HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-19 OrdinancePrepared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner, 410 E, Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3945
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF ONE PARCEL OF CITY OF
IOWA CITY OWNED PROPERTY FROM ID-RM,
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL MULTI-
FAMILY, TO P, PUBLIC.
WHEREAS, the property at 3800 Napoleon Lane,
owned by the City of Iowa City, is currently zoned
Interim Development Residential Multi-Family (ID-
RM); and
WHEREAS, Section 14-61-7B requires that land
owned by a governmental entity shall be zoned P,
Public; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has initiated the
rezoning of one parcel of property owned by the
City of Iowa City from its current zoning designation
to P, Public; and
WHEREAS, the zoning classification Public, P,
serves as a notice function to those owning or
buying land in proximity to publicly owned land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The parcel described in
Exhibit A is hereby reclassified from its current
zoning designation to P, Public.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication
shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not
adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This
Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Pass and approved this 19th day of
e er 2000.
AYOR
Ordinance No. 00-3945
Page 2
It was moved by t3' Donnel 1 and seconded by Vanderhoef that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x Champion
X Kanner
X Lehman
X O'Donnell
X Pfab
X Vanderhoef
X Wilbum
First Consideration 8/15/00
Voteforpassage: AYES: Lehman, O'Donne'll, Pfab, Vande~'hoef, Wilburn,Champion,
Kanner. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/12/00
Voteforpassa~;: AYES: Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnel'l, Pfab, Vanderhoef, W'i'lburn,
Champion. NAYS: one. ABSENT: None.
Date published 9/27/00
EXHIBIT A
3800 Napoleon Lane
Interim Development Residential Multi-Family, ID-RM
Legal Description:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 22,
AND A PORTION ON THE NORTH HALF OF
SECTION 27, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA, THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6
WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE N88°30'27"E,
ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE, AND ITS
WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, OF AUDITOR' S
PARCEL "A", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 33, AT
PAGE 72, RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF
1140.81 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE N25°34'48"W,
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S
PARCEL, 280.61 FEET; THENCE N25°34'48"W,
280.61 FEET; THENCE S64°25'12"W, 77.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, 315.08 FEET, ALONG
AN ARC OF A 1174.26 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 3 14.13
FOOT CHORD BEARS S72°06'24"W; THENCE
N10°12'23"W, 231.26 FEET; THENCE N64°25'12"E,
327.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
N25°34'48"W, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 905.14 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL #
97089, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 38, AT PAGE
230, RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA;
THENCE S64054'37'W, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 206.12 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, 95.61 FEET, ALONG
THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND AN ARC OF A
970.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 95.57 FOOT CHORD
BEARS S62°05'1 I'W; THENCE S59°15'46'W, ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 336.64 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY, 24.61 FEET ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE AND AN ARC OF A 220.00 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,
WHOSE 24.60 FOOT CHORD BEARS S56°03'28'W,
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
AUDITOR'S PARCEL THENCE S37°00'21"E, ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL #
95107, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 35, AT PAGE
308, RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
176.19 FEET; THENCE S72"26'47"E, ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE, 149.96 FEET; THENCE
S08°13'01"W, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE,
153.79 FEET; THENCE Ngi°46'59"W, ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE, 45.00 FEET; .THENCE
S08°13'01"W, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE,
546.61 FEET; THENCE S29°55'50"W, ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE, 101.49 FEET; THENCE
S88°30'18"W, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, 20.72
FEET; THENCE S31°57'35"W, ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE, 564.01 FEET, TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S
PARCEL; THENCE S58°02'25"E, ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL,
60.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER
OF SAID AUDITOR' S PARCEL; THENCE
N31°57'35"E, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 531.74 FEET TO SAID
POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 20.78 ACRES,
AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
ppdadm/ord/napoleon.doc
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3946
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR
APPROXIMATELY 35.15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTH TERMINUS OF KENNEDY PARKWAY BY
APPROVING A SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY DEVELOPMENT (OSA-'I) PLAN FOR PARTS 8, 9 AND '10
OF WALNUT RIDGE, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Southgate Development Co. on behalf of property owners Dorothy J. Kisner &
John W. and Barbara Kennedy, have requested that the City rezone approximately 35.15 acres of property
located at the north terminus of Kennedy Parkway by approving a Sensitive Areas Overlay Development
(OSA) for Parts 8, 9 and 10 of Walnut Ridge, Iowa City, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow residential development on the subject property similar in
character to that which exists on adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the property contains protected slopes and woodlands that will be protected by a
conservation easement; and
WHEREAS, replacement trees will be planted as approved by the City Forester; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Planning and Zoning
Commission have reviewed the proposed rezoning and Sensitive Areas Overlay Development (OSA) plan
and recommend approval; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Council that the property remain subject to the terms and conditions of the
Conditional Zoning Agreement approved on January 8, 1991 by Ordinance 91-3485, and recorded in Book
1197, Page 107 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following property located in the Planned Development Housing Overlay
Zone (PDH-1), is hereby rezoned subject to the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement
previously approved on January 8, 1991 by Ordinance 91-3485, and recorded in Book 1197, Page 107 of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office, and subject to a Sensitive Areas Development (OSA-1) plan:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL QUARTER, OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST,
OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THENCE N00°23'09"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
EAST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST FRACTIONAL ONE-HALF OF SAID SECTION 7, 3739.50 FEET, TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N00°23'09"E, 1563.91 FEET, THENCE
N88°30'17"E, 1320.00 FEET; THENCE S00°22'54"W, 700.05 FEET; THENCE N89°37'06"W, 413.91
FEET; THENCE S61°25'42"W, 121.63 FEET; THENCE S08°07'31"W, 532.82 FEET; THENCE
S49°30'58"W, 76.17 FEET; THENCE S40°29'20"E, 146.81 FEET; THENCE S51°37'54"W, 139.25
FEET; THENCE N75°16'41"W, 157.08 FEET; THENCE S79°18'37"W, 282.49 FEET; THENCE
S66°13'54"W, 139.05 FEET; THENCE N89°36'51"W, 100.83 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 35.15 ACRES, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. VARIATIONS. The following variations from the requirements of the RR-1 zone have been
approved as part of this revised preliminary PDH plan:
A. Reduction of the right-of-way width of Kennedy Parkway, a collector street, from 66 feet to a minimum of
60 feet.
