HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2015 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Rezoning Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim
Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for
3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road. (REZ15-00019)
E. Other Business
Consider a recommendation on the Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Self -Supported
Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City.
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 17, 2015
(to be distributed prior to meeting)
G. Planning & Zoning Information
Information on State Property Tax Reform
H. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: October 15 / November 5 / November 19
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
•
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Item: REZ15-00019
Date: October 1, 2015
Applicant: Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC
Contact: Michael J. Pugh
1100 6�' Street, Suite 102
Coralville, IA 52241
(319) 351-2028
mpugh@pughhagan.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from ID-RM and RRA to RM-20
Purpose: Development of multifamily dwellings
Location: South of Lehman Avenue and East of
Soccer Park Road
Size: 42.01 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural - ID-RM 38.49 acres and RR1
3.52 acres
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Open space (Sycamore Greenway)
- P1
South: Wastewater treatment plant - P1
East: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) —
P1
West: Agricultural - ID-RS
Comprehensive Plan: South District Plan
File Date: September 4, 2015
45 Day Limitation Period: October 19, 2015
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning to Medium Density Multifamily Residential (RM-
20). This property was annexed into the city in 1994 as part of the 422-acre Sycamore Farms
annexation. At that time of the initial application the applicant had requested that the subject
property be zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM-12). The request was later amended
to seek RM-20 zoning for this property. In response to the applicant's request the City took the
position, as indicated in a staff memorandum, that given the lack of essential City services, the
requested zoning designation was premature, and that as the surrounding areas developed and
City services including arterial street access is provided, the merits of the requested multifamily
2
zoning designation could be re-examined. Staff also raised the concern about zoning such a large
area for multifamily development. Upon annexation the bulk of the subject property (38.49 acres)
was zoned Interim Development — Multifamily Residential (ID-RM); and 3.52 acres was zoned
Rural Residential (RR-1) and subject to conservation easement prohibiting development due to
the presence of wetlands. The annexation resolution states that this was a voluntary annexation
upon application by the owner, Sycamore Farms.
The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA — copy attached) containing
provisions mostly to address the environmentally sensitive features on the property, as well as a
requirement to dedicate land for a school, provide pedestrian access, and provide infrastructure
improvements.
This property is located within the South District of Iowa City. As with all rezoning requests, the
current application should be considered based on the Comprehensive Plan including the South
District Plan, Future Land Use Map, adequacy of infrastructure and services to accommodate
the uses and intensity of development allowed by the requested zoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current zoning: The property is currently zoned ID-RM. The purpose of an Interim
Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and
other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City
services and urban development can occur. This is the default zoning to which all undeveloped
areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the
City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, as amended. The principle uses allowed in the ID zone are plant related agricultural. Farm
dwellings are allowed if they are associated with an agricultural use. The minimum lot size of the
ID zone is 10 acres.
Although the ID-RM designation indicates the possible future consideration for multifamily
zoning, it is not a guarantee of such zoning. The permanent zoning designation must consider
the policies and land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time a
rezoning application is made, as well as the development character of the surrounding
neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure and services to serve the proposed density.
Proposed zoning: The purpose of RM-20 zone is to provide for the development of medium
density multi -family housing. This zone is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to
commercial areas and in areas with good access to all city services and facilities. This zone
allows a mix of detached and attached single-family housing, duplexes, and multi -family
housing. The Zoning Code states that careful attention to site and building design is important to
ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another.
The RM-20 zone requires a minimum of 1,800 square feet per 1 and 2-bedroom units, and
2,700 square feet per 3-bedroom unit. Based on these requirements up to 675 three bedroom
apartments or 1000 one and two -bedroom apartments could be developed on this property if it
were zoned RM-20. If public streets are platted to serve the development, the actual density
would be less than the maximum stated, but even assuming that 45% of the property is devoted
to public streets, over 600 dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed RM-20
designation.
Comprehensive Plan: The property falls within the South District Plan, which was adopted in
1997; the plan is currently undergoing an update that will be considered by the City Council on
October 20. The current plan states: "The predominate land use in the South District will be
single-family residential. However, neighborhoods will also contain areas where low to medium
3
density multifamily, town house and duplex style housing will mix compatibly with single-family
housing. The medium density housing options should be carefully designed and located to take
advantage of major infrastructure investments, such as arterial streets, and goods and services,
which are provided in the neighborhood commercial center. Medium density housing should be
compatible in scale and density to blend with single-family neighborhood." The plan contains
guidelines indicating that large concentrations of multifamily development should be avoided. To
a help ensure a variety of housing stock and control the scale and density of multifamily lots the
plan indicates that multifamily zoning should be located at the intersections of collector and
arterial streets and limited to no more than 24 units at any one in intersection.
The Future Land Use Scenario contained in the current South District Plan (see Exhibit A),
depicts this specific property as being appropriate for single-family lots on the south, smaller
single-family and duplex lots toward the north with townhouses along the northern boundary
adjacent to Lehman Avenue.
The proposed update to the South District Plan contains polices that are similar to the current
plan regarding encouraging a mix of housing types within new neighborhoods. Also, similar to
the existing South District Plan, the proposed land use map (see Exhibit B) depicts the majority
of this property as being appropriate for low to medium density single-family development with
the possibility of low to medium mixed density, including smaller lot single-family, duplex, zero -
lot line and townhouse development, adjacent to Lehman Avenue. The text of the plan indicates
the potential for small multifamily buildings for sites where clustering is desirable to protect
environmentally sensitive areas or to encourage single loaded streets (streets with development
only on one side with open space on the other side).
The proposed RM-20 designation does not comply with the current South District Plan or the
proposed draft plan. Specifically it is counter to the policy of not creating large concentrations of
multifamily development and the direction to place multifamily development in areas with
adequate infrastructure and access to goods, services and transit. It does not comply with the
adopted or proposed land use plan showing predominately single-family development with
townhouses and small areas of multifamily adjacent to Lehman Avenue.
It also does not comply with the overall Comprehensive Plan policy promoting compact and
contiguous development: "Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and
connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and
services..." (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update - page 23). Similar goals and polices are
also repeated on page 27 of the Plan: "Encourage a diversity of housing options in all
neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods
where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services."
Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services: The proposed RM-20 zone is in an area that has
experienced limited development due to lack of adequate infrastructure. As stated by the Iowa
City Zoning Code, RM-20 zones are recommended in areas of the city that have good access to
commercial and City services. This property does not have good access to either. The nearest
commercial development, the Iowa City Market Place (formerly the Sycamore Mall) is located
two miles to the northeast. The closest transit stop is at the intersection of Sycamore and Burns
Avenue approximately 1.5 miles the northeast from center this property. Given the current
street pattern in this area it would be very difficult for the City to extend bus service to the area.
The limited street network would also make access for police and fire protection less than ideal.
It may be possible in the future that commercial development will occur closer to this property
and that transit routes will be expanded to come closer to this property. But at this time the
property falls short of meeting the criteria necessary to support multifamily development.
4
Sycamore Street, which was recently upgraded to arterial street standards, terminates
approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the property. Although a portion of Lehman Avenue is
being reconstructed as part of the Sycamore Street project, it is not being built to City standards.
It will be built as a chip seal surface to the intersection with Soccer Park Road. The remaining
400 feet of Lehman Road between Soccer Park Road and this property has a gravel surface.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring
improvement of Lehman Avenue, but would expect contributions toward these road costs from
the adjacent property owner and from the City. Other than a special assessment, a difficult
process the City has not undertaken in many years, the City does not have a mechanism to
require the adjacent owner to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman Avenue. The City's
contribution would have to come from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for which there
are competing projects. The CIP currently does not include improvement of Lehman Avenue.
In staffs view there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the City to reallocate funds
from other planned infrastructure improvements to encourage development on the far outskirts
of the city, while there are intervening properties that could be more efficiently developed in
terms of infrastructure costs, maintenance and provision of City services.
Summary: The applicant contends that the ID-RM designation was negotiated as part of an
annexation agreement and implies that there was a commitment to zone this property RM-20.
Staff found no documentation to support the claim of an agreement to zone this property to
multifamily. Zoning decisions must be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan after
giving consideration to such factors as efficient urban development patterns, controlling
congestion of streets, safety, health and welfare of the public. Public policy dictates that this
police power be freely exercised by the City Council in order to respond to changes in the
community's needs and concerns.
The subject property is not in an area designated for extensive multifamily development. Further
this area is not adequately served by infrastructure or City services, and therefore the requested
zoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The portion of the property that is zoned
RR-1 is subject to a conservation easement that prohibits its development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for a rezoning from
Interim Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1)
zone for 3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) zone for property located south of
Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied. (REZ15-00019)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Applicants statement in support of rezoning
3. 1994 Conditional Zoning Agreement
4. Exhibit A — South District Future Land Use Scenario
5. Exhibit B — Draft South District Future Land Use Plan
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf NUUU11IV[ 1I Fall I. J.W-%J /1LU{.®UUII MapJS W I WWW 10.111"
Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (the "Property Owners") acquired the
properties which are the subject of this Rezoning Application in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Originally, the properties were part of a larger 420 acre tract of land that was zoned for multi-
family development under Johnson County's zoning code. However, on September 15, 1994, the
City of Iowa City (the "City") an the original tract, including the properties at issue, within
the City's limits and jurisdiction.
The properties' annexation was the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Property
Owners and the City beginning in early 1992. The City desired to annex the properties so that the
newly constructed Wastewater Treatment Plant would be contiguous to City limits; the annexation
allowed the City to link the Plant's facilities to its corporate limits. The Property Owners, however,
opposed the annexation. Through negotiations, the City and the Property Owners were able to
reach a mutual agreement regarding the properties' annexation as well as their future
development.
