HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2005 Charter Review Commissionr ■ A
Page 4
December 1, 2004 PACKET
CR67 Agenda for 12 -1
CR68 Minutes of November 22
CR69 Invitation to local High Schools
December 8, 2004 PACKET
CR70 Agenda for 12 -8
CR71 Minutes of December 1
CR72 Letter from Carol deProsse
CR73 December 1 Materials
-KXIC Interview
-Sign In Sheets
-Copy of Media Coverage
CR74 Video On Demand (VOD) Request
January 6, 2005 PACKET
CR75 Agenda for 1 -6
CR76 Minutes from December 8
CR77 Minutes from December 13
CR78 Presentation of Recommendations to Council
CR79 Copy of memo sent to attendees of December 1 Community Discussion
O /Z75
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, January 6, 2005
3:30 PM — 7:00 PM
City Hall, Harvat Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. Approve Minutes (12/08 and 12/13)
2. Public Comment
Receive correspondence
3. Review Charter
4. Request for Video On Demand (VOD) Information
5. Presentation to Council
6. Meeting Schedule
January 13 (7:00 PM; Harvat Hall; televised)
January 14 (7:30 AM — 9:00 AM; Harvat Hall)
7 Old Business
8. Adjournment (7:00 PM)
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 — 7:00 AM
IIARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, and William Sueppel, Chair
Members Absent: Nate Green, Lynn Rowat
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:05 AM.
APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22 and DECEMBER 1 2004
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept the minutes of November 22, 2004, as
submitted; seconded by Chappell. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green, Rowat absent).
MOTION: Novick moved to accept the minutes of December 1, 2004, as submitted
(discussion to follow); seconded by Kubby. Motion carried 7 -0 (Green, Rowat
absent).
Novick questioned Page 3, the second paragraph, where her presentation at the
community process is noted. She questioned the last bulleted item, and stated that she
feels the way it is written up, it sounds like a "conclusion." She also questioned the
notation to neighborhood associations and their role in the community. Chappell stated
that lie was fine with these general descriptions of what their group brought up. After a
brief discussion among the members, Novick agreed to keep the minutes as written.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sueppel noted that the members had received a letter from Carol deProsse; another from
John Neff, and one from Jay Honohan as well.
MOTION: Kubby moved to accept correspondence; seconded by Chappell. Motion
carried 7 -0 (Green, Rowat absent).
Sueppel recognized two visitors at the meeting. John McDonald introduced himself to
the Commission. He stated he would submit his ideas in writing. The other visitor was a
reporter from the U of L Kubby noted that John was the Chair of the last Charter Review
Commission.
REVIEW DECEMBER 1 COMMUNITY PROCESS SESSION
Davidsen asked for a brief summary from one of the members on how they felt the public
process went on December 1. Sueppel stated that he has had very positive feedback on
the type of meeting they had, and he thanked Kubby for her persistence in having this
Charter Review Commission
December 8, 2004
Page 2
format. Kubby noted that one comment that really intrigued her was made by John
Balmer, where he stated he would be "disenfranchised" if he was not able to vote for all
of the districts.
REVIEW CHARTER
Sueppel noted that with both Green and Rowat absent, he would be reluctant to make any
final decisions today. He asked the members how they felt about this. It was decided
that the members would just discuss today, and would hold off on making any specific
decisions until all nine members are present. Karr noted that the January 20 date, for the
next public hearing, is the same night as the Chamber's Annual Dinner.
The first issue to be discussed was whether the voters should elect the mayor, or stay as is
— elected by the other members of the council. Ile asked the members for their
discussions on the strong mayor versus weak mayor concept. Discussion continued on
the powers of the mayor, and whether or not these powers should change, and also the
perceptions of these powers. Sueppel stated that perhaps the Commission should send a
report to the City Council, outlining some of the concerns the public has voiced in this
area. Novick stated that a comment made by John Neff struck her as unusual, in that he
states that the city manager position has too much power, and that it is due in part to the
city council allowing it. Davidsen stated that if these types of things are occurring, she
would like to see specific incidents to show this. Sueppel then asked each member to
give their view on whether or not they wish to pursue a change to the mayoral position —
how elected. The majority of members, Davidsen, Novick, Werner, Lensing, and
Sueppel, were not interested in pursuing a change in this area. Chappell and Kubby were
both for a directly elected mayor, by the voters. The issue of term limits was raised, as
well. It was decided that this issue would be brought up at a later discussion, after the
members discuss the three main issues at hand.
