HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2014 Charter Review Commission9
July 29, 2004 PACKET
CR1 Agenda
CR2 Minutes of June 17
CR3 Memo from Chair Sueppei re issues
CR4 Home Rule Charters from Clinton, Fort Dodge, and Marion
CR5 State of Iowa Redistricting form
CR6 Voting Precinct Maps (1975 and 2003)
CR7 Letter from Caroline Dieterie
CR8 Copy of Citizen Input Poster
August 11, 2004 PACKET
CR9 Agenda
CR10 Minutes of July 29
CR11 Memo from City Attorney re Absence
CR12 Memo from City Attorney re Article III (Nomination, Primary & Regular Election)
CR13 Memo from City Clerk re Nomination signature requirements
August 26, 2004 PACKET
CR14 Agenda
CR15 Minutes of August 11
September 8, 2004 PACKET
CR16 Agenda
CR17 Minutes of August 26
CR18 E -mail from John Neff re Public Input to Charter Review Commission
CR19 Memo from City Attorney re Proposed Amendment to Section 7.01 ('ordinance" vs.
"measure ")
CR20 Project Timeline
CR21 Revision of Tentative Schedule for September- January
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, September 8, 2004
Harvat Hall, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
7:00 -9:30 AM
1. Approve Minutes
2. Public Comment
Receive correspondence from John Neff
3. Review Charter
Article VII Initiative and Referendum
4. Future Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM)
a. Dates already set aside
September 27
September 29
October 13
October 20
October 27
b. Discussion of time
c. Discussion of tentative public hearing date
1. Location
2. Time
5. Old Business
6. Adjournment (9:30 AM)
r
Cf?i'
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
C911
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2004 - 7:30 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
DRAFT
Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Vicki Lensing,
Naomi Novick, Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, and Nate
Green
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004
Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. There were no additions,
corrections, or deletions.
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the August 11, 2004, minutes as written.
Chappell seconded. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
REVIEW CHARTER
Chairperson Sueppel stated that they would start today's review process with Article
VII, Initiative and Referendum. He first asked the Commission members if they
approve the idea of keeping Initiative and Referendum as part of the City's Charter. The
members all agreed that it should be kept part of the Charter. He then asked if anyone
had any comments thus far. Kubby stated that she has concerns about the "benchmarks"
being used. Rowat asked if other city charters do not have Initiative and Referendum in
them, or if there is some other process available that the Commission should perhaps
consider. Kubby said she has made up a chart with other cities charters, but she forgot to
bring it today. Discussion turned to the type of government that Iowa City has, and how
it differs from other cities. Discussion concluded that of the four Home Rule Charter
cities in Iowa only Iowa City and Clinton have initiative and referendum provisions.
Davidsen stated that she recently reviewed the original Charter information, and that this
section was considered a vital part of the Charter, even back then.
Discussion turned to Section 7.01, General Provisions (A) Authority, and the
difference between qualified and eligible voters. Sueppel asked about Initiatives, and
how the City handles these when first received. Dilkes stated that she waits until there
has been a filing before she gives her opinion on whether she thinks the issue is subject to
Initiative or Referendum. Karr gave background on how the process starts, and the time
she spends letting the petitioner know the process. She also gave some examples of
petitions and affidavits, and she noted that she has a timeline for the members to review,
so they can better understand the process.
Chatter Review Commission
August 26, 2004
Page 2
Sueppel then asked if Capital Projects should ever be subject to initiative and referendum.
Dilkes stated that the minutes of the original Charter Commission show that the model
Charter had an exclusion for Capital Projects. Discussion turned to why this was done.
Chappell noted that the May 8, 1973, minutes on page 2, third paragraph, explains the
thinking at that time. It was felt that Capital Improvements were a controversial issue,
and that the Council at that time would have to "prove to the public that their taxes were
well spent." He further read the minutes to the members, and various members added
their opinions. Dilkes gave an example of a previous issue, where a request to delete a
project fi-om the capital improvements plan, a planning project for capital projects, came
about. Sueppel asked if Dilkes had any concerns about the present definition of Initiative,
and she stated she did not.