Annexation of the properties was made possible through a series of bargained for
considerations. given between the parties. The City required the property owners to: (i) delineate
certain wetlands known as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" and restrict those areas from
development; (ii) dedicate to the public a Conservation Easement protecting approximately 200
acres of the original tract from further development; and (iii) enter into a Conditional Zoning
Agreement for the development of the remaining property of the original tract. In return, the
Property Owners insisted that: (i) the City designate the properties with a RM-20 multi -family
zoning designation; and (ii) the City give proper consideration for the Snyder Creek Bottoms
wetlands. The City did so and zoned the properties as ID-RM, Interim Development Multi -Family
Residential. It classified the properties under the Interim Development designation because at the
time of the annexation, the properties were not served by adequate infrastructure and services,
namely a suitable road. The City also gave the properties' their multi -family residential zoning
status with the understanding that the "ID" moniker would be removed once an adequate road
was constructed to access the Properties.
The properties are now ripe for development under the City's Medium Density Multi -Family
Residential Zone (RM-20). Adequate infrastructure and services, including an access road, to the
properties is now feasible given the development of Sycamore Avenue and the construction of a
new elementary school. The properties will be served by a street network that has improved
substantially since 1994. CThe Owners would be willing to enter into a Conditional Zoning
Agreement requiring the improvement of Lehman Road as a condition precedent to development
of the properties, but would expect equitable contribution for these road costs from adjoining
property owners and the City. Additionally, the properties are located adjacent to the Pleasant
Valley Golf Course, the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park, the protected wetlands area, and less
than three miles from the commercial corridor of Highway 6, providing them with ideal access to
commercial amenities, and city services and facilities. This zoning designation will provide this
area with a broader range of housing types, consistent with the City's goal of pfridingWordable
housing.
C3-<
roll
C4)
w
J
(00052141)
994 CZA
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City") and Sycamore Farms Company, an Iowa General Partnership
(hereinafter "Owner").
WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City to annex and rezone approximately 422 acres of
land located south of Highway 6, east of Sycamore Street and west of Sioux Avenue, legally
described on Exhibit A, from the County designation of RS, Suburban Residential and R3A,
Multi -Family Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential, RFBH, Factory
Built Housing Residential, RM-12, Low Density Multi -Family Residential, RM-20, Medium
Density Multi -Family Residential, RRA, Rural Residential and ID-RM, Interim Development
Residential Multi -Family; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (1383) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting Owner's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the arMgxation policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
rezoning is subject to the developer agreeing to pay all of the costs associated with providing
infrastructure for development of the subject tract, except for any oversized costs for an east -
west arterial street if such an arterial street is located through the development; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the appropriate allocation and suitability of neighborhood
open space and the availability of a public school site; and
WHEREAS, the property contains wetlands, areas of hydric soils and other environmentally
sensitive features; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, it is the City's policy to preserve and protect
environmentally sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, a contractual agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
obligates the City to protect environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the Southeast
Interceptor Sewer line from potential adverse effects of development; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are appropriate in
order to ensure appropriate urban development -on the southeastern edge of Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties
agree as follows:
Sycamore Farms Company is the owner and legal title holder of the property located
south of Highway 6, east of Sycamore Street, and west of Sioux Avenue, legally
described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
2. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to the annexation policy contained in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the proposed rezoning is subject to the developer agreeing to pay
all of the costs associated with providing infrastructure for development of the subject
tract, except for any oversized costs for an east -west arterial street if such an arterial
street is to be located through the development.
11 �3 '04 220
- 2 -
3. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure appropriate allocation of
neighborhood open space and the availability of a public school site and that it is the
City's policy and obligation to preserve, and protect environmentally sensitive areas.
Therefore, Owner agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations in order
to lessen the impact of the development on the area.
4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property from County RS and R3A,
Owner agrees that development and use of the subject property will conform to the
requirements of the applicable zones: RS-8, Medium Density ,Single -Family Residential,
RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential, RM-12, Low Density Multi -Family Residential,
RM-20, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential, RR-1, Rural. Residential and ID-RM,
Interim Development Residential Multi -Family. In addition, the development and use of
the subject property will conform to the following additional conditions:
a. Owner will take adequate measures to protect the area and natural features
generally described as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" from any adverse effects
from development of adjacent areas. Owner shall specify the protection
measures in mitigation plans as required in subsections b and c below. Owner
must prepare the mitigation plans at its sole expense and the plans must receive
City approval.
b. Owner will initially submit a general concept plan for the entire subject property
entitled "Wetlands Mitigation Report for Sycamore Farms Development". This
mitigation plan will provide a general outline of the Owner's protection measures
including but not limited to storm water management. The general mitigation
plan must also include a concept plan for a trail or walkway system within the
"Snyder Creek Bottoms".
C. With each preliminary plat, Owner will submit a specific mitigation plan for the
platted area. This specific mitigation plan must contain the engineering details
for the mitigation and protection measures for the platted area, including but not
limited to design details, specifications, and materials. The specific details
regarding the location and construction of the trail system must be included in
the mitigation plan for each platted area.
d. Owner shall construct the trail or walkway system when either 50% of the
property in the RS-8 and RFBH zones has developed or when the ID-RM area
is rezoned, whichever occurs first.
e. Preservation of the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" via the establishment of a
conservation easement approved by the City.
f. Owner will establish a 100 foot no -build buffer zone around all jurisdictional
wetlands located outside of the conservation easement, except those for which
mitigation is approved, as set forth in the conservation easement. Owner will
also establish a 100 foot no -build buffer zone' around all jurisdictional wetlands
located within the conservation easement and within 100 feet of the conservation
easement boundary.
g. Owner shall inventory and document the jurisdictional wetlands, other
conservation values and the location of existing farming activities in the "Snyder
Creek Bottoms". The City must approve said inventory and documentation.
1 733 'AGE 221
3 ,e..
h. Owner shall dedicate neighborhood open space to the City or pay fees in lieu
of dedication. The amount of open space Owner must dedicate shall be based
on the formula contained in the neighborhood open space plan.
L Owner shall grant a pedestrian access easement over the existing Southeast
Interceptor Sanitary Sewer easement or in an altemative location, approved by
the City, to connect the trails within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision and
the City -owned property to the south of the Sycamore Farms property.
j. Owner shall covenant with the City to reserve fifteen acres to be used for
construction of a public school. Owner, the City and the Iowa City Community
School District shall negotiate the location of the parcel for the potential school
site. Owner will retain possession of the parcel until the parcel may be
conveyed to the Iowa City Community School District as described herein. The
covenant will run with the title to that parcel which shall be designated a
"potential school site" on the Final Plat. This covenant shall remain in effect until
released of record by the City as set forth herein.
If the Iowa City Community School District decides to use the site and applies
'for a Building Permit to build a school on the designated parcel within fifteen (15)
years from the date the parties execute this Conditional Zoning Agreement,
Owner shall convey the site to the School District. If the School District has not
applied for a Building Permit within fifteen (15) years from the date the parties
execute this Conditional Zoning Agreement, the covenant will expire and the use
of the parcel shall revert to the Owner. At that time, the City will execute a
release of the covenant so that the covenant will not constitute a lien and cloud
on the title to the parcel. That release will be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at Owner's expense.
If during the time period the covenant is in effect, the City enacts an Ordinance
requiring the payment of a School Impact Fee as part of the Final Plat approval
process, Owner will pay the required fees for those subdivision parts which have
not yet received Final Plat approval. No impact fees shall be paid for those
subdivision parts which have already received Final Plat approval at the time of
the enactment of the impact fee ordinance. However, if the School District uses
the site to construct a school and accepts conveyance of the site, the City and/or
the School District will rebate to the Owner all fees previously paid and Owner
shall not be required to pay any additional impact fees for subdivision parts
which may subsequently be submitted for final plat approval. If at any time
during the fifteen (15) years following execution of this Conditional Zoning
Agreement, the School District determines that the reserved site will not be used
for a public school, the School District will notify the City and Owner, and the
City will execute a release of the covenant upon receipt of written notice that
Owner has paid the required impact fees, if any.
k. Owner shall pay all costs associated with providing infrastructure for
development of the subject tract, including oversized costs, except for the
oversized costs for an east -west arterial street if such an arterial street is located
through the development.
1793 ?AGE 222
5. The Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs- which are directly caused by the requested zoning
change.
6. The Owner acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Agreement.
7. The Parties that this Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land
and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant running
with the title to the land unless or until released of record by the City. The Parties
further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of.and bind all
successors; representatives and assigns of the Parties.
8. Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve the
applicant from complying with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
9. The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the Ordinance rezoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and
publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office.
Dated this I5 day of , 1994.
SYCAMORE FARMS COMPANY
By
Stephen F. 1346
General Partner
CITY OF IOWA CITY
13
Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office CORPORATE SEAL
f WAGE 223
Mottle F.#Tjkv
RhAph'K Awfl,
Sall I-t S!"
m ingit Furvily
MMn"finfitred Ibmifty,
Apart—nt.