The second and third issues, number of representatives elected at large and number of
representatives elected by district. Currently it isA at -large and 3 district seats. Lensing
noted that her group, at the 12/1 public discussion, was for a 4 district /3 at -large split on
city council members. (TAPE ENDS) Kubby noted the topic of voter confusion, and she
feels this is an important issue. She feels they should "un- confuse" the system so the
citizens can understand how their council members are elected. Sueppel stated that the
question, as he sees it, is, "Are we comfortable as a Commission, at this stage, with
saying let's keep the 3 / 4 representation, but let's have those 3 elected within their
district ?" This, he states, is a potential next step for a Commission to look at. Sueppel
then noted for the record that Caroline Dieterle also showed up for public comments, and
he stated that he would like to give her a chance to speak once their discussion is done.
Discussion continued with Werner stating that his group at the public session also noted
voter confusion and the need for more education. Novick stated that she would have to
reconsider the choice of the mayor if the district representatives were elected by district
only. She stated that an at -large representative, elected by the entire city, should be the
only one eligible to be the mayor. Davidsen stated that this goes back to the leadership
Charter Review Commission
December 8, 2004
Page 3
topic, and she feels that good leadership is key. Novick further stated that she would
really like to keep the nomination by district an election at- large. Chappell stated that
this then begs the question of whether or not the mayor is then really one among equals.
Lensing noted that she does not think it's a power issue, but a perception of
representation. Sueppel asked the two people present for public comment if they would
like to speak. John McDonald stated that he was interested in listening to the discussion
today, but would submit in writing any issues he has, or will attend the next Commission
meeting.
Caroline Dieterle gave the Commission members some history on City government and
some of the major issues from past years. She asked the members to think seriously
about making some changes, and to not leave things as they are right now.
Sueppel then asked the members to give feedback and opinions on the representative
issue. Chappell stated he is for the 4 at large /3 district seats, with pure districts, and lie
wants to think frther about the mayoral issue. Novick stated that she would like to do
some further reading before she makes a decision. Davidsen stated that she is still for the
4 at large /3 district seats, and will reconsider the true district representation. Kubby
stated that she is for the 4 at large /3 district seats, being true districts, and as for the
mayoral issue, she would prefer a directly elected mayor but would like to also do some
further reading on this. Lensing stated that she has even more questions now, and she
asked members for some clarification on the issues. Werner stated he is for the 4 at
large /3 district seats, but he still has questions about true districts and the election of the
mayor. Sueppel stated that the vast majority of people he has talked with say to not elect
the mayor at- large, as it would cause conflict within the City. He said he still questions
adding a 4'h district. Lensing further stated that her group at the public session brought
up the issue of compensation for Council members, and considering the work load and
time spent, she feels this is a topic they may want to think about as they make their final
decisions. Dieterle addressed the members again, asking them to consider a retention
vote for the City Manager position, as this is the seat of power within the City. (TAPE
ENDS) Sueppel noted that on the December i minutes, page 4 at the bottom, the word
"deludes" should be "dilutes." I-Ie also questioned the latest redline version of the
Charter, stating that colder Section 2.05, they had decided to make the one long sentence
into two separate sentences. He also questioned Section 7.03 A for clarification.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The members quickly discussed the meeting schedule. The next meeting will be on
Monday, December 13. Karr will contact Green and Rowat and make sure they can
attend this meeting. She will let the members know if the time of the meeting will be
7:00 AM or not.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to adjourn; seconded by Chappell. The meeting
adjourned at 9:05 AM.
C'.� i7
MINUTES
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 — 7:45 AM
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
DRAFT
Members Present: Kevin Werner, Andy Chappell, Karen Kubby, Penny Davidsen (on
speakerphone), Naomi Novick, Vicki Lensing, Nate Green, Lynn Rowat, and William
Sueppel, Chair
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Sueppel called the meeting to order at 7:45 AM.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Sueppel asked all nine members of the Commission be available for final decisions on the
Charter review process. After discussion, the meeting schedule was set up as follows:
January 6, 2005, 3:30 PM — Charter Review meeting
January 13, 2005, 7:00 PM — Public Hearing
January 14, 2005, 7:30 AM — 9:00 AM — Charter Review meeting
January 18, 2005, 7:00 PM — present Charter Review Commission summary and
reconnrrendations to the City Council at formal meeting.