Kubby turned the discussion to whether qualified (registered) or eligible voters should be
required to sign the petitions. Karr gave history on the request for updated voter rolls,
and how without the optional birthdate on a petition, it can be hard to prove someone is
eligible. Rowat stated that he feels that if someone wants to participate in the
governmental process, there is nothing wrong with expecting them to be registered
voters. He further stated that if they have not registered, but want to enter into the
process of government, they can easily get a form to register. Green noted that many of
the University of Iowa population do not become registered voters here, as they want to
keep their registration in their home state. Sueppel stated that by requiring people to be
qualified voters, it increases the registration of voters. Novick stated that State law says
you can be on the ballot without being a registered voter. Chappell indicated he
originally was inclined to favor the requirement that those signing be registered
(qualified), but noted that State law often requires petition to be signed only by eligible
voters. Kubby stated that she feels if people can be part of the petition process, it helps to
stir their interest in elections, etc. She would like to see the public more involved.
The discussion next turned to the process by which the City Clerk knows who is a
registered voter, and how someone becomes a registered voter. Sueppel asked if anyone
wanted to vote on any of these issues at this time, and the members stated they would like
to review further. Sueppel asked if the language of Initiative is acceptable then to the
Commission. He then asked about Referendum, stating it's the same thing. Davidsen
asked if there's a difference with resolution, and Dilkes explained its inclusion. Kubby
asked if just a section of an ordinance can be changed, or if the entire ordinance has to be
changed. Rowat asked why there are definitions in this section, as well as at the
beginning of the Charter.
Discussion turned to the difference between administrative issues and legislative issues.
Dilkes gave an example of a Supreme Court case, and how a certain case played out on
this issue. Dilkes stated that the question of legislative versus administrative can be very
difficult to ascertain. Novick asked if it would be wise to reword this definition, and
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2004
Page 3
Dilkes stated that that would be a policy decision for the Commission to make. The
suggestion of "ordinance or resolution" was made, and discussion turned to how one
change in the Charter can affect the rest of the Charter. Novick restated her question, and
said that in (1) Initiative and (2) Referendum, they could say they would use this
initiative and referendum to allow the voters to delete or add an ordinance, or resolution.
Sueppel asked if that clarifies it better. Kubby asked about the CIP plan and if it was
adopted by resolution. Dilkes stated that by adding "resolution" she does not feel this
gives them any better clarification. Kubby stated that it does get rid of two different
definitions, and would make it clearer to the "average" citizen. Green asked for an
example of what the Commission would be recommending. (TAPE ENDS) Dilkes
brought up "measures" and suggested they use this wording, instead of "ordinance" as
that would make this section more consistent with the language used in State Code and
the definition section of the Charter. Sueppel agreed that this might be a good idea, and
he then discussed the differences between motions, ordinances, measures, etc. Kubby
asked if this change to use the word "measure" would be a "housekeeping" change, or
would it effect any other portions of the Charter. Dilkes suggested that they would need
to define what "measure" is, such as "within this article, measure means an action of a
legislative measure, however designated." This would then not change the definition at
all. Karr asked why they needed separate definitions in the Charter, when "measure" is
already in there. Dilkes responded that they need to get the "legislative nature" in there.
Sueppel asked the members if they would like to have Dilkes draft what she thinks would
be appropriate for this change, and then they could all discuss it at the next meeting.
Lensing asked if Dilkes could further clarify "plan" when she does her draft. Dilkes
stated that the issue she raised earlier regarding capital projects would be best addressed
under the "exclusions" section.
The discussion tinned to B. Limitations. Sueppel asked if anyone had any questions on
this section. Novick questioned (k) Amendments affecting the City Zoning
Ordinance, except those affecting a tract of land two acres or more in size. She
wanted to know if this was State Code or not. Dilkes explained the State Code provisions
on zoning, and her feeling that this specific exclusion had big problems with it.