B. Modification of the City's street standards and specifications for collector streets to permit a pavement
width of 28 feet, back of curb to back of curb, for the undivided portions of Kennedy Parkway. Where the
two lanes of this street are separated by vegetative islands, each of the divided lanes shall be a minimum
of 22 feet, back of curb to back of curb.
C. Reduction of the pavement width for all other streets from 28 feet to 25 feet, back of curb to back to
curb.
D. Reduction of the pavement width for all cul-de-sac loops to a minimum of 22 feet, back of curb to back of
Ordinance No. 00-3946
Page 2
curb.
E.No provision for public sidewalks adjacent to streets within the subdivision, except Kennedy Parkway.
F. Kennedy Parkway shall have a four-foot wide sidewalk, constructed by the developer, on only one side of
the proposed right-of-way. This walk shall be continuous from a point on Melrose Avenue to the point
where Kennedy Parkway intersects the west boundary of the subdivision.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. After passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance for recordation in the Office of
the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the Applicant's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
P an~r~ September' ,2000.
CITY CLE]~K '
OrdinanceNo. 00-3946
Page 3
It was moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by O' Donne] ] that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Champion
X Kanner
X Lehman
X O'Donnell
X Pfab
X Vanderhoef
X Wilbum
First Consideration 8/15 / 00
Voteforpassage: AYES: O'Donne]], Pfab. Vanderhoef, Wib]u~'n, Champion, Kanner,
Lehman. NAY5: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/12/00
Vote for passage: AYES: Lehman, O'Donne]'l, Pfab, Vander'hoef, Wilbur'n, Champion,
Kanner'. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 9/27/00
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3947
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR ON ALL PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE SYCAMORE AND FIRST AVENUE URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT AREA, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF IOWA, BY AND FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF IOWA CITY,
COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A
SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
ON LOANS, MONIES ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS,
INCLUDING BONDS ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY
SAID CITY IN CONNECTION WITH SAID URBAN RENEWAL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, after public notice
and hearing as prescribed by law and pursuant to Resolution No. 00-?q5 passed and
approved on the 15th day of August ,2000, adopted an Urban Renewal
Plan (the "Urban Renewal Plan") for an urban renewal area known as the Sycamore and
First Avenue Urban Renewal Project Area (the "Urban Renewal Project Area"), which
Urban Renewal Project Area includes the lots and parcels located within the area legally
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 23,
TownShip 79N, Range 6W, in accordance with the Records of the Johnson
County Auditor's Office; thence West along the South line of the Northeast
quarter of Section 23 to the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of
Section 23; thence 66 feet to a point perpendicular on the Western Right-of-
Way line of Sycamore Street, thence Northe~y along said Right-of-Way
line to the intersection of the Western Right-of-Way line of Sycamore
Street and the Northern Right-of-Way line of U. S. Highway 6, which is the
Point of Beginning.
Thence Northerly along the Western Right-of-Way line of Sycamore Street
to the Southeastern corner of Johnson County Auditor' s Parcel 10-14-386-
003, thence 66 feet to a point perpendicular on the Eastern Right-of-Way
line of Sycamore Street; thence Northerly along the Eastern Right-of-Way
line of Sycamore Street to the Northwestern corner of Johnson County
Auditor's Parcel 10-14-457-003; thence Easterly 147.61 feet to an angle
-1-
point of said Parcel; thence Northeasterly 413.83 feet; thence Northerly
57.36 feet to the Southern Right-of-Way line of Lower Muscatine Road;
thence Northwesterly along the Southern Right-of-Way line of Lower
Muscatine Road to a point perpendicular 33 feet from the Western corner of
Johnson County Auditor's Parcel 10-14-452-004; thence Northeasterly
223.82 feet to the Northern corner of said parcel; thence Southeasterly 40
feet to the Eastern corner of said parcel; thence Northeasterly along the
property line of Johnson County Auditor' s Parcel 10-14-452-002 to its
Northern corner; thence Southeasterly 150 feet along the property line of
said parcel to its Eastern corner; thence Southwesterly 224.9 feet to the
intersection of said parcel's Southern corner and the Northern Right-of-
Way line of Lower Muscatine Road.
Thence Southeasterly along the Northern Right-of-Way line of Lower
Museatine Road to the Northern Right-of-Way line of Mall Drive; thence
Northeasterly 1533.09 feet along the Northern Right-of-Way line of Mall
Drive to the Southern Right-of-Way line of the Iowa Interstate Railroad;
thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to its intersection with
the Eastern line of Section 14.