Dilkes noted that Novick had given her a copy of the Charter with some miscellaneous
corrections, but that she would like to wait until after the meeting on January 6"', where
the Commission will be making sonic decisions, before she updates their redline version
of the Charter.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kubby moved to adjourn; seconded by Chappell. The meeting
adjourned at 8:05 AM.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
December 17, 2004
Charter Review Commission
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Presentation of Recommendations to Council
Attached is the 1985 and 1995 recommendations from the Charter Review Commission.
You will note that both were handled differently and you may wish to handle
recommendations differently as well.
1985 (material enclosed)
• Staff memo of 1/14 with recommendations and attached ordinances (one for
everything but campaign finance disclosure; and campaign finance disclosure)
included in Friday 1/19 Council packet
• Agenda of 1/22 work session when presentation made
• Minutes of 1/22 work session
1995 (material enclosed)
• Report from the Commission presented 1/31 when a public hearing was set for 2/14
• Agenda pages of 1/31 showing presentation and the motion setting hearing
• Transcription of 1/31 presentation
• Notice of public hearing published for 2/14 hearing
(Hearing held on three page report only; no ordinance)
• Transcription of 2/14 hearing
S:ch a rte rrevi ewcom mi ssion /presentati onofrecommend ationstocou n cil.doc
L2 7i/
B
4� W"o9wRlffl"
Date: January 14, 1985
To: City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk and Richard J. Boyle, Assistant City
Attorney
Re: Charter Review: Changes in Charter Proposed for Adoption by Council
Staff Proposals
Attached is a proposed ordinance to amend the City Charter, with changes
the City staff proposes to have made by the City Council. The changes
have been reviewed by the Charter Review Commission. They are marked by
underlining for changes or additions, or a caret (A ) to show deletions.
Specifically, the changes are as follows:
Definitions.
7. "Voter" changed to "eligible elector" to conform to Iowa Code section
39.3(1).
S. "Qualified voter" was changed to "qualified elector" to conform to
Code section 39.3(2):
Those terms were changed throughout the Charter, and are marked. We
shall not connent on each specific change. Please note that the term
"voters" was retained in cases where the reference was to the entire
electorate or an election.
Section 1.02. The last sentence was added, referencing state law, so
similar references could be deleted from individual sections. The
deletions are as marked in sections 2 i?8D, 2.09, 2.11, 4.04A(2),
4.04A(4), 4.04A(6), 4.04A(12), 5.02 and 6.04.
Section 2.01. A 'comma was added after the word "Four" for clarity. The
last two lines were revised in an attempt to clarify the meaning.
Section 2.03. Minor changes were made to try to clarify this section.
Section 2.05. This section was revised because the present provision
conflicts with Iowa Code section 372.13(8), which provides that changes
In council member compensation "shall become effective for all council
members at the beginning of the ei rm of the council members elected at
the election next following the change in compensation." The use of the
word "shall" means that provision is mandatory (Code Sec. 4.1(36)(a)).
The change also reflects actual practice.
Section 2.068. The last sentence was deleted since Iowa law now provides
that the Mayor has no veto power over measures he /she was entitled to
vote upon at the time of passage. Iowa Code (1983) sec. 380.5.
1a ?5°'
Section 2.07. The word "and" was change:, to "o." to clarify the meaning
of the provision.
Section 2.08E. The words "if any" were added to avoid the implication
that all persons appointed by the Council must be compensated. As you
know, board and commission members are generally unpaid.
Section 2.09. State law mandates (Code section 372.13(5)) that the
Council determine rules and maintain records.
Section 3.03. The middle sentence was added, and the last phrase
deleted, in an attempt to clarify this provision.
Section 4.04. This entire provision basically tracks Iowa Code section
372.8, sow of which was not included, however. Subsection 4.04A(10) was
revised, but Code section 372.8(2)(m) requires the report by the 10th of
each month.
Section 5.02. The first sentence was substantially revised. The
appointment power is already contained in Charter Section 2.08D., and the
— -state law requirements provision is now found in Section 1.02. The state
law reference was left in the last sentence for emphasis.
Sections 6.01 and 6.04. The word "contributions" was inserted in lieu of
the word "expenditures" since the U.S. Supreme Court (Buckle v. Yaleo,
424 U.S. 1 (1976)) has held that it is unconstitutiona to limTE expendi-
tures.
