragged over many many decades and so you can be in a nice neighborhood,have a church across the street, a school, and trailers in a park. We owned a home in centralPhoenix at one point and zoning was a mish-mash. My central concern is that we as a city arenot working toward long term vision in concert with our neighbors. We can look across therailroad track and see a large parking lot and open area, and I think that we are operating withinthis bubble of University Heights and we have a development project like this and now we arehearing that the university may be building its own conference center and its own hotel center.

I think there may be too many unanswered questions yet for the zoning commission toapprove this rezoning at this time. Again I have not made my decision but I wanted to makethose ideas of mine and my own personal experiences that I believe are relevant. I have listenedvery carefully to everybody's passions for what we're going forward on in this community.

Commissioner Alice Haugen:

I live at 1483 Grand Avenue. It seems to me that we have actually two questions in frontof us tonight. One, whether the property should be rezoned to be commercial instead ofresidential and the second is if this a very good project for a commercial area.

In favor of the project, I'll take as reasons the rezoning should happen a number ofreasons that have been given in its favor. One is the convenience of hospital visitors, second isincome to the city, the third is that there is no TIF that is going to be requested. Two minorbenefits include improvements to the path and the availability of a café. I think I'll come backand give my weight to those positives after I discuss some of the negatives.

Against this project we have to weigh in the loss of the most historic house in University

-3-

Heights (122 years old), the loss of large number of mature trees and green space, intrusion of amajor large commercial activity into a residential neighborhood. The scale of the project iswrong for the site. Eighty-five percent of the surface area will be given over to the project.Some questions have been raised for which we have no strong answers at the moment but that Ithink are important to consider are the possibility of it lowering the values of the propertiesadjacent to it. Some speak very confidently that there won't be an impact but others certainly areconcerned about it. The exact impact on traffic is hard to know at the moment as we have notyet fully loaded One University Place and we have the upcoming traffic from the universityconference center and hotel so there is uncertainty about traffic although our current estimatesare that it's probably not a problem.

A major concern is that it's a time of transition. We are still absorbing, we're stillmetabolizing the impact on our community of this large project. We know now that theuniversity is planning to go ahead with a development fairly close to us that also cause us toterms with and adjust to that. So it's a time of transition that's itself a time of strain and a timethat makes it difficult to make decisions.

But maybe the strongest negative against it is a loss of sense of place as a residentialtown. That's not what a hotel is. It's simply however pretty you make it, it’s not a residentialthing.

I want to revisit some of the positives that have been presented. Convenience of hospitalvisitors – the new project by the university mitigates that since it obviously will be useful tohospital visitors but most important to me as a zoning commissioner is that convenience ofhospital visitors is not my primary responsibility. My responsibility is to the residents ofUniversity Heights. For us to take care of hospital visitors is an act of complete altruism. If wewere in a situation where the decision were equally balanced and I had to make up my mind andit would benefit hospital visitors that could tip it one way or the other, but I can't myself as acommissioner of University Heights include the convenience of hospital visitors as an importantcriteria

The idea that this would produce income for the city has occurred in a number of settings. I have a difficulty with as it has usually been presented. It has been presented as if income to thecity is always good. Without putting some kind of limits on how much income we want, this is acriterion that can be used for unlimited development. If people were saying UH needs Xhundreds of thousands of dollars to do road work and this project would bring in Y thousands ofdollars, matching somehow a need to an income stream, I might be more receptive. But when itis simply presented as more income for the city is always better it is essentially giving a blankcheck to developers to say University Heights will let you tell us that you'll get income out of us,and that seems to be dangerous.

There is no TIF. I don't think having the absence of extortion is a positive value fordevelopment. The path improvements will principally benefit the residents of the developers'own building and the café is minor benefit. As someone pointed out, it's not usually a hotel caféyou choose to go to for dinner. Helpful to people at the hotel but not a major benefit.

It seems to me many more things against than for. I won't make a strong decision as to

-4-

how I will vote yet, but I will point out that my tally is that 15 people have spoken in favor of itand 91 against.