PulAvOloon'Sp-ne
Other Opm Npwo
fliqlarie FrAluTtift
U.n.r.1 C.roww"W
NdKitletorhoW VwwawdW
Intenwe Commeresad
Met ®SIR
Low-Medlum DenAySirgle-Family Residentbi
towMedlum Density Mbied ®l
Midmar"
r®l
Mixed um Commercial
Schod
Public Park/open Space
Private Open Space/Sensidwe Area
Other Public Prqmft
Nstaic Property
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Date: September 23, 2015
Re: Evaluative Report on a Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Self -Supported
Municipal Improvement District (SSMID)
Introduction
The City has received and City Council has forwarded for your review a petition by property
owners within a Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District. The petition requests the
renewal and expansion of the Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement
District as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 386. Following this report is a cover letter from the
Executive Director of the Iowa City Downtown District, a copy of the petition including a map of
the existing and proposed expanded district, and a copy of Iowa Code Chapter 386 regarding
the establishment and operation of SSMIDs. Staff has verified the petition contains the required
number of signatures representing individual owners and valuation of properties. The next step
requires a Planning and Zoning Commission review of the petition for "merit and feasibility" and
to submit an evaluative report to the City Council.
Background
A SSMID is a self-imposed additional taxing district that will levy a tax on the properties within
the specified district. The Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District would cover
properties located in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone, the Central Business Service
(CB-2) zone and the Central Business Support (CB-5) zones downtown, connecting to, and
including the Northside Marketplace (see map within petition). Funds generated from the levy
are used for the purposes of paying the administrative and operational expenses of the district,
as defined and authorized by state law.
State Code allows for a SSMID to levy taxes for three purposes within a SSMID district:
Operations, Capital Improvements and Debt Service. The petition for the Iowa City Downtown
SSMID proposes:
1) To re-establish the original area and expand the boundaries of the Self Supported Municipal
Improvement District in Iowa City.
2) To re-establish the SSMID district for ten years, beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30,
2026.
3) To levy an annual tax upon property defined in Iowa Code, excluding residential or property
exempt from taxation. From July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021, the maximum levy rate
shall not exceed $2.00 per $1,000 taxable value; and from July 1, 2021 through June 30,
2026, the maximum levy rate shall not exceed $2.50 per $1,000 taxable value. This tax is
September 25, 2015 Evaluative Report
Page 2 Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District
intended to be used for new, additional, or enhanced services within the District and the
intent of the petition is that the City will not diminish the type or extent of governmental
services currently provided.
4) To develop and manage activities in support of marketing, business retention and attraction,
including, but not limited to marketing activities, including advertising campaigns and
communication materials; providing miscellaneous business support services; establishment
and promotion of special events, festivals, and activities; establishing databases, providing
space referrals and assistance. To engage in activities that make physical or other
improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the District, including, but
not limited to lighting improvements, decorative enhancements, landscaping and public art.
To employ an Executive Director and staff who shall work for the Board to manage the work
of the District Board and to fulfill the intent of this Petition and Ordinance establishing the
District.
5) That the City enter into an operating agreement with the District Board of Directors, a 501
(c)(6) non-profit organization with up to 24 members on its Board representing property
owners of different values, businesses of different sizes and type, the northside, a non-profit
or cultural entity, a University of Iowa member, up to four other stakeholders of the district
and up to seven ex-officio members.
6) Because part of the District is located within the boundaries of a TIF district, it is also the
intent of the petition that the City will reimburse the District for any SSMID levy captured
against TIF properties within the District. To accomplish this, the amount of funds which
would have been derived from the annual SSMID levy against TIF properties within the
District, if the District were not located within such TIF districts shall be made available to the
SSMID district.
The procedure for adopting or renewing a SSMID district is: after verifying signatures and
informing Council of the receipt of the petition, Council refers the petition to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which "shall with due diligence, prepare an evaluative report for the
Council on the merit and feasibility of the project."
Upon receiving the evaluative report, Council sets a public hearing and a notice is published.
The City Clerk must also send a copy of the notice by certified mail not less than 15 days before
the hearing to each owner of property with the proposed SSMID district. Finally, Council must
wait at least 30 days after the public hearing to adopt the SSMID ordinance.
Recommendation
The review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the merits and feasibility of the District
should focus on ensuring that the petition meets the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 386,
that the operational activities (as defined in Iowa Code Section 386.8) of the District are
appropriate in relation to existing laws, plans and policies, and that the means used to
implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish the District objectives. In
this context, staff recommends that the District petition be recommended for approval and the
Evaluative Report herein be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
September 25, 2015 Evaluative Report
Page 3 Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District
If you would like additional information or have questions about the Proposed SSMID Renewal
and Expansion District, please contact Wendy Ford at 356-5248 or via e-mail at wendy-
ford@iowa-city.org.
cc: Tom Markus, City Manager
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
September 25, 2015 Evaluative Report
Page 4 Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District
DRAFT EVALUATIVE REPORT
Iowa Code Chapter 386 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to submit, with due
diligence, an evaluative report for the City Council on the merits and feasibility of the SSMID
project. These terms are not defined by statute and thus should be given their ordinary
meanings. The following is a list of items for the Commission to consider, with staff comment
following in italics, addressing main points from State Code Chapter 386. This list should not
necessarily be considered all-inclusive, but is does address the main criteria for establishing a
SSMID.
1. Whether the property in the proposed district meets all of the criteria established in Section
386.3(1):
• The Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District petition
appears to meet the minimum requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1), which states
that a district shall. 1) be compromised of contiguous property, zoned for commercial or
industrial uses and be located wholly within the boundaries of the city, 2) be given a
descriptive name containing the words "self-supporting municipal improvement district",
and 3) be comprised of property related in some manner.
• The Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District is comprised of contiguous
property zoned for commercial use (CB-10, CB-5 and CB-2) and is within the boundaries
of the City of Iowa City. The petition states that the Proposed District is entitled "Iowa
City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District." Finally, the property
within the District is related in that it is physically located in downtown Iowa City, is
contiguous, and serves as a commercial hub for the community.
2. Whether the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains the requisite number of
signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed value of all the
taxable property within the proposed district:
• The Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District petition provides detailed
explanations of the operations of the SSMID and the requirements of SSMID property
owners. Staff has reviewed the petition and verifies that it contains signatures from at
least 25 percent of all property owners and that they represent at least 25 percent of the
assessed value of all the taxable property within the Proposed District, per Iowa Code
Section 386.3(2)(a).
3. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a
consolidated description of the property contained therein:
• The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the existing District and of
proposed expanded District, as well as a map indicating the parcels of land included
within the Existing and Proposed Expanded Districts.
4. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the district
and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth:
September 25, 2015 Evaluative Report
Page 5 Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District
• The petition maintains a tax rate of $2 per $1,000 of assessed value for the first five
years of a ten year renewal period and establishes a rate of $2.50 per $1, 000 for the
second five years of the renewal period. This meets the requirement of Iowa Code
Section 386.3(2)(d). The petition states that the purpose of the tax is to provide new,
additional or enhanced services within the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion
District.
5. Whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any improvements or
other project activities that may be the subject of the petition;
• As stated in Item 4, the petition states that the purpose of the Proposed District is to
provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District. In
particular, revenues collected for the Operating Fund may be used for the following
projects:
a. Development and management of activities in support of marketing, business
retention and attraction, including establishment of databases, space referrals and
assistance, media and advertising campaigns and communication materials,
establishment and promotion of special events, festivals and activities, and a
contingency fund for extraordinary expenses,
b. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of
the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District, including lighting improvements,
seasonal and decorative enhancements, signage, banners, landscaping and public art,
c. To employ an Executive Director and staff who shall work for the Board of Directors to
manage the work of the SSMID and to fulfill the intent of the Petition and Ordinance
establish the SSMID.
6. Whether the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District or improvements would
conflict with any existing laws, plans or City policies, including comprehensive plans, zoning
ordinances, local or regional development plans or programs, local, state or federal laws or
regulations or other established special districts:
• The operational functions and marketing that can occur under the existing and proposed
expanded District do not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans or policies.
• The existing and proposed expanded District overlaps with the existing City -University
Project I Urban Renewal Area. As proposed, the SSMID petition does not conflict with
the goals or purposes of the City -University Project I Urban Renewal Area.
• It is noted in the petition the intention that, notwithstanding the fact that a part of the
proposed SSMID district is located within the City -University TIF district, the amount of
funds which would be derived from the annual SSMID levy from properties within the TIF
district be made available annually for the SSMID activities and that the City take all
actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including the allocation of a portion of the
September 25, 2015 Evaluative Report
Page 6 Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District
incremental property taxes which are attributable to properties within the proposed
district.
7. Whether the taxes proposed will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other expenses:
• The estimated revenue generated from the SSMID is upwards of $328, 000 per year, an
amount sufficient to employ an Executive Director and staff, as well as to cover costs
associated with marketing campaigns, operational costs, and physical improvements to
the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District. (Additionally, the University of
Iowa has increased its commitment from $100, 000 to $185, 000 per year in support of
SSMID activities.)
8. Whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other identifiable
City policies or goals:
• The City Council's adopted Strategic Plan and Priorities for 2014-2015 include
commitments to a strong urban core, healthy neighborhoods and involvement in
strategic economic development activities. In direct alignment with these priorities, the
District petition states that activities will include business recruitment, increase of
consumer traffic, improve cleanliness, safety, lighting, and beautification, all which
directly benefit the property, businesses and residents within the district and indirectly
benefit the entire community with a healthier, cleaner and more vibrant downtown.
• Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of keeping downtown Iowa City
vibrant, including the need to upgrade and improve physical amenities downtown. In
particular, the Comprehensive Plan suggests a combination of public and private efforts,
including those by downtown businesses and property owners, to ensure continued
vitality of downtown Iowa City. The District petition states that one of the purposes of the
SSMID is to provide physical enhancements, or beautification, to improve the image and
appearance of the Proposed District.
