Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-2004 Charter Review CommissionPage 2 September 27, 2004 PACKET CR22 Agenda 9 -27 CR23 Agenda 9 -29 CR24 Minutes of September 8 CR25 Draft of Public Hearing Notice October 11, 2004 PACKET CR26 Agenda 10 -11 CR27 Minutes of September 27 CR28 Minutes of September 29 CR29 Memorandum from City Attorney re Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter CR30 Copy of Request for Citizen Input CR31 Memorandum from City Clerk re Items Available for Public Input meeting CR32 Memorandum from City Clerk re Room Availability for Future Public Input Meeting CR33 Agenda 10 -12 CR34 Agenda 10 -13 October 20, 2004 PACKET CR35 Agenda 10 -20 CR36 Minutes of October 11 CR37 Minutes of October 12 CR38 Minutes of October 13 CR39 E -mail from Garry and Betsy Klein re Recommendations for the City Charter Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 3S6 -5000 (319) 3S6 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 7:00 -9:30 AM 1. Approve Minutes 2. Public Comment Receive letter from Garry Klein 3. Community Process Proposal submitted by Member Kubby 4. Publicity for December 1 public input session 5. Meeting Schedule (all meetings begin at 7:00 AM - 9:30 AM unless noted) October 27 November 8 November 22 December 1 (public input session; 5:30 PM; Library) 6. Review Charter 7. Old Business 8. Adjournment (9:30 AM) MINUTES CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2004 — 7:00 AM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL DRAFT Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick (left at 9:25 AM), Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:50 AM), Lynn Rowat, William Sueppel, Chair Members Absent: Vicki Lensing Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:05 AM. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27 and SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 Chairperson Sueppel asked if the members had any corrections or comments for the minutes. Davidsen said she had comments for the September 29 minutes; she then moved to approve the September 27, 2004, minutes. MOTION: Davidsen moved to accept the September 27, 2004, minutes as written; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 8 -0. Davidsen stated that she wanted it made clear that the representatives that spoke from the League of Women Voters were there on their own, and speaking for the League. She stated that the second sentence, under Public Comment, "The League spoke with twenty - five some different individuals, and have come up with specific observations and points that they want the Charter Review Committee to be aware of" Davidsen would like it made clearer that these people were speaking as individuals, and not as the League of Women Voters. Sueppel stated that he understood it to be the reports of others' comments. Novick stated that the League has a study committee that has done some interviews, and these comments were from that study group, and not from the League itself. She suggested that they mention the Regional Government Committee. Karr said she would add the Regional Government Committee to the second line, and members agreed. Sueppel stated that he has not noticed mention of Kubby's report on voting returns. Karr said it was distributed at the meeting on the 29 "i, but that it was not formally accepted. Sueppel asked that some mention be made of this report. MOTION: Chappell moved to accept the September 29, 2004, minutes as amended; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Charter Review Commission October 11, 2004 Page 2 REVIEW CHARTER Chappell discussed Dilkes' memo of July 26, 2001, in regards to Proposed Amendments to the Home Rule Charter. Three amendments were proposed at that time for: 1) to provide for Council appointment of both the City Manager and the Chief of Police, and to have each subject to a retention vote; 2) to make permanent the Police Citizens Review Board; 3) create a new article directing the police to use citation in lieu of arrest for non- violent misdemeanor offenses to limit the use of certain police procedures, and giving non - violent offenders the opportunity to show up voluntarily instead of arresting them. After giving some history on the decisions at that time, Chappell asked if anyone felt that these issues should be part of the Charter amendments, and if so, which do people want to pursue further. Members showed an interest in discussing the City Manager and Police Chief positions, and how the appointments are made. At the request of the Commission, Karr explained her involvement in the process used in the past, where a staff team gave their recommendations to the City Manager for the current Police Chief position. Rowat talked about the accountability of these positions, and the part the Council plays in this. The members discussed how the Police Chief position is different from other department heads within the City, and also how policy is made within the City and its various departments. Dilkes stated that it has always been interpreted that the City Manager would have the City Council approve his selection for Police Chief. Green asked if everyone would give their opinion on the issue of having the Police Chief appointed by the Council. Kubby stated she would be in favor. Chappell said he would be in favor of looking into the issue further. Novick stated she would not be in favor. Green stated he would be in favor. Sueppel and Werner both stated they would not be. (TAPE ENDS) Davidson stated she would be