Discussion turned to possible problems with this, and Chappell stated that he was trying
to find where this specific wording came from. The discussion also touched on State
requirements versus City requirements. Lensing brought up emergency ordinances, and
asked why it was not in the exclusion list. Chappell stated that the original Charter
Review Commission removed this from the list in the model charter, but he is unsure of
the reasoning. Discussion turned to the first Charter Review Commission, and whether
this issue was part of the Charter at that time. Chappell asked if they were at the point
where they wanted to propose language to change (j) Amendments to this Charter.
Sueppel stated that he would suggest wording of "Amendments to the City Zoning
Ordinance." Chappell asked if this would cover the Comprehensive Plan also. Sueppel
stated that by adding "Comprehensive Plan" lie feels it covers these issues. Sueppel
asked the members if there were any other discussions on (a) through (k), and Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2004
Page 4
again noted that clarification as to when a capital project went from plan to execution was
necessary. Dilkes then suggested that it might be helpful to have staff from Public Works
come and explain the process to the members. The discussion started to wrap up as 9:00
AM approached. Dilkes asked the members if they want further information, and
members gave feedback on having staff attend the next meeting.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Future meetings were set for September 8, 27, and 29, starting at 7:00 AM, and running
until 9:30 AM. For October, meeting dates are 13, 20, and 27, also from 7:00 AM until
9:30 AM. Members were encouraged to let Karr know of their schedules, and any
changes that take place. Chairperson Sueppel asked that all members come to meetings
prepared to review the material so they can continue moving at a good pace. The City
Council deadline for this Commission is May 4, 2005, with the plan to present to the
Council in March. It is hoped to have the public hearings after the first of the year.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Davidsen moved for adjournment of the meeting at 9:25 AM; seconded
by Rowat. Motion carried.
Marian Karr
C�18'
°rom: John Neff pohn- neff @uiowa.edu]
,ent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:12 PM
To: marian - karr @iowa - city.org
Subject: Public input to Charter Review Commission
To the Charter Review Commission;
I understand that there has been a suggestion that the Iowa City Charter
be revised such that the City Manager and Police Chief be appointed to a
fixed term of office and required to win a majority of the vote in a
retention election to remain in office. I do not support such a revision
because it is so contrary to the principles of the City Manager form of
government that we would be better off to switch to the Mayor - Council
form of government.
Indirectly this suggestion raised the issue of police - community
relations which I would characterize as improved but precarious (in
other words a single incident could make them much worse). My original
view was that police- community relations are a City Council and City
Manager issue not something for the Charter Commission to be involved
with. I now think that there is an oversight issue and that the Council
and Manager have the responsibility to see that the various city
departments are serving the community in a manner that is acceptable to
the community.
)versight can be very constructive (periodic departmental self - studies
and external peer reviews at the University of Iowa are examples of
constructive oversight) on the other hand if oversight is only carried
out when there is a problem it takes on a negative connotation. I would
like to suggest that the Charter Commission consider ways add language
to the charter to give greater emphasis to the oversight function of the
City Council.
John Neff
2305 MacBride Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
338 -6105
1
Ii . -4 7
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 1, 2004
To: City Charter Review Commission
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney 0001
Re: Proposed Amendment to Section 7.01 ( "ordinance" vs. "measure ")
Per your direction, attached is a proposed amendment to Section 7.01. As discussed at your
last meeting, use of the word, "ordinance" in Article 7 is confusing. Under state law, and in the
definitions section of the charter, 'ordinance" is a city law of a general and permanent nature
(except as provided in Article 7) and "measure" means an ordinance, amendment, resolution, or
motion. In Article 7 persons are allowed to initiate or refer "ordinances ", but ordinance is defined
to include all "measures [ordinance, amendment, resolution, or motion] of a legislative nature."