• In addition, the adoption by the City Council of the 21-Only ordinance in 2010 is resulting
in changes in the commercial landscape of downtown Iowa City. The Proposed SSMID
Renewal and Expansion District petition notes a major purpose of the SSMID is to
provide development and management services, including marketing, business retention
and attraction for the District. These activities will help to promote future growth in
downtown Iowa City.
September 9, 2015
Mayor Hayek and City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: Request to Renew the Self Sustaining Municipal Improvement District
Mayor Hayek and City Council Members,
The Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) is pleased to submit the petition to reauthorize
the Self Sustaining Municipal improvement District (SSMID) for your consideration and
approval.
As you may know, the ICDD is tasked with oversight of the SSMID and is authorized to
invest these dollars for the purpose of championing our geography as a progressive,
healthy, and culturally vibrant urban center. The current SSMID provides roughly half of
the ICDD's income to support revitalization of Downtown Iowa City and the Northside
Marketplace and was initially authorized by Council to commence January 1, 2012. The
current SSMID levy is set to expire June 30, 2016. Therefore, the ICDD has petitioned
our members to renew the SSMID and Its terms. Approval of this petition by you would
allow for the continuation of the SMMID levy through June 30, 2026.
The terms of the pefition before you have been modified by the Board of Directors to
address changing local circumstances and an opportunity to be more inclusive with
Board representation. The modifications to the terms, summarized below, have been
vetted by our members and have significant and meaningful support.
Summary of 2015 SSMID Petition Terms,
PURPOSE -- Mission remains the same
BOUNDARIES — Minor extensions to the east and south (see map in petition)
TERM — 10 years (2016 — 2026)
LEVY RATE — Same at $21$1,000 taxable value for 5 years with an option to
increase the rate by $0.50 in 2021 with Council approval If deemed
necessary by the Board of Directors.
BOARD REPRESENTATION _.. Increased representation from 19 to up to 25
possible members.
The threshold for a successful SSMID petition requires signatures from 25% of unique
property owners and signatures from property owners with 25% of the taxable value. We
have exceeded these thresholds by more than double at 55% and 76%, respectively. In
addition, the university cf Iowa has extended its support for the 10-year term and is an
integral partner to our organization. This level of support demonstrates the success of
the Iowa City Downtown District's ability to target the SSMID funds towards initiatives
that property owners have found valuable and necessary.
Nearing the and of our four-year operating term, we have much to celebrate, many to
thank, and we hope City Council will agree to approve the new SSMID terms to keep
growing this momentum Downtown. Of our many successes, arguably the most
valuable has been the rise of a unified voice to work with City staff to improve
stewardship of the area. Together we have improved safety, developed a game plan for
retail, strengthened urban design principles, improved communication on a sophisticated
planning and phasing process to update Downtown streetscapes, and are working on
ways to make the Downtown more environmentally sustainable over time.
We would appreciate the City Council's consideration of this petition and accompanying
ordinance to be completed before the and of the 2016 calendar year if at all possible.
With your support and approval of the SSMID renewal this year, we intend to invite new
voices to our Board of Directors to continue growing our base of partners. If you have
any questions or comments, please feel free to follow up with me personally.
Sincerely,
��= �- 2000,
Nancy. Bird,
Executive Director
Iowa City Downtown District
cc:
Kent Jehle
Mark Ginsberg
Joni Schrup
George Etre
Catherine Champion
Kevin Digmann,
Bill Nusser
Karen Kubby
David Kieft
Patty McCarthy
Naftaly Stremer
Mark Weaver
Ritu Jain,
President, ICDD Board of Directors
Textiles, Owner
Enclosures:
2015 SSMID Petition with Supporting Signatures
ICDD Commercial Property Database File with Threshold Metrics
PETITION
To continue to operate the Self -Supported Municipal Improvement
District (SSMID) that was established by ordinance in 2011 and began
operation in Downtown Iowa City in 2012 pursuant to Chapter 386 of
the Code of Iowa under the name of the Iowa City Downtown Self -
Supported Municipal Improvement District and modify its operating
terms;
We, the undersigned, being owners of the property within the SSMID,
hereby petition the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 386 of the Code of Iowa (the "Act") as follows:
1. To re-establish by ordinance a Self -Supported Municipal
Improvement District in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa:
a. The name of which shall be the "Iowa City Downtown Self -
Supported Municipal Improvement District" (also known as the
"Iowa City Downtown District" and herein referred to as the
"District").
b. A description of the boundaries and a map of the District is
attached hereto as Exhibit A showing the updated District
boundaries.
c. The purposes of which shall be the undertaking of actions and
the performance of administration, redevelopment, and
revitalization of the District, as authorized by the Act, any and
all of which actions and improvements are intended to benefit
the property, businesses, and residents within the District,
including, but not limited to activities that expand the mix of
businesses, increase consumer traffic, improve cleanliness and
safety, enhance urban design, beautification, lighting, and the
Downtown landscape in general.
2. To re-establish a Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District
through the petition process for ten (10) years, commencing on July 1,
2016 and ending June 30, 2026.
3. To establish a self -supported improvement district operation fund for the
District and levy an annual tax (the "Operation Tax") upon property defined
in Iowa Code §386.1(5), excluding property assessed as residential property
within the District commencing on July 1, 2016 as follows:
0
a. For the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021, the
maximum levy rate shall not exceed two dollars ($2.00) per one thousand
dollars ($1, 000) taxable value, commencing with the levy of taxes for
collection in the five fiscal years beginning July 1, 2016.
b. For the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2026, the
maximum levy rate stall not exceed two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per
one thousand dollars ($1,000) taxable value for collection in the five fiscal
years beginning July 1, 2021.
C. It is the intent of this Petition that the operation taxes levied
and collected on behalf of the District shall be expended for new,
additional, or enhanced services within the District, and that the City
shall not diminish the type and extent of governmental services
currently provided.
d. This Petition is not requesting any amount of levy for a Debt or
Capital Fund.
4. To annually allocate all amounts collected in the Operation Fund for
one or more of the following purposes at such times and under such
conditions as shall be recommended to the City Council by the Iowa City
Downtown District Board of Directors as described in Item 5 below.
a. Development and management of activities in support of
marketing, business retention and attraction, including, but
not limited to:
• Establish Customer Relations Management (CRM) or other
property databases,
• Space referrals and assistance,
Marketing, advertising, and informational campaigns,
including advertising, social media, print and digital media
releases,
• Miscellaneous business support services,
• Establishment and promotion of special events, festivals,
and activities, and
A contingency fund for extraordinary expenses.
b. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the
image and appearance of the District, including, but not
2
limited to:
Lighting Improvements,
Decorative enhancements, signage and campaign banners,
Landscaping, and
Public or private art.
c. To employ an Executive Director and staff who shall work for
the Board of Directors to manage the work of the Iowa City
Downtown District and to fulfill the intent of this Petition
and Ordinance establishing the Self -Supporting Municipal
Improvement District.
5. It is the intent of this petition that the City of Iowa City enter into an
operating agreement with the Iowa City Downtown District Board of
Directors (hereinafter referred to as the Board"). The Board shall be
formed as described below. All SSMID levy monies shall be
appropriated to the Board for the management and operation of the
District. From time to time, the City of Iowa City may provide additional
revenue to the Board for the purposes of the management and
operation of the District.
a. The Board shall remain as a 501 (c)(6) non-profit
organization with composition of up to 24 members on its Board of
Directors with the following composition and terms:
i. Board members have staggered 3 years terms and new
members shall be approved by a. vote of the outgoing
Board of that current term year.
ii. There shall be an Advisory Board for the District and the
Advisory Board shall report, as required, to the City
Council of Iowa City as requested. The Advisory Board is
made up of the Downtown District Board President, Vice -
President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Past -President.
iii. Board seats designated by an assessed value or square
footage requirement shall be determined based on the
assessed value or square footage as of January 1, 2016.
iv. The Board composition may include up to 17 voting
members, and shall include 13 members from
representative populations, including:
3
a) Seats # 1 and #2 - Two (2) from property owners or
their representatives from a single property that has
an assessed value in excess of 1.0% of the total
assessed value of property in the District.
b) Seats #3 and #4 - Two (2) from property owners or
their representatives from a single property that has
an assessed value less than of 1.0% of the total
assessed value of property in the District.
c) Seats #5 and #6 - Two (2) from business owners
that lease more than 3,000 square feet of
commercial space in the District.
d) Seats #7 and #8 - Two (2) from business owners
that lease less than 3,000 square feet of commercial
space in the District.
e) Seat 09 - One (1) from a business in the Northside
Marketplace area.
Seat # 10 - One (1) from a business that holds a
liquor license in the District.
g) Seat # 11 - One (1) from a nonprofit or cultural
entity in the District.
h) Seat #12 - One (1) from an office use business in
the District.
i) Seat # 13 - One (1) voting Ex-officio member of the
University of Iowa.
j) Board membership may consist of up to four (4)
other stakeholders of the district.
ii. The Board may also include (7) non -voting Ex-officio
members, including representatives from the following
organizations:
a) Iowa City-Coralvilie Area Convention and Visitors
Bureau.
4
b) Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce.
c) Iowa City Area Development Group.
d) City of Iowa City.
e) Summer of the Arts
fl University of Iowa Student Government
g) Executive Director
6. The District is located within the boundaries of Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) Districts which have been created by the City.
Notwithstanding that fact, it is the intent of this Petition that the City
will reimburse the District for any SSMID levy captured against TIF
properties within the District. To accomplish this, it is the intent of this
Petition that air amount of funds ivhicla would have been derived from
the annual SSMID levy of the Operation Tax against TIF properties
within the District, if the District were not located within such TIF
Districts, shall be made available annually for the services,
improvements, and activities set out in this Petition, and that the City
should take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including,
if necessary, allocation to these services, improvements and activities of
a portion of the incremental property taxes which are attributable to
properties within the District. These allocations may be from the SSMID
levy or other sources.