Thence South along the Eastern line of Section 14 to the Northwest corner
of Johnson County Auditor's Parcel 10-13-353-002; thence Easterly 176
feet to the Eastern property line of said parcel; thence Southwesterly along
the Eastern property line of Parcel 10-13-353-002 to it's Southeast corner;
thence Northwesterly to the Eastern line of Section 23; thence South along
the Eastern line of Section 23 to the Southeast corner of the Johnson County
Auditor's Parcel described as 10-23-103,001 through 029, then
Southwesterly 988.76 feet to the Northern Right-of-Way line of Lower
Museatine Road, crossing said Right-of-Way line to the intersecting point
of the Southern Right-of-Way line of Lower Muscatine Road and the
Northeastern corner of Johnson County Auditor's Parcel number 10-23-
105-003; thence Southweste~y 157.9 feet to the Northern Right-of-Way
line of U. S. Highway 6; thence Northwesterly 307.82 feet to the intersection
of the Northern Right-of-Way line of U. S. Highway 6 and the Eastern
Right-of-Way line of First Avenue; projecting across the First Avenue
Right-of-Way along the Northern Right-of-Way line of U.S. Highway 6 to
the intersection of the Western Right-of-Way line of First Avenue and the
Northern Right-of-Way line of U.S. Highway 6; thence Westerly along the
Northern Right-of-Way line of U.S. Highway 6 a distance of 1123.13 feet
-2-
to its intersection with the Eastern Right-of-Way line of Sycamore Street,
projecting across the Sycamore Street Right-of-Way along the Northern
Right-of-Way of U. S. Highway 6 to the intersection of the Western Right-
of-Way line of Sycamore Street and the Northern Right-of-Way line of U.S.
Highway 6, to the Point of Beginning.
WHEREAS, expenditures and indebtedness are anticipated to be incurred by the
City of Iowa City, Iowa in the future to finance urban renewal project activities carried
out in furtherance of the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa desires to provide for
the division of revenue from taxation in the Urban Renewal Project Area, as above
described, in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa, as
amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
Section 1. That the taxes levied on the taxable property in the Urban Renewal
Project Area legally described in the preamble hereof, by and for the benefit of the State
of Iowa, City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, Iowa City Community School District,
and all other taxing districts from and after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be
divided as hereinafter in this Ordinance provided.
Section 2. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate at
which the tax is levied each year by or for each of the taxing districts upon the total sum
of the assessed value of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Project Area, as
shown on the assessment roll as of January 1 of the calendar year preceding the first
calendar year in which the City of Iowa City certifies to the County Auditor the amount
of loans, advances, indebtedness, or bonds payable from the division of property tax
revenue described herein, shall be allocated to and when collected be paid into the fund
for the respective taxing district as taxes by or for the taxing district into which all other
property taxes are paid.
Section 3. That portion of the taxes each year in excess of the base period taxes
determined as provided in Section 2 of this Ordinance shall be allocated to and when
collected be paid into a special tax increment fund of the City of Iowa City, Iowa hereby
established, to pay the principal of and interest on loans, monies advanced to,
indebtedness, whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise, including bonds or
obligations issued under the authority of Section 403.9 or 403.12 of the Code of Iowa, as
-3-
amended, incurred by the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to finance or refinance, in whole or in
part, urban renewal projects undertaken within the Urban Renewal Project Area pursuant
to the Urban Renewal Plan, except that taxes for the payment of bonds and interest of
each taxing district shall be collected against all taxable property within the Urban
Renewal Project Area without any limitation as hereinabove provided.
Section 4. Unless or until the total assessed valuation of the taxable property in
the Urban Renewal Project Area exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property
in the Urban Renewal Project Area as shown by the assessment roll referred to in Section
2 of this Ordinance, all of the taxes levied and collected upon the taxable property in the
Urban Renewal Project Area shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing
districts as taxes by or for said taxing districts in the same manner as all other property
taxes.
Section 5. At such time as the loans, advances, indebtedness, bonds and interest
thereon of the City of Iowa City, Iowa referred to in Section 3 hereof have been paid, all
monies thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in the Urban Renewal
Project Area shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing districts in the same
manner as taxes on all other property.
Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed. The provisions of this Ordinance are intended and
shall be construed so as to fully implement the provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code
of Iowa, as amended, with respect to the division of taxes from property within the Urban
Renewal Project Area as described above. In the event that any provision of this
Ordinance shall be determined to be contrary to law, it shall not affect other provisions or
application of this Ordinance which shall at all times be construed to fully invoke the
provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa with reference to the Urban Renewal
Project Area and the territory contained therein.
-4-
Section 7. litis Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
ATI'EST:
Read FirstTime: Aug t ,2000 Vote forpassage:AYES: Vanderhoef, Wilburn,
Champion, Lehman, O'Donne~. I~AYS: Pfab, Kanner. ABSENT: None.
Read Second Time: September 12 ,2000 Vote forpassage:AYES: Vanderhoef, Wilburn,
Champion, Lehman, 0'Donnell. NAYS: Kanner, Pfab. ABSENT: None.
Read Third Time: September 19 ,2000'Vote for passage: AYES: Lehman, 0' Donnel 1,
Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion. NAYS: Kanner, Pfab. ABSENT: None.
PASSED AND APPROVED: September 19 ,2000.