Commissioner Larry Wilson:

I'm Larry Wilson, and I live at 308 Koser, just across the street. First I want to thank thedevelopers for patiently answering my questions and for their valiant effort to make things alittle better. And now I'll requote Pat who said in the beginning that projects are not all good ornot all bad, and I think that's true in this case. However, there are three concerns I have that Idon't think have yet been adequately addressed.

One is the building height. I think a five-story building that is very close, adjacentalmost, abutting two houses that will remain in private ownership, and then 194 feet from theback doors of those on the east side of Olive Court, is too much disparity in space and height andone way to help address that is to have a good buffer.

I think maybe they‘ve done all they can in the 22 feet that they have, but I don't thinkthey can get adequate buffer in that space to mitigate that height. So I think the building heightneeds to come down some and the buffer needs to be increased and there doesn't seem to be anyway to do that but I haven't seen real tries to do that either.

The third thing is the potentially historic building. I don't think we've adequatelyaddressed that it is or isn't. The information I have leads me to believe that it could be on thenational register, but we don't know the condition of the building, we don't know if it's worth orif it's feasible to rehabilitate it and reuse it, we don't know whether it's possible to move it forsure. I know Laura Hawks with the developers told me that she felt that if the access roads werebuilt first, that physically they could get the building to the exit of the site but where does it gofrom there, how do you get it to a lot somewhere – that hasn't been addressed. I think it's animportant enough building that it needs to be addressed.

I have received mail messages that were copied to me. There have been more, but threetimes more have been against than have been for. This is important to me. Of those that best Ican identify live close, two are for and one is against but two of those for don't live there. So thathas an impact on me.

In addition the time line for considering this is rather short. I understand our ownconstraints that we place on developers, we tell them that we give them forty-five days andthey've extended it. But still that doesn't' seem to have been enough to really address what Iconsider my remaining concerns.

So what are the benefits? There are benefits to the hospital and I understand that and Ithink it's a beautiful thing to have. But that doesn't directly serve our community. So I think it'sa good service but not to the people I'm representing. There is some benefits from a restaurantperhaps . That's okay, but I don't think it's a major contribution to the community.

So it all boils down to financial. And while I would welcome income and I think we canuse it but whether we absolutely need it--I haven't been convinced it's that critical, but certainly

-5-

we can use it. But then there are the impacts of this, and I think the greatest impact is on thefirst series of single family homes to the west. I think it is a great impact, including construction. You know we live across the street and it's one hundred sixty five feet between this building andour back door. And our grass got so dusty during construction that when you walked through thegrass you'd kick up dust. They were supposed to control this that was all part of the agreement,but it didn't happen. So there are all kinds of things going on during construction that peopledon't think about that you would think could be controlled.

So I think the impact on residential properties is a great concern. I'm concerned thisproposal does not fit the environment that it is and the adjacent single family home owners. Having said all that, I won't make a final decision til I hear what everyone else has to say.

Commissioner Pat Bauer:*

Pat Bauer, 338 Koser. I want to begin by thanking my fellow commissioners. They'veworked hard, they've paid attention, they all spoke well tonight about the concerns that areleading them or carrying them along. Early on at our first meeting I indicated that I thought thatpart of the problem the last time with OUP was decision makers who just decided and didn'texplain. I certainly have tried to let people know that what you've said has been heard. Now ifyou have a winners and losers approach to things, some lawyers say that if you win, you don'tcare what the judges' reasons are, it's only when you lose that you want them to explain why. But as I'll say I continue to be hopeful that perhaps there's some middle ground here.

I wanted to start off that many of the other four commissioners have mentioned thingsthat I'll just mention very quickly. I think traffic certainly isn't going to be improved by this. It'sgoing to be adversely impacted but I don't see it as a deal killer. I do think the lodging –offering something to people at the hospital is part of our being part of a larger community and ifthat's not available elsewhere the fact that we could provide that would have some value.

