HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCEDC Packet 10-19-17If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event, please contact Wendy
Ford, Economic Development Coordinator at 319-356-5248 or wendy-ford@iowa-city.org. We ask that contact us
early to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Agenda
City Council
Economic Development Committee
Thursday, October 19, 2017
8:00 am
Emma Harvat Hall
City Hall
1.Call to Order
2. Consider approval of minutes from the September 15, 2017 EconomicDevelopment Committee meeting
3. Consider Annual Report and Request for funding from Englert Theater for $50,000
(Andre Perry, Executive Director)
4. Consider Annual Report and Request for funding from Mission Creek for $20,000
(Andre Perry, Co-founder and producer)
5. Review and consider recommendation of TIF Policy updates to City Council
6.Staff report
7.Committee time
8. Other business
9. Adjournment
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 1
EDC September 15, 2017 1
PRELIMINARY
MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL, 3:00 P.M.
Members Present: Rockne Cole, Susan Mims, Jim Throgmorton Staff Present: Simon Andrew, Geoff Fruin, Wendy Ford, Eleanor Dilkes
Others Present: Charlie Eastham, Ryan Sempf (Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce);
Karyl Bohnsack (Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association); Kevin Munson (Neumann Monson Architects), Angela Winneke (Iowa City Downtown District)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Cole moved to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2017 meeting. Throgmorton seconded the motion. Throgmorton stated that he wanted to clarify something in
the minutes about the ‘LEED silver requirement’ and where this would apply. Referring to page 6
of the packets, in the minutes it states: Throgmorton suggested that if there is TIF support provided for any new residential or mixed-use project, anywhere within the city, LEED silver
should apply, including eight energy efficiency points. He stated that he left the meeting thinking
LEED silver with eight energy efficiency points would extend throughout to any TIF district, any TIF policy, or TIF application they may receive. Mims agreed with this perception.
The motion carried 3-0.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P.M. Mims then asked those present to introduce
themselves for the minutes.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JULY 21, 2017 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING:
Cole moved to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2017 meeting. Throgmorton seconded the motion. Throgmorton stated that he wanted to clarify something in
the minutes about the ‘LEED silver requirement’ and where this would apply. Referring to page 6
of the packets, in the minutes it states: Throgmorton suggested that if there is TIF support provided for any residential or mixed-use project, anywhere within the city, LEED silver should
apply, including eight energy efficiency points. He stated that he left the meeting thinking LEED silver with eight energy efficiency points would extend throughout to any TIF district for new residential or mixed-use. Mims agreed with this perception.
The motion carried 3-0.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVISED TIF POLICIES:
Mims stated that she would like to start off their discussion with some of the correspondence they
received recently from Nancy Bird and from Tim Krumm. She added that both shared some concerns about possible changes being proposed, and that she wanted to make sure both
became part of the meeting minutes. Throgmorton noted that both he and Rockne received
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 2
EDC September 15, 2017 2
PRELIMINARY
emails from John Balmer and Todd VerHoef, and that they expressed a strong concern over the economic development implications of the proposed amendments. Mims suggested that
Throgmorton send these emails on to Ford and that they become part of the meeting packet.
Continuing, Mims stated that due to the strong concerns regarding these proposed amendments, and the unknown consequences of such changes, she is making a motion to defer action on
the revised TIF policies for at least three months, so that more input and analysis can be done on the possible impact to the downtown area. For lack of a second, the motion died.
Throgmorton said he believes there will be ample opportunity to discuss these changes at the Council level and that he would like to move forward. He added that Council can always ask for more input or even defer action if they so decide. Mims stated that she believes that once these
proposed changes get to the Council level, there is less of a chance of getting additional input. She would like to receive the extra analysis and input before the proposals move to the Council
level.
Moving on, Mims suggested they start through the draft policy. Beginning with sustainability,
Mims noted that they addressed the one issue already, about the LEED Silver certification and
that it would apply citywide to any new residential or mixed use TIF projects in any urban renewal TIF areas. She asked if there were any other changes to this section. Throgmorton reiterated,
stating the requirement is LEED silver certification with at least eight points awarded for Energy
Performance credits.
Next, regarding building heights and character, Mims stated that there is quite a bit of change here. She added that she is not supportive of attaching the desired height map on page 106, that she does not believe this map has been scrutinized enough by the public. Mims also spoke
to the height designations and the issues she has with some of the wording in this section. She
noted that her concern goes back to the economics that developers addressed – if they can’t get TIF for building taller buildings, then there will only be five- to seven-story buildings built in order
to not have to use steel construction. This will result in student housing, with some retail on first floor, less likelihood of Class A office limiting new mixed-use buildings they would like to see. Mims stated she thinks the current discussion makes it sound as though they are saying taller
building heights are inherently bad, yet we are considering accepting the undesirable height in exchange for historic preservation and other public benefits. She then reiterated that height is not
a bad thing and she could not support the language as it is currently written in this section.
Throgmorton stated it was he who drafted the language and that what he tried to do was to draw
upon what Ford had provided, and to follow what he considered to be logical reasoning. He
stated that he was trying to move from the initial point of requiring compliance with the downtown part of the Comprehensive Plan, to one where deviations would be accepted, while providing
some clarity about what ‘exceptional public benefits’ would be. Throgmorton stated that he is very eager to hear specific recommendations about how they can
use TIF to support both development and preservation in the downtown, thereby fulfilling the
overall vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. He quoted, ‘To preserve and enhance the historic buildings and character of the downtown, while encouraging appropriate infill
development with a mix of building uses.’ Continuing, Throgmorton further clarified his stance on this, noting preservation and development as key issues.
Cole noted that an important question for him is how the community at-large benefits from the use of TIF. He spoke of the obvious benefit to the developer and to the City’s tax base, but he
questioned again how the development itself benefits the entire community.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 3
EDC September 15, 2017 3
PRELIMINARY
Cole stated that the height map they are struggling with can be modified through a public process. He wants to avoid the situation where a future project comes along with some height to
it and the community is suddenly surprised. He believes the policies need to communicate their
values. Then Fruin stated that the easiest thing to do would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan with whatever changes they want to make.
Members then discussed Cole’s ideas, suggesting instead of making amendments to the Comp Plan, that perhaps they should make policy changes that encompass various deviations. Fruin
stated that it comes down to how flexible the language is. If the language was flexible enough, he said Council would not necessarily need to amend the Comp Plan. Cole stated that we are referencing the Comp Plan in these policies and understands the public should provide input into
any changes in the Comp Plan, but that he thinks we can build a level of flexibility into the policy without having to change the comp plan.
Throgmorton then spoke to the height issue again, noting that the height diagram indicates several locations where buildings of up to 15 stories are permissible. He agreed that if there is a
good way to amend this height policy, then he would be agreeable to that. Throgmorton then
stated that right now they need to move forward with the process they have started noting that they will need a way to evaluate deviations from the Comp Plan.
Fruin said that the key focus for the Committee today should be on the deviation language: What considerations may be viewed for a project allowing it to move up to the next height level,
for example. For example, Fruin noted that there are going to be some properties in the downtown area that
may not have the opportunity for a historic preservation benefit and therefore would not be able to satisfy the criteria of the two tier test – 1) that there must be some historic preservation benefit to property or an adjacent property AND 2) there must be additional exceptional benefit, as well.
Noting there may be some properties that won’t have the opportunity to provide a historic
preservation benefit at all (those that are neither historic nor adjacent to historic structures), Fruin
asked what test would have to be met. Throgmorton stated that this is why he used the words ‘architecturally, materially, and/or financially’ in his proposal, which would enable different ways a
development could be complementary to an adjacent historic building over which the developer
may not have control.
With regard to the exceptional public benefits, Throgmorton stated that he recognizes the difficulty in defining these benefits and the four ideas he presented in his draft proposal were his efforts to define them. He added that he is open to and invites other ideas.
Fruin asked to discuss the exceptional public benefits language in the building heights and character section, noting it refers directly to the strategic plan wording, which could change with
the upcoming strategic planning session. He noted some options for the Committee to consider, 1) leave it the way it is and change it
when strategic plan is changed, or 2) change the phrasing from “Exceptional public benefits are ones that go well beyond what is required by other sections of this policy, and which advance the
City’s strategic plan vision of fostering a more inclusive, just and sustainable city” by ending the
sentence after words strategic plan vision.
Throgmorton said he believes they should leave it as proposed, and that future Councils can
always change this if they desire.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 4
EDC September 15, 2017 4
PRELIMINARY
Dilkes suggested just eliminating the reference to the strategic plan and leaving the reference to a more inclusive, just and sustainable city. Throgmorton and Fruin voiced approval of that idea.