I, Marian K. Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, hereby certify that
the above and foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. 00-3947passed and approved
by the City Council of said City at a meeting held September 19,2000, signed by
the Mayor on September 19 ,2000, and published in the Press Citizen on
September 27 ,2000.
City~lerk, Iowa City,
(SEAd~)
PG0ODR,ICHX242877\l\10714060
p rove
-5- 'City A~Po~
Marian Karr
From: Irvin Pfab [ipfab@avalon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:46 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: PRESS RELEASE(4th EDITION) :TIF vs. tax rebate. Unanswered Questions on Urban
Renewal
I would appreciate your delivering this immediately
to the correct department or person. Thanks!
PRESS RELEASE (Please see my comments at end of release)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday September 19th 2000 9:50 AM
CONTACT: Irvin Pfab 319-351-4094
CITY COUNCILPERSON BELIEVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
REGARDING URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSAL BECAUSE OF THE
CONFUSION OF TIF AND TAX REBATES
(Iowa City, Iowa)...I unequivocally support adequate economic
development and city services on the southeast side
(as everywhere else) in Iowa City. I have very serious doubts, however,
that the proposed urban renewal district and property tax
refund scheme for the Sycamore Mall area, now before the council,
is the way to accomplish this.
At the council's public hearing on September 12th very serious and
detailed questions were raised about the process leading up to the
decision to create this tax abatement district. Who will benefit from
this tax giveaway? Who will benefit from the terms of the agreement?
These questions have not been answered. Also, there are the following
additional concerns:
1. The lack of any formal application.
2. No real evaluation of the financial position of the developers, or
their short track record in similar matters.
3. Appropriate safeguards assuring that the public funds are used for
a project which would not happen absent the funding.
4. Allocation of public monies to an even playing field, not targeting
individual business entities but putting in place public benefits
available to all.
5. An evaluation mechanism as to any allocation.
The present project on the Sycamore Mall gives up to $2 million in
property tax relief to 5 individual owners of a property purchased
nearly 6 months earlier. For seven years this group will receive police,
fire and ambulance services at a discount of about 66% as compared
to other city businesses. The jobs are low wage, no benefits.
WE DO NOT WANT TO CONFUSE this type of tax rebates with what
our great sister city, Coralville, negotiated with the
"Coral Ridge Mall" people.
The Coral Ridge Mall people, as responsible corporate citizens, are paying
100% of their property taxes.
These taxes are being paid to Coralville and go exclusively to pay
off the bonds that were sold to finance the substantial amount of
infrastructure that the citizens of Coralville had to build to
accommodate the new mall.
NO TAX REBATES!
We can do better than this. We need to get the neighborhood
association involved, hold an open town meeting in the area to hear
what the possibilities and get this entire process out of the back
room and into the public arena.
1
Iowa City is not exactly flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned about
hiring additional firefighters, more police officers and additional staff
for the new enlarged library, to name just a few budget items.
Yet City Council is embarking on a program of tax refunds without even
any discussion of how the Council will determine worthy from unworthy
projects. If the city does not develop clear criteria for deciding when
a tax abatement or TIF agreement is warranted, the city will be on
shaky ground in denying any developer's request for tax relief for any
improvement to property.
The City Council is deciding that the guidelines for granting
assistance to economic development projects do not apply
in this instance. If that is the case, then surely they should
develop a corresponding set of guidelines for commercial projects.
Otherwise we will see an unending stream of requests for the
rebate of taxes on commercial redevelopment or rehab projects
in the new urban renewal area, and requests for the establishment
of similar urban renewal areas elsewhere in the city.
If a majority of the city council is persuaded that tax refunds or
abatements are sometimes justified then they should, at a minimum,
develop a clear policy to the effect that:
A. A developer must demonstrate that the improvements would
not have occurred but for the tax refund, and the burden of
proof should be on the developer.
B. There should be a formal application required and this should
include the information necessary for the city to conduct a real
evaluation of the financial position of the developer.
C. Any aided project must generate some public benefit, some
"quid pro quo" in return for the tax reduction.
D. There must be a clear demonstration of blight in an area before
it can be declared an urban renewal district.
Without such standards we will see a lot of tax refunds for improvement
that would have been undertaken anyway. In those circumstances,
the rebate is simply a loss of revenue to the city, the county, the
school district. the community college and the state.
To forge ahead without such a policy in place
is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
Irvin's comments:
The City Council will vote for the 3rd and final reading to pass
the ordiance to establish this urban renewal district at the
Formal Council meeting (tonight) Tuesday, September 19th.
The meeting starts at 7 PM. This is item # 9 on the agenda.
This is the very last chance for the public's opinion, pro OR con,
to be heard on establishing this district. After tonight's vote,
unless the vote is deferred (postponed), this ordiance will be
part of history.
I repeat:
WE DO NOT WANT TO CONFUSE this type of tax rebates with what
our great sister city, Coralville, negotiated with the
"Coral Ridge Mall" people.
The Coral Ridge Mall people, as responsible corporate citizens, are paying
100% of their property taxes.
These taxes are being paid to Coralville and go exclusively to pay
off the bonds that were sold to finance the substantial amount of
infrastructure that the citizens of Coralville had to build to
accommodate the new mall.
NO TAX REBATES!
You can probably tell where I stand on this "process"
Irvin Pfab
505 E. Jefferson St ~ 1
P. O. Box 2446
Iowa City IA 52244-2446
ipfab@avalon.net
(319) 351-4094
I would appreciate your delivering this immediately
to the correct department or person. Thanks!