Section 7.016(1) The limitation on initiative and referendum relating
to "emergency ordinances" has been eliminated. The term has no easily
ascertained meaning.
Section 7.028. The words "to the petitioners" were deleted as being
superfluous.
Section 7.038. Language was added which is intended to assist in
verification of petition signatures.
Section 7.04A. The time for checking supplemental petitions was in-
creased from five to fifteen days. Five days has been found to be
inadequate. i
i
Section 7.040. The language was revised in an attempt to clarify the
requirements for valid signatures. Commission members did not want a
signature invalidated merely because a signer has moved if it can be j
verified by other information.
Section 7.05A. Minor changes were made to clarify the language.
Section 7.05B. The words "of the city" in the first line seemed super-
fluous and were deleted. The time for submission of an issue was
increased from 25 to 40 days in order to allow the County Auditor
/0?i
7e z i 0-
�.ry `v» #... v" '�^ 9 ;,s �q 9Y: _ ", iri x� .:
adequate time to get the question on the ballot. The last sentence was
revised to make reference to the Iowa Code section where the City Code of
Iowa section has been codified.
Section 8.02. The last sentence was added to allow flexibility to the
Charter Review process.
II. Campaign Finance Article
The second proposed ordinance relates to Campaign Finance Disclosure.
Section 6.02 of the Charter currently rewires the Council to adopt
disclosure requirements for all contributions and expend itu,es. in 1983,
the Council repealed many oTThe campaign finance disclosure provisions
to the City Code of Ordinances. A majority (5 -4) of the Charter Review
Commission believes you should amend the charter to make the section
permissive rather than mandatory by changing the word "shall" to ''may" in
the first line of the section. The Commission also believes (7 -2) that
you should amend the section to delete the word "all" to line four
because use of the word "all" implies that any disclosure requirements
would apply to any amount, no matter how small. The amended language
would allow leeway so that any disclosure legislation could provide for
disclosure only above some threshold level.
db /sp
s.
ORDINANCE NO.
CERTAIN
AN THE CITY PROVISIONS,EANDMTODCONFORM CERTAINHTERMS AND PROVISIONSiTOMTHEISTA EF CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY THAT:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the City
ar er so Lila, Lull.,. used therein are consistent with similar terms in the
Iowa Code, to clarify certain provisions, the meaning of which has been found
to be unclear, and to eliminate provisions which are inconsistent with the
Iowa Code.
SECTION Ii. AMENDMENTS. The following sections and subsections of the City
er er o away are hereby repealed, namely, Definitions subsections 7
and 8, and Sections 1.02, 2.01, 2.03, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.11,
andI8.02,2end the foliowing2ere hereby adopted�in /ieu7thereof04, 7.05, 8.01,
1. Sections 7 and 8 of the DEFINITIONS are hereby amended to read as
follows:
7. "EliiDle a ®lector" means a person eligible to register to vote in
Iowa— City.
8. "Qualified elector" means a e�rson who is registered to vote in Iowa
City.
2. Each of the following sections and subsections shall be amended to read
as follows:
Section 1.02. Construction.
The grant of power to the City under this Charter is intended to be
broad; the mention of a specific power in this Charter is not intended to
be a limitation on the general powers conferred in this article. All
Section 2.01: CofflPositi0n-
The
ti te enedoo s
Council members at largeartobe nominated and elctebythe quali-
fied
electors of the City at large. The other three are to be known as
Distr ct ouncilmembers; they are to be nominated by the qualified
electors of their respective districts, as provided by Article III, ands
e ec a nby the qualified electors of the City at large.
Section 2.03. Eligibility.
To be eligible to be elected to and to retain a Council position, a
person must be an eli ible elector of Iowa City, and if seeking or
elected to represent a ounc{1- 6isirict, must be a domiciliary of that
Council District.
2
Section 2.05. Compensation.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the Mayor
and the other Councilmembers, and the Council shall not adopt such an
ordinance during the months f November and December immediately fol-
lowing a regular City election.
Section 2.06. Mayor.
A. Immediately following the beginning of the terms of Councilmembers
elected at the regular City election, the Council shall meet and
elect from among its members the Mayor and Mayor pro tem for a term
of two years.
B. The Mayor is a voting member of the Council, the official representa-
tive of the City, presiding officer of the Council and its policy
spokesman. The Mayor shall present to the City no later than February
28, an annual State of the City message.&
C. The Mayor pro tem shall act as Mayor during the absence of the
Mayor.