Fruin asked for clarification on Throgmorton’s exceptional public benefits example #4, carbon neutral LEED gold or platinum certification. He stated that he is trying to interpret whether this
means a carbon neutral LEED Gold building, or carbon neutral LEED Platinum building, or if there should be a comma after carbon neutral. He added that while it is possible to achieve carbon neutral LEED Platinum or LEED Gold it is a much higher threshold to meet. Discussion
ensued at this point, with Throgmorton explaining why he used this particular language, agreeing that Fruin’s points are well taken. The committee consensus was to include a comma between carbon neutral, LEED Gold, and LEED Platinum.
Cole also asked for clarification on the list of four exceptional benefit examples given, specifically
if all would be required. Dilkes clarified the four examples were a list and could include any or all.
Throgmorton asked Fruin for feedback on his other examples of exceptional public benefit.
Regarding Throgmorton’s third suggested exceptional public benefit, Fruin noted that it may be a
“long shot” that a developer or a trades and labor group would offer opportunities for job training for low-income youth, but that it could happen, and more likely, with an industrial project that
might have an apprenticeship program.
Regarding the exceptional benefit example #1, of providing high quality, low cost space
producing affordable housing or affordable retail space for local businesses without increasing the gap, Fruin said he understands what Throgmorton was getting at, but that it may not be realistic. It is more likely that TIF would be needed to help subsidize rents, or help make
necessary retail tenant improvements, but suggested ending the sentence after the word businesses since this is a public benefit that by its nature would be likely to increase the gap.
Mims moved the discussion to historic preservation. She described some incongruities between the historic designations outlined as a), b), and c) and the paragraph directly following it that used different terms and asked Fruin for clarification. He noted that changes to the second
paragraph could be made, more specifically to use the same descriptors in the a), b) and c) lines above, in the third line of the second paragraph, i.e., “Rehabilitation…..to designated historic
landmarks or individually eligible/key properties.” Fruin noted that the draft policy would include
the same change in the last sentence that begins “All additions to historically...”
Moving on, the next section - affordable housing – had no further discussion. Next was social
justice, also with no new discussion. Quality jobs followed this, also with no further discussion. Other public interests – Cole asked about the exceptional public benefit language and if there
would be deviation from those. Mims stated that this is referring to a district-wide TIF that could be used for public benefit, not a project-based TIF. Fruin spoke to this, giving the Englert Theater preservation as an example of these funds being used. Continuing, Mims noted underwriting
and applications, asking if there were any changes to this. She recommended that they ask staff
to implement the changes that have been discussed today so that the Members can have a clean draft copy to review again before they have a final vote. The other Members agreed with
this. STAFF TIME:
Ford stated that next Tuesday the Hieronymus Square project will be on the Council’s agenda.
She added that a few things have changed since the July application and she briefly went
through these: The layout for the vestibule area between the two buildings has had some modifications made to it in the square footage. The terrace has changed a bit to make room for
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 5
EDC September 15, 2017 5
PRELIMINARY
moving the swimming pool indoors, which is a requirement of the hotel brand. The final numbers on the hotel and residential have changed by one or two units. Speaking to affordable housing,
Ford noted that originally they had talked about having seven units on site. Since that time, it
has been discussed including two affordable units on site and potentially using the fee in lieu of option for the remaining required five units. Ford noted that the TIF policy requirement is that
15% of the residential units be for affordable housing. In Riverfront Crossings, she noted, this number is 10%. Ford spoke further to this, noting the flexibility being used here. The next meeting is slated to be held October 10th, according to Ford, and she will send out a meeting
announcement for this.
COMMITTEE TIME:
None.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Throgmorton moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:51 P.M.
Cole seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3-0.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 6
EDC September 15, 2017 6
PRELIMINARY
Council Economic Development Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 - 2017
NAME
TERM EXP.
0
2
/
0
4
/
1
6
0
4
/
1
2
/
1
6
0
5
/
1
0
/
1
6
0
6
/
1
4
/
1
6
0
7
/
1
2
/
1
6
1
0
/
1
2
1
/
6
1
2
/
1
3
/
1
6
0
3
/
2
3
/
1
7
0
4
/
0
5
/
1
7
0
4
/
1
4
/
1
7
0
5
/
2
5
/
1
7
0
7
/
2
1
/
1
7
0
9
/
1
5
/
1
7
1
0
/
1
9
/
1
7
Rockne Cole 01/02/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Susan Mims 01/02/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Jim Throgmorton 01/02/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Key: X = Present O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 7
The following 13 pages include recent correspondence related to the
draft TIF Policies
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 8
From:Jim Throgmorton
To:Wendy Ford
Subject:FW: TIF policy revisions.
Date:Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:23:56 PM
Wendy,
I also mentioned this one.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At-Large
________________________________________
From: John Balmer [john@pscia.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:34 AM
To: Jim Throgmorton; Rockne Cole
Subject: TIF policy revisions.
Jim & Rockne: I want to express my strong concern with the proposed policy revisions for TIF specifically in the
downtown area.What you essentially are doing with these additional mandates is curtailing any significant economic
development projects in our central business core.While our community has experienced very positive economic
growth and an expansion of our tax base in recent years this proposal that you are advocating will have an adverse
effect and I am convinced curtail those type of projects going forward.We need to continually enhance our tax base
to provide the high quality services that we presently receive from the City.What are you trying to accomplish by
proposing these more stringent requirements? I would suggest that the long term economic stability and fiscal health
of the community be the overriding factor when contemplating changes of this magnitude.Hopefully you will allow
further community input prior to making your final decision.Thank you.
John
John R. Balmer
Ph. 319.338.3601
Fax 319.337.7937
[EmailSig3]
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 9
From:Nancy Bird
To:Jim Throgmorton; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:Sept 15 EDC Meeting comments
Date:Monday, September 11, 2017 5:10:35 PM
Mayor Throgmorton and Council members Mims and Cole,
I wanted to submit a few brief comments for your EDC meeting on Sept 15. Thank you for your efforts to
guide public financing. I regret that I cannot attend, but ask you to consider the following comments:
1.Equity - it is difficult for our stakeholders to understand why the City might ask for Downtown projects to
have to address higher sustainability requirements (LEED Silver) not asked of other TIF projects. Thisapproach could result in a counter productive situation for both Downtown and the outlying neighborhoods.Developers with less appetite for LEED standards will be incentivized indirectly to build their projects on the
outskirts, but could still receive public financing. Is this the intent of the TIF criteria? Doesn't the City wantequal sustainability requirements to encourage the most sustainable projects City-wide? The Downtowninvestors, in the meantime, are asked to bear more cost and weight for building with a smart growth approachand keeping density in the city center. This seems flawed. Please consider equal sustainability criteria for allTIF projects. Martha Norbeck of C-WISE, a local sustainability expert, concurs on this.
2.At the last EDC meeting, City staff took considerable time to explain to the EDC that the ComprehensivePlan's "desired height map" - or exhibit C - was developed based on parking requirements and what theconsultant at the time deemed marketable in 2012 when the map was developed and was not intended toguide TIF. Using this dated map that was expressing a possible market demand scenario to guide public
financing in 2017 is flawed. The map encourages even one-story buildings Downtown in areas. Is this theEDC's intent? The Comprehensive Plan's guiding principle states that the Downtown should be "the mostdense urban district" (pg. 54) and that the purpose of the master plan is to "Improve the competitive position
of downtown" (pg. 54). Using this older map on page 106 to guide public financing hinders the City's abilitykeep Downtown dense and viable. This is our third request to again please consider removing guidance ofTIF projects related to this map.
Many other aspects of the TIF recommendations are very positive. We appreciate your work to date on thisand look forward to continuing the discussion as this moves forward to Council for review.
Sincerely,Nancy BIrd
-- Nancy BirdExecutive Director319.354.0863downtowniowacity.com
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 10
FROM: Martha Norbeck, AIA, LEED AP
RE: Item 8, Mixed Use Development ‐ Resolution approving an agreement for private redevelopment by and
between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and Hieronymi Partnership, L.L.P., Hieronymus Square Developers, L.L.C.,
Iowa City ES Hotel, L.L.C., and HS314, L.L.C..
DATE: September 18, 2017
Dear Members of Council,
The developer has proposed to pursue Gold level Certification under the Green Seal for Hotels Standard (GS‐33). I am
pleased to see the hotel has committed to pursue this certification.
Please note that the standard is a menu of options and it is possible to choose a selection of options which are not as
rigorous as the council might infer. I do not know the owners specific intentions. I bring this to your attention so you
may ask informed questions regarding their intent for minimizing energy consumption.
I recommend the city staff and the council to confirm that the developer intends to incorporate rigorous energy
efficiency measures before finalizing the developer agreement.
Solar Panels
The 38,000 kwh annual contribution in solar panels will offset about 3‐5% of the total annual energy use for a
building this size ‐ so while I applaud all solar panels, the actual value of the solar to the overall carbon footprint is
minimal. Energy efficiency will provide much greater value for less cost.
These are the minimum requirements regarding building energy use.