I will spend most of my time talking about the finances because I resolutely resist theidea of financial fear mongering which I think was played again and again 5 or 6 years ago, but Ijust don't see it. Jim Lane is always talking about a conclusion but I think he and I have bothgone into the weeds on the numbers and I'll go toe to toe and tit for tat with him on that. Havingdone that just to try to get some sense, in the past 11 years--and again this is complicatedstuff–you have the assessed valuation, which is what the assessor says your house is worth, youthen have this rollback factor that is keyed to the five-year moving average of farm prices andgoes up or down, but you come down to a taxable valuation. [PDF A1] What the green columnshows is that in the past three or four years we've had a one-sixth increase in our taxablevaluation. Along the side I show that part of that is an increase in assessments which is not asgreat a part of it as the dual factor with the roll back, but when you've had 75% increase or 80%increase in your tax base in 10 or 11 years, to me it's not an ATM, we ‘re not going to close uptomorrow.

I don't want to be disrespectful of folks on fixed incomes for whom that tax bill looms

* PDFs projected during remarks are attached with references noted in italicized bolded brackets.

-6-

large. But one thought is if we look at it objectively what this table shows us is that we have thehighest per capita taxable value of anyone in Johnson County. [PDF A2] Our taxable value istwice what it is in many of the other places. That leads to us being well in the middle of the packwhen it comes to tax burden. [PDF A3] Our city tax rate is close to 11%. It's 16% in Iowa City. So it's not like we're over-taxed relative to neighboring municipalities.

If one wants to put their finger on where our money goes, it's our police department. Thisis a table that Pat Yeggy and I collaborated on a few years back and it hasn't been updated. [PDF A4] But it shows that relative to other cities in Johnson County we're spending 4 to 5times more on police. I'm not saying we should change that but all I'm saying is that I don't thinkthat there is a financial imperative here, that we've got to do this to keep our head above water.

I would embrace however what Jim Lane said. I think that we can survive. He said thatin 2015. He said we can wait til 2030 to get a penny out of OUP because of these kinds offactors, so to suggest that something has changed now ... .

I am however beginning to move to talk about that I think that revenue is a significantfactor here. What I did here was try to show what does University Heights presently get out ofthat property and it's about $3,000 year at half-million dollar valuation, which is rolled backabout 50%. [PDF A5] Some people have suggested "well why not a Birkdale, get JeffHendrickson in here" and I think that if you did that, well perhaps twenty times that you mightget $70,000 out of it (this is property tax). Other people have said what about another OUP,although someone said you're not going to have luxury condos next to a railroad track. But ifyou went with OUP, that would be about the same as what you would get from this hotel, giventhe difference in rollback – OUP runs about $32 million and they're talking about $20 millionhere, but there's a difference in rollback.

So for starters there is $200,000 of additional property tax there potentially. And if allthat was going to do was to further reduce our property tax burden, to me the detriment to thepeople living close at hand, to the people across town for whom this offends their sense of place,to me that would not be worth doing. But to me, what really gets my attention is the hotel/moteltax which would bring in another – I think $280,00 is a fair figure and I'll use that–and its not$280,000 once but $280,000 potentially going forward year after year.

So what I would suggest is potentially a middle ground here. We all know about carbontax – people who pollute got to pay a carbon tax. And I think we should looking at the propertytax and the hotel/motel tax as kind of a "community tax" to the extent to which our sensibilitiesor sense of place is adversely affected by this development.

I'm thinking, well what could we do with $500,000 a year of kind of a windfall. Thethings that start to occur to me are doing the kinds of things that we talked about at a city councilmeeting two and a half years ago about affordable housing, and there just wasn't any money. This hotel/motel tax, half of it could be used fund bonds to buy the Swisher tract and turn it intoa nine-acre preserve. Part could be used to stabilize – one of the pictures is the map of who arethe folks [near the property]. [PDF A6] At the very beginning I wanted to remind you thateither the zoning commission or 20% of the adjacent property owners could force a 75% supermajority requirement.

-7-

As I looked at this picture, I was troubled. As we talked at the last meeting, part of theconcern is that a lot of the adjacent property owners are apartment buildings, people in IowaCity, investor-owned properties, houses owned by the developers themselves. This thing hasgrown a little bit with the addition of [905] and [909] but [on] this map ... the red, the pink arerental permits. [PDF A7] So I am looking at this area here which would be the folks inUniversity Heights who could object and I went back and looked at the ordinance and tenantscannot object, only owners can object. And it strikes me that owners have a very differentperspective than tenants do.

