Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-2014 Charter Review CommissionCHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Page 2 September 27, 2004 PACKET CR22 Agenda 9 -27 CR23 Agenda 9 -29 CR24 Minutes of September 8 CR25 Draft of Public Hearing Notice 1 09 -27.04 MG ...iu CR22 +. wy�aoi�i CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa city. Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 3S6 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX wwW.icgov.org CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Monday, September 27, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:00 -9:30 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment 3. Review Charter 4. Public hearing process Time limitations Discussion /response Publicity 5. Future Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM) a. Dates already set aside September 29 October 11 October 12 (public hearing 7:00 -9:00 PM) October 13 October 20 October 27 6. Old Business 7. Adjournment (9:30 AM) �r I ^ °I CR23 wwa CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:00 -9:30 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment 3. Review Charter 4. Public hearing process Time limitations Discussion /response to comments Publicity Future Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM) a. Dates already set aside October 11 October 12 (public hearing 7:00 -9:00 PM) October 13 October 20 October 27 6. Old Business 7. Adjournment (9:30 AM) CR24 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 — 7:00 AM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, Lyme Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green Members Absent: Vicki Lensing Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes, Rick Fosse CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:00 AM. He noted that Lensing would not be present at this meeting. APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26,200 Sueppel asked if everyone had reviewed the minutes. Chappell noted that on page 3, second full paragraph, nine lines down: "Chappell stated that the original Charter Review Commission removed this [emergency exception] from the list in the model charter..." He asked to clarify this statement by adding that it was a later Charter Review Commission that removed this, as the original Charter did have the provision on emergency ordinances. MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the August 26, 2004, minutes as written. Chappell seconded. Motion carried 8 — 0 (Lensing absent). PUBLIC COMMENT Sueppel stated that there was one public continent from John Neff, which is outlined in a memo from John. MOTION: Novick moved to accept the correspondence from John Neff. Davidsen seconded. Motion carried 8 — 0 (Lensing absent). REVIEW CHARTER — Article VII Initiative and Referendum Sueppel noted that everyone should have received a copy of Dilkes' memo regarding the proposed amendment to Section 7.01— using the word "measure" in place of "ordinance." At the last meeting, the members had asked that Dilkes review this section, and give them a proposed amendment. Kubby asked if it wouldn't be better to have Public Works Director Rick Fosse speak with them first about the time -line for capital projects issue that they had previously questioned. Members agreed. Fosse gave some background on the time -line handout that the members had been given. He noted that this is a general guideline for the projects in Public Works. Members asked general questions about projects of this nature. Kubby questioned when the public is aware of capital improvement projects — at what stage do people pay attention. Fosse stated that they now have what they call a pre - design meeting, where they go out and Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 2 meet with neighbors in the area where a project is being planned. This way they can talk with those in the area and get their concerns up front. Sueppel asked where on the time- line does the City Council become involved. Fosse explained that they do not even begin to design a project without a funding source, so this involves the Council, as they must have the funding in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Sueppel asked Dilkes where she draws the line between Administrative and Legislative on these issues. Dilkes gave examples from the First Avenue project, and how she made her determinations on that particular project. She stated that the Charter's current wording is not clear at all, and that this is a concern. Rowat stated that he feels using "public improvements," instead of "capital improvements," would make this issue clearer. Kubby asked where the first "legislative" issue is, after the property acquisition begins. Fosse stated that the first legislative point is approval of the Capital Programs; secondly, the point where they would go to the Council to start the acquisition process; and the third legislative action begins with the bidding process and public hearings. The final legislative action is to accept the public improvement. Dilkes reiterated her concern on where this line is between legislative and administrative. Sueppel stated that the real question is whether the citizens should have the right to do their own legislation on Capital Projects. Discussions continued on this issue, and whether or not the citizens should be able to stop a capital project once it has begun, and various other related issues. Sueppel asked if members would give their thinking on the present issue, and he asked Chappell to start. Chappell stated that he feels this is a balancing issue, and that it does need to be more clear. He likes the idea of the "property acquisition" being their "line," and is not comfortable with taking this out completely. Kubby and Green both stated they agree with Chappell. Novick stated that she would consider removing capital improvement projects if they are defined in some way, with an exception, although she is not sure yet what that exception should be. Werner stated that he is also in agreement with Chappell. Davidsen noted that she believes the citizens have a right to question capital improvement programs, and that specific projects also need citizen input. She stated she agrees with Chappell, but that this needs to stay in in some way. Rowat stated that public input and the right to question almost anything is very important. He said it seems they are all leaning towards cutting this process off, but that there needs to be perhaps a better way to publicize these issues to the citizens. Sueppel stated that whether there is property acquisition or not in a project, there needs to be some type of time -line, and he feels that the public has the right to vote on these issues of capital improvement by affecting Council. (TAPE ENDS) Discussion continued among the members, with questions being asked of Fosse on the time -line of City projects. Sueppel asked if anyone had anything else to add to the discussion. Davidsen stated that she felt they had had a good discussion, and that she would like to hear what Dilkes thinks about the point of property acquisition being the point of cutting off initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated this does help the line- drawing issue of capital projects, and she gave various examples of acquiring property and how the City Council handles these matters. Karr also gave background on the types Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 3 of calls and questions the