2.1 Maintain a list of energy consuming devices
2.2 Indoor lighting shall be energy efficient
2.3 Maintain preventative maintenance for HVAC systems
2.4 Timers/sensors used on lighting and HVAC in low occupancy areas.
This is not exactly a high bar for efficiency. However, at the gold level, additional parameters are defined.
ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR GOLD
In addition, for Gold Level Green Seal for Hotels (GS‐33) The property shall meet at least 3 of the following
requirements (sections 2.7.1 ‐ 2.7.8).
That’s three of the following items – it is possible to choose none that relate to building energy use.
2.7.1 Energy Reduction
The property shall
• set substantive, meaningful goals for energy reduction
OR
• be an ENERGY STAR Leader, or equivalent.
2.7.2 Management of Resource use
2.7.2.1 The property shall track its energy consumption (electricity, natural gas, fuel, etc.), potable water
consumption, and the amounts of waste collected for disposal/incineration and for recycling.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 11
2.7.2.2 Monthly bills shall be tracked with the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, or an equivalent resource
management or documentation system (e.g., utility software or Excel spreadsheet) that:
1. tracks costs, total consumption, and Resource Use Intensity;
2. benchmarks these factors relative to past performance (normalized for sales volume);
3. determines percent improvement or savings in energy, water, and generation of waste.
2.7.2.3 These impacts shall be reviewed at least annually, with appropriate goals set for continuous
improvement.
2.7.3 Sustainable Building
The property shall be certified by a nationally‐recognized green building certification program.
OR
• register for and actively be in the process of achieving a nationally‐recognized green building
certification program.
2.7.4 Renewable Energy
The property shall
• use renewable energy for at least 25% of its needs, either via onsite production or
certified Renewable Energy Certificates.
OR
• be certified through the Center for Resource Solutions’ Green‐e Marketplace program or is a Partner in
the EPA’s Green Power Leadership Club.
2.7.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The property shall
• offset greenhouse gases through partnerships or certified carbon offsets to compensate
for all Scope 1 & Scope 2 greenhouse gases emitted within the property, following the
UNFCCC reporting guidelines.
AND
• maintain an active program to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
2.7.6 Waste Reduction: The property shall reuse, recycle, or compost 60% of its solid waste, thus diverting it from
landfills and incinerators.
2.7.7 Green Cleaning: The cleaning services on the property shall meet the requirements in the Green Seal
Environmental Standard for Cleaning Services (GS‐42)²², or are certified to that standard.
2.7.8 Water Conservation: The property shall meter and monitor its water consumption.
I recommend the city staff and the council to confirm that the developer intends to incorporate rigorous energy
efficiency measures before finalizing the developer agreement.
Sincerely,
Martha Norbeck, AIA, LEED AP
906 S 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA 52240
310.621.4168 norbeck@cwise.com
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 12
From:Susan Mims
To:Geoff Fruin; Wendy Ford
Subject:FW: Iowa City TIF Policy
Date:Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:23:13 AM
FYI
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Tim Krumm
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Jim Throgmorton; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims
Subject: Iowa City TIF Policy
Mayor Throgmorton; Councilors Cole and Mims
It is my understanding that the Iowa City Council Economic Development Committee is
considering revisions to the City's existing policy with respect to Tax Increment Financing. I
am writing to you as a long-time downtown Iowa City business owner and as the incoming
Chair of the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. I am concerned
that the TIF Policy revisions currently under consideration would significantly deter
economic growth in Iowa City and I request that this proposal be tabled until such time as
more community input is sought and received. The City should fully understand the impact
any policy change might have on future growth before such changes are adopted.
Below are some specific concerns I have with the proposed policy changes, as I
understand them:
1. I know from numerous experiences over the years that LEED certification is an
expensive process. Obtaining the certificate - the piece of paper - can add tremendously to
the cost of a project, to the point where a project may not be viable or must be altered in
ways that impact its attractiveness to the community. In my mind there are two issues: the
appropriate level of sustainability to be required and the process by which sustainability is
demonstrated (is LEED required, or some other - less burdensome - demonstration of
sustainability?) . Further consideration should be given to both issues. Also, I am
concerned that making these requirements specific to downtown will de-incentivize infill
development and may require greater investment in infrastructure by the City.
2. In addition to the LEED certification requirement, I am very concerned about the
proposal to adopt the comprehensive plan building height restriction map as part of the TIF
Policy. Frankly, I don't understand why the height limitations would be so restrictive, given
the desire to encourage infill and more intensive use in the center of town. I see from that
map that my own building site is limited to 6 stories, even though it soon will be in the
shadow 14 story buildings, both east and west. As I understand it, the map being used to
guide the policy has been little scrutinized by the public. I believe further study is needed,
including a public hearing specifically on the height map to better understand local
sentiment. Adopting the map would essentially enshrine the current form of downtown as it
stands today, stunting progress and very possibly leaving Iowa City at a great disadvantage
when it comes to attracting talent and business in years to come.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 13
As stated, I am very concerned that the changes to the City’s TIF policy being proposed by
the Council Economic Development Committee are bad for the community and may stunt
the appropriate development of the downtown region. Although well intentioned, these
changes may lead to a less-than-optimal utilization of space in the downtown area with
unintended consequences, both downtown and outside the downtown region. Please table
- and conduct further study.
Respectfully
Tim Krumm
Timothy J. Krumm
122 SOUTH LINN STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240P: 319.338.9222 F: 319.338.7250
MeardonLaw.com • Bio • VCard
This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S.
C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and is legally privileged. This message and its attachments may
also be privileged and attorney work product. They are intended for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete
it from your system.
Thank you.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 14
From:Jim Throgmorton
To:Wendy Ford
Subject:FW: TIF Policy Change
Date:Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:23:02 PM
Wendy,
I mentioned the email shown below during yesterday's EDC meeting.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At-Large
________________________________________
From: Todd VerHoef [tvh9292@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To: Rockne Cole; Jim Throgmorton
Subject: TIF Policy Change
Gentlemen,
I am writing to express my concern for the Council Economic Development Committee’s proposed changes to the
policy on TIF for downtown projects. I believe the current proposal as is sits will act as a significant deterrent to
economic growth in Iowa City. I request that the proposal is tabled and that more community input be sought before
moving forward. Below are some specific issues I have with the proposed policy.
LEED certification can be an expensive process that puts an undue burden on all tax payers. The unweighted (i.e. a
point is a point) system encourages project teams to “game the system" by going after easy points at the expense of
actual environmental benefits. Even though LEED is one of the most recognized and highly regarded certification
programs worldwide, its cachet and its point system might actually be holding back innovations in green building by
not rewarding them. And of particular concern, making the requirement specific to downtown seems patently unfair
and de-incentivizes infill development in this area.
In addition to the LEED certification requirement, the building height restrictions are harmful to future development
in Iowa City. These restrictions would essentially enshrine the current form of downtown as it stands today, stunting
progress and leaving Iowa City at a great disadvantage when it comes to attracting talent and business in years to
come.
The changes to the City’s TIF policy being proposed by the Council Economic Development Committee are bad for
the community and stunt our progress. Although well intentioned, it will merely lead to a less than optimal
utilization of space in the downtown area and I recommend not moving forward with the proposal.
Todd VerHoef MD
Founder and CEO
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0ByU-rNVuSwUJVDBhNW5oMVVWd2M&revid=0ByU-
rNVuSwUJamNtWk9kOWdHRXZNU2JiQkdCMXl5UHFzYW5JPQ]
673 Westbury Dr. Suite 201
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319)-356-6352
www.psychassociates.net<http://www.psychassociates.net>
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 15
FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O BOX 2001, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244
September 18, 2017
Dear Mayor, Councilors, and Ms. Ford;
As many of you may be aware, part of my duties as the director of Friends of Historic Preservation is
to puruse local government documents to ensure that historic preservation matters are being dealt
publically and in accordance with Chapters 21, 22, and 23 of Iowa Code for Open Meetings and Open
Records. In the course of this task, I also often find errors or mistakes regarding to legal understanding
of historic preservation.
Following the meeting of the Economic Development Committee, comprising Mayor Throgmorton
and Councilors Cole and Mims on Friday, September 15th, 2017, I noticed a memo from Wendy Ford
to the Committee on the definition of a “contributing structure.” The previous month’s minutes
indicate that the committee had asked Ms. Ford to identify the definition of the term and report back at
the next meeting. In the memo, Ms. Ford states that contributing structures are of “little historic
value,” and gave the determination that there is no reason why tax increment funding (TIF) should not
be given as an incentive to raze contributing structures and develop other properties. Further, all three
members of the committee seemed to agree based on that definition. Because of a contributing
structure’s legal definition and the legal responsibility of a Certified Local Government, of which Iowa
City is one, Ms. Ford’s definition and interpretation are dangerously in error.