The proposed amendment is designed to make the language consistent with the state code and
charter definitions without changing the meaning or scope of what may be subject to initiative
and referendum. Finally, you will note from the attached that the proposed changes to Section
7.01 require that the definitions of 'ordinance" and "measure" in the definitions section of the
Charter must be changed and that 'ordinance" be changed to "measure" in the remainder of
Article VI
cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk
elea nor /mem/charter7.0 tdoc
Ordinance No. 02 -4019
Page 4
The Citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, by virtue of the enactment of this Charter, adopt the
following principles:
1. That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the
responsibility for it.
2. That the government of Iowa City is a service institution, responsive and
accountable to its citizens,
3. That City officials should be accessible to the people and have an affirmative
obligation to secure for each person equality of opportunity as well as due process
and equal protection of law.
4. That each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal, and courteous treatment from
each City official and employee.
5. That the City should perform all acts and take all measures necessary and
desirable to promote the general health, safety and welfare of its residents, to
encourage the participation of its citizens in policy formation and to secure the full
benefits of "Home Rule."
As used in this Charter:
1. "City" means the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. "City Council" or "Council" means the governing body of the City.
3. "Councilmember" means a member of the Council, including the Mayor.
4. "Shall" imposes a duty.
5. "Must" states a requirement.
6. "May" confers a power.
7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa
City.
9. 'Board" includes a Board, Commission, Committee or other similar entity
however designated.
10. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, political party, committee or any other legal entity.
11. "Ordinance," except as ided in "r'ic'e "TT, means a City law of a general
and permanent nature.
12. "Measure", except as provided in Article VII, means an ordinance, amendment,
resolution or motion. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(1), 3- 12 -85)
Ordinance No. 02 -4019
Page 4
ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Section 7.01. General provisions.
A. Authority.
(1)Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose ors measuresto
the Council and, if the Council fails to adopt an Dance a measure so proposed
without any change in substance, to have the ordinance measure submitted to the
voters at an election.
(2)Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require reconsideration by
the Council of an existing erdinanee measure and, if the Council fails to repeal such
• inane measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election.
(3)Definition. Within this article, "ordinance measure" means all measures
ordinances, amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however
designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b)
include a proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy
or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law,
policy or plan already enacted by Council.
B. Limitations.
(I)Subject matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall not extend to any of
the following:
Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
The City budget.
The appropriation of money.
The levy of taxes or special assessments.
The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds.
The letting of contracts.
Salaries of City employees.
Any measure required to be enacted by State or federal law.
Amendments to this Charter.
Amendments affecting the City Zoning Ordinance, except those affecting a tract
of land two acres or more in size.
(2)Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two years
after the same measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to the
voters at an election.
(3)Council repeal, amendment and reenactment. No ordinance measure proposed by
initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the Council without submission to the
voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, may for two years thereafter
be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise
made in the original initiative ordinance measure. No ordinance measure referred by
referendum petition and repealed by the vote of the Council without submission to
the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for two
years thereafter except by vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in
the original referendum petition,
Ordinance No. 02 -4019
Page 4
C. Construction.
(1)Scope of power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and
referendum powers upon the qualified voters of the City.
(2)Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it
repeals an existing ordinance measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a
new ordinance measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an existing
e =d i.unce measure.
(3)Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal an ordinance a
measure in whole or in part.
D. Effect of filing petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not
suspend or invalidate any ordinance measure under consideration and such erdinanee
measure shall remain in full force and effect until its amendment or repeal by
Council pursuant to Section 7.05A or until a majority of the qualified electors voting
on an ordinance a measure vote to repeal or amend the ordinance measure and the
vote is certified.
E. City obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing
ordinance measure in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by
the City, its agencies or any person in reliance on the once measure during the
time it was in effect. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85)
Section 7.02. Commencement of proceedings; affidavit.