So it's kind of a double whammy, and I was thinking what's the sense of this ordinance. Well I think the sense of this ordinance is that as a zoning commissioner, I think I need to thinkmore broadly than beyond my own personal preferences to consider what's in the best interest ofthe community. I think the 20% doesn't bear that burden. The 20% can just decide "not in mybackyard!" and that's what the ordinance gives them. And my concern here is that it is not goingto work here, that the people most immediately impacted by this aren't going to be able to playthat card.

And so even though I as a commissioner and as a citizen would say let's use that money ,let's talk about increasing owner-occupied housing, let's use those funds to bring in consultantswho could tell us how to get more families in our town. We've got the Melrose Corridor– thatmay be a "missing middle" that could be coming down the pike in the next ten or fifteen ortwenty years. It might not happen on its own, but if you've got a steady stream of hotel/motelrevenues a portion of which can be used to provide down-payment assistance, to engage inUniverCity kinds of things.

So as I say as a citizen, as a resident, as a commissioner, that's my pitch, which is couldwe perhaps, even though a motel is not all of our idea of the best thing to have in our town,might we able to take advantage of that and use it to build a better place, a community that livesup to the aspirations that the Comprehensive Plan does.

So I'm going to pull probably a John Kerry or John McCain and be for it before I'magainst it. I think five stories is too tall, I think there are a lot of other things that need to beworked out, but I think something in the nature, along these lines, of a hotel in that area makessense, given its location in town, given the shielding that's there; I don't know about theorientation or height. And so I'm not rejecting the proposal on the merits but I do think onbehalf, in solidarity with those people near by, to play the 20% card because I don't know thatthey can play it themselves. And we won't know that until it comes up, so put the marker downthat it's going to need four votes and encourage four members of the council to get those fourvotes to try to come up with something that is respectful of the diversity of views that we heardhere.

Some people want a hotel and lower taxes; some don't want anything. My hope is that ifthat hotel/motel increased revenue was devoted to affordable housing, neighborhoodstabilization, buying the Swisher track, that would be kind of a situation that would be awin/win, that hopefully a sizable majority of residents could get behind it because I don't thinkwe need another 52/48 division in our community.

-8-

Commissioner Larry Wilson:

Can I add something? Pat, a lot of what you say appeals to me. However, you know intalking about rental property and that’s one of my concerns, I'd like to mention that using anyfunds that we have income from a project such as this to try to return rental properties to singlefamily ownership is what we ought to be doing regardless of what money we can come up with. We should be dedicating some money each year from what we have to this. But I do think that ifthis project doesn't fit well into the area, it will be even harder to get people to come in to try toconvert these back to single family homes. So I am very sensitive to the concerns of thoseclose-by residents.

DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANCE & FORMAT OF ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS & REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL

ON REZONING APPLICATION

[@ audio recording time stamps 2:30-2:32]

Clerk Christine Anderson:

I will call the roll:

Commissioner Stepheny Gahn:

Yes.

Commissioner Stuart Rosebrook:

No.

Commissioner Alice Haugen:

No.

Commissioner Pat Bauer:

No, with the qualification that I support a project like this but am casting my no vote primarily toavoid the adjacent property owners need to wrestle with the complexities of the 20% rule.

Commissioner Larry Wilson:

I vote no, for the reasons I have already expressed and I have to say that I am more opposed tothe mass and height of this building, its lack of area to buffer it from adjacent home owners thanas more of a concern than its actual use.

-9-

Clerk Christine Anderson:

Four noes, one yes.

Commissioner Pat Bauer: So Steve that's a recommendation not to approve?

Attorney Steve Ballard:

Yes.