In the United States, a contributing property or resource is any building, structure, object, or landscape
which adds to the historical integrity of architectural qualities that make a district significant (see
Historic Preservation Law by James Morrison). Further, in Iowa structures are deemed contributing
after they are evaluated by a state accepted expert. In this case, Marlys Svendsen, who is often seen as
the expert among experts in the Midwest, made the determination for the properties in downtown Iowa
City. Properties that are not deemed to be important and would meet the criteria in Ms. Ford’s memo
are instead called, “non-contributing.”
As mentioned, Iowa City is a Certified Local Government (CLG). CLGs were established under a
1980 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. NHPA also established
national historic preservation policy, the National Register of Historic Places, and State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPOs). By creating CLGs the amendment to NHPA made the local
government a necessary, important, and critical partner in maintaining the history and architecture of
the United States. A CLG is a formal relationship between the federal, state, and local government.
The CLG has a responsibility recognize the legal definition of historic properties and codify them
(Mohr, 2015).
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 16
As part of the requirements of a CLG, Iowa City’s historic property definitions are well codified and
the City of Iowa City created the required Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Under Iowa City
code the HPC has regulatory authority. Because of regulatory authority of the Iowa City HPC, a legal
presumption can be made that questions about the definitions of historic preservation issues should
directly quote Iowa City code or be directed to the HPC. I have spoken with Ginalie Swam, the Chair
of the HPC, and she has confirmed that the HPC was not contacted about the issue at hand. In the
future, misunderstanding such as these can be easily avoided simply by including the HPC in
conversations regarding historic properties or asking the HPC to clarify terms relevant to the city’s
responsibility towards its historic resources. Further, because Iowa City is a CLG this is also a matter
that should have also been reviewed by the HPC separately on its merits before reaching the level of
City Councilors. Simply because a matter is being looked at by a different committee or department of
the city does not relieve the CLG of its responsibility to seek the input and consideration of their HPC
before changes to policy matters are considered.
I ask that the next Economic Committee Meeting minutes reflect that my communication has been
received. I further ask that the committee resend their agreement, informal or otherwise, that
contributing properties, “have little historic value” based on the legal definition of “contributing” and
Iowa City Code. Finally, I ask that since the Iowa City HPC is a codified commission created directly
to deal with and interpret Iowa City code relating to historic preservation and the National Park
Services’ Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, that questions pertaining to
historic preservation be directed to the HPC in the future to avoid future errors of this sort.
Sincerely,
Alicia Trimble
Executive Director
Friends of Historic Preservation
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 17
From:Wendy Ford
To:"Alicia Trimble"
Cc:Bob Miklo
Subject:RE: Definition of "Contributing Structure" and Responsibilities of a CLG - Re: Econ Dev Comm - 9/15/17
Date:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 10:11:50 AM
Dear Ms. Trimble,
Thank you for the response. I sincerely appreciate your help and it is making a difference in how we
are drafting the new policies. I continue to work with Bob Miklo on the Historic Preservation section
of the policies, as well.
The TIF policies are being refined by the Economic Development Committee who will ultimately
forward their draft to the full Council when they feel they are ready for council consideration.
In the meantime, I encourage you to keep apprised of the Committee’s progress (their next meeting
will be later in October, but the date is not yet determined) by signing up for the Council Economic
Development Committee email notifications if you are not already signed up. Here’s the link to do
so: https://www.icgov.org/news-and-media/e-subscriptions.
Of course, there will also be opportunity for public input at the Council Meetings where the policies
are discussed once they get to that level.
Thank you again for your feedback. It has been very helpful.
Wendy
From: Alicia Trimble [mailto:alicia@ic-fhp.org] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 2:30 PMTo: Wendy FordCc: Bob MikloSubject: Re: Definition of "Contributing Structure" and Responsibilities of a CLG - Re: Econ Dev Comm -9/15/17
Dear Ms. Ford,
I appreciate your response and apologize for the delay in my response. I spent the week at a conference in
Appalachia and discovered there are still places off the grid. I am going to apologize beforehand before the long
email you are about to read. I know you are working very hard on this topic. The new definition you are proposing
is also not quite accurate.
The legal definition of "contributing" does not have any negative qualifiers. Therefore, I think the appropriate
definition would be, a “contributing property is any building, object, structure, or landscape which adds to the
historical integrity or architectural qualities to make a local and/or national historic district significant.” I think this
is important, because contributing status is absolutely independent of individual eligibility or any other qualities. In
fact, it is possible for something to be an individually eligible landmark property and not be contributing to a historic
district in which it sits. For example, if you have a Frank Lloyd Wright design in the middle of a historical colonial
village. The Wright home may be individually eligible because Wright designed it. However, it would not
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 18
“contribute” to the historic colonial village, because it would not fall in the period of significance or be an
appropriate design. In this case the Wright house would be listed as, “non-contributing,” despite the fact it might be
a national landmark.
It is also important to note, while a non-contributing structures usually do not become individually eligible for
landmark status (though not even this is a given), a contributing structure can and often do become individually
eligible on its own for the National Register. Many, many properties in Iowa City are both individually eligible and
contributing structures. Also, it is important to be aware that "key contributing structures" are an Iowa City idea. In
the rest of the country "key contributing properties" are just more "contributing properties."
When surveys are completed, such as the survey that is being done now or was completed in 2001 by Marlys
Svendsen, properties are not researched as historically, archeologically, or even architecturally as deeply as a survey
of one particularly property. Therefore, many more contributing structures are likely individually eligible than we
are aware given our current survey methods. Therefore, contributing structures (and even non-contributing) can
become individually eligible.
This can happen a number of ways, although this is not an exclusive list:
1) New information is found out about the project. A good example is 124 N Clinton Street, one of the houses that
the University plans to raze owned by Mike Olivara. The property would clearly be a contributing structure in a
district. However, it is rumored that Tennessee Williams lived in that house. If someone did an individual survey
and indicated an important historical figure, like Tennessee Williams, lived there it may also be considered an
individual landmark.
2) The property was restored in a historically appropriate way. Some buildings, especially commercial buildings,
just had ugly cosmetic work over the years. If that facade is removed and/or missing elements are restored, such as
the cornice being put back on the MidwestOne Bank building, the building could become individually eligible.
3) Interior elements are evaluated. A district survey rarely considers the inside of a building. For example, 123 E.
Washington Street is a beautiful 1920 building, but as mentioned in previous point it has disgusting signage
covering many of the great architectural elements. Inside, however, it has fantastic cast iron pilasters and capitols
that would not necessarily be evaluated in a district survey. Other items that may make it eligible like the floor or a
tin ceiling may be covered with carpet or a drop ceiling.
4) Archaeological material is found on site.
5) Another professional looks at the site and renders a different opinion.
6) The building turns fifty.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 19
Another element that one may run into, as well, is that a contributing structure does not need to be need to necessary
meet the historic "50 year" mark to be contributing. In FEMAs evaluation of the arts campus following the 2008
Flood they found that many of the buildings were younger than 50 years, but they contributed to the district, so they
were therefore contributing structures, even though they were not “historic” structures.
Hence, the only definition for a contributing property is something which adds to the historical integrity or
architectural qualities to make a local and/or national historic district significant. That is the only thing that matters
about the term, “contributing.” It does not matter if it is or ever can be individually eligible.
Also, I would like to reiterate my point that it is not me, or you, or even the Senior Planner that should be advising
members of the Council on this definition. Iowa City is a Certified Local Government (CLG) and it is the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) who are the advisors to the City Council on this matter. As a CLG, I ask that the
City please work with the HPC to meet their obligation to the state and federal government. There is an HPC
meeting on October 12 and there is time to get this on the HPC agenda.
Sincerely,
Alicia Trimble
---
Alicia Trimble
Executive Director
Friends of Historic Preservation | Salvage Barn
319.351.1875 | alicia@ic-fhp.org
www.ic-fhp.org | www.salvagebarn.org
Preserving the Past While Building the Future
On 2017-09-25 08:44, Wendy Ford wrote:
Dear Ms. Trimble,
Thank you for your letter of Sept. 18 concerning the Economic Development Committee's discussion of
contributing historic properties.
Working with our Senior Planner, we plan to amend the draft policy's parenthetical description of
"contributing structure" and we appreciate the clarity provided. Whereas the previous description read 'a
contributing property may not have any historic significance in and of itself, it may lend to the character
of a historic district or neighborhood,' we plan to refine it to read 'a contributing property may not be
individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, yet it does lend to the character of a
historic district or neighborhood.'
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 20
Let me assure you that one reason the Committee is discussing Historic Preservation as it relates to TIF
is because TIF could be a tool to enhance Historic Preservation. The draft TIF policies would allow for
the use of TIF from the entire district to be used in a historic preservation project because the increment
from some historic preservation projects alone is not sufficient to make a significant financing difference.
District-wide TIF may make it possible to provide gap financing for projects that would otherwise not be
viable.
Thank you again for helping to clarify the discussion related to contributing structures.