Section 2.07. General pokers and duties.
All powers of the City are vested in the Council, except as otherwise
provided by State law or this Charter.
Section 2.08. Appointments.
A. The Council shall appoint the City Manager.
B. The Council shall appoint the City Clerk.
C. The Council shall appoint the City Attorney and such other legal
counsel as it finds necessary and it shall provide for the appoint-
ment of the city legal staff.
D. The Council shall appoint all members of the City's Boards.^
E. The Council shall fix the amount of compensation, if�..an. v,. of persons
it appoints and shall provide for the method of compensatfon of other
City employees. All appointments and promotions of City employees
shall be made according to job- related criteria and be consistent
with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards
established pursuant to law.
Section 2.09, Rules, records.
The Council shall determine its own rules and shall maintain records of
its proceedings.^
Section 2.11; Council action,
A. Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires an affirma-
tive vote of a majority of the Councilmembers.
/a z
B. The Council may submit to the voters, without a petition, a proposi-
tion for the repeal, amendment or enactment of any measure, to be
voted upon at any succeeding general, regular or special City
election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the
votes cast on it at the election, the measure shall be repealed,
amended or enacted accordingly.
Section 3.01. Nomination.
A. An ells ible elector of a council district may become a candidate for
a councfT disTFic seat by filing with the city clerk a valid
petition requesting that his or her name be placed on the ballot for
that office. The petition must be filed not more than sixty -five (65)
days nor less than forty (40) days before the date of the election
and must be signed by ells able electors from the candidate's
district equal in number to at least wo percent of those who
voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but
not less than ten (10) persons.
B. An eligible— elector of the City may become a candidate for an
— at- arl ge -Counc sea by f -i11ng -with the -city clerk a petition
requesting FiMhe candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that
office. The petition must be filed not more than sixty -five (65) nor
less than forty (40) days before the date of the election and must be
signed by elll Bible electors . equal in number to at least two (2)
percent of those whoo vo e to fill the same office at the last
regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons.
Section 3.02. Primary election.
A. If there are more than two candidates for a Council District seat, a
primary election must be held for that seat with only the qualified
electors of that Council District eligible to vote. The names of the
two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary
election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular City election
as candidates for that Council seat.
B. if there are more than twice as many candidates as there are at large
positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held unless
the Council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off election.
Section 3:03: Regular city election.
A. In the regular City election, each Council District seat up for
election shall be listed .sparately on the ballot and only the names
of candidates nominated from the Council District shall be listed on
the ballot as candidates for that seat. However, all aualified
electors of the City shall be entitled to vote or such can ates.
e
Erie ounc District seats shaII be de lgna e—a on the —baT%7 —as
Council District A, Council District B and Council District C.^
B. The at large Council seats shall be designated on the ballot as such.
/0 /
4
Section 4.04. Duties of city manager.
A. The City Manager shall be chief administrative officer of the City,
and shall:
(1) Ensure that the laws of the City are executed and enforced.
(2) Supervise and direct the administration of City government and
the official conduct of employees of the City appointed by the
City Manager including their employment, training, reclassifi-
cation, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires.A
(3) Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other
method of appointment is provided by State law or this Charter.
(4) Supervise the administration of the City personnel system,
including the determination of the compensation of all City
employees appointed by the City Manager 'A
(5) Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done
for the City, make all purchases of materials and supplies, and
assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of
specified quality and character.
(6) Supervise and manager all public improvements, works and under-
takings of the City, and all City -owned property including
buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises and to have charge
of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance.A
(7) Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps,
plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the City.
(8) Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits
authorized by State law or City ordinance and cause a record
thereof to be maintained.
(9) Prepare and submit to the Council the annual budgets in the form
prescribed by State law.
(10) Provide the Counci l month2l an itemized written monthly
financial reportvt
(11) Attend Council meetings and keep the Council fully advised of
the financial and otner conditions of the City as it needs.
(12) See that the business affairs of the City are transacted in an
efficient manner and that accurate records of all City business
are maintained and made available to the public.A
(13) Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and profes-
sional assistance to Boards within limitations of the budget.
(14) Perform such other and further duties as the Council may
direct.
5
P. The City Manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may:
(1) Present recommendations and programs to the Council and partici-
pate in any discussion by the Council of any matters pertaining
to the duties of the City Manager.
(2) Cause the examination and investigation of the affairs of any
department or the conduct of any employee under supervision of
the City Manager.