-10-

Taxable

Assessed

Rollb

ack

Assessed

 Valua

tion

Rollb

ack Factor

Taxable Va

luation

Inde

xInde

xInde

x20

07$8

5,49

2,03

20.45

9960

$41,30

0,70

310

010

010

020

08$8

5,99

7,90

60.45

5596

$41,12

5,81

010

010

199

2009

$98,50

3,24

90.44

0803

$45,62

0,36

511

011

596

2010

$103

,349

,008

0.45

5893

$49,22

2,41

311

912

199

2011

$103

,045

,322

0.46

9094

$50,34

1,71

712

212

110

220

12$1

05,484

,925

0.48

5299

$53,15

1,92

312

912

310

620

13$1

07,736

,321

0.50

7518

$56,54

7,84

913

712

611

020

14$1

07,875

,997

0.52

8166

$58,72

1,96

614

212

611

520

15$1

10,930

,876

0.54

4002

$62,25

8,78

715

113

011

820

16$1

11,143

,022

0.55

7335

$63,49

0,97

315

413

012

120

17$1

23,535

,293

0.55

6259

$70,22

6,22

517

014

412

120

18$1

30,541

,101

0.56

9391

$74,11

7,13

117

915

312

4

UH PRO

PERT

Y VA

LUAT

IONS (ASSESSED & TAX

ABLE)