Sincerely,
Wendy Ford
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Wendy FordEconomic Development Coordinator
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St. | Iowa City, IA | 52240
319-356-5248
From: Alicia Trimble [mailto:alicia@ic-fhp.org] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 3:32 PMTo: Jim Throgmorton; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Wendy FordCc: Kingsley Botchway; Terry Dickens; Pauline Taylor; John ThomasSubject: Definition of "Contributing Structure" and Responsibilities of a CLG - Re: Econ Dev Comm -9/15/17
Dear Mayor, Councilors, and Ms. Ford;
Please see the attached document regarding a memo written by Ms. Ford to the Economic Development
Committee on Sept. 15, 2017. Ms. Fords definition given for a "contributing" structure was actually that of a
"non-contributing" structure. In Historic Preservation Law in the United States "contributing" is a legal term. As a
Certified Legal Government, Iowa City has codified that term and has legal responsibilities, which were
overlooked based on the inaccurate information in the memo.
Ms. Ford, I mean no offense by sending this email. There are many terms surrounding historic preservation that
often get confusing. I only send this so the matter may be clarified. I would be interested in who gave you the
inaccurate information if you would not mind sending that to me.
Best,
Alicia
--
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 21
To: City Council Economic Development Committee
From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Date: October 12, 2017
Re: Agenda items #3 and #4, Englert Theater and Mission Creek annual report and
request for funding
Englert Theater
The Englert staff and Board of Directors are requesting approval of budgeting $50,000 in
operational funding for the FY19 budget and intent to continue funding the Englert at that level
in FY20 and FY21.
In December of 2008, the City Council Economic Development Committee approved a proposal
from the Englert Theatre for a three year annual funding request of $50,000 for fiscal years
2009, 2010, and 2011 to be reviewed annually. Prior to or during budget season each year
since, the Englert has presented an annual report and requested consideration for continued
inclusion in the budget for three more years.
For the last two years, the City’s support of the Englert has included $50,000 for operations
funding and an additional $20,000 for capital improvements. Those capital improvements
included the construction of a lounge in the second floor gallery space which has allowed the
Englert to help offset the loss of revenue from Hancher and the Division of Performing Arts as
they transition to new facilities, and a concession service station on the main level. Both projects
improve the experience for patrons and allow the Englert greater revenue potential. The Englert,
along with FilmScene, is in the planning phase of a capital campaign for which the City has
budgeted funds and anticipates participating. As a result, the request for additional $20,000 for
capital expenses will be suspended.
Since FY09, when the City began providing financial support -
• The annual budget has gone from $843,000 (2008) to a $1.5 million budget currently.
• Event attendance has grown from 30,297 in 2009 to 71,396 in 2016.
• Increased programming to include summer months and a growing diversity of events.
• Repaired roof leaks and plaster ceilings.
• Added a lounge space on second floor and new concessions service station on first floor
• Celebrated the 100 year anniversary of the theater.
• Increased Englert “Friends” donors from 200 in 2011 to 2,100 in 2016 which has increased
Friend’s donations from $28,000 in 2011 to $156,000 in 2016.
Mission Creek
Iowa City’s Mission Creek Festival is requesting approval of budgeting $20,000 in funding for
the FY19 budget and intent to budget same amount in FY20.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 22
October 13, 2017 Page 2 The 2018 Festival, 13th annual Mission Creek Festival and will continue a tradition of featuring
fine music, literary, film and culinary culture in more than 20 venues downtown Iowa City,
including the Blue Moose, the Englert Theater, FilmScene, Gabe’s, Prairie Lights, Big Grove
Brewery and Beadology. Recent additions to the festival include a series of events for youth and
a mini-tech + innovation conference. It is designed to appeal to audiences of all ages and
cultural backgrounds.
In 2017, the festival hosted 10,986 people, and featured 387 performers, of whom 170 were
Iowa-based. The event provides a venue for Iowa artists to be exposed to national attention and
for nationally recognized artists to gain an Iowa audience. The resulting coverage increases
Iowa’s presence in the national scene and Iowa City as the cultural center of the upper Midwest.
There is broad support from businesses and our non-profit community, local radio stations,
media and several facets of the University of Iowa. Notably, local restaurants are very strong
contributors, an indicator that Mission Creek is good for their bottom lines. With such broad
community support, a growing program and increasing notoriety the festival’s influence reaches
far beyond the Creative Corridor.
Staff is recommending support of this request. Mission Creek Festival helps to strengthen our
core urban area and offers increasingly diverse programming while building upon the Creative
Corridor brand.
Recommendation
Staff recommends supporting the Englert and Mission Creek’s requests for funding in the FY19
budget and intent to fund at the same level in the FY20 and FY21 budgets.
Justification
• The theater has nearly doubled the size of its annual operations budget since the City started
financial assistance in 2009. It strives to offer more diverse programming every year.
• The Mission Creek Festival has gained national attention, enhancing Iowa City’s position as a
well-known creative hub of music, literary, and culinary arts.
• The Englert continues to provide entertainment alternatives for the entire community,
including those under 21.
• A strong theater and the hallmark event, Mission Creek Festival generates downtown visitors
who frequent restaurants, shops and other entertainment venues.
• The Englert attracts visitors and residents to downtown. Of credit card ticket purchasers,
approximately 60% are from Johnson County, 29% are from inside Iowa but outside of
Johnson County and 9% are from out of state. It is estimated that of the 66,500 theater goers
this past year, the number from outside the county topped 28,558 people.
City Funding History
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Englert 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 70,000 70,000 50,000
MCF 5,000 3,362 9,000 9,000 12,500 12,500 20,000 20,000
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 23
ENGLERT THEATRE CITY FUNDING REQUEST
September 21, 2017
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 24
September 21, 2017
Economic Development Committee:
Thank you for your continued support of The Englert Theatre. Your commitment to our organization enables us
to contribute to the ongoing cultural, economic, and socially equitable development of Iowa City. This report
includes a request for ongoing support, review of our success and challenges in the past and current year, a
projection of our organization moving forward, and our future strategic plans.
FY 2016 recognized positive financial growth for the theater driven by increased efficiency in our operation and
record returns in both our regular program and Mission Creek Festival. In contrast, FY 2017 has been fiscally
challenging: softer programming margins and a net loss on Mission Creek Festival are the core contributors to
the unfavorable position relative to budget. Staff continues to develop a FY 2018 budget with key adjustments to both revenue and expense that return the operation to sustainability. The cyclical nature of the performing arts industry and increased competition for consumer spending underscore the importance of the city’s ongoing
support of our efforts.
Through 2016 and 2017, the strength of our programming has remained consistent. In alignment with our vision to strike a balance between the familiar and the unknown, we have presented highly popular acts in our venue in the last year - sold-out events with Les Claypool, Lake Street Dive, and Stephen King - as well as truly
progressive performances - like The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore and Dis/Unity: A Service - that grapple with
issues of gender, race, and class in America and bring various perspectives into our theater to share space,
conversation, and joy together. Annually we partner with myriad local nonprofits, departments at the University of Iowa, and emerging programmers in our community to bring a wide range of events to the Englert. We also remain strongly committed to further establishing the Englert as a downtown space that can be a second home
to any member in our community regardless of their background: We believe a unified community will lead to
the most vibrant Iowa City of the future.
Consistent with past commitments from the City of Iowa City, we request approval of a $50,000 contribution for operational support for fiscal year 2019 and the following two years: 2020-2021.
The City of Iowa City’s financial and advisory support of the Englert has been a bedrock in the organization’s
evolution since its inception. We are deeply appreciative of your faith in our work, critical and constructive consul for determining the best ways forward, and material contributions to our sustainability.