PRESS RELEASE (Please see my comments at end of release)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday September 19th 2000 9:20 AM
CONTACT: Irvin Pfab 319-351-4094
CITY COUNCILPERSON BELIEVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
REGARDING URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSAL
(Iowa City, Iowa)...I unequivocally support adequate economic
development and city services on the southeast side
(as everywhere else) in Iowa City. I have very serious doubts, however,
that the proposed urban renewal district and property tax
refund scheme for the Sycamore Mall area, now before the council,
is the way to accomplish this.
At the council's public hearing on September 12th very serious and
detailed questions were raised about the process leading up to the
decision to create this tax abatement district. Who will benefit from
this tax giveaway? Who will benefit from the terms of the agreement?
These questions have not been answered. Also, there are the following
additional concerns:
1. The lack of any formal application.
2. No real evaluation of the financial position of the developers, or
their short track record in similar matters.
3. Appropriate safeguards assuring that the public funds are used for
a project which would not happen absent the funding.
4. Allocation of public monies to an even playing field, not targeting
individual business entities but putting in place public benefits
available to all.
5. An evaluation mechanism as to any allocation.
The present project on the Sycamore Mall give up to $2 million in
property tax relief to 5 individual owners of a property purchased
nearly 6 months earlier. For seven years this group will receive police,
fire and ambulance services at a discount of about 66% as compared
to other city businesses. The jobs are low wage, no benefits.
We do not want to confuse this type of tax rebates with what our
great sister city, Coralville, negotiated with the "Coral Ridge Mall"
people.
The Coral Ridge Mall people, as responsible corporate citizens, are paying
100% of their property taxes.
These taxes go exclusively to pay off the bonds that financed the
substantial amount of infrastructure that the citizens of Coralville
had to build to accommodate the new mall. NO TAX REBATES!
We can do better than this. We need to get the neighborhood
association involved, hold an open town meeting in the area to hear
what the possibilities and get this entire process out of the back
room and into the public arena.
Iowa City is not exactly flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned about
hiring additional firefighters, more police officers and additional staff
for the new enlarged library, to name just a few budget items.
Yet City Council is embarking on a program of tax refunds without even
any discussion of how the Council will determine worthy from unworthy
projects. If the city does not develop clear criteria for deciding when
a tax abatement or TIF agreement is warranted, the city will be on
shaky ground in denying any developer's request for tax relief for any
improvement to property.
The City Council is deciding that the guidelines for granting
assistance to economic development projects do not apply
in this instance. If that is the case, then surely they should
develop a corresponding set of guidelines for commercial projects.
Otherwise we will se an unending stream of requests for the
rebate of taxes on commercial redevelopment or rehab projects
in the new urban renewal area, and requests for the establishment
of similar urban renewal areas elsewhere in the city.
If a majority of the city council is persuaded that tax refunds or
abatements are sometimes justified then they should, at a minimum,
develop a clear policy to the effect that:
A. A developer must demonstrate that the improvements would
not have occurred but for the tax refund, and the burden of
proof should be on the developer.
B. There should be a formal application required and this should
include the information necessary for the city to conduct a real
evaluation of the financial position of the developer.
C. Any aided project must generate some public benefit, some
"quid pro quo" in return for the tax reduction.
D. There must be a clear demonstration of blight in an area before
it can be declared an urban renewal district.
Without such standards we will see a lot of tax refunds for improvement
that would have been undertaken anyway. In those circumstances,
the rebate is simply a loss of revenue to the city, the county, the
school district. the community college and the state.
To forge ahead without such a policy in place
is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
Irvin's comments:
The City Council will vote for the 3rd and final reading to pass
the ordiance to establish this urban renewal district at the
Formal Council meeting (tonight) Tuesday, September 19th.
The meeting starts at 7 PM. This is item # 9 on the agenda.
4
This is the very last chance for the public's opinion, pro OR con,
to be heard on establishing this district. After tonight's vote,
unless the vote is deferred (postponed), this ordiance will be
part of history.
We do not want to confuse this type of tax rebate with what
our great sister city, Coralville, negotiated with the "Coral Ridge
Mall" people. The Coral Ridge Mall people paid full 100% of their
taxes that then go exclusively to pay off the bonds that financed
the substantial amount of infrastructure that the citizens
of Coralville had to build to accommodate the new mall.
That mall is paying it's own way. NO TAX REBATES!
You can probably tell where I stand on this "process".
Irvin Pfab
505 E. Jefferson St # 1
P. O. Box 2446
Iowa City IA 52244-2446
ipfab@avalon.net
(319) 351-4094
I would appreciate your delivering this immediately
to the correct department or person. Thanks!
PRESS RELEASE (Please see my comments at end of release)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday September 19th 2000 9:20 AM
CONTACT: Irvin Pfab 319-351-4094
CITY COUNCILPERSON BELIEVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
REGARDING URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSAL
(Iowa City, Iowa)...I unequivocally support adequate economic
development and city services on the southeast side
(as everywhere else) in iowa City. I have very serious doubts, however,
that the proposed urban renewal district and property tax
refund scheme for the Sycamore Mall area, now before the council,
is the way to accomplish this.
At the council's public hearing on September 12th very serious and
detailed questions were raised about the process leading up to the
decision to create this tax abatement district. Who will benefit from
this tax giveaway? Who will benefit from the terms of the agreement?