A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as the
"petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the
City Clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and
will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and
specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in
full the proposed initiative erdinanee measure or citing the erdimmee measure sought
to be reconsidered.
B. Affidavit. The City Clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears
to have signatures of one or more qualified electors. The City Clerk shall issue the
appropriate petition forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for
filing. The City clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public,
forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement of proceedings and the
preparation of initiative and referendum petitions. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3 -12-
85)
Section 7.03. Petitions; revocation of signatures.
A. Number of signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by
qualified electors equal in number to at least twenty -five percent of the number of
persons who voted in the last regular City election, but such signatures shall be no
fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified electors. Any petition that does not,
on its face, contain the minimum required signatures defined herein shall be deemed
insufficient for filing under this article, and no supplementary petition shall be
permitted.
Ordinance No. 02 -4019
Page 4
B. Form and content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially
uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person
signing shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature,
printed name, and address of the person signing, the date the signature is executed,
and any other information required by City Council. The form shall also provide
space for the signer's birthdate, but a failure to enter a birthdate shall not invalidate a
signer's signature. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have attached
thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the ordinance measure proposed
or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk need have attached
to it only one copy of the ordinanee measure being proposed or referred.
C. Affidavit of circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have
attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a qualified elector certifying: the
number of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all
signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be
genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each
signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the Ordinance
measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit
will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by State law.
D. Time for filing initiative petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be
secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required
under Section 7.02A was filed.
E. Time for filing referendum petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty
days after final adoption by the Council of the ordinance measure sought to be
reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more than two years after such final
adoption. The signatures on a referendum petition must be secured during the sixty
days after such final adoption; however, if the petition is filed more than two years
after final adoption, the signatures must be secured within six months after the date
the affidavit required under Section 7.02A was filed.
F. Revocation of signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the City Clerk, a
signatory may revoke his or her signature for any reason by filing with the City Clerk
a statement of his or her intent to revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed
a signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The City Clerk shall cause to be
prepared and have available to the public, forms suitable for the revocation of
petition signatures. (Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85; Ord, No. 90 -3462, § 1, 6 -26-
90)
Section 7.04. Procedure after filing.
A. Certificate of city clerk; amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is filed
which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in Section 7.03.A
above, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the petition's sufficiency. If
the petition is insufficient, the Clerk's certificate shall specify the particulars wherein
the petition is defective. The Clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the certificate
to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient may be amended
once, provided, however, that one or more of the original petitioners files a notice of
Ordinance No. 02 -4019
Page 4
intention to amend the original petition, such notice to be filed with the City Clerk
within two days after receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also files a
supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a
copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the
requirements of subsections B and C of Section 7.03. Within fifteen days after a
supplementary petition is filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the
sufficiency of the petition, as amended and supplemented, and shall promptly send a
copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as in the case of an
original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified sufficient, or if the
petition or amended petition is certified insufficient and one or more of the
petitioners do not request Council review under subsection B of this Section within
the time prescribed, the City Clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the
Council.
B. Council review. If a petition has been certified insufficient by the City Clerk and one
or more of the petitioners do not file notice of intention to amend it or if an amended
petition has been certified insufficient by the City Clerk, one or more of the
petitioners may, within two days after receiving a copy of such certificate, file with
the City Clerk a request that it be reviewed by the Council. The Council shall review
the certificate at its next meeting following the filing of such a request, but not later
than thirty days after the filing of the request for review, and shall rule upon the
sufficiency of the petition.
C. Court review; new petition. Each qualified elector has a right to judicial review of
Council's determination as to the sufficiency of a petition. Proceedings for judicial
review will be equitable in nature and must be filed in the State District Court for
Johnson county. The right to judicial review is conditioned upon the timely filing of
a request for Council review under Section 7.0413, and the filing of the petition for
court review within thirty days after determination by Council as to the sufficiency
of the petition. A determination of insufficiency, even if sustained upon court review,
shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose.