Sincerely,
Andre Perry
Executive Director
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 25
Contents
Financial Review
1. Multi-Year Financial History 2. Fiscal Year 2016 3. 2017 Budget vs. 2017 Full-Year Forecast
4. 2018 Draft Budget
Attendance/Demographic Review + Development/Contributed Support
1. Attendance Report
2. Contributed Support Review
Future Strategic Plans
1. Capital Campaign Project
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 26
Year-to-Year Operational History: FY2010 – 2016
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PROFIT/LOSS STATEMENT
Income
Fundraising/Grants 143,741$ 162,249$ 189,663$ 249,319$ 234,750$ 242,446$ 273,648$
Englert Events 456,041 472,224 711,111 867,286 737,081 773,791 756,694
Artist & Audience Outreach 20,686 36,044 4,933
Playbill Advertisting*38,970 44,852 53,600 53,199 56,576 39,498 36,590
Rental Events 149,974 196,567 197,595 174,033 163,583 150,318 133,346
Mission Creek 206,732 221,300 250,185
Witching Hour 38,735 48,956
Other/Venue Fee 33,383 33,033 42,436 42,332 45,459 70,314 110,013
Total Income 822,109$ 908,925$ 1,194,405$ 1,386,168$ 1,464,867$ 1,572,446$ 1,614,365$
Expenses
Administration 54,144 50,850 56,560 48,359 58,495 57,499 63,418
Marketing 41,395 63,602 50,553 36,351 54,208 43,614 55,680
Building 66,218 81,925 80,698 86,895 77,502 66,255 80,389
Fundraising Expenses 3,322 8,298 10,068 19,737 33,097 27,331 23,984
Personnel 287,530 310,324 369,189 413,277 508,999 552,781 485,994
Englert Events 329,579 324,628 545,753 662,812 585,205 572,155 494,331
Artist & Audience Outreach 52,187 49,734 18,451
Playbill Advertisting 7,096 15,830 24,601 19,012 21,589 29,336
Rental Events 5,427 6,794 6,426 7,643 5,872 3,354 4,291
Mission Creek 179,195 204,649 209,083
Witching Hour 42,510 57,823
Non-Operating (Interest)41,760 21,532 25,059 22,114 16,810 16,444 15,838
Total Expenses 829,375$ 875,049$ 1,160,136$ 1,321,790$ 1,590,582$ 1,657,915$ 1,538,618$
Operating Profit/(Loss)(7,266)$ 33,876$ 34,269$ 64,378$ (125,715)$ (85,469)$ 75,747$
2011 Capital Campaign 69,153 48,200 32,100 26,200 16,450 -
Profit/(Loss)(7,266)$ 103,029$ 82,469$ 96,478$ (99,515)$ (69,019)$ 75,747$
Programming Margin 126,462 147,596 165,358 204,474 151,876 201,636 262,363
Mission Creek Margin - - - - 27,537 16,651 41,102
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 27
Fiscal Year 2016
Actual
2016
PROFIT/LOSS STATEMENT
Income
Fundraising/Grants 273,648$
Englert Events 756,694
Artist & Audience Outreach 4,933
Playbill Advertisting*36,590
Rental Events 133,346
Mission Creek 250,185
Witching Hour 48,956
Other/Venue Fee 110,013
Total Income 1,614,365$
Expenses
Administration 63,418
Marketing 55,680
Building 80,389
Fundraising Expenses 23,984
Personnel 485,994
Englert Events 494,331
Artist & Audience Outreach 18,451
Playbill Advertisting 29,336
Rental Events 4,291
Mission Creek 209,083
Witching Hour 57,823
Non-Operating (Interest)15,838
Total Expenses 1,538,618$
Operating Profit/(Loss)75,747$
Programming Margin 262,363
Mission Creek Margin 41,102
Notes:
-Record margin on programming (ticketed shows presented by Englert)
-Record margin on Mission Creek Festival (produced by the Englert since 2014)
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 28
2017 Budget vs. Full-Year Forecast
Budget Estimate
2017 2017
PROFIT/LOSS STATEMENT
Income
Fundraising/Grants 295,103$ 276,767$
Englert Events 772,081 733,057
Artist & Audience Outreach - -
Playbill Advertisting*40,000 34,165
Rental Events 142,807 133,318
Mission Creek 253,500 324,553
Witching Hour 66,000 66,000
Other/Venue Fee 123,020 111,565
Total Income 1,692,511$ 1,679,425$
Expenses
Administration 62,154 59,304
Marketing 49,320 46,215
Building 88,000 84,439
Fundraising Expenses 27,000 22,801
Personnel 553,289 549,265
Englert Events 551,263 562,352
Artist & Audience Outreach - -
Playbill Advertisting 30,000 29,464
Rental Events 3,742 4,371
Mission Creek 223,500 334,186
Witching Hour 60,000 60,000
Non-Operating (Interest)17,000 17,072
Total Expenses 1,665,268$ 1,769,470$
Operating Profit/(Loss)27,243$ (90,045)$
Programming Margin 220,819 170,704
Mission Creek Margin 30,000 (9,633)
Notes:
-Soft programming margin – estimated 50K behind projections
-Record loss on Mission Creek Festival (produced by Englert since 2014)
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 29
2018 Draft Budget (to be finalized in December pending board, staff, and lender review)
Draft Budget
2018
PROFIT/LOSS STATEMENT
Income
Fundraising/Grants 313,105$
Englert Events 709,359
Artist & Audience Outreach -
Playbill Advertisting*42,706
Rental Events 139,046
Mission Creek 282,500
Witching Hour 79,817
Other/Venue Fee 119,138
Total Income 1,685,672$
Expenses
Administration 62,310
Marketing 47,602
Building 86,972
Fundraising Expenses 23,941
Personnel 549,578
Englert Events 502,768
Artist & Audience Outreach -
Playbill Advertisting 32,410
Rental Events 4,371
Mission Creek 252,500
Witching Hour 70,269
Non-Operating (Interest)27,945
Total Expenses 1,660,665$
Operating Profit/(Loss)25,006$
Programming Margin 206,591
Mission Creek Margin 30,000
Notes:
-Plan for return to historical levels of programming margin
-Restructure plan for Mission Creek Festival in place
-Expanded effort on fundraising
-Efficiency measures enacted on personnel to stem rising costs
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 30
ATTENDANCE
OVER TIME
2016 ATTENDANCE BREAKDOWN
20
0
9
20
1
2
20
1
6
30,297
52,781
71,396*
*includes festival attendanceATTENDANCE
24,739
ENGLERT ATTENDANCE
(TICKETED)
2016 AUDIENCE DEMOGRAPHICS
24,739
Regular Program
TICKETED EVENTS
2,931Regular Program
Free Events
32,087
Rental & Partner
EVENTS
9,807Mission Creek Festival
1,832Witching Hour
NOTE: OVERALL, 15,691 community members were
welcomed TO THE ENGLERT through free events
and complimentary tickets IN 2016.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 31
DEVELOPMENT
2016 Total
contributed income
FRIENDS & HOUSEHOLD DONATIONS OVER TIME
$286,543
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 32
2016 PARTNERS & SPONSORS
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 33
Future Strategic Plans
The Englert Theatre is currently engaged in the quiet phase of a capital campaign. The project reflects an innovative
approach to fundraising: Our organization will partner with local, arts nonprofit FilmScene in an effort to sustain, grow, and evolve the local nonprofit arts community. The campaign includes: key capital components such as the full preservation, renovation, and upgrade of the Englert’s facility, buildout and purchase of an expanded facility for
FilmScene, and an investment in educational programming for K-12, university students, and adult learners.
The goal for the campaign extends far beyond the work of sustaining and growing these two cultural assets; we also hope
that our partnership serves as a case study for local nonprofits on how we can work together to promote and raise funds for our collective efforts as a team rather than as separate, individual organizations. This campaign is committed to advancing the conversation on how we can become a better allied arts alliance in Iowa City such that we sustain our key
cultural assets and continue to reward future generations with inspiring, transformative, and educational experiences through the arts.
The current projected need for the effort is roughly $10M. The quiet phase of the campaign will extend through 2018. The public phase will launch in late-2018 or early-2019 and extend through 2021-2022.
As city staff and council are aware, The Englert and FilmScene submitted a request of support for this campaign effort in 2016. We are extremely appreciative of staff and council’s recommendation to support the historic preservation and
renovation aspects of this project at The Englert Theatre and FilmScene’s flagship location.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 34
October 10, 2017
To the Economic Development Committee:
I am writing to submit a report on the continued progress and growth of Mission Creek Festival in the past
year as well as to request funding in the amount of $20,000 for Mission Creek Festival in Fiscal Years
2019 and 2020. Our festival continues to grow in positive ways from year to year. We remain committed
to deep partnerships with institutions in our community at-large and within the University of Iowa.
With our core focus on performance, literature, and community happenings, Mission Creek Festival
provides the greatest opportunities for Iowa-based artists to present their work as well as for Iowa-based
patrons to see nationally and internationally-regarded artists. Our literary arm is the longest-running
literary festival in Iowa City and continues to help build our local literary community – from students to
adults – while receiving national acclaim. Our performance-based programming consistently brings
notable acts to Iowa City for the first time and increases our stature among prominent artist booking
agencies. Furthermore, we design a lineup of artists that represents a diverse swathe of cultures and
perspectives so that as many people in our community can see themselves in the artists being featured
onstage. This past year’s festival featured legends like comedian Margaret Cho, seasoned songwriter
Rufus Wainwright, and rap icon Ghostface Killah; rising stars like transgender performer Mykki Blanco
and Iowa City-raised musician Bridget Kearney; and independent voices in the literary world like Saeed
Jones, Kelly Link, and Danielle Dutton.
The Englert Theatre has served as our producing agent for the festival since 2014 and we plan to
continue this partnership in coming years. Our last two years of financial returns have been quite different
from each other. Fiscal Year 2016 festival returned a roughly $40,000 net margin while we estimate an
approximate ($10,000) loss in Fiscal Year 2017’s final assessment. Staff has worked diligently to design a
Fiscal Year 2018 budget that reflects a return to sustainability. We associate the loss year as being part
of a growth period in which we adjust to a new programming landscape that includes a new Hancher
Auditorium as well as an increased commitment to offer a wide range of free programming and outreach
events aimed at reaching all parts of our wider community. To be clear, we want to welcome everyone to
Iowa City’s downtown district so that we all feel like it is a part of our home.