These questions have not been answered. Also, there are the following
additional concerns:
1. The lack of any formal application.
2. No real evaluation of the financial position of the developers, or
their short track record in similar matters.
3. Appropriate safeguards assuring that the public funds are used for
a project which would not happen absent the funding.
4. Allocation of public monies to an even playing field, not targeting
individual business entities but putting in place public benefits
available to all.
5. An evaluation mechanism as to any allocation.
The present project on the Sycamore Mall give up to $2 million in
property tax relief to 5 individual owners of a property purchased
nearly 6 months earlier. For seven years this group will receive police,
fire and ambulance services at a discount of about 66% as compared
to other city businesses. The jobs are low wage, no benefits.
We do not want to confuse this type of tax rebates with what our
great sister city, Coralville, negotiated with the "Coral Ridge Mall"
people.
The Coral Ridge Mall people, as responsible corporate citizens, are paying
100% of their property taxes.
These taxes go exclusively to pay off the bonds that financed the
substantial amount of infrastructure that the citizens of Coralville
had to build to accommodate the new mall. NO TAX REBATES!
We can do better than this. We need to get the neighborhood
association involved, hold an open town meeting in the area to hear
what the possibilities and get this entire process out of the back
room and into the public arena.
Iowa City is not exactly flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned about
hiring additional firefighters, more police officers and additional staff
for the new enlarged library, to name just a few budget items.
Yet City Council is embarking on a program of tax refunds without even
any discussion of how the Council will determine worthy from unworthy
projects. If the city does not develop clear criteria for deciding when
a tax abatement or TIF agreement is warranted, the city will be on
shaky ground in denying any developeris request for tax relief for any
improvement to property.
The City Council is deciding that the guidelines for granting
assistance to economic development projects do not apply
in this instance. If that is the case, then surely they should
develop a corresponding set of guidelines for commercial projects.
Otherwise we will se an unending stream of requests for the
rebate of taxes on commercial redevelopment or rehab projects
in the new urban renewal area, and requests for the establishment
of similar urban renewal areas elsewhere in the city.
If a majority of the city council is persuaded that tax refunds or
abatements are sometimes justified then they should, at a minimum,
develop a clear policy to the effect that:
A. A developer must demonstrate that the improvements would
not have occurred but for the tax refund, and the burden of
proof should be on the developer.
B. There should be a formal application required and this should
include the information necessary for the city to conduct a real
evaluation of the financial position of the developer.
C. Any aided project must generate some public benefit, some
"quid pro quo" in return for the tax reduction.
D. There must be a clear demonstration of blight in an area before
it can be declared an urban renewal district.
Without such standards we will see a lot of tax refunds for improvement
that would have been undertaken anyway. In those circumstances,
the rebate is simply a loss of revenue to the city, the county, the
school district. the community college and the state.
To forge ahead without such a policy in place
is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
Irvinws comments:
The City Council will vote for the 3rd and final reading to pass
the ordiance to establish this urban renewal district at the
Formal Council meeting (tonight) Tuesday, September 19th.
The meeting starts at 7 PM. This is item # 9 on the agenda.
This is the very last chance for the public's opinion, pro OR con,
to be heard on establishing this district. After tonightws vote,
6
unless the vote is deferred (postponed}, this ordiance will be
part of history.
We do not want to confuse this type of tax rebate with what
our great sister city, Coralville, negotiated with the "Coral Ridge
Mall" people. The Coral Ridge Mall people paid full 100% of their
taxes that then go exclusively to pay off the bonds that financed
the substantial amount of infrastructure that the citizens
of Coralville had to build to accommodate the new mall.
That mall is paying it's own way. NO TAX REBATES!
You can probably tell where I stand on this "process".
Irvin Pfab
505 E. Jefferson St # 1
P. O. Box 2446
Iowa City IA 52244-2446
ipfab@avalon.net
(319) 351-4094
Marian Karr
From: Irvin Pfab [ipfab@avalon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 8:22 AM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: "And this is my final answer."
I wo~'d appreciate your delivering this immediately
to the tract department or person. Thanks!
PRESS RELEK E (Please see my comments at end of )
CITY COUNCILPERS BELIEVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
REGARDING URBA~WAL PROPOSAL
(iowa City, Iowa)l.. uneTuivocally support adeqVat economic
that the proposed urban r newal district and pro r tax
refund scheme for the Syca ore Mall area, now be or the council,
is the way to accomplish thi . ~
decision to create this tax abat ment distri~ . Who will benefit from
this tax giveaway? Who will bane 't from t terms of the agreement?
These questions have not been answe ed. Als there are the following
2. No real evaluation of the financial :ition of the developers, or
their short track record in :ers.
3. Appropriate safeguards assuring tha }ublic funds are used for
a project which would not happen funding.
4. Allocation of public monies to an g field, not targeting
individual business entities putting in lace public benefits
available to all.
5. An evaluation mechanism as to allocation.
The present project on the Sycam. ;e Mall give up to ion in
property tax relief to 5 indivic .al owners of a purchased
nearly 6 months earlier. For se years this group will eceive police,
We can do better than this. e need to get the neighborhood
association involved, hold az open town meeting in the area to har
what the possibilities an get this entire process out of the bac
room and into the public rena.
Iowa City is not exactl flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned abou[
ing additional fires, more police officers and additional sta f
the new enlarged li~lr ry, to name just a few budget items.