interested in a Police Citizen Review Board, and encourage an ordinance to the effect of that. Karr stated that there is such a board now. Davidsen stated that having this board more in the forefront would be her thought, but she wanted to think it over more. Rowat stated he would be opposed to the issue. It was decided that this issue would be revisited at a later date. The suggestion was also made to have the City Manager and/or the City Council members meet with the members, and have a discussion on whatever issues they feel need addressed. (BREAK) REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS Rowat asked if they could review tomorrow's public hearing process, before they start the review process of the Charter. The members agreed with Sueppel that they were happy with the announcement of the hearing. Karr asked the members if they wanted to tentatively set a second public hearing date. It was decided to look at Wednesday, December I", at the library, 5:30 PM. Since Davidson will not be available on December 15t, Karr will get a tape of that hearing to her. REVIEW CHARTER (cont.) Dilkes stated that there were a number of questions posed to her by members as they carried out their review process the first time through. She is planning on having a memo for the members, with her opinions and any answers to questions posed, by the end of the month. Charter Review Commission October 11, 2004 Page 3 The Commission began the re- review of the Charter, beginning with the Preamble. There were no changes or additions voiced. MOTION: Davidson moved to TA (temporarily approve) the Preamble of the Charter; seconded by Green. Motion carried 8 -0. Definitions — Davidsen questioned items 11 and 12, and Dilkes noted the change made with the use of "measure." The issue of a directly elected mayor was discussed, and it was noted that this section would have to change if that process were to change. MOTION: Green moved to TA the Definitions section of the Charter; Rowat seconded. Motion carried 8 -0. Article I Powers of the City — Sueppel asked if there were any comments or questions. MOTION: Kubby moved to TA all of Article I; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 8 -0. Article II City Council — Davidsen asked about "eligible electors" and what the rationale is in not having "qualified electors." Karr stated that this is State code. Sueppel stated they would first look at Section 2.01. Composition. Novick stated that she has questions regarding the districts only, but not the seven - member council. MOTION: Rowat moved to TA Section 2.01 Composition as is in the Charter; seconded by Davidson. Motion carried 8 -0. Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in charging the number of Council members, as far as at -large versus district. Kubby asked that they put this in the "discussion hopper," as it is something she wants to revisit, once they get through some other topics. Chappell noted that his suggestion initially was to have the mayor position be an at -large position, and not be a monumental change, as some have suggested. Discussion continued with members reviewing the issue of having the mayor be in an at -large seat, along with three other at -large members, and the remaining three members would be from specific districts. Karr questioned how often the mayoral position would be elected, and it was stated that it would be every four years, like other Council seats. The members agreed that this issue would need to be addressed further. (Green left meeting at 8:50 AM) (TAPE ENDS) The discussion continued on the topic of how many Council members to have, and whether they should be at -large or district seats, and also how the mayoral position would fit in with this. Rowat stated that he is not uncomfortable with having the mayor elected, but that it seems more ceremonial than substantive in nature. Davidson stated that she feels there are two different questions here, one being representation of the people by district. She feels this is totally separate than the mayoral issue. Sueppel stated that he does not see any advantage of having an elected mayor, and that it would throw a wrench Charter Review Commission October 11, 2004 Page 4 into the current process of government in Iowa City. He feels the members need to review this further, to see if a change such as this would be a benefit. He would like to hear from previous Council members on this issue too. The issue of leaders was briefly discussed, with the issue of "strong leaders" being tossed around. Members also discussed the powers that a mayor should or should not have, as well as political platforms and how these issues effect the position. (Novick left meeting at 9:25 AM). The members decided they will revisit this topic again at another meeting, as they have several issues to decide before they can further TA the Charter. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Chappell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 AM; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 6 -0 (Green and Novick left meeting early). MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION — PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 — 7:00 PM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, William Sueppel, Chair; Kevin Werner, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the public hearing to order at 7:00 PM. He briefly reviewed the steps that the Commission has taken to date including 9 meetings and 17 hours of discussion. He emphasized to the public that the task of the Commission is to review the Charter, and to make any appropriate amendments to the City Council. The City Council's role is to submit these amendments to the people for a vote. He encouraged input from the public. PUBLIC INPUT Garry Klein spoke to the Commission, giving three general statements regarding the Charter. He feels the Preamble sets the tone of what the Charter ought to be. He touched on open meetings, and the chance for the public to take part. He suggested an appendix to the Charter, where ordinances and laws were referenced, and more explanation of terns. In looking at Article II, he said that it is clear that with growth they also need to change the districts. Klein went on to say that he feels the mayoral position should be an elected one. In regards to 2.08, City hiring, he noted that the Police and Fire Chief are hired by the City Manager. Klein feels the City Council should be part of this process. Section 2.09 — Klein stated that the wording "may make its own rules" caught his attention in this section. Under Section 2. 10, he asked what the state law is in regards to this, and said having that state law would help the average citizen understand the Charter better. Bob Elliott, current Council Member, spoke on the issue of the number of council members and districts. He stated that the at -large seats are very important, and he feels they should continue to form the majority of the representation. He thanked the Charter Review Commission for the fine job they are doing thus far. Klein returned to the podium to speak. He spoke next about Section 4.02 — Conflict of Interest — stating that there is nothing in the Charter about there being no compensation other than that provided by the City. Section 4.04 B.2. — he feels this should be made clearer. Next he discussed 5.01, which deals with the formation of commissions, task forces, workgroups, etc., and stated that he feels there should be a better than majority reason to disband a group. He suggests adding "with 2 /3rds of the Council's approval (5/7) to change or disband.......," stating that they should enlarge the definition to encompass all of these various groups. Charter Review Commission October 12, 2004 Page 2 Klein went on to mentioned Section 7.01 A.1, stating that as a point of clarity, the wording should be changed, but lie did not have a good replacement. 7.01. B. 1. g. — he asked to add the words "except City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and other elected officials'; as this section has to do with salaries. He stated that he feels at the city level there should be more control over this, and the voters should have a say as to elected officials getting raises. Under section 7.01 B. 1. j, he suggests the wording, "except for in the case of things that would be protected by state or federal law." 7.03 A — lie stated he has some trouble with this one due to the requirement of being a qualified voter. He states it should say "eligible voters" as they should still be able to partake in the petition process. 7.05 A — "similar in substance" — Klein asked what this means exactly. Under 7.06 A, Klein said this section is unclear, and he used the municipal electric issue as an example. Dilkes explained to him that this referendum type is not the referendum under the Charter but is a franchise issue covered by state law. Lastly, section 8.02 — formation of commissions — Klein asked how commissions are selected, using the Charter Review Commission as an example. Sueppel explained the reverse referendum process to Klein. Again, Dilkes noted that many of these issues are covered by state code. Klein wrapped up his presentation asking why the Charter Review is done every ten years, instead of yearly. He stated that with the growth in Iowa City, a review done more often would be beneficial. Sueppel explained that the Charter can be amended at any time, and that it is J ust the Commission that meets every ten years for a review process. Sueppel reminded the public that there will be at least five more meetings, starting at 7:00 AM and running through 9:30 AM, and he suggested that the public either attend those meetings, or send written concerns to the Commission. There will also be another public hearing in the near future. Karr asked for a motion to accept correspondence. MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence from Rod Sullivan; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Novick moved to adjourn; Green seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM. CM 8 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004 — 7:00 AM HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Andy Chappell, Penny Davidsen, Karen Kubby, Naomi Novick, Kevin Werner, Nate Green (left at 8:45 AM), Lynn Rowat, Vicki Lensing, William Sueppel, Chair Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:03 AM. APPROVE MINUTES None. The Commission members briefly discussed "10 Years of District Elections" spreadsheet prepared by the City Clerk (at the request of the Chair) to show outcome of district primaries; and the outcome of district general elections broken down within the district and citywide. REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT AT OCTOBER 12 PUBLIC HEARING Sueppel stated that he was somewhat disappointed at the turnout at last night's public hearing. The "transparency" issue of the Charter was discussed, and Sueppel suggested that the City Council may wish to direct the City Attorney to prepare an explanation of