PD

F 1

TAXA

BLE VA

LUE

TOTA

L20

10JANUAR

Y 1, 201

6PE

ROUTSIDE

AGLA

ND

EMER

GDEB

TEM

PLOY

CAPITA

LRE

GULA

RCE

NSU

SRE

GULA

R W G&E

CAPITA

AGLA

ND

FY 16/17

FY 17/18

8.10

000

LEVY

LEVY

SERV

ICE

BENEFIT

IMPR

OVE

W/O

 AG

52 JO

HNSO

NUNIVER

SITY HEIGHT

S1,05

174

,117

,131

70,521

‐0‐

*8.100

00*8

.100

001.04

101

0.19

961

1.45

812

10.798

74HILLS

703

48,032

,825

68,325

203,98

9*8

.100

00*8

.100

003.00

375

8.10

000

NORT

H LIBE

RTY

13,374

823,84

1,32

961

,600

1,67

1,69

1*8

.100

00*8

.100

003.00

375

0.88

994

2.04

270

11.032

64TIFFIN

1,94

711

9,30

7,07

561

,277

883,47

0*8

.100

00*8

.100

000.37

663.00

375

0.27

000

2.25

402

0.80

165

11.802

27SO

LON

2,03

710

7,19

0,85

452

,622

97,463

*8.100

00*8

.100

000.68

569

3.00

375

0.14

557

1.27

170

0.67

500

10.877

96CO

RALV

ILLE

18,907

979,03

8,96

651

,782

1,17

5,54

6*8

.100

00*8

.100

001.18

323.00

375

2.12

020

2.12

430

13.527

70SH

UEYVILLE

577

29,877

,085

51,780

507,43

67.09

997

7.09

909

3.00

375

7.09

909

IOWA CITY

67,862

3,46

0,67

4,24

150

,996

1,61

8,09

0*8

.100

00*8

.100

001.51

044

3.00

375

3.57

846

3.14

415

16.333

05SW

ISHE

R87

926

,633

,715

30,300

185,43

8*8

.100

00*8

.100

000.27

053

3.00

375

8.37

053

OXF

ORD

807

21,432

,469

26,558

234,74

7*8

.100

00*8

.100

001.48

311

3.00

375

0.55

990

10.143

01LO

NE TR

EE1,30

027

,565

,623

21,204

251,60

4*8

.100

00*8

.100

003.00

375

1.08

296

9.18

296

2017

/201

8 CITY

 TAX

 RAT

ESDEP

ARTM

ENT OF MAN

AGEM

ENT ‐ LOCA

L BU

DGET

 DIVISION

GEN

ERAL

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐OTH

ER LEV

IES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

$8.10 LEVY

PD

F 2

TAXA

BLE VA

LUE

TOTA

L20

10JANUAR

Y 1, 201

6OUTSIDE

AGLA

ND

EMER

GDEB

TEM

PLOY

CAPITA

LRE

GULA

RCE

NSU

SRE

GULA

R W G&E

AGLA

ND

FY 16/17

FY 17/18

8.10

000

LEVY

LEVY

SERV

ICE

BENEFIT

IMPR

OVE

W/O

 AG

52 JO

HNSO

NIOWA CITY

67,862

3,46

0,67

4,24

11,61

8,09

0*8

.100

00*8

.100

001.51

044

3.00

375

3.57

846

3.14

415

16.333

05CO

RALV

ILLE

18,907

979,03

8,96

61,17

5,54

6*8

.100

00*8

.100

001.18

323.00

375

2.12

020

2.12

430

13.527

70TIFFIN

1,94

711

9,30

7,07

588

3,47

0*8

.100

00*8

.100

000.37

663.00

375

0.27

000

2.25

402

0.80

165

11.802

27NORT

H LIBE

RTY

13,374

823,84

1,32

91,67

1,69

1*8

.100

00*8

.100

003.00

375

0.88

994

2.04

270

11.032

64SO

LON

2,03

710

7,19

0,85

497

,463

*8.100

00*8

.100

000.68

569

3.00

375

0.14

557

1.27

170

0.67

500

10.877

96UNIVER

SITY HEIGHT

S1,05

174

,117

,131

‐0‐

*8.100

00*8

.100

001.04

101

0.19

961

1.45

812

10.798

74OXF

ORD

807

21,432

,469

234,74

7*8

.100

00*8

.100

001.48

311

3.00

375

0.55

990

10.143

01LO

NE TR

EE1,30

027

,565

,623

251,60

4*8

.100

00*8

.100

003.00

375

1.08

296

9.18

296

SWISHE

R87

926

,633

,715

185,43

8*8

.100

00*8

.100

000.27

053

3.00

375

8.37

053

HILLS

703

48,032

,825

203,98

9*8

.100

00*8

.100

003.00

375

8.10

000

SHUEYVILLE

577

29,877

,085

507,43

67.09

997

7.09

909

3.00

375

7.09

909

2017

/201

8 CITY

 TAX

 RAT

ESDEP

ARTM

ENT OF MAN

AGEM

ENT ‐ LOCA

L BU

DGET

 DIVISION

$8.10 LEVY

GEN

ERAL

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐OTH

ER LEV

IES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

PD

F 3

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

Baue

r - P

olic

e$2

60,0

77$2

96,8

93$2

82,0

08$3

21,1

25$3

43,9

50n/

a

Yegg

y (N

et C

ost)

$2

07,6

39$2

18,9

16$2

05,9

14$2

37,6

04$2

98,7

50$2

93,9

20

Dol

lar

Diff

eren

ce$5

2,43

8$7

7,97

7$7

6,09

4$8

3,52

1$4

5,20

0n/

a

Net

Cos

t/Po

lice

79.8

%73

.7%

73.0

%74

.0%

86.9

%n/

a

Pop.

FY 2

005

FY 2

006

FY 2

007

FY 2

008

FY 2

009

Pop.

FY 2

005

FY 2

006

FY 2

007

FY 2

008

FY 2

009

UN

IVER

SITY

HEI

GH

TS98

742

.8%

48.0

%49

.6%

37.4

%46

.3%

Baue

rIO

WA

CIT

Y62

,220

10.7

%n/

a11

.8%

12.5

%8.

4%U

NIV

ERSI

TY H

EIG

HTS

987

34.2

%35

.4%

36.2

%27

.7%

40.2

%Ye

ggy

CORA

LVIL

LE17

,269

5.1%

6.2%

1.8%

5.0%

4.8%

SWIS

HER

813

7.3%

n/a

8.0%

10.1

%11

.1%

NO

RTH

LIB

ERTY

5,36

75.

2%n/

a5.

7%6.

2%8.

3%H

ILLS

679

5.4%

13.0

%5.

3%10

.4%

10.0

%LO

NE

TREE

1,15

13.

0%n/

a6.

6%5.

7%7.

1%IO

WA

CIT

Y62

,220

10.7

%n/

a11

.8%

12.5

%8.

4%SO

LON

1,11

72.

8%n/

a3.

2%2.

5%2.

7%N

ORT

H L

IBER

TY5,

367

5.2%

n/a

5.7%

6.2%

8.3%

UN

IVER

SITY

HEI

GH

TS98

742

.8%

48.0

%49

.6%

37.4

%46

.3%

Baue

rLO

NE

TREE

1,15

13.