' u ' fi : k' ×w '
projects. If the ci y does not develop clear criteria for deciding when
a tax abatement or agreement is warranted, the city will be on
~haky ground in dE any developer's request for tax '
improvement to .
The City Counci% is deciding that the guidelines for granting
assistance to economic development projects do not apply
1
in this instance. If that is the case, then surely they should
develop a corresponding set of guidelines for commercial
projects.
erwise we will se an unending stream of requests for th~
e of taxes on commercial redevelopment or rehab projects
of s e y
If a ma- of the city council is persuaded that t~x refunds or
abatements sometimes justified then they should, at a minimum,
develop a policy to the effect that:
A. A developer demonstrate that the improvements would
not have but for the tax refund· a the burden of
proof should be the developer.
B. There should be a ~al application and this should
include the in necessary for city to conduct a real
evaluation of the fin mial position o the developer.
C. Any aided project must some benefit, some
"quid pro quo" in return r the tax Bduction.
D. There must be a clear tration blight in an area before
it can be declared an district.
Without such standards we will se lot of tax refunds for improvement
that would have been undertaken an~ ~y. In those circumstances,
the rebate is simply a loss of to the city, the county, the
school district. the community co and the state.
To forge ahead without such a in .lace
is the height of fiscal irres ibility.
Irvin's comments:
The City Council will vl for the 3rd and final reading to pass
the ordiance to establ'~ this urban renewal dist ict at the
Formal C?uncil meetin (tonight) Tuegday, Septembe 19th.
c on
Irvin Pfab
505 E. Jefl St # 1
P. O. Box 446
Iowa CitTM IA 52244-2446
i ion.net
(319) 4094
I, would appreciate your routing this immediately to the correct department. Thanks!
RELEASE .....(Revised)
RELEASE: September 18, 2000 3:20 PM
6:20 PM
CONTACT: Irvin Pfab 319 351-409
CITY BELIEVES UNANSWERED
REGARDING RENEWAL PROPOSAL
(Iowa City, Iowa)... I uivocally support adequate economic and
city services on the side (as everywhere else) in Iowa I have serious
doubts, however, that therenewal district and tax refund
scheme for the Sycamore area now before the council is to accomplish
this. At the council's public on September 12th, very and detailed
questions were raised about the leading up to the to create this tax
abatement district. Who will this tax will benefit from
the terms of the agreement? These have not answered. Also, the
following additional concerns:
· The lack of any formal application.
· No real evaluation of the fmancial developers, or their short
track record in similar matters.
· Appropriate safeguards assuring that funds are used for a project
which would not happen absent the
· Allocation of public monies to an field, not targeting individual
business entities but putting in public available to all.
· An evaluation mechanism as allocation.
The present project on the gives up to $2 llion in property tax
relief to 5 individual owners of a nearly months earlier. For
seven years, this group will rec.police, fire and services at discount
of about 66% as compared city businesses. The jobs low wage, no
benefits. We can do better this. We need to get the nei ,od association
involved, hold an open meeting in the area to hear what the ,ossibilities and
get this entire process ~f the back rooms and into the public
Iowa City is not flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned more
firefighters, more officers and additional staff for the new library, to
name just a few items. Yet City Council is embarking on of tax
refunds any discussion of how the Council will determine
from projects. If the city does not develop clear criteriading
when a 1 abatement or TIF agreement is warranted, the city will be on
denying any developer's request for tax relief for any improvement to
I.
]~age 1 of 2
PRESS RELEASE: Irvin Pfab - 2- September 18, 2000 3:20 PM
(Revised...) 6:20 PM
/
The City :il is deciding that the guidelines for grantingto economic
development do not apply in this instance. If that is thethen surely
they should a corresponding set of guidelines for projects.
Otherwise we will an unending stream of requests for the of taxes on
commercial or rehab projects in the new renewal area, and
requests for the of similar urban renewal elsewhere in the city.
If a majority of the city is persuaded that tax or abatements are
sometimes justified then theyat a ' ' a clear policy to the
effect that:
· A developer must demonstrate would
not have occurred but for the and the burden of
proof should be on the developer.
· There should be a formal uired, and this should include the
information necessary for the a real evaluation of the
fmancial position of the
· Any aided project must some benefit, some
quid pro quo, in return tax reduction
* There must be a clear of bli an area before
it can be declared an renewal area.
Without such standards will see a lot of tax refunds that
would have been anyway. In those circumstance tax rebate
is simply a loss to the city, the county and the To forge
ahead without a policy in place is the height of fiscal ~.
Irvin
505 St # 1
P. 2446
City IA 52244-2446
,fab@avalon. net
(319) 351-4094 ,
I would appreciate your muting this immediately to the correct department. Thanks!
PRESS RELEASE
FOR I~DIATE ~LEASE: Septemkr 18, 2000 3:20
//
CONTACT: ~ P~b 319 351-409
CITY COUNCILPERSON BELIEVES QUESTIONS
REGARDING URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSAL
(Iowa City, Iowa). :~.,! unequivocally support economic development and
city services on the si~,theast side (as in Iowa City. I have serious
doubts, however, that the proposed urban district and property tax refund
scheme for the Sycamore~lxall area now council is the way to accomplish
this. At the council's public eating on: 12th, very serious and detailed
questions were raised about process to the decision to create this tax
' ' . ' t tax giveaway? Who will benefit from
following additional concerns:
\
· The lack of any formal appl
· No real evaluation of the position of the developers, or their short
track record in similar '\
· Appropriate th~ the public funds are used for a project
which would not absent the filn, ding.