D. Validity of signatures. A petition shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of this
article if it contains valid signatures in the number prescribed by Section 7.03 and is
timely filed, even though the petition may contain one or more invalid signatures. A
signature shall be deemed valid unless it is not the genuine signature of the qualified
elector whose name it purports to be, or it was not voluntarily and knowingly
executed. A valid signature need not be in the identical form in which the qualified
elector's name appears on the voting rolls, nor may a signature be deemed invalid
because the address accompanying the name on the petition is different from the
address for the same name on the current voting rolls if the qualified elector's birth
date is provided and is shown on the voting rolls. (Ord. No. 85.3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85;
Ord. No. 90 -3462, § 2, 6- 26 -90; Ord. No. 95 -3671, § 1, 3- 28 -95)
Section 7.05. Action on petitions.
A. Action by council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined
sufficient, the Council shall promptly consider the proposed initiative ordinance
Ordinance No. 02 -4019
Page 4
measure or reconsider the referred ordinance measure. If the Council fails to adopt a
proposed initiative ordinance measure and fails to adopt an__, ordinance a measure
which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the Council fails to repeal the
referred ordinance measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally
determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred ordinance measure to
the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. The Council shall submit
to the voters any erdinane measure which has been proposed or referred in
accordance with the provisions of this Article unless the petition is deemed
insufficient pursuant to Section 7.04. If at any time more than thirty days before a
scheduled initiative or referendum election the Council adopts the proposed initiative
arrdina=;ee measure or adopts an ofdinane c a measure which is similar in substance or
if the Council repeals a referred ordinance measure, the initiative or referendum
proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred ordinance measure shall not
be submitted to the voters.
B. Submission to voters. The vote of the City on a proposed or referred erdinanee
measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next
occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the appropriate sixty or thirty -day
period provided for consideration or reconsideration in Section 7.05A, provided,
however, that the Council may provide for a special referendum election on a
referred erdinaneemeasure any time after the expiration of the thirty -day period
provided for reconsideration in Section 7.05A. Copies of the proposed or referred
ordinance measure shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and
shall be advertised at the city's expense in the manner required for "questions" in
Section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or
proposed ordinance measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. No. 77 -2858, § 2,
9- 16 -77; Ord. No. 85 -3227, § 2(2), 3- 12 -85)
Section 7.06. Results of election.
A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative
ordinance measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification
of the election results and shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as
ordinances measures of the same kind adopted by the Council, except as provided in
Section 7.0113(3). If conflicting ordinances measures are approved by majority vote
at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall
prevail to the extent of such conflict.
B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred erdinane-e
measure vote against it, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the
election results.
Section 7.07. Prohibition on establishment of stricter conditions or
requirements.
The Council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or requirements
affecting initiative and referendum which are higher or more stringent than those imposed
by this Charter,
C/ev
0
r
_
a
a
C
N
d
�
OI
U
O
o
_
v
m
QI
a
N
7
}
C
_
�
C
�
I
Y
rll
F
d
�
O
�
z >
¢
m
_..._..:..... ...
......'...__
...... .._.
E a
a
E v
v
�
v
LL
C
W
U
Z
0
d
N
O
m
�
E
F_.
O
�
W
N
U
C
O
O
y
o
m
m
r
d
a
o 0
a D
0
U
0
CL =
L
�r
O
a`❑
• ; ma • • 11 V,4 1 U
• Scope
• Identify project objectives (not product)
• Identify other needs in the area, research complaint database, check with
other departments about sewer backups, proposed trails....