the Charter, and where the various sections come from, by referencing State Code, etc. They could then have this explanation available along with the Charter. The members discussed various issues, such as an appendix to the Charter, and whether they should pursue a more annotated version of the Charter. Sueppel suggested there be a "Citizen's Guide to the Iowa City Charter," where a citizen's group would sit down and prepare a guide to help the general public understand the City Charter. Dilkes stated that she would be more comfortable having the City Attorney's office work on this guide, although citizen input would be very helpful in creating such a guide. Kubby's handout to the members of "A Community Process" was discussed next. Sueppel asked how the members wanted to handle this. Karr stated that if the members plan to make Kubby's proposal part of the next public hearing, then they need to publicize differently. It was decided that Kubby's proposal would be added to the October 20'h meeting agenda and discussed at that time. REVIEW CHARTER Sueppel noted that the members have received Dilkes' red -lined version of the Charter. The discussion picked up with Section 2.01 Composition. Sueppel stated that since they Charter Review Commission October 13, 2004 Page 2 still have issues with the at -large versus district representation, and the issue of how they are elected, as well as how the mayoral seat is chosen, they would move on to Section 2.02 Division into council districts. Chappell stated that he feels they should wait until they have the actual language, so as to eliminate any confusion. Section 2.03 Eligibility had one change, using "an eligible elector" instead of "a domiciliary." MOTION: Kubby moved to TA 2.03 Eligibility as written; seconded by Lensing. Motion carried 9 -0. The discussion turned to Section 2.04 Terms. Sueppel asked if anyone felt there should be any changes to this section. It was noted that if there were any amendments to the composition of the City Council, then there could also be a change in this section. However, it was felt that "terms" should be left as is for now. MOTION: Novick moved to TA 2.04 Terms as written; Lensing seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Section 2.05 Compensation — It was noted that this topic was mentioned in a letter the Commission received from Rod Sullivan. Sueppel asked if anyone was interested in discussing full -time positions for the Council members, and no one indicated an interest. Davidsen noted that she would like to see Section 2.05 changed into two separate sentences, with the first sentence ending with, "...the Mayor and the other Council members." The word "and" would be removed, and the second sentence would start, "The Council shall not adopt such..." MOTION: Davidsen proved to eliminate the "," and remove the word "and ", starting a second sentence as noted above; seconded by Novick. Motion carried 9 -0. MOTION: Chappell moved to TA 2.05 Compensation as amended; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 9 -0. Section 2.06 Mayor — discussion turned to the next section, and it was noted that this section would involve more lengthy discussions. From the public comments received thus far, it was noted that there is an interest in looking into having a directly elected mayor. Discussion centered on leadership, and how the members view this position of leadership; whether or not this position should be elected by the citizens or by the other Council members; and whether the process of election would change who runs for the seat. Lensing brought up experience, and stated that if they changed the process, it could open the door for less experienced people. Kubby stated that she feels the electorate should have a more direct voice in who becomes mayor. Sueppel stated that in looking at the history of the City's mayors, most times the person selected was one who tended to be a leader anyway. Sueppel noted that any changes to this process would encompass huge changes for the City, and the members need to keep this in mind. Chappell noted that there is the perception that it is more democratic to have a directly elected mayor. Charter Review Commission October 13, 2004 Page 3 Kubby stated that she has heard several in the community discuss a directly elected mayor, and she would be interested in considering this as well. Davidsen stated that she sees that it is the activists in the community that are interested in this type of change, not the masses, and that it's an ever changing discussion. (TAPE ENDS) Rowat stated that he is concerned about the logistics and experience issue when it comes to a directly elected mayor. He feels that there needs to be some type of educational or learning curve that a person would need in order to lead the city. Davidsen stated that she wanted to reiterate that the current form of government in Iowa City is working, and working well. She noted that the Council members are directly elected, and she gave some history on the City's government. Sueppel stated that many positions within the City used to be elected positions, but that was changed about fifty years ago, as there were inherent problems with this. He further noted that the City is a Chatter form of govermnent, not a City Manager form of government, but that we do use a mix of both forms. Chappell noted that if you look back to about thirty years ago, the original Charter Commission had lengthy discussions about the same issue of whether the mayor should be directly elected