0%n/

a6.

6%5.

7%7.

1%U

NIV

ERSI

TY H

EIG

HTS

987

34.2

%35

.4%

36.2

%27

.7%

40.2

%Ye

ggy

CORA

LVIL

LE17

,269

5.1%

6.2%

1.8%

5.0%

4.8%

TIFF

IN97

51.

1%n/

a1.

6%1.

3%2.

2%O

XFO

RD70

55.

4%n/

a4.

4%5.

1%3.

8%SW

ISH

ER81

37.

3%n/

a8.

0%10

.1%

11.1

%SH

UEY

VILL

E25

09.

7%n/

a8.

6%2.

5%2.

9%O

XFO

RD70

55.

4%n/

a4.

4%5.

1%3.

8%SO

LON

1,11

72.

8%n/

a3.

2%2.

5%2.

7%H

ILLS

679

5.4%

13.0

%5.

3%10

.4%

10.0

%TI

FFIN

975

1.1%

n/a

1.6%

1.3%

2.2%

SHU

EYVI

LLE

250

9.7%

n/a

8.6%

2.5%

2.9%

Pop.

FY 2

005

FY 2

006

FY 2

007

FY 2

008

FY 2

009

Pop.

FY 2

005

FY 2

006

FY 2

007

FY 2

008

FY 2

009

UN

IVER

SITY

HEI

GH

TS98

7$2

63.5

0$3

00.8

0$2

85.7

2$3

25.3

5$3

48.4

8Ba

uer

IOW

A C

ITY

62,2

20$1

31.4

1$1

39.5

8$1

46.0

6$1

54.7

3$1

51.8

0U

NIV

ERSI

TY H

EIG

HTS

987

$210

.37

$221

.80

$208

.63

$240

.73

$302

.68

Yegg

yCO

RALV

ILLE

17,2

69$1

60.5

5$1

82.5

4$1

75.9

6$1

80.2

5$1

97.5

2CO

RALV

ILLE

17,2

69$1

60.5

5$1

82.5

4$1

75.9

6$1

80.2

5$1

97.5

2N

ORT

H L

IBER

TY5,

367

$78.

09$9

3.81

$114

.29

$153

.41

$180

.02

NO

RTH

LIB

ERTY

5,36

7$7

8.09

$93.

81$1

14.2

9$1

53.4

1$1

80.0

2LO

NE

TREE

1,15

1$2

9.82

$31.

46$3

1.61

$36.

18$3

6.59

IOW

A C

ITY

62,2

20$1

31.4

1$1

39.5

8$1

46.0

6$1

54.7

3$1

51.8

0SO

LON

1,11

7$2

9.16

$30.

91$3

0.91

$35.

79$3

5.79

SHU

EYVI

LLE

250

$32.

03$3

4.21

$33.

95$5

6.16

$67.

39U

NIV

ERSI

TY H

EIG

HTS

987

$263

.50

$300

.80

$285

.72

$325

.35

$348

.48

Baue

rSW

ISH

ER81

3$3

5.18

$37.

29$3

7.29

$43.

17$4

3.17

UN

IVER

SITY

HEI

GH

TS98

7$2

10.3

7$2

21.8

0$2

08.6

3$2

40.7

3$3

02.6

8Ye

ggy

LON

E TR

EE1,

151

$29.

82$3

1.46

$31.

61$3

6.18

$36.

59TI

FFIN

975

$14.

08$1

8.03

$21.

53$2

8.80

$36.

00TI

FFIN

975

$14.

08$1

8.03

$21.

53$2

8.80

$36.

00SW

ISH

ER81

3$3

5.18

$37.

29$3

7.29

$43.

17$4

3.17

SOLO

N1,

117

$29.

16$3

0.91

$30.

91$3

5.79

$35.

79O

XFO

RD70

5$2

4.34

$25.

80$2

7.22

$29.

53$2

9.87

OXF

ORD

705

$24.

34$2

5.80

$27.

22$2

9.53

$29.