• Evaluate impact on long term infrastructure planning
• Finances
• Develop preliminary budget — include at least 20% contingency
• Identify potential funding sources
• Draft CIP
• Schedule
❑ Develop rough schedule for design, property acquisition and construction
❑ Factor seasonal issues
❑ Evaluate impact or interdependencies on other projects
• Data Gathering
• Identify survey information needed and evaluate best means of acquisition
• Ground survey
• Aerial photography
• Identify other information necessary for design:
o Traffic counts — JCCOG
❑ Sewer flow monitoring / backup complaint history — Pollution Control
• Hydrant flow tests — Water Division
• Soils data — Geotechnical consultant
• Initiate data gathering if warranted by schedule
• Agreements and Inter - Agency Coordination
• Identify potential funding agreements
• Identify potential 28E agreements or letters of understanding
a ]DOT
❑ University of Iowa
❑ University Heights
• Coralville
• Johnson County
Identify Potential Regulatory Requirements and Approvals*
a City of Iowa City
• Flood Plain Management - permit
• Sensitive Areas Ordinance - evaluation
• Grading Ordinance - evaluation
• Historic Preservation — evaluation
❑ State of Iowa
❑ Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
o Flood Plain Development
❑ Water Main Extension
❑ Sewer Extension
❑ Construction Storm Water
❑ Sovereign Lands
❑ Building Demolition
o Iowa Department of Transportation (]DOT)
o Work in State ROW
o Utilities Accommodation Permit
❑ Access Permit
❑ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
❑ Federal
❑ Corps of Engineers
❑ Work along the Iowa River
❑ Wetlands
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife
❑ Environmental Protection Agency
❑ Identify Potential Acquisitions
❑ Temporary and permanent easements
o Fee -title acquisitions
❑ Conversion of ROW easements to fee -title ROW
o Railroad right -of -way
❑ Easement holdings — pipelines, overhead transmission...
February 10, 2002
1- •
• Preliminary Survey and Drafting
❑ Gather and plot preliminary information necessary to begin design
• Pre - Design / Design Kickoff Meetings
• Pre - design meeting with neighborhood
• Design kickoff meeting with other City departments /divisions and other
governmental agencies
• All Divisions of the Public Works Department
• Traffic Engineering Planning
• Parks
• Information Technology Services
• Planning
• Other governmental agencies as necessary
• Include private utilities if necessary
• Refine Project Objectives and Budget
❑ Do so as often as necessary
• Advance Notice to Trades and Plan Rooms
❑ Associated General Contractors of Iowa
• Iowa Concrete Paving Association
• Iowa Asphalt Paving Association
• Plan Rooms
• Develop Preliminary Design
• Plan view of improvements
• Preliminary profiles and cross sections
• Property Acquisition*
• Identify permanent and temporary easements necessary
• Identify fee -title acquisitions necessary
• Identify easement or lease -hold interests
• Begin acquisition process*
❑ External Review and Comment
o Utilities*
❑ IDOT
❑ Other impacted governmental agencies
❑ Intra -City Review and Comment
❑ Public Works
❑ Streets
❑ Water
❑ Waste Water
❑ Traffic Engineering
• Parks Department
• Plantings in public ROW or park land
• Trails to be maintained by the Parks Department
• Planning
❑ Historic Preservation
❑ Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
• Transit
❑ Design Review Committee
❑ Fire Department — hydrant spacing and accesss issues
❑ Final Design
• Evaluate and incorporate comments
• Draft specifications
❑ Select appropriate sections of standard specifications
❑ Decide on specifier selected options
❑ Delete unnecessary language from sections
❑ Draft additional sections or amend existing sections as needed
• Estimate quantities
• Quality control review
• Surveying
• Inspection
• Engineer
• Refine cost estimate
• Establish contract period
• Estimate project duration*
• Establish early start date, late start date or completion date
• Establish liquidated damages*
❑ Apply for necessary Local, State and Federal Permits
*Denotes additional information or worksheets
February 10, 2002
0
0
m
W
C1
I*
O
O
N
W
m
m
W
H
IL
w
n_ y
b
R
N Q
Y
N
Y N
Dv'
7
a
ti
rooi
N
N
-
H
�
3
o
a
o�
0
LL
o
.p N
D Y
=1[
i
M
Y
N
rn
c
�
a
a
�
J
D
�(M
N
O�
V
�
N
Y
E
o
:fir
Cl
O
wd
E
SEMI
.�..