We believe Mission Creek does important work in putting Iowa City on the map as a place to be, a place
to live, and the city’s support of the festival ensures our stability as we seek to continue presenting this
important cultural event within the community. This document includes some of the basic information
about the organization including past year data and future budgets. We encourage you to engage us with
feedback and questions about the future of the festival.
Thank You,
Andre Perry
Mission Creek Festival, Co-Founder & Director
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 35
I. Organizational Information
Organization: Mission Creek Festival
Event: Mission Creek Festival / http://missioncreekfestival.com
Dates: 1st week in April
Contact: Andre Perry / 221 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
319-688-2653 x108 / andre@englert.org
Mission
To deliver a riveting 6-day artistic experience for our community that builds on the cultural
geography and capital of downtown Iowa City.
Vision
To be the best intimate festival for performances, the most important literary gathering for
independent writers, publishers, presses, and readers in the world of books, and the coolest
community gathering in Iowa City.
Description
Mission Creek Festival takes place in Iowa City every spring for six days. The festival embraces
live performance, the literary arts, and radical community happenings. Nestled in the heart of
downtown Iowa City, with most venues within a five minute walk of each other, Mission Creek
thrives on intimacy and cross-medium experiences, turning music lovers onto new literature,
writers onto new music, and expanding everyone’s appreciation of arts, community, and culture.
Our focus is on quality, independent-minded sounds, words, and events. We are keen on
emerging artists and embrace renegade spirits who have been around for years. Intimacy is
integral to the Mission Creek experience: Our smallest festival venue fits 30 people and our
largest holds 1800; but most rooms are in the 200-300 capacity range, allowing for visceral
connections between artists and audience. Navigating Iowa City is another important aspect of
the festival - not only engaging with events in the various venues but learning about the coffee
shops and hangout spots, exploring our public places, and meeting new, interesting people. To
be clear this festival does not happen despite where it lives but because of where it lives. We
are the music and performance festival with deep literary roots, the literary gathering with music
and other happenings tucked around the edges, and the cultural experience that rivets both
locals and visitors in the middle of a warm, weird Midwestern town.
2017 Festival – Quick Facts
Attendance: 10,986
Number of featured performers: 387
Number of Iowa-based performers: 170
Venues in 2017
The Englert Theatre, Blue Moose, The Mill, Gabe’s, Prairie Lights Bookstore, FilmScene, RSVP, Clinton
Street Social Club, Revival, Yacht Club, Deadwood, Nodo, Beadology, Motley Cow, Dublin Underground,
White Rabbit, Trumpet Blossom Café, Pullman Bar & Diner, Devotay, Leaf Kitchen, Iowa City Public
Library, Big Grove Brewery, Public Space One
Partners & Sponsors in 2017
University of Iowa Community Credit Union, City of Iowa City, West Music, Iowa City Sheraton, Iowa
City/Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, Iowa City Area Development Group, Hawkeye Hotels, Big
Grove Brewery, Beam Suntory, Little Village, The Iowa Review, Devotay, Iowa Public Radio, Iowa City
Downtown District, Tuesday Agency, and University of Iowa: Hancher, SCOPE, KRUI
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 36
Selected Past Festival Performers/Writers/Lecturers (2006 – 2017): Margaret Cho, Saeed Jones,
Rufus Wainwright, Kelly Link, Ghostface Killah, DIIV, The Cool Kids, Floating Points, Andrew Bird,
Michelle Wolf, Janelle James, Alison Bechdel, Saul Williams, Kurt Vile, Marc Maron, Kevin Smith, Jad
Abumrad, Father John Misty, Cameron Esposito, Kiese Laymon, Real Estate, Philip Glass, Laurie
Anderson, Rachel Kushner, Jason Isbell, The Head and the Heart, Hannibal Buress, Grizzly Bear, David
Cross, Tig Notaro, Bon Iver, Beach House, the Magnetic Fields, Guided By Voices, Thurston Moore &
Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth, John Waters, Patty Griffin, Greg Brown, Pieta Brown, Bowerbirds,
GZA/Genius, Public Enemy, Divine Fits, Thao & The Get Dow Stay Down, the Mountain Goats, Dan
Deacon, Fruit Bats, Zola Jesus, No Age, the Antlers, Camera Obscura, Tilly and the Wall, Sharon Van
Etten, Colson Whitehead, Aleksander Hemon, Charles D’Ambrosio, Edmund White, Eula Biss, Tim
Hecker, Rhys Chatham, The Meat Puppets, William Elliott Whitmore, D.A. Powell, Booker T., Kiki
Petrosino, and hundreds more…
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 37
II. Mission Creek Festival Budget Overview FY2016
Revenue 2018 (budget) 2017 (estimate) 2016 (actual)
Festival pass sales: 60,000 34,248 20,993
Individual tickets sales: 81,000 137,488 83,778
Sponsorships – cash: 75,000 74,750 75,348
Annual Giving 25,000 32,450 35,865
Grants 5,000 25,000 15,000
Concessions: 11,000 14,272 13,273
Total revenue: 257,000 318,208 244,257
Expenses
Staffing: 30,120 25,092 30,950
Programming & Outreach: 146,000 252,177 144,756
Marketing: 11,000 11,376 7,150
Administration, Production: 37,475 36,541 16,570
Concessions: 3,000 3,986 3,751
Total costs: 227,595 329,172 203,177
Net/(Balance): 29,405 (10,964) 41,080
Notes
2016: Record net margin on festival program
2017: Record net loss on festival program; program included first Hancher show; expanded commitment
to outreach + engagement and free programming
2018: Adjustments to spending will affect ticketed performances; commitment to outreach + engagement
and free programming will remain intact; addition of weekend pass will increase pass sales revenue and
also incur a decrease in individual ticket sales revenue; weekend pass goal: lead to wider accessibility
and buy-in to the festival over the course of the next five years.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 38
Date: October 12, 2017
To: Economic Development Committee
From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Re: DRAFT TIF Policies
The following document contains the latest revisions to the DRAFT TIF Policies you have been
discussing.
Of note are changes to the definition of contributing structure, as it relates to historic
preservation and a suggested revision to the language describing examples of the exceptional
public benefits required for buildings exceeding heights as shown on the desired heights maps.
Let’s also discuss the first two paragraphs of the document. You will recall at your last meeting,
the discussion around exceptional public benefits and a reference to the strategic plan. In that
instance, we simply deleted the reference to the strategic plan, and left the mention of the City’s
vision of fostering a more inclusive, just, and sustainable city.
Would you like to leave those paragraphs as they are in the DRAFT or modify them, in light of
changes you made to the exceptional public benefits section last month?
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 39
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 1
DRAFT Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policies
City of Iowa City’s Strategic Plan
Alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan will provide the first indicator about whether a project may be
eligible for TIF. To the extent that a project helps achieve the City’s Strategic Plan objectives and is
located within an established Urban Renewal Area (Exhibit A), it may be eligible to be considered for TIF.
2016 – 2017 City of Iowa City Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan intends to foster a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City
a) Promote a strong and resilient local economy
b) Encourage a vibrant and walkable urban core
c) Foster healthy neighborhoods throughout the City
d) Maintain a solid financial foundation
e) Enhance community engagement and intergovernmental relations
f) Promote environmental sustainability
g) Advance social justice and racial equity
In addition, the City will continue to seek projects that diversify existing uses in the given urban renewal
area. Such projects may include Class A office, hotel, entertainment, and residential uses, provided
market studies and financial analysis support such investment.
Sustainability
New residential, office and mixed use building projects receiving TIF in any urban renewal area shall be
certified Silver or better under the LEED for New Construction Rating System current at the time of design
development. Further, at least 8 points shall be awarded for the LEED-NC Optimize Energy Performance credit to
ensure that TIF projects help meet the City’s carbon emission reduction goals.
This requirement does not apply to renovation projects.
Downtown building heights and character
Applications for TIF support for downtown projects must indicate how the proposed project will help
fulfill the overall vision of the downtown portion of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan, “to
preserve and enhance the historic buildings and character of Downtown, while encouraging appropriate
infill redevelopment with a mix of building uses.” (p. 18, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan.)
Except under extraordinary circumstances, applicants seeking TIF should ensure that their projects fall
within the Desired Height ranges shown on the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan’s
building heights diagram shown on p. 106 of the Plan (Exhibits C and D of this document). The height
considerations shall only apply to area inside the border of Iowa Avenue, Gilbert, Burlington and Clinton
Streets.