(3) Execute contracts on behalf of the City when authorized by the
Council.
Section 5.02. Appointment; removal.
The Council shall seek to provide broad representation on all Boards. The
Council shall establish procedures to give at least thirty days' notice
of vacancies before they are filled and shall encourage nominations by
citizens. The Council shall establish conditions for the removal of
members for just cause, consistent with State law.
Section 6.01. Limitations on the amount of campaign contributions.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the amount of
campaign contributions made by an individual or political committee to a
candidate for election to Council.
Section 6.01. Violations.
The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe (1) penalties for the viola-
tion ofp contribution limitations and disclosure requirements it estab-
lishes pursuan o is section and (2) when appropriate, conditions for
the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on Council if elected *A
Section 7.01. General provisions.
A. Authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified electors have the right to propose
ordinances to the Council and, —if—U Council fails to adopt an
ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to have
the ordinance submitted to the voters at an election.
(2) Referendum. The qualified electors have the right to require
reconsideration by the CouncTT of-an existing ordinance and, if
the Council fails to repeal such ordinance, to have it submitted
to the voters at an election.
(3) Definition. Within this article, "ordinance" means all other
measures 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.
MAN
a
6
B. Limitations.
(1) Subject matter. The right of initiative and referendum shall
not extend to any of the following;
(a) Any measure of an executive or administrative nature.
(b) The City budget.
(c) The appropriation of money.
(d) The levy of taxes or special assessments.
(e) The issuance of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds.
(f) The letting of contracts,
(g) Salaries of City employees.
n A
(h) Any measure required to be enacted by State or federal
law.
(i) Amendments to this Charter.
(j) 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
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 ordi-
nance. No ordinance 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 ref-
erendum petition.
C. Construction.
(1) Scope of power, it is intended that this article confer broad
initiative and referendum powers upon the qualified electors of
the City.
(2) Initiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will
be invalid because it repeals an existing ordinance in whole or
in part by virtue of proposing a new ordinance and (b) an
initiative petition may amend an existing ordinance.
(3) Referendum, It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal
an ordinance in whole or in part,
D. Effect of filing petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum
petition does not susN.:nd or invalidate any ordinance under consid-
eration and such ordinance 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
vote to repeal or amend the ordinance an iTie vote is cer- nfied.
E, City obligation. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an
existing ordinance in whole or in part does not affect any obliga-
tions entered into by the City, its agencies or any person in
reliance on the ordinance during the time it was in effect.
Section 7.02. Commencement of proceedings; affidavit,
A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors hereinafter referred
to as the "petitioners," may commence initJ ative or referendum
proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they
will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be respon-
sible 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 ordinance or
citing the ordinance 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^
on femme 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.
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 oipersons who voted in the last regular City
election, but by no fewer than two thousand five hundred qualified
electors.
B. Form and content. All pavers of a petition prepared for filing must
be substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as
one instrument. The petition form shall provide space for the
councii. Petitions preparea tar circulation must contain or nave
a— tiaclieir thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the
ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed
with the City Clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the
ordinance being proposed or referred.
Affidavit of circulator. Each paper of petition containing signa-
tures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a
qualified elector certifying: the number of signatures on the paper,
M
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 proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any
person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties
as provided by State law.
0. 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 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 signa-
tory 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.
Section 7.04. Procedure after filing.
A. Certificate of City Clerk; amendment. Within twenty days after a
petition is filed, the City Clerk shall complete a certificate as to
its sufficiency, specifying, if it is insufficient, the particulars
wherein it is defective and shall promptly send a copy of the
certificate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition
certified insufficient for lack of the required number of valid
signatures may be amended once if one or more of the petitioners
files a notice of intention to amend it with the City Clerk within
two days after receiving a copy of such certificate and files a
supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days
after receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supp— lementary
petition shall comply with the requirements of Subsections B and C of
Section 7.03, and within fifteen days after it is filed, the City
Clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the
petition as amended and 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 a petition or amended petition is certified insufficient and
one or more of the petitioners do not amend or request Council review
under Subsection B of this Section within the time prescribed, the
City Clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the Council.
oaf/_
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 7.048, 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 voter whose name it purports to be, or it was not voluntar-
ily and knowingly executed. A valid signature need not be in the
identical form in which the qualified p1u Ui:'s name appears on the
voting rolls, nor may a signature be deemed invalid because the
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 or reconsider the referred ordinance.