· Allocation of public to an everi-,.playing field, not targeting individual
business entities in place pub!!c benefits available to all.
· An evaluation as to any allocation.
Iowa City is not flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned about hiring more
fire fighters, moreofficers and additional staff for the new enlarged library, to
name just a few items. Yet City Council is embarking on a program of tax
refunds without any discussion of how the Council will determine worthy
from unworthy projects. If the city does not develop clear criteria for deciding
ground _
property.
Page 1 of 2
PRESS RELEASE: Irvin Pfab - 2- September 18, 2000 3:20 PM
The Council is deciding that the guidelines for granting assistance to economic
projects do not apply in this instance. If that is the case, then surely
they develop a corresponding set of guidelin ~or commercial projects.
Othe ve will see an unending stream of req sts for the rebate of taxes on
corn2 evel ~ent or rehab projects in e new urban renewal area, and
requests for ~e~ hment of similar urb renewal areas elsewhere in the city.
If a majority of the,council is persu ed that tax refunds or abatements are
;~mece:i~ae~ justifiedthey shoul ' ' velop a clear policy to the
* A developer must improvements would
not have occurred tax refund, and the burden of
proof should be
. There should be apl: ',ation required, and this should include the
information for the to conduct a real evaluation of the
financial of the
. Any ect must generate public benefit, some
quid in return for the tax
. There be a clear demonstration ight in an area before
it declared an urban renewal area
Without standards we will see a lot of tax for improvements that
would been undertaken anyway. In those the tax rebate
is a loss of revenue, to the city, the county and the school district. To forge
without such a policy in place is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
Irvin Pfab
505 E. Jefferson St # 1
P. O. Box 2446
Iowa City IA 52244-2446
ipfab@avalon.net
(319) 351-4094
Page 1 of 2,
Irvin Pfab
From: "lrvin Pfab" <ipfab@avalon.net>
To: "lrvin Pfab" <ipfab~avalon.net>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 3:47 PM
Attach: PressReleasePfabUrbanRenewa12Questions91800.doc
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Questions on Iowa City Urban Renewal
The attachment and the following am the same document
I would appreciate your r~uting this immediately to the correct department.
Thanks!
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 18, 2000 3:20 PM
CONTACT: Zrvin Pfab 319 351-409
CITY COUNCILPERSON BELIEVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
REGARDING URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSAL
(Iowa City, Iowa)***I unequivocally support adequate economic development and
city services on the southeast side (as even/where else) in iowa City. I
have serious doubts, however, that the proposed urban renewal district and
property tax refund scheme for the Sycamore Hall area now before the council
is the way to accomplish this. At the council's public hearing on September
12th, very serious and detailed questions were raised about the process
leading up to the decision to create this tax abatement district. Who will
bene/~ from this tax giveaway? Who will beneF~ from the terms of the
agreement? These questions have not been answered. Also, the following
additional concerns:
? The lack of any formal application.
? No real evaluation of the flnandal position of the developers, or their
short
track record in similar matters.
? Appropriate safeguards assuring that the public funds are used for a
project
which would not happen absent the funding.
? Allocation of public monies to an even playing Feld, not targeting
individual
business entities but puffing in place public benefits available
to all.
? An evaluation mechanism as to any allocation.
Iowa City is not exactly flush with funds: i.e. we are concerned about
hiring more firefighters, more police off~:ers and additional staff for the
new enlarged librdry, to name just a few budget items. Yet City Coundl is
embarking on a program of tax refunds without even any discussion of how the
Council will determine worthy from unworthy projects. Zf the city does not
develop clear criteria for deciding when a tax abatement or TZF agreement is
warranted, the city will be on shaky ground in denying any developer's
request for tax relief for any improvement to property.
Page 1 of 2
PRESS RELEASE: Zrvin Pfab - 2-
September 18, 2000 3:20 PH
9/18/00
Page 2 of 2
The City Council is deciding that the guidelines for granting assistance to
economic development projects do not apply in this instance. Zf that is the
case, then surely they should develop a corresponding set of guidelines for
commercial projects. Otherwise we will see an unending stream of requests
for the rebate of taxes on commercial redevelopment or rehab projects in the
new urban renewal area, and requests for the establishment of similar urban
renewal areas elsewhere in the city.
Zf a majority of the city council is persuaded that tax refunds or
abatements are sometimes justified then they should, at a minimum, devdop a
clear policy to the effect that:
? A developer must demonstrate that the improvements would
not have occurred but for the tax refund, and the burden of
proof should be on the developer.
? There should be a formal application required, and this should indude the
information necessary for the city to conduct a real evaluation of the
financial position of the developer.
? Any aided project must generate some public benerfc, some
quid pro quo, in return for the tax reduction.
? There must be a dear demonstration of blight in an area before
it can be declared an urban renewal area.
Without such standards we will see a lot of tax refunds for improvements
that
would have been undertaken anyway. In those circumstances, the tax rebate
is simply a loss of revenue, to the city, the county and the school
district. To forge ahead without such a policy in place is the height of
fiscal irresponsibility.
Irvin Pfab
505 E. Jefferson St # !
P, O. Box 2446
Iowa City ZA 52244-2446
ipfab@a_Va!On;r~t
(319) 3514094
9/18/00