City gets from the public on how they go about stopping various projects. Sueppel asked for clarification of the city budget and how the capital improvement plan plays into this. Dilkes and Karr responded that the budget is not the capital improvement plan, but that a lump sum for the CIP is in the budget. Members discussed CIP from the past, such as the First Avenue project, and how the City handled the problems that arose at that time. Chappell stated that he would make a motion to add the exclusion, item (K), and asked that Dilkes give them some language based on his motion. The discussion continued with Dilkes asking for clarification from the members on the wording of this exclusion. The Commission agreed that they want to include all projects that would appear on the CIP, regardless of size. MOTION: Chappell moved to add Limitation (K) to exclude from Initiative and Referendum, public improvements after such point that the City has authorized or has acquired property. Kubby seconded. Motion carried 8 — 0 (Lensing absent). Sueppel then asked the members if they were ready to start on (J). His proposal was, "Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance are excluded, deleting the 2 -acre exception." Kubby stated that she still feels this issue should be open to the public, and that she does not agree with adding the Comprehensive Plan, as suggested. The discussion continued with various members giving their views on this, and Dilkes stated that she could give them a legal opinion on this issue. Sueppel said an opinion was not necessary. MOTION: Sueppel moved to amend (J) by adding Comprehensive Plan and deleting the 2 -acre exception. Rowat seconded. Motion carried 7 —1 (Kubby voting the negative; Lensing absent). (BREAK) FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Sueppel asked that they skip ahead to discuss future meeting dates as Green and Kubby have to leave early. Meetings have been set for September 27 and 29; and October 13 and 20, with all meetings running 7 AM to 9:30 AM. Sueppel stated that he would be gone on the 20`h of October, and wondered if October 11'h would work. Novick asked that they plan a public hearing early in October, so that Davidsen could be part of that process, as she will be leaving the end of October. Rowat asked for clarification of what type of format this public hearing would be. Sueppel stated that they need to make some decisions before they hold this public hearing, so there will be items for public discussion. Some outstanding issues are: today's decisions of increasing or clarifying initiative or referendum limitations; the directly- elected mayor issue; and the district versus at -large seats issue. (TAPE ENDS) Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 4 Discussion returned to whether or not the members could meet on October I Ph. It was agreed to add this date to the October schedule. Sueppel then asked if the members wanted to have the public hearing on the evening of October 13`'. Dilkes reminded them that they need to leave plenty of time in order to get packets out, a press release done, and public notification given. Davidsen stated that she feels they should have a less structured public hearing, with this first one being fairly open to whatever discussions come up. (Green left mtg. 8:45 AM) Chappell stated that he recommends that Karr come to the next meeting with a list of potential dates for public hearings, and that they add to the agenda what they want exactly for the public hearing discussion to be, as well as type of format for the hearing. Karr asked for some direction from the members, and asked that they give her two or three dates, and time of day as well. After much discussion, the members decided to meet October 11 and 13, from 7 -9 AM for their regular review meeting, and to look at October 12, from 7 -9 PM for the public hearing. It was also agreed that October 20 and 27°i would be regular morning meetings, and if changes need to be made to the schedule, they can always cancel. REVIEW CHARTER (coat.) Sueppel next discussed Dilkes' memo to the Commission, regarding the proposed amendment to Section 7.01— Ordinance vs. Measure. A brief discussion ensued where members asked Dilkes how this amendment will make the Charter clearer, and which wording changes were made to this section. MOTION: Chappell moved to approve the amendment to the Charter, in accordance with Dilkes' draft of September 1, 2004. Davidsen seconded. Motion carried 7 — 0 (Green and Lensing absent). Sueppel reviewed what has been accomplished on Section B. Limitations, (1) Subject Matter thus far: agreed to add some language (k) to exclude capital projects after property has been acquired and amend 0) regarding zoning. Various discussions took place to clarify these amendments, and Dilkes will work with the wording and present it to the Commission. Sueppel next addressed (2) Resubmission and the 2 -year date. There were no changes or additions made here. Kubby asked about B (3) Council Repeal, Amendment and Reenactment, and if there was, for example, an initiative that passed, can the Council be inactive on this specific issue, or must they act on it. C. Construction (1) Scope of Power — Chappell asked if the word "voters" should be changed to "electors." Sueppel stated that it would be helpful if the members would make note of language and grammatical errors, versus substantial changes, so that these changes can be adopted by the Council sooner. Discussion next turned to (2) Initiative (a) and Sueppel questioned the repeal part of this section. Novick stated that she has a problem with this one due to the wording. She would like to simplify this and say, "A petition will be valid if it repeals or amends," rather than "no petition will be invalid." Other members noted that this would be a substantive change, and Dilkes gave some examples. Charter Review Commission September 8, 2004 Page 5 (3) Referendum — Sueppel stated that he has no problems with this section. (Kubby left at 9:20 AM) The discussion next turned to D. Effect of Filing Petition. There were no additions or changes to this section. E. City Obligations — the next section was discussed, and Dilkes' changes were noted. Discussion of Section 7.01. General Provisions was wrapped up at 9:25 AM. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 AM. Rowat seconded. Motion carried 6 — 0 (Kubby, Green, and Lensing absent). PUBLIC HEARING Iowa City's Charter Review Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the Iowa City Charter for Tuesday evening, October 12, 7:00 -9:00 PM, in Hai-vat Hall of City Hall, 410 East Washington Street. The Iowa City Charter is a document that determines how the government of Iowa City is organized, and is reviewed every ten years. Some items currently being reviewed by the Commission include: District Council Seats Nomination from and primary election in district /election at large Number of districts Mayor - Currently elected by vote of Council; should Mayor be elected? Initiative and referendum procedures exclusions Citizens are encouraged to attend the hearing or submit written comments to the Commission % City Clerk, 410 East Washington Street (deadline date or not). Copies of the Charter are available on the city website wNvcv.icgov.org; in the City Clerk's office at 410 East Washington Street; or at the Public Library, address insert. Minutes of the Commission meetings are also available on line (provide link) or in the City Clerk's office.