M
■■
25
CP
a o
a
EM
� 40
w
V)
Cl
an
. i
00
.�i
ao'
N
N
Q
cl}
N
W
D
H
rn
�
.N
I�
.--i
N
00
N
Y
Y
c
co
}
cc
o
Y
y:r
O
z
has
c"
O
O
\o
cc
Mal
M
.-i
O
N
N
■■
O
O
O>
W
ti
w
'd'
C7
0
N
W
m
0
U
O
1] a y
a
..O
O
a
Y
Y
�
D
F-
\0
M
O
N
O\
N
M
a
0
R
LL
N
CL
CL
c�
N
L
L
OIN
.-� to
p
00
.�i
N
Y
N
c
n.
}
d
n.
rn
c
�
d
•
d
=
VI
H
U
-
F
T
o
CL
a
i
00
n.
n.
n.
N
E
s
C
C
0
o
C)
D
'L
O
o
d cn
d
m
d
CP
3
O
O
O
�O
.M-i
■■
O
N
■■
%
N
■■
w
a° y
(: S
a
n.
d
F=-
n.
E
IS')
.Ni
N
0
a
d n.
V) C;
Y
in
m c
d
�
o�
CL
n. s
c
CL
a
114-
L
3
7
w
Y
o
H
.-,
00
-,
LO
N
0
P
W
W
K
I*
0
0
N
w
W
m
2
w
O
z
N
Q
0
Q
Q
Q
Ao
a
a
(Y)
O
i�
N
.n
.n
}
Q
�
Y
O
LL
LL
C
C
N
n'
3
r'
3
°�
a
O1
N
Lo
a
C1
�
H
�
cu
00
L
t
a
0
w
z
w
N d
CL
d
L
d
0if)
OV-4
II
N
L
d
M
.�i
V)
d
a
Q
0
O
jo
N
W
a
M
O
N
O\
N
M
Q
cl
z
cO
o
'>
-o
'>
o
a
o
�
n
y
N
.�
00
[�
i Y
3
N
io
N
n
0
0
ti
W
u
a
L d
N
d
N
N
N E
�Q N
o
0
'O
Q
o
o
>>
o N
V,
o
o
•~-�
N
f7
T
oii
o
H
W
d
0
ses
LL
Y
O
M
1-4
a
D
L
d
m
O
a
N
W
z
w
h
N
O�
. i
00
.�+
N
N
a
0
w
f-
O o
N
N
a
0
z
L
N
0
v
w
w
0
0
N
a
M
z
a
c
0
a
c
Y
m
3
c
0
0
E
a�
w
m
T
l0
�L
Q
Q
o
wa
a
�o
0
M
a
OD
.LOi
N
N
c
R c
c N
N rn
CL c
v
CL
c
}
Q
J
J D
J
V7 J
LL.
(�
ti
N
N
a
0
D
�N
N
.p
.Mi
a
0
LU
w
z
0
w
d
°-
a
d
In
ti
N to
m
W
7
J
y
C
�
C
F-
Q
d
.~-i+
co
N LO
a c
h
LL �
v
a
�Jo
0
z
N
N
o
O
cs
t
Cl
c
.-i
M 3 n
1-4
J L)
.°••/
J n
N
J
M
c
0
a
c
Y
m
3
c
0
0
E
a�
w
m
T
l0
�L
Q
Q
rnlr ��
DATE: September 8, 2004
TO: Charter Review Commission Members
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 0
RE: Meeting Schedule
At your September 8 meeting the following dates were set aside for
upcoming meetings:
September 27
September 29
October 11
October 12 (public hearing 7:00 -9:00 PM)
October 13
October 20
October 27
Please note them on your calendars. See you on the 27th
S:seploctsched ule.doc