M
I
PROPOSED SSNIID AREA
(2015)
BEGINNING AT THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET WHERE IT INTERSECTS THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 57, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID ALLEY TO ITS INTERSECTION W TIH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
LINN STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LINN STREET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 60
FEET OF TAT 8, BLOCK 69, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 60 FEET OF TAT 8, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8 AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET;
THENCE EAST 5.00 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012M AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 57 AT PAGE 120 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE;
THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012099, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012099;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 68, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LANE OF LINN STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH L NE OF SAID PLATTED EAST -WEST
ALLEY IN SAID BLACK 68;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 68, TO A POINT ON THE EAST
RIGHT-O&WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JEFFERSON STREET;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF -WAY LINE OF JEFFERSON STREET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREITT;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET, TO A POINT 10 FEE3T SOUTH OF THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAT 3, BLOCK 60, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 5, BLACK 45 ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 5, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-O&WAY LINE OF R7WA
AVENUE;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IOWA AVENUE, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF CLINTON STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CLINTON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WASHINGTON STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WASHINGTON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
RIGHT-O&WAY LINE OF CAP. t OL STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OFWAY LINE OF CAPITOL STREET TO ITS INTERSCTTON WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF BURLINGTON STREET;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BURLINGTON STREET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE
EAST 25 FEET OF LOT 8, BLACK 101, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA; (SEE RETRACEMENT PLAT OF SURVEY
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 57 AT PAGE 336 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE)
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF
LOT 7, BLOCK 101,
THENCE EAST TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 7;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LJNE OF LOT 7, 10 FEET;
THENCE EAST 20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 10 1;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 101, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF
THE SOUTH 70 FEET OF LOT 4;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, AND ITS EASTERLY EXTENSION TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT -OF WAY LINE
OF CL NTON STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF CLINTON STREET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 44 FEET OF
LOT 5, BLACK 102, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND ITS EASTERLY EXTENSION, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE PLATTED
NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN SAID BLOCK 102;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PLATTED NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTH 37 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 102;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 37 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 102, AND ITS EASTERLY EXTENSION, TO
A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8,
BLOCK 103, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LJNE OF SAID LOT 8 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF TAT 1, BLOCK 103 AND ITS EASTERLY
EXTENSION, TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LINN STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LINN STREET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 35 FEET OF LOT
10, JOHNSON'S SUBDIVISION OF OUT LOT 24, IN IOWA CITY;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 35 FEET OF LOT 10, JOHNSON'S SUBDIVISION OF OUT LOT 24 AND
ITS EASTERLY EXTENSION, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE PLATTED NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN SAID JOHNSON'S
SUBDIVISION OF OUT LOT 24;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PLATTED NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY, IN SAID JOHNSON-S SUBDIVISION OF
OUTLOT 24 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, SAID JOHNSON'S SUBDIVISION OF OUT LOT 24;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6, A DISTANCE OF 35.44 FEET MORE OR LESS;
THENCE NORTH 4.71 FEET MORE OR LESS;
THENCE EAST 115 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT 105 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE CONTINUING EAST TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET TO A POINT 85 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, LYMAN COOK'S SUBDIVISION OF OUTLOT 25 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA;
THENCE EAST 185 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 81 FEET;
THENCE WEST 10 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 4 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF WAY LINE OF BURLINGTON STREET;
THENCE EAST TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT-0E-WAY LINE OF VAN BUREN STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VAN BUREN STREET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IOWA AVENUE;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IOWA AVENUE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK
44, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 6, BLOCK 45, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 6 AND ALONG r-vS NORTHERLY EXTENSION TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE
OF THE EAST -WEST ALLEY IN SAID BLOCK 45.
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EAST -WEST ALLEY, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF -WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
RIGHT-O&WAY LINE OF JEFFERSON STREET;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JEFFERSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
LINE OF THE WEST 65 FEET OF LOT 6, BLACK 46. ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 65 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 46 AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION, TO
ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLACK 46;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 46, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4,
BLOCK 46;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 4, BLOCK 46 AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION AND ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 47, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,-
THENCE WEST ALONG THE WORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 47, AND ITS WESTERLY EXTENSION TO
ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF GILBERT STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-O&WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
AND EXCEPTING THOSE PROPERTIES ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE NORTH 110' OF THE WEST 58.5' OF LOT 4 BLOCK 65
LOTS 7, 8, AND THE EAST 20' LOT 6 BLOCK 65
THE WEST 58.5' OF N 110' OF LOT 4 BLOCK 65
LOT 5 AND THE WEST 28.66' OF LOT 6 BLOCK 61
TH MAST 38.3' LOT 6, ALL OF LOT 7, AND THE WEST 39.7' OF LOT 8 BLOCK 58
PREPARED BY MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
PROJECT 0122-110
6-19-15
�Vc, jjjcrsigAzed. r-is reprv-sentativcn of tic Setf-supported Munidivil
bnprovctuleilt Dilc',trict (SSIVIID) tbat waz 4� ujblisbi,-A by o,.tin-,mcc in 203 1
find began operation i:1 Downtcmen in -Ara City i. 2012 parsuzynt W Chapt-er
Z86 or ttio cx)d,e of iowa, undcr the norne of the Iowa Chy
p Suried Municipal Improvemcrit. DistTirt, harcEmy state that individucdly
I Pq
and as v.n organization we gatbcrr-d eaeb and cvcry mgnnture that is
at,,,jed fo tbe 12etition hcrcin,, and. Ghut each and cvcay 'W' Ubr
Petition mated g nat, if thcy dki not irywn thr- building indMdkiafly, that they
were an *mcer or am co.,wracion, cluxqjxany or Corxq)."Irlies th"JaLl 0%,ned the
In"Spery fizzic-d' and, by virmc qf the auiffior�qr d.c'k:-pV:'x1 to '""-',un by the Board
el Directors, M.-ts, or vilicr guvarnianp opembonal. Or
_ap
cc-r tile Velition to
tiLixt theywerc . athdodzed to exxjt
en
continue to qp=Fata fliz. -Sup attwItAnicipal 1mPrvvt-1nt r X8 tricx
($Sj�&JD) Aftat waz esanbftbcd by ordinancc in 20 11 and bCF4ix 1,1 ojVX-,kb0n in
Lo ba F4 0 l - Iowa
.00,*_n iO%Vfj City iTI. 2`012 pursum-sk C pter 3 6 f U c Cmle of
undcx lbe narm- of the jo%qx city Dowatovni 8t-41,51appoeX-kt NfUKAdP01
Improw-rrient District vand modify is opt--,-naling te-ma for arid oil bi alf of
ihe Corporation, Corvlmny or Co-mi-pardes =dl W nAffix Ole sml, if rany Of the
0T*PA1A=LJ OTIS tberctp.
S"grature
4
Printed
Witness
-gym
mJuLc�121---
Date.
sigavii'men
Date.
10
SELF4UPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, 6386.2
CHAPTER 386
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Referred
to to 6376.1
386.1
Definitions,
386.9
Capital improvement tax.
386.2
Authorization.
386.10
Debt service tax.
386.3
Establishment of district.
386.11
Self -supported municipal
386.4
Amendments to district.
improvement district bonds.
386.
Dissolution,
386.6
Improvements.
386.12
Payment for improvements.
386.7
Self-liquidating improvements.
386.13
Parking fee abatements.
386.8
Operation tax.
386.14
Independent provisions.
386.1 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
L "Book", "list", "record", or "schedule" kept by as county auditor, assessor, treasurer,
recorder, sheriff, or other county officer meads the county system as defined in section 445.1.
2. "Cost" of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement includes construction
contracts and the cost of engineering, architectural, technical, and legal services, preliminary
reports, property valuations, estimates, plans, specifications, notices, acquisition of real and
personal property, consequential damages or costs, easements, rights -of -way, supervision,
inspection, testing, publications, printing and sale of bonds, interest during construction and
for not more than six months thereafter, and provisions for contingencies.
3, "District" means a self -supported municipal improvement district which maybe created
and the property therein taxed in accordance with this chapter.
4. "Improvement" means any of the following:
a. All or any part of a city enterprise as defined in section 384.24, subsection 2.
b. Public improvements as defined in section 384.37, subsection 1.9.
c. Those structures, properties, facilities or actions, the acquisition, construction,
improvement, installation, reconstruction, enlargement, repair, equipping, purchasing,
or taking of which would constitute an essential corporate purpose or general corporate
purpose as defined in section 384.24, subsections 3 and 4.
5. "Property" means real property as defined in section 4.1, subsection 13, and in section
127A..1, subsection 1, paragraph "h".
6, "Property owner" or "owner" means the owner of property, as shown by the transfer
books in the office of the county auditor of the county in which the property is located.
7. "Self-liquidating improvement" means any facility or property proposed to be ]eased in
whole or in part to any person or governmental body to further the corporate purposes of the
city and:
a. To aid in the commercial development of the district.
b. To further the purposes of the districts; or
c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base.
8. The use of the conjunctive and" includes the disjunctive "or" and the use of the
disjunctive "or" includes the conjunctive "and", unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
9. All definitions in section 362.2 are incorporated by reference as a part of this chapter,
except as provided in subsection 5.