or not. The reasons given back then included that if you had an elected mayor, that position and the City Manger position would be at odds with each other. Novick noted that Coralville has an independently elected mayor, and also a professional City Manager, and she asked the members to think about whether or not this works well. Sueppel noted that they have a different form of government in Coralville. Novick stated that site feels they should move on in their discussions, and reconsider this section next week. Green stated that he feels they should address this issue first, as future decisions will hinge upon their decision here. Werner noted that he questions term limits, and asked if other members were interested in this discussion. Lensing suggested that the Commission publicize a decision on this issue, as this would cause some reaction in the public, which would then bring in more public input. Sueppel asked the members to state if they want to leave 2.06 Mayor as is, or entertain a change to have the mayor elected by the people. Chappell stated lie would be interested in change; Novick stated she prefers to leave it as is; Lensing stated she would keep it as is, and wants to encourage more discussion; Green stated he would keep it as is, but that he is open to change; Sueppel noted he would stay as is; Werner would also keep it as is; Kubby noted she would be interested in change; Davidsen stated she would keep it as is, but is open to change; and Rowat also would keep it as is, but is open to change also. The members agreed that more public input is needed and must be encouraged. The discussion turned to term limits, and Kubby asked if anyone wanted to discuss this issue. It was noted that the current mayor, Ernie Lehman, is. on his fourth tern. Karr recalled two others have had three terms each, in regards to the mayoral seat. No further interest was shown on this topic, so the Chair opted to move on. Section 2.07 General Powers and Duties — Sueppel noted that Garry Klein at the public hearing the previous evening had questioned this section. Dilkes rioted that the initiative and referendum section is a good example of why this wording is needed, and Sueppel agreed. Charter Review Commission October 13, 2004 Page 4 MOTION: Kubby moved to TA Section 2.07; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 9 -0. Section 2.08 Appointments — Green started the conversation with the topic of the Police Chief being elected by the Council, stating that this is the section that would go under. It was also noted that Garry Klein had noted both the Police and Fire Chiefs should be hired this way. Novick mentioned a public security position, and whether the City should consider such a position. Sueppel started reading Section 2.08, noting that subsections A, B, C, and D all seem to be fine as is. He questioned the second section of E, where it talks about job - related criteria. He feels this should be a subsection of its own. Sueppel then asked if anyone wanted to discuss the appointment of the Police Chief; and Kubby stated that she feels they should have a discussion about it. She questions why this department is different from other city departments that provide a service. Dilkes noted that these positions are subject to the civil service testing process. Discussion continued among the members, with several giving their view of whether or not the Police and Fire Chief positions should be appointed by the Council, or by the City Manager. Karr reminded the Commission that the City Manager is available to attend one of their meetings, if they would like to discuss any of these issues with him. (TAPE ENDS) Kubby asked what kind of effects would take place internally, asking if it would raise tensions within departments, or cause any problems. hn response to Kubby, Karr noted that a worse case scenario would be that the Chiefs would have two bosses, so to speak. Chappell asked if it would cause a negative change, or any legal changes. The discussion ended with members deciding to continue this issue at the next Charter Review meeting. ADJOURNMENT Sueppel noted that he will not be able to make the October 20°i meeting as he will be out of town. He and Karr discussed setting him up for a telephone conference. Green left the meeting at 8:45. MOTION: Davidsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 AM; seconded by Rowat. Motion carried 8 -0 (Green left meeting early). Marian Karr prom: Garry and Betsy Klein [the3rdiowa @mchsi.com] ant: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:17 AM ro: citycharter @iowa- city.org Subject: Recommendations for the City Charter Commission on City Charter Review.doc Members of the Chart Review Commission, I appreciated the opportunity to address you last night. As you suggested, attached are my recommendations for the city charter. The viewpoint I come from is one of a consumer of government services. Transparency in the Charter is paramount to transparency in city governance. Citizens should not see government participation as a daunting task, but as I learned last night it takes a wealth of information to understand the intricacies. Garry Klein 628 2nd Ave. Iowa City, IA 52245 * ** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content * ** * ** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders * ** 1 Charter Review Recommendations Garry Klein 6282 "d Ave. City Charter Review The City Charter preamble does a good job of setting the tone of what the charter ought to be. The only addition I would