If the Council fails to adopt a proposed initiative ordinance and
fails to adopt an ordinance which is similar in substance within
sixty days or if the Council fails to repeal the referred ordinance
within thirty days after the date the petition was finally determined
sufficient, it shall submit thq proposed or referred ordinance to the
qualified electors of the City as hereinafter prescribed. The
Council she 1a submit to the voters any ordinance which has been
proposed --6r—ref erred in accordance with the provisions of this
Article unless the petition is deemed insufficient pursuant to
'Section 777.— Tf at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled
initiative or referendum election the Council adopts the proposed
initiative ordinance or adopts an ordinance which is similar in
substance or if the Council repeals a referred ordinance, the
initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed
or referred ordinance shall not be submitted to the voters.
0-
M
10
B. Submission to voters. The voteAon a ;-noosed or referred ordinance
shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election
which next occurs more than forty (40) days after the expiration of
the appropriate sixty- or thirty-day period provided for considera-
tion or reconsideration in Section 7.05A, provided, however, that the
council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred
ordinance any time after the expiration of the thirty -day period
provided for reconsideration in Section 7.05A. Copies of the
proposed or referred ordinance 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.A The subject matter and purpose of the
re e-
rred or proposed ordinance shall be indicated on the ballot.
Section 8.01. Charter amendments.
This Charter may be amended only by one of the following methods:
A. The Council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the
voters at a City election, and a proposed amendment becomes effective
when approved by a majority of those voting.
B. The Council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter. However, within
thirty (30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition
signed by eligible electors of the City equal in number to ten
percent of the persons who voted at the last preceding regular City
election is filed with the Council, the Council must submit the
amending ordinance to the voters at a City election, and the amend-
ment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those
voting.
C. If a petition signed by eligible electors of the City, equal in number
to ten percent of the persons w o vo—t —at the last preceding regular
City election is filed with the Council proposing an amendment to the
Charter, the Council must submit the proposed amendment to the voters
at a City election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved
by a majority of those voting.
Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission.
The Council, using the procedures prescribed in Article V, shall estab-
lish a Charter Review Commission at least once every ten years following
the effective date of this Charter. The Commission, consisting of at
least nine members, shall revi4 the existing Charter and may, within
twelve months recommend any Charter amendments that it deems fit. The
Council shall submit such amendments to the voters in the form prescribed
by the Commission, and an amendment becomes effective when approved by a
majority of those voting. The Commission may also recommend to the
SECTION III. REPEALER: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict
with the prov sions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
M
SECTION IV. SEVERAOILITY: If any section, provision or part of this Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication
shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section,
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approva an pu ication as required by law.
Passed and approved this
M R
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
d
It was moved by and seconded by _ that
the Ordinance be acop a and upon roll call :here were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Ambrisco
®
Baker
® Dickson
Erdahl
McDonald
Strait
Zuber
First Consideration
Vote for passage:
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
L� �
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER
WITH RESPECT TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLO-
SURE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY THAT:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Section 6.02 of
the City Charter s hereby repealed, and
the following is adopted in lieu thereof:
Section 6.02. Disclosure of contribu-
tions and expenditures.
The Council, by ordinance, may
prescribe procedures requiring,
immediately before and after each
regular, special, primary, or run -off
election, the disclosure of the ar..ount,
source and kind of contributions
received and expenditures made by (1)
each candidate for election to Council
and (2) any and all other persons, for
the purpose of aiding or securing the
candidate's nomination or election.