[C77, 79, 81, 4386.1]
84 Acts, ch 1179, §1; 2000 Acts, ch 1148, ;11; 2002 Acts, ch 1119, §200, 201
386.2 Authorization.
A city which proposes to create a district, to provide for its existence and operation, to
provide for improvements or self-liquidating improvements for the district, to authorize and
issue bonds for the purposes of the district, and to levy the taxes authorized by this chapter
must do so in accordance with the provisions of this chapter,
[C77, 79, 81, §386.21
Thu Jan 08 21:30:112015 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
f386.3, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
386.3 Establishment of district.
1. Districts may be created by action of the council in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter. A district shall:
a. Be comprised of contiguous property wholly within the boundaries of the city. A
self -supported municipal improvement district shall be comprised only of property in
districts which are zoned for commercial or industrial uses and properties within a duly
designated historic district.
b. Be given a descriptive name containing the words "self -supported municipal
improvement district".
c. Be comprised of property related in some manner, including but not limited to present
or potential use, physical location, condition, relationship to an area, or relationship to
present or potential commercial or other activity in an area, so as to be benefited in any
manner, including but not limited to a benefit from present or potential use or enjoyment
of the property, by the condition, development or maintenance of the district or of any
improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the district, or be comprised of property
the owners of which have a present or potential benefit from the condition, development or
maintenance of the district or of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the
district.
a. The council shall initiate proceedings for establishing a district upon the filing with its
clerk of a petition containing:
a. The signatures of at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the
proposed district. These signatures must together represent ownership of property with an
assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in
the proposed district.
b. A description of the boundaries of the proposed district or a consolidated description
of the property within the proposed district.
a The name of the proposed district.
d. A statement of the maximum rate of tax that maybe imposed upon property within the
district. The maximum rate of tax may be stated in terms of separate maximum rates for the
debt service tax, the capital improvement fund tax, and the operation tax, or in terms of a
maximum combined rate for all three.
e. The purpose of the establishment of the district, which may be stated generally,
or in terms of the relationship of the property within the district or the interests of the
owners of property within the district, or in terms of the improvements or self-liquidating
improvements proposed to be developed for the purposes of the district, either specific
improvements, self-liquidating improvements, or general categories of improvements, or
any combination of the foregoing.
f. A statement that taxes levied for the self -supported improvement district operation
fund shall be used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or
self-liquidating improvements for a specified length of time, along with any options to renew,
if the taxes are to be used for this maintenance purpose,
3. a. The council shall notify the city planning commission upon the receipt of a petition.
It shall be the duty of the city planning commission to make recommendations to the council
in regard to the proposed 3is`4rict. The city planning commission shall, with due diligence,
prepare an evaluative report for the cour.c!l on the merit and feasibility of the project. The
council shall not hold its public hearings or take further action on the establishment of the
district until it has received the report of the city planning commission. In addition to its
report, the commission may, from time to time, recommend to the council amendments and
changes relating to the project.
b. If no city planning commission exists, the council shall notify the metropolitan or
regional planning commission upon receipt of it petition, and such commission shall have
the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in this subsection. If no planning
commission exists, the council shall notify the zoning commission upon receipt of a petition,
and such commission shall have the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in
this subsection. If no planning or zoning commission exists, the council shall call a hearing
on the establishment of a district upon receipt of a petition.
Thu Jan 08 21:30:11 2016 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL BAPROVEIUJENT DISTRICTS, 6386.3
4. Upon the receipt of the commission's final report the council shall set a time and place
for a meeting at which the council proposes to take action for the establishment of the district,
and shall publish notice of the meeting as provided in section 362.3, and the clerk shall send a
copy of the notice by certified mail not less than fifteen days before the meeting to each owner
of property within the proposed district at the owner's address as shown by the records of
the county auditor. If a property is shown to be in the name of more than one owner at the
same nailing address, a single notice may be mailed addressed to all owners at that address.
Failure to receive a mailed notice is not grounds for objection to the council's taking any
action authorized in this chapter.
5. In addition to the time and place of the meeting for hearing on the petition, the notice
must state:
a. That a petition has been filed with the council asking that a district be established.
b. The name of the district.
c. The purpose of the district.
d. The property proposed to be included in the district.
e. The maximum rate of tax which may be imposed upon the property in the district.
6. At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property
in the proposed district or residents of the city desiring to express their views. The council
must wait at least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may adopt
an ordinance establishing a district which must be comprised of all the property which the
council finds has the relationship or whose owners have the interest described in subsection
1, paragraph "c". Property included in the proposed district need not be included in the
established district, However, no property may be included in the district that was not
included in the proposed district until the council has held another hearing after it has
published and mailed the same notice as required in subsections 4 and 5 of this section on
the original petition to the owners of the additional property, or has caused a notice of the
inclusion of the property to be personally served upon each owner of the additional property,
or has received a written waiver of notice from each owner of the additional property.
7. Adoption of the ordinance establishing a district requires the affirmative vote of
three -fourths of all of the members of the council, or in cities having but three members of
the council, the affirmative vote of two members. However if a remonstrance has been filed
with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the
proposed district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five
percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in the proposed district, the
adoption of the ordinance requires a unanimous vote of the council.
8. The clerk shall cause a copy of the ordinance to be filed in the office of the county
recorder of each county in which any property within the district is located.
9. At any time prior to adoption of an ordinance establishing a district, the entire matter
of establishing such district shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition
objecting to establishing such district is filed with its clerk containing the signatures of at
least forty percent of all owners of property within the proposed district or signatures which
together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of
the assessed value of all property within the proposed district.
10. The adoption of an ordinance establishing a district is a legislative determination that
the property within the district has the relationship or its owners have the interest required
under subsection 1, paragraph "c" and includes ail of the property wi`.hin the area which has
that relationship or the owners of which have that interest in the district.
11. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action and the decisions of
the council, including the creation of the district and the levying of the proposed taxes for the
district; to the district court of the county in which any part of the district is located, within
thirty days after the date upon which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective,
but the action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that
the council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of
the proceedings pertaining to the establishment of a district or the validity of the district, or
the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the district, or the
Thu Jan 08 21:30:11 201 5 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
§386.3, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL H"ROVENIEw DIsIwcTS
ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing the district, after
thirty days from the date on which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective.
12. The procedural steps for the petitioning and creation of the district may be combined
with the procedural steps for the authorization of any improvement or self-liquidating
improvement, or the procedural steps for the authorization of any tax, or any combination
thereof.
13. The rate of debt service tax referred to in the petition and the ordinance creating the
district shall only restrict the amount of bonds which may be issued, and shall not limit the
ability of the city to levy as necessary in subsequent years to pay interest and amortize Lhe
principal of that amount of bonds.
14. The ordinance creating the district may provide for the division of all of the property
within the district into two or more zones based upon a reasonable difference in the
relationship of the property or the interest of its owners, whether the difference is qualitative
or quantitative. The ordinance creating the district and establishing the different zones may
establish a different maximum rate of tax for each zone, or may provide that the rate of tax
for a zone shall be a certain set percentage of the tax levied in the zone which is subject to
the highest rate of tax.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.3]
85 Acts, ch 113, §1; 88 Acts, ch 1246, §7; 2010 Acts, ch 1061, §180
Aefenred to in 1396.4, 5366.6
386.4 Amendments to district.
1. The ordinance creating the district may be amended and property may be added to the
district and the maximum rate of taxes referred to in the ordinance may be increased at any
time in the same manner and by the same procedure as for the establishment of a district.
All property added to a district shall be subject to all taxes currently and thereafter levied
including debt service levies for bonds previously or thereafter issued.
2. Action by the council amending the ordinance creating the district, including adding
any eligible property or deleting any property within the district or changing any maximum
rate of taxes, shall be by ordinance adopted by an affirmative vote of three -fourths of all
of the members of the council, or in cities having but three members of the council, the
affirmative vote of two members. However, if a remonstrance has been filed with the clerk
signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district and all
property proposed to be included representing ownership of property with an assessed value
of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all the property in the district and all
property proposed to be included, the amending ordinance trust be adopted by unanimous
vote of the council.
3. The clerk shall cause a copy of the amending ordinance to be filed in the office of
the county recorder of each county in which any property within the district as amended is
located.
4. At any time prior to council amendment of the ordinance creating the district, the
entire matter of amending such ordinance shall be withdrawn from council consideration
if a petition objecting to amending such ordinance is filed with its clerk containing either
the signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the district and
all property proposed to be included or signatures which together represent ownership of
property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of the assessed value of all property
within the district and all property proposed to be included.
D. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action or decisions of the
council amending the ordinance creating the district, to the district court of the county in
which anv part of the district, as amended, is located, within fifteen days after the date upon
which the ordinance amending the ordinance creating the district becomes effective, but the
action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that the
council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the
proceedings pertaining to the amended ordinance or the validity of the district as amended,
or the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the amended
district, or the ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing
Thu Jan 08 21;30;11 2015 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
SE Y-SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEM M DLSTRiCrS, 1386.6
the district, as amended, after thirty days from the date upon which the amending ordinance
becomes effective.
6. All other provisions in section 396.3 shall apply to an amended district and to the
ordinance amending the ordinance creating the district with the same effect as they apply to
the original district and the ordinance creating the original district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.41
386.5 Dissolution.
A district may be dissolved and terminated by action of the council rescinding the ordinance
creating the district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district, by an affirmative
vote of three -fourths of all members of the council, or in cities having but three members of the
council, the affirmative vote of two members. However, if a remonstrance has been filed with
the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district
representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of
the assessed value of all the property in the district, the rescission of the ordinance creating
the district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district. requires a unanimous vote
of the council.