87H

ILLS

679

$20.

22$2

0.22

$20.

22$2

9.03

$29.

03H

ILLS

679

$20.

22$2

0.22

$20.

22$2

9.03

$29.

03SH

UEY

VILL

E25

0$3

2.03

$34.

21$3

3.95

$56.

16$6

7.39

Dat

a O

btai

ned

from

Cit

y Bu

dget

For

ms

avai

labl

e at

: htt

p://

165.

206.

254.

124/

budg

et‐r

esul

ts.a

sp?c

ount

y_no

=52

Base

Bud

get =

For

m 6

31.1

/ L

ines

15‐

20 /

Col

umn

CPo

lice

Expe

ndit

ures

= F

orm

631

A P

1 /

Line

1 /

Col

umn

IPOLI

CE E

XPEN

DIT

URE

S BY

CIT

IES

IN JO

HN

SON

CO

UN

TY

"Add

itio

nal

Uni

vers

ity

Hei

ghts

Fina

ncia

lIn

form

atio

n"M

emo

(11/

6/10

)@pa

ge2:

"Alth

ough

afu

llex

plic

atio

nof

the

effe

cts

ofex

pend

iture

sfo

rPol

ice

prob

ably

shou

ldin

clud

eof

fset

ting

entr

ies

forr

even

ues

real

ized

thro

ugh

thin

gssu

chas

law

enfo

rcem

ent

gran

tsan

dfin

es,i

nfor

mat

ion

conc

erni

ngsu

chre

venu

esis

not

read

ilyav

aila

ble

and

also

prop

erly

wou

ldha

veto

bequ

alifi

edby

mea

sure

men

tsof

any

acco

mpa

nyin

gco

sts

(e.g

.,an

ych

arge

sfo

rpr

osec

utor

ial

serv

ices

prov

ided

byci

tyat

torn

ey).

Perh

aps

asim

port

antly

,su

chof

fset

ting

reve

nues

pres

umab

lyal

soex

isti

not

her

mun

icip

aliti

esan

dth

usre

lativ

eco

mpa

rison

sw

ould

rem

ain

valid

inth

eab

senc

eof

som

ere

ason

tobe

lieve

that

such

reve

nues

wou

ldbe

prop

ortio

nate

lyle

ssth

anth

ose

obta

ined

in U

nive

rsity

Hei

ghts

.

POLI

CE E

XPEN

DIT

URE

S BY

CIT

IES

IN JO

HN

SON

CO

UN

TYPO

LICE

EXP

END

ITU

RES

BY C

ITIE

S IN

JOH

NSO

N C

OU

NTY

(per

cent

age

of to

tal b

udge

t) [a

rray

ed b

y FY

200

9 pe

rcen

tage

](p

erce

ntag

e of

tota

l bud

get)

[arr

ayed

by

popu

lati

on]

(per

cap

ita)

[arr

ayed

by

FY 2

009

per

capi

ta]

(per

cap

ita)

[arr

ayed

by

popu

lati

on]

POLI

CE E

XPEN

DIT

URE

S BY

CIT

IES

IN JO

HN

SON

CO

UN

TY

PD

F 4

TYPE

 OF USE

UH RE

VENUE

ASSU

MED

 VAL

UAT

ION

1 SFR (Flaum

)$3

,186

$527

K20

 SFR

 (Birk

dale)

$69,04

020

 X $57

0K80

 Con

dos (OUP)

$192

,560

80 X $40

0KHo

tel/M

otel (U

LP)

$194

,377

$20M

PROPE

RTY TA

X GUESSTIM

ATES (P

BB)

PD

F 5

ULP - 200' BUFFER

Search Results: AddressOverride 1

Streets_1758Private_RoadsSite_Addresses_1758

Parcel Lines 1:220 to 1:14062History

ParcelParcel LotROWCemeteries

ParcelsCounty Boundaries

July 27, 2017

Johnson County GIS

1:2,8000 0.045 0.090.0225 mi

0 0.05 0.10.025 km

BOUNDARY USED TOGENERATE 200' BUFFER

(DASHED BLUE LINE)

PD

F 6

PD

F 7