suggest is: The Charter of Iowa City will skive to provide transparency in the democratic process that is governance. Citizens should be able to understand and easily access public information and be able to follow the process of governance. All open meetings should provide the public an opportunity to provide input. Generally: where ordinances and state laws are invoked, the charter should have the relevant portions included in the document (may be appendicized). Also, legal terms like "home rule" , domiciliary should be added to definitions for laypersons Article 2 City Council: 1.) Iowa City grows, it is clear that representation has to shift as well. Tire current charter is vague as to when council members districts enlarge because there is not a set percentage of population the council district serves. The charter should allow for either enlarging districts or adding additional districts. While adding council members is more expensive, it is fair to say that the citizens would be better served by a council that understands their concerns and represents their viewpoint. 2.) 2.02 The city should be divided into 6 districts and should have the same rules for petitioning, etc. At large districts imply that there are people not being represented by districts. If this is true, then districts need to be added, If false, why would at large council districts need to exist at all? 3.) 2.06.B: The mayor's position by the wording of the charter extends powers to the mayor that other council members do not hold. As the person who represents the citizens of Iowa City, it would seem appropriate that the position be decided by the qualified electorate rather than by the Council. 4.) 2.08: What about Public Safety Chiefs, City Onnbudspersoi ✓Civil Right/ Human Rights Coordinator shouldn't these positions be have input by council? 5.) Section 2.09 very vague: needs transparency 6.) 2.10 What is the sate law, include it here. 7.) Election. In lieu of a elongated election season, which is expensive, election races should consider incorporating instant innoff to decide who serves on council. 8.) Section 4.02: Conflict of Interest: The city manager will engage in no activities that she/he receives direct financial compensation or benefit based on her/his employment with the city. 9.) Section 4.04 B.2: Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any department or the conduct of any employee under the supervision of the City Manager except in the case where there is a direct conflict of interest (e.g., suspected wrong -doing involving the City Manager). In this instance, the County Attorney's office will intervene. 10.) Section 5.01 Add "with 2/3 of Council's approval" to change or disband a commission/workgroup or taskforce. 11.) Section 7.0I.A.1: Define how initiative can be presented to the council. The wording is vague. 12.) Section 7.01 A.2 : Define how initiative can be presented to the council. The wording is vague. 13.) Section 7.0.1.B.l.g: except City Council, Mayor, City Manager and other elected officials Charter Review Recommendations Garry Klein 6282 d Ave. 14.) Section 7.0.I.B.I.j: except or protected by state or federal law" 15.) Section 7.03.A "must be signed by eligible electors" because a petitioner is not registered to vote should not disqualify them from participating in petitioning. 16.) 7.05.A "similar in substance" needs clearer definition. 17.) 7.0.6.A. If conflicting ordinances are approved..." This is a sticky point. The municipal electricity referendum items are examples of when this point could be used. Is it clear to the average voter that this is in the charter? I hadn't heard or seen it before reviewing it for tonight. It lacks transparency. 18.) Section 8.02: Where is the transparency as to how this commission is selected, the qualifications of the membership, how many members it should have, defined public input into the process, input as to why members should/shouldn't serve /conflict of interest Also, all changes to the charter should be approved by voters. By allowing the city to amend the charter by ordinance, it esentially gives the power of changing the ordinance to the Council rather than the electorate, who conceivably will affected by the changes up to at least 10 years after the charter is amended. w-4 �t- ��uPSle� G y r1ler�i�rr /I/U(ll c k Population of Johnson County Municipalities (Incorporated Places) Coralville 6,130 7,687 10,347 15,123 North Liberty 1,055 2,046 2,926 5,367' Oxford 666 676 663 705 Hills 507 547 662 679 Lone Tree 834 1,040 979 1,151 Solon 837 969 1,050 1,177 Swisher 417 654 645 813 Shueyville 154 287 223 250 Tiffin 299 413 460 975 University Heights 1,265 1,069 1,042 987 Johnson County Incorporated 59,014 65,896 78,735 89,447 Johnson County Unincorporated 13,113 15,821 17,384 21,559 Johnson County Total 72,127 81,717 96,119 111,006 ' The 2000 Census official population count for Iowa City is 63,027. Though the Census Bureau did revise the total population count figure, it did not revise any of the subtotal figures (population by race, by age, by tract, etc.). The population figure for Iowa City throughout the Community Profile is 62,220 because the sum of all subtotals equals 62,220. 2 North Liberty conducted a recent census showing a population of 7,224 as of April 2004. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of Population, 1990 & 2000. On December 6, 2001 the Census Bureau issued an official statement revising the total population count for Iowa City. 20 Iowa City Community Profile 2004