At any time prior to action of the council rescinding the ordinance creating the district, and
any subsequent ordinances amending the district, the entire matter of dissolving a district
shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition is filed with its clerk containing the
signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the district or signatures
which together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or
more of the assessed value of all property within the district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.5]
386.6 Improvements.
When a city proposes to construct an improvement the cost of which is to be paid or
financed under the provisions of this chapter, it must do so in accordance with the provisions
of this section, as follows:
I. The council shall initiate proceedings for a proposed improvement upon receipt of a
petition signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district
representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of
the assessed value of all the property in the district.
2. Upon the receipt of such a petition the council shall notify the city planning
commission, if one exists, the metropolitan or regional planning commission, if one exists,
or the zoning commission, if one exists, in the order set forth in section 386.3, subsection 3.
Upon notification by the council, the commission shall prepare an evaluative report for the
council on the merit and feasibility of the improvement and carry out all other duties as set
forth in section 386.3, subsection 3. If no planning or zoning commission exists, the council
shall call a hearing on a proposed improvement upon receipt of a petition.
3. Upon the receipt of the commission's report the council shall set a time and place of
meeting at which the council proposes to take action on the proposed improvement and shall
publish and mail notice as provided in section 386.3, subsections 4 and S.
4. The notice must include a statement that an improvement has been proposed, the
nature of the improvement, the source of payment of the cost of the improvement, and the
time and place of hearing.
5. At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property in
the district or residents of the city desiring to express their views. The council must wait at
least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may take action to order
construction of the improvement. The provisions of section 386.3, subsections 7 and 9,
relating to the adoption of the ordinance establishing a district, the requisite vote therefor,
the remonstrance thereto and the withdrawal of the entire matter from council consideration
apply to the adoption of the resolution ordering the construction of the improvement.
6. If the council orders the construction of the improvement, it shall proceed to let
contracts therefor in accordance with chapter 26.
7. The adoption of a resolution ordering the construction of an improvement is a
Thu Jan 08 21:30:11 2015 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
§386.6, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL. I1M)PROVEMENT DISTRICTS
legislative determination that the proposed improvement is in furtherance of the purposes
of the district and that all property in the district will be affected by the construction of
the improvement, or that all owners of property in the district have an interest in the
construction of the improvement.
8. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action or decisions of the
council ordering the construction of the improvement to the district court of the county in
which any part of the district is located within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution
ordering construction of the improvement, but the action and decisions of the council are
final and conclusive unless the court finds that the council exceeded its authority. No action
may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the ordering of
the constriction of an improvement, or the right of the city to apply moneys in the capital
improvement fund referred to in this chapter to the payment of the costs of the improvement,
or the right of the city to issue bonds referred to in this chapter for the payment of the costs of
the improvement, or the right of the city to levy taxes which with any other taxes authorized
by this chapter do not exceed the maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon property
within the district fa: the payment of principal of and -interest on bonds issued to pay the costs
of the improvement, after thirty days from the date of adoption of the resolution ordering
construction of the improvement.
9. The procedural steps contained in this section may be combined with the procedural
steps for the petitioning and creations of the district or the procedural steps for the
authorization of any tax or any combination thereof.
[C77, 79, 81, §386,6]
2007 Acts, ch 144, § 19
Referred to sn MG.7. PHI. 13
386.7 Self-liquidating improvements.
When a city proposes to construct a self-liquidating improvement, the cost of which is to
be paid or financed under the provisions of this chapter, it must do so in accordance with the
provisions of this section as follows;
1. Section 386.6, subsections 1 to 5 are applicable to a self-liquidating improvement to
the same extent as they are applicable to an improvement and the proceedings initiating a
self-liquidating improvement shall be governed thereby.
2. Before the council may order the construction of a self-liquidating improvement, and
after hearing thereon, it must find that the self-liquidating improvement and the leasing of a
part or the whole of it to any person or governmental body will further the corporate purposes
of the city and will:
a. Aid in the commercial development of the district.
b. Further the interests of the district; or
c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base.
3. If the council orders the construction of the self-liquidating improvement, contracts for
it shall be let in accordance with chapter 26.
4. The adoption of a resolution ordering the construction of a self-liquidating
improvement is a legislative determination that the proposed self-liquidating improvement
and the leasing of a part or the whole of it to any person or governmental body will further
the corporate purposes of the city and will;
a. Aid in the commercial development of the district.
b. Further the interests of the district; or
c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base.
5. A city may lease any or all of a self-liquidating improvement to any person or
governmental body.
6. A city may issue revenue bonds payable from the income and receipts derived from
the self -liquidated improvement. Chapter 384, division V applies to revenue bonds for
self-liquidating improvements and the term "city enterprise" as used i:i that division shall be
deemed to include self-liquidating improvements authorized by this chapter.
7. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal a decision of the council
to order the construction of a self-liquidating improvement or to lease any or all of a
Thu Jan 08 21;30:11 2015 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL BAPROVEMENT DISTRICIS, §396.10
self-liquidating improvement to the district court of the county in which any part of the
district is located, within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution ordering the
self-liquidating improvement, but the action of the council is final and conclusive unless the
court finds that the council exceeded its authority.
8. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to
the ordering of the construction of a sel liquidating improvement after thirty days from the
date of adoption of the resolution ordering construction of the self-liquidating improvement.
No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the
leasing of any or all of a self -Liquidating improvement after thirty days from the date of the
adoption of a resolution approving the proposed lease. In addition to the limitation contained
in section 384.92, no action may be brought which questions the legality of revenue bonds or
the power of the city to issue revenue bonds or the effectiveness of any proceedings relating
to the authorization and issuance of revenue bonds relating to a self-liquidating improvement
after thirty days from the time the bonds are ordered issued by the city.
9. The procedural steps contained in this section may be combined with the procedural
steps for the petitioning and creation of the district.
[C77, 79, 91, §386.7]
89 Acts, ch 83, §50; 2007 Acts, ch 144, §20
386.8 Operation tax.
A city may establish a self -supported improvement district operation fund, and may certify
taxes not to exceed the rate limitation as established in the ordinance creating the district,
or any amendment thereto, each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in
the district, for the purpose of paying the administrative expenses of the district, which may
include but are not limited to administrative personnel salaries, a separate administrative
office, planning costs including consultation fees, engineering fees, architectural fees, and
legal fees and all other expenses reasonably associated with the administration of the district
and the fulfilling of the purposes of the district. The taxes levied for this fund may also be
used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or self-liquidating
improvements for a specified length of time with one or more options to renew if such is
clearly stated in the petition which requests the council to authorize construction of the
improvement or self-liquidating improvement, whether or not such petition is combined
with the petition requesting creation of a district. Parcels of property which are assessed as
residential property for property tax purposes are exempt from the tax levied under this
section except residential properties within a duly designated historic district. A tax levied
under this section is not subject to the levy limitation in section 384.1.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.8]
85 Acts, ch 113, §2
386.9 Capital improvement tax.
A city may establish a capital improvement fund for a district and may certify taxes, not
to exceed the rate established by the ordinance creating the district, or any subsequent
amendment thereto, each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in the
district, for the purpose of accumulating moneys for the financing or payment of a part or
all of the costs of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement. However, parcels of
property which are assessed as residential property for property tax purposes are exempt
from the tax levied under this section except residential properties within a duly designated
historic district. A tax levied under this section is not subject to the levy limitations in
section 331.1 or 384.7.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.9]
85 Acts, ch 113, §3
Reerred to En I386.12
386.I0 Debt service tax.
A city shall establish a self -supported municipal improvement district debt service
fund whenever any self -supported municipal improvement district bonds are issued and
Thu Jan 08 21:30;11 2015 Iowa Code 2015, Ct after 386 (8, 0)
1386.10, SELF -SUPPORTED WNICiPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
outstanding, other than revenue bonds, and shall certify taxes to be levied against all of the
property in the district for the debt service fund in the amount necessary to pay interest
as it becomes due and the amount necessary to pay, or to create a sinking fund to pay,
the principal at maturity of all self -supported municipal improvement district bonds as
authorized in section 386.11, issued by the city. However, parcels of property which are
assessed as residential property for property tax purposes at the time of the issuance of
the bonds are exempt from the tax levied under this section until the parcels are no longer
assessed as residential property or until the residential properties are designated as a part
of an historic district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386,10]
85 Acts, ch 113, §4
Referred to in #386.I1
386.11 Self -supported municipal improvement district bonds.
1. A city may issue and sell self -supported municipal improvement district bonds at
public or private sale payable from taxes which must be levied in accordance with chapter
76. The bonds are payable from the levy of unlimited ad valorem taxes on all the taxable
property within the district through the district debt service fund authorized by section
386.10. When self -supported municipal improvement district bonds are issued and taxes are
levied in accordance with chapter 76, the taxes shall continue to be levied, until the bonds
and interest thereon are paid in full, against all of the taxable property that was included in
the district at the time of the issuance of the bonds, regardless of any subsequent removal of
any property from the district or the dissolution of the district.
2. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds may be used to pay any or all of the costs
of any improvement, or be used to pay any legal indebtedness incurred for the cost of
any improvement including bonds or warrants previously issued to pay the costs of an
improvement, or bonds may be exchanged for the evidences of such legal indebtedness.
3. Before the council may institute proceedings for the issuance of bonds, it shall proceed
in the same manner as is required for the institution of proceedings for the issuance of bonds
for an essential corporate purpose as provided in section 381.25, subsection 2 and all of the
provisions of that subsection apply to bonds issued pursuant to this section.
4. A city may issue bonds authorized by this section pursuant to a resolution adopted
at a regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total members to
which the council is entitled. The proceeds of a single bond issue may be used for various
improvements.