Deviations from the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan’s guidelines shown on p. 56 and the
Desired Building Height map (p. 106 of the Plan and Exhibit C, following) may be considered if the
applicant demonstrates that 1) the proposed building and uses will help fulfill the overall vision of the
Plan by facilitating – architecturally, materially, and/or financially –the preservation and enhancement
Deleted: the entire City-University Project 1 Area
(also referred to as Downtown & Riverfront
Crossings -- see Exhibit B)
Deleted: or any project outside of the City-
University Project 1 Urban Renewal Area.¶
¶
TIF projects outside the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings urban renewal area are strongly
encouraged and highly preferred to be Certified
LEED Silver or better.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 40
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 2
of adjacent or nearby historic structures, if applicable, and 2) that the proposed building will provide
exceptional public benefits.
*Exceptional public benefits are ones that go well beyond what is required by other sections of this
policy, and which advance the City’s vision of fostering a more inclusive, just, and sustainable city. These
public benefits may include but are not limited to:
1) high quality/low cost building design which produces affordable housing and/or affordable retail
space for locally-owned businesses
2) incorporation of attractive public space that is available and accessible to all city residents;
3) job training and opportunities for low-income youth; and
4) carbon-neutral, LEED Gold or Platinum certification.
The provisions of this section will apply until such time as a Downtown Form-Based Code is adopted.
*Mayor Throgmorton’s proposed revisions to the Exceptional Public Benefits, as emailed on Monday,
October 2, 2017:
Exceptional public benefits are ones that go well beyond what is required by other sections of this
policy, and which advance the City’s vision of fostering a more inclusive, just, and sustainable city.
These public benefits may include:
1. innovative building design which produces affordable housing for long-term residents and/or
affordable retail space for locally-owned businesses;
2. attractive public space that is available and easily accessible to all city residents;
3. good job opportunities for low-income youth;
4. carbon-neutrality, or achievement of LEED Gold or higher certification; and
5. public display of paintings, photographs, sculpture, poems, and other visual and literary art,
maps, or historical artifacts that express how diverse groups have contributed to (and are
contributing to) the unique character and identity of contemporary Iowa City community and
culture. This list is not intended to constrain the developer’s ingenuity in proposing public
benefits that clearly help foster an inclusive, just, and sustainable city.
For a proposed project which would be located on a street with a substantial number of buildings
eligible for historic landmark designation, the tallest portion of the project must be stepped back from
its street frontages far enough to produce “no significant impact” on the existing historic character of
the street fronts when seen from the public right-of-way.
Historic preservation
Properties in the downtown area are designated one of four ways. Those that are:
a) on the National Register of Historic Places,
b) individually eligible (for the National Register of Historic Places)/key properties,
c) contributing properties (those that add to the historical integrity or architectural qualities to
make a local and/or national historic district significant), and
d) non-contributing properties.
New construction requiring the demolition of structures on the National Register of on the National
Register of Historic Places, or those identified as individually eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places or those identified as key properties is not eligible for tax increment financing. Further, all
rehabilitation to these structures shall be done in such a manner as to preserve or restore any historic
Deleted: and
Deleted: if
Deleted: strategic plan
Deleted: without increasing the financial gap
necessitating TIF support;
Deleted:
Deleted: three
Comment [WF1]: This is wording from Alicia’s Trimble’s latest email
Deleted: a contributing property may not have any historic significance in and of itself, but may
lend to the character of a historic district or
neighborhood
Deleted: identified
Deleted: as (a) individually eligible, key, historic and/or architecturally significant
Deleted: historic or architecturally significant
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 41
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 3
structure to productive use. The guidelines for determining if rehabilitation does preserve or restore the
structure shall be those set forth in the 1990 revised edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
All additions to buildings on the National Register of on the National Register of Historic Places or those
that are individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or are key properties shall be
developed in such a manner as to be architecturally compatible with existing development.
(Amendment #9, 2001 City-University Project 1 Urban Renewal Plan.)
Properties designated contributing may be eligible for tax increment financing and any redevelopment of contributing properties should preserve and enhance the historic character of the block
Historic preservation projects may be eligible for TIF funding via district-wide TIF, in order to incentivize
historic renovation projects that may not add enough taxable value to rely solely on the subject
property’s increment.
Affordable housing
TIF projects in any urban renewal area with a residential component as part of the project must provide
a minimum of 15% of the units as affordable to tenants at or below 60% AMI (area median income). If
those housing units are for sale, units will be targeted to households at or below 110% AMI. The City
may require a lower AMI for rental units.
Developers may be eligible to negotiate a fee-in-lieu of providing on site affordable housing, or to
provide affordable housing elsewhere in the community, subject to the City’s sole discretion.
In part, in exchange for the increased density created for the Riverfront Crossings (RFC) zone, any
project with housing in the district, regardless of whether it is a TIF project, must include 10% affordable
housing. TIF policy in the RFC zone is that any financial gap due to affordable housing created by zoning
requirements (10%) is the responsibility of the developer and that affordable housing above the
required 10% in RFC could be TIF eligible, if the financial analysis determines a gap.
Social Justice
The City will not contract with or provide any economic development incentives to any person or entity
who has participated in wage theft by violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection law, the Iowa
Minimum Wage Act, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or any comparable state statute or local
ordinance, which governs the payment of wages. Misclassification of employees as independent
contractors is a violation of the FLSA and is included in the definition of wage theft.
Development Agreements for TIF projects shall include in the contract for the construction of the
Minimum Improvements, between the Developer and the General Contractor, the following written
provisions, proof of which must be provided to City prior to the start of construction:
a) Agreement by the General Contractor to comply with all state, federal and local laws and
regulations, including, but not limited to the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 91C (Contractor
Registration with the Iowa Division of Labor), Iowa Code Chapter 91A (Iowa Wage Payment
Collection Law), Iowa Code Chapter 91D (Minimum Wage), the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the Internal Revenue Code.
Deleted: historically or architecturally significant structures
Deleted: are
Deleted: . A
Deleted: ¶
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 42
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 4
b) Agreement by the General Contractor to provide to the Developer and the City no later than the
filing of an application for issuance of a building permit, the names and addresses of each
subcontractor and the dollar value of the work the subcontractor is expected to perform.
c) Demonstration by the General Contractor that it has the capacity to meet all performance, and labor
and material payment, bonding requirements relative to the Minimum Improvements.
d) Providing to the City a certificate by the General Contractor’s insurer that it has in force all insurance
coverage required with respect to construction of the Minimum Improvements.
e) Demonstration by the General Contractor that it has required all subcontractors to agree, in writing,
that the subcontractor will comply with all state, federal and local laws and administrative rules and
regulations, including, but not limited to the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 91C (Contractor
Registration with the Iowa Division of Labor), Iowa Code Chapter 91A (Iowa Wage Payment
Collection Law), Iowa Code Chapter 91D (Minimum Wage), the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the Internal Revenue Code.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 43
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 5
Quality jobs
When a TIF project is based on the creation or retention of jobs, certain wage thresholds must be met to
help ensure the City’s financial participation only serves to increase the average area wage. This policy
does not require that every job associated with a TIF project, such as those that might be created by the
addition of a new retailer in a building, or the construction jobs required to build a TIF project, meet
these standards. Rather, as a policy to incentivize the addition of high paying jobs to the local economy,
a jobs-based TIF incentive would be structured using the thresholds of the State of Iowa High Quality
Jobs Program.
Other Public Interests
Recognizing that some non-profit activity and/or investment in public infrastructure may influence
additional private economic development activity, TIF may be an appropriate tool to further investment
in Iowa City’s cultural and/or natural assets. Understanding that TIF is made possible by the increased
value in real property, and that most cultural organizations and public lands are generally tax exempt, a
TIF project would only be possible by using increment from the district. Examples include:
a) Arts and cultural activities or facilities
b) Historic preservation
c) Public improvements that serve as a catalyst for the economic development of the urban renewal
area
Underwriting and Application
The following policies are designed to provide a consistent and transparent process for the review and
analysis of all applications for TIF assistance.
a) Complete application submission.
b) But for” standard: Each project must demonstrate sufficient need for the City’s financial assistance,
such that without it, the project would not occur. Every other financial piece of the project must be
in place prior to the consideration of TIF. TIF assistance will be used as gap financing as determined
through gap analysis.
c) Method of TIF financing: The City reserves the right to determine the method of TIF financing that is
in the best interests of the taxpayer. As such, the City strongly prefers the use of TIF rebates over
the shortest term possible.
d) Developer equity: Developer Equity must be equal to or greater than City funding. TIF assistance
shall not exceed the amount of equity provided by the Developer. Equity is defined as cash,
unleveraged value in land, or prepaid costs attributable to the project.
e) Project based TIF: TIF for private developments must generate TIF increment sufficient to be self-
supporting. Only in exceptional cases, will the City consider using district-wide increment.
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 44
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 6
Exhibit A Urban Renewal Areas Enabling Tax Increment Financing
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 45
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 7
Exhibit B City-University Project 1 Urban Renewal Area
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 46
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 8
Exhibit C
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan Building Heights diagram
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 47
DRAFT TIF policies | October 12, 2017 | Page 9
Exhibit D Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan Building Heights diagram
EDC 10.19.17 packet page 48