uh zoning commission report to uh city … uh zoning...uh zoning commission report to uh city...
TRANSCRIPT
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