5. The provisions of sections 384.29, 384.30, and 381.31 apply to bonds issued pursuant
to this section, except that the bonds shall be designated "municipal improvement district
bonds".
6. No action may be brought which questions the legality of bonds issued pursuant to
Ws section or the power of a city to issue the bonds or the effectiveness of any proceedings
relating to the authorization and issuance of the bonds after thirty days from the time the
bonds are ordered issued by the city.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.111
Referred to In 1386.18, §336.13
386.12 Payment for improvements,
The costs of improvements may be paid from any of the following sources or a combination
thereof:
1. The capital improvement fund referred to in section 396.9.
2. The proceeds of bonds referred to in section 386.11.
3. Any other funds of the city which are legally available to pay all or a portion of the
cost of an improvement. The fact that an improvement is initiated under the provisions of
this chapter, or any of the costs of an improvement or any part of an improvement are being
paid under the provisions of this chapter, shall not preclude the city from paying any costs
of an improvement from any fund from which it might otherwise have been able to pay such
costs. In addition, and not in limitation of the foregoing, any improvement which constitutes
Thu Jan 08 21:30:11 2015 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
SEXY -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IIVIPROVF. WNT DISTRICTS,1388.14
an essential corporate purpose or a general corporate purpose as defined in section 384.24,
subsections 3 and 4, may be financed in whole or in part with the proceeds of the issuance of
general obligation bonds of the city pursuant to the provisions of chapter 384, division M.
4. Payment for the costs of an improvement may also be made in warrants drawn on any
fund from which payment for the improvement may be made. If such funds are depleted,
anticipatory warrants may be issued bearing a rate of interest not exceeding that permitted
by chapter 74A, which do not constitute a violation of section 384,10, even if the collection
of taxes or income from the sale of bonds applicable to the improvement is after the end
of the fiscal year in which the warrants are issued. If the city arranges for the private
We of anticipatory warrants, they may be sold and the proceeds used to pay the costs of
the improvement. Such warrants may be used to pay other persons furnishing services
constituting a part of the cost of the improvement.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.121
386.18 Parking fee abatements.
A city may apply moneys in the operation fund of the district to prepay parking fees at any
city parking facility located in or used in conjunction with the district but only after notice and
hearing as required by section 386.6. The authority to prepay such fees shall exist only for the
period of time set out in the notice to owners and in the resolution of the council authorizing
the application of funds for that purpose. Upon the application of sufficient amounts of
prepaid fees, the city need not charge individual users of the parking facility. Before adopting
a resolution authorizing the application of funds for such purpose, the council must find that
the application will further the purposes of the district, including but not limited to increasing
the commercial activity in the district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.13]
386.14 Independent provisions.
The provisions of this chapter with respect to notice, hearing and appeal for the
construction of improvements and self-liquidating improvements and the issuance and sale
of bonds are in lieu of the provisions contained in chapters 73A and 75, or any other law,
unless specifically referred to and made applicable by this chapter.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.14]
Thu Jan 08 21:30:11 2015 Iowa Code 2015, Chapter 386 (8, 0)
CITY OF IOWA CITY
uUM
M E M 01 RA N r"'k
Date:
May 29, 2013
To:
Tom Markus, City Manager
From:
Dennis Bockenstedt, Director of Finance
Re:
State Property Tax Reform
On May 22, 2013, the State of Iowa legislature passed a property tax reform bill (SF295) that will have a
significant impact on the City's ability to finance services in the future. The property tax reform bill has
multiple components; the specific provisions of bill SF295 that affect the City's ability to finance services
are briefly explained below along with an estimate of the future financial impact to the City's
operations. Exhibit 'A' is attached to provide a summary of the financial impact of the provisions of
SF295 over the next ten years.
Residential Assessment Limitation
Summary: For each assessment year beginning January 2013 and thereafter, SF295 reduces the limit of
taxable valuation growth from 4 percent to 3 percent or whichever is lowest of the agricultural and
residential classes. The City will not receive any money from the State due to lost revenue from this
provision.
Financial Impact: The overall financial impact of this change will be significant over time, however, less
noticeable initially. The effect will be that the taxable percentage of residential property will increase at
a slower pace. Without the change, the estimated taxable percentage of residential property would be
60.85% in assessment year 2022. With the provision in place, the estimated taxable percentage in year
2022 will be 55.11%, a reduction of 5.74%. With approximately $3.4 billion of assessed residential
property, the impact on the City in fiscal year 2015 will be $306,121 in lost revenue which will grow to
$4,177,423 in fiscal year 2024. The cumulative loss will be $20,772,185 over the next ten years.
Commercial & Industrial Rollback
Summary: For valuations at January 1, 2013, commercial and industrial property will be rolled back to 95
percent. For valuations at January 1, 2014, commercial and industrial property will be rolled back to 90
percent. Thereafter, the two classes will be taxed at 90 percent of their assessed value. The bill
establishes a standing appropriation for the State to backfill losses to the City due to the commercial and
industrial rollback beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 and then caps the amount at Fiscal Year 2017 levels.
Financial Impact: The initial year's impact to the City will be negligible due the State's backfill of lost
revenue. In 2003, however, the State of Iowa eliminated reimbursements to cities for backfills of
personal property tax and industrial machinery and equipment property tax after similar promises. If
the State was to do the same, the loss in property tax revenue is estimated to be $1,460,203 in fiscal
year 2017. The cumulative reduction in commercial and industrial property taxes due to the percentage
rollback is estimated to be $15,417,536 over the next ten years. The maximum reimbursement from the
State would be $14,732,059.
Multi -residential Property
Summary: This provision establishes a multi -residential property classification that includes mobile
home parks, manufactured home communities, land-ieased communities, assisted living facilities and
property primarily intended for human habitation containing three or more separate living quarters.
Additionally, for buildings that are not otherwise classified as residential property, that portion of a
building that is intended for human habitation can be classified as a multi -residential property, even if
May 29, 2013
Page 2
human habitation is not the primary use of the building and regardless of the number of dwelling units.
The following rollback percentages will be phased in over eight years, beginning in assessment year
2015 (fiscal year 2017). The projected loss will not be backfilled:
• January 1, 2015 — 86.25%
• January 1, 2016 — 82.50%
• January 1, 2017 — 78.75%
• January 1, 2018 — 75.00%
• January 1, 2019 — 71.25%
• January 1, 2020-67.50%
• January 1, 2021— 63.75%
• January 1, 2022 and thereafter —same as residential property
Financial Impact: The loss to the City in fiscal year 2017 is estimated to be $851,745. This will grow until
reaching an estimated annual loss of $3,428,308 in fiscal year 2024. The total estimated cumulative loss
will be $15,504,902 over the next ten years. None of this loss will be reimbursed by the State of Iowa.
Telecommunications Property Taxation
Summary: This provision provides partial exemption of property used by companies in the transaction of
telegraph and telephone business that is on a graduated percentage scale based upon the value of the
property. This is phased in, with half in assessment year 2013 (Fiscal Year 2015) and the remainder being
added in assessment year 2014 (Fiscal Year 2016). The projected loss will not be backfilled.
40 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $0 but does not exceed $20 million.
• 35 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $20 million but does not exceed $55
million.
• 25 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $55 million but does not exceed
$500 million.
• 20 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $500 million.
Financial Impact: There are not any good estimates on the financial impact of this provision due to the
lack of information of the valuation being affected. In fiscal year 2013, the City's apportioned share of
the telecommunication property taxes was $187,463. Due to the lack of a good estimate, this provision
was not included in the attached exhibit.
Summary
The property tax reform bill, SF295, has been passed by the State legislature and will be applied to
valuations as of January 1, 2013. The first budget year impacted will be fiscal year 2015. Property tax
revenue will be reduced by an estimated $1,321,240 in fiscal year 2015 and by $2,662,737 in fiscal year
2016. The State of Iowa will back fill $1,015,119 in fiscal year 2015 and $2,035,314 in fiscal year 2016,
however, the City should consider future contingency plans in the event the State discontinues funding
for this backfill. Preparations for the fiscal year 2015 budget process will begin this summer.
May 29, 2013
Page 3
Exhibit A
Not Subject to State Backfill
Multi -Residential
3%Growth
Com/Ind
Properties(1)
Limit
Rollback
Total
FY15
$
$ 306,121
$ -
$ 306,121
FY16
-
627,423
627,423
FY17
851,745
982,915
1,834,660
FY18
1,116,560
1,350,772
3,651
2,470,982
FY19
1,396,497
1,757,911
50,443
3,204,852
FY20
1,692,226
2,177,375
54,219
3,923,821
FY21
2,004,442
2,638,952
109,644
4,753,038
FY22
2,333,868
3,115,578
113,569
5,563,014
FY23
2,681,255
3,637,715
174,931
6,493,902
FY24
3,428,308
4,177,423
179,019
7,784,750
Total $ 15,504,902 $20,772,185 $ 685,477 $36,962,564
(1) 3%annual value growth
(2) At current property tax rate
Subject to State Backfill
Com/Ind
Com/Ind
Total Property
Rollback-Year1
Rollback - Year 2
Total
Tax Reduct?on
$ 1,015,119
$ -
$ 1,015,119
$ 1,321,240
1,017,657
1,017,657
2,035,314
2,662,737
730,102
730,102
11460,203
3,294,863
73Q102
73Q102
1,46Q203
3,931,186
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
4,665,055
730,102
73Q102
1,460,203
5,384,024
73Q102
730,102
1,46Q203
6,213,242
73Q102
730,102
1,460,203
7,023,218
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
7,954,105
102
73Q102
1,460,203
9,244,954
7,873,589 $ 6,858,470 $14,732,059 $ 51,694,623