SECTION I1. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts of ordina nces in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABiLITY: If any
section, prov s on or par o this Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance shall e in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this
MA W_
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Rec+:hfod A Approved
izl 7aH Inert l
f I-
DATE: January 18, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule
January 19 1985 Saturday
8:00 10:45 A.M. Iowa City Public Library, Room A
Second Council Review Session of Proposed FY 86 Budget
January 22
1985
Tuesday
6:30 - 9:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
6:30
P.M. -
Special Council Meeting (Separate agenda posted)
6:35
P.M. -
Coralv111e Milldam Project
7:00
P.M. -
0ld Dubuque Road /Bristol Drive Intersection
7:15
P.14. -
Charter Review Commission Recommendations
8:00
P.M. -
Beer /Liquor Permit Suspension Policy
8:15
P. 14. -
Council Input re. Human SErrvices Funding
8:30
P.M. -
Council time, Council committee reports
8:45
P.M. -
Executive Session
January 28 1985
Monday
6:30 - 9:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
6:30
P.M. -
Review zoning matters
6:45
P.M. -
Meet with Planning and Zoning Commission re, llarlocke/
Heeber Rezoning
7:20
P.M. -
Sign Ordinance Revision
8:00
P.M. -
Parcel 65 -28 Marketing Documents
8:15
P.M. -
Review Pending List Priorities
8:20
P.M. -
Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports
8:30
P.M. -
Discuss FY 86 Budget
8:45
P.M. -
Executive Session
January 29 1985 Tuesday
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
February 4 1985 Monday
6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Special Informal Council Meeting - Council Chambers
Discussion of FY 86 - 90 Capital Improvements Program '
February 5, 1985 _ Tuesday
6:30 - 8:30 P.N. Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Human Services Funding - Final recommendations and decisions
7:15 P.M. - FY 86 Budget and CIP decisions
8:15 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports
I r.f �, mm Council Discussion.
January 22, 1985
Page 3
Dean Oakes informed Councilmembers that it will never be financially feasible
for him to extend Foster Road to Prairie du Chien unless the area is zoned
multiple hi -rise,
BEER /LIQUOR PERMIT SUSPENSION POLICY: Reel 85 -C12, Side 2
McDonald said that State Code states that upon conviction, notification of
that conviction is sent to the City or Director of the Beer and Liquor
Commission. McDonald said the City should not be involved and the State
should handle suspensions. Jansen said he talked with Mr. Armstrong, legal
counsel to the State Beer and Liquor Commission; who said they have no
procedure for suspension unless they receive notification. Generally the
local authority will notify the State that there has been a conviction - a
certified copy of the charges and disposition has to be sent to the State,
coming from either the City or Clerk of Court. Jansen said a procedure needs
to be established to ensure the State offices receive notification and the
City needs to request that action be taken. Erdahl said it should be the re-
sponsibility of the County Clerk of Court or prosecuting agent or court to
forward the disposition to the licensing authority and /or to the City; the
City Attorney and Police Chief should cooperate with the Clerk of Court to
make sure the City finds out about convictions; the State should handle the
suspensions; and the Legislative Committee should work with area legislators
to resolve the problem. Berlin said staff will prepare a resolution as
discussed.
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Reel 85 -C12, Side 2
John Balmer, Chair of the Charter Review Commission, reviewed the ballot
issue and recommended changes to the Charter. Balmer noted the ballot issue
is not a recommendation from the Charter Review Commission and the City
Council reeds to review Charter Section 8.02 to clarify the function of the
Charter Review Commission.
Balmer explained that changes in Section 7.03,B and 7.04.0 would allow a
person who has moved within Iowa City to still be considered ar. eligible
elector. Balmer said name and address is mandatory. Erdahl suggested the
petition form include space for printing a signature. Karr stated that
birthdate would not be required in the present proposal. Berlin stated
Council should receive input from the City Clerk prior to voting or, the
matter.
In reference to Charter Section 8.02, Balmer stated the proposed changes
would allow the City Council to receive recommendations directly from the
Charter Review Commission.
Council received minutes of the Charter Review Commission December 10, 1984,
meetinrq that included discussions of proposed changes in Article 6: changing
"shall' to "may" and deleting "all.' Balmer said the City is currently in
violation of Charter Section 6.02 and the proposed changes satisfies the
intent to require disclosure. Baker said the campaign contribution issue
should be scheduled at another informal Council discussion meeting. Berlin
said another discussion will be scheduled.
f _`i
Charter Review Commission Recommendations
January 27, 1995
The nine member Charter Review Commission held 19. mAAtlnaa since May 17. 1994 to
review the City of Iowa City Charter. The Commission started with a Charter uvc, v,cw wmch
Provided information about the Home Rule Act, city powers and city charters, and
organization of city government. The Commission then discussed Charter provisions; reviewed
city staff input and recommendations; met with former council members and council
candidates; and held a public hearing to receive citizen input. The public hearing was
broadcast live on the government channel and phone calls were accepted.
The Charter Review Commission focused discussions on non-discrimination language,
campaign finance disclosure (follow up enforcement, discrepancy between local and state
requirements, and 050 limitation), elections (primary and general), and districts (number,
representation, neighborhoods).
The Charter Review Commission also solicited city staff input. They received five recommen-
dations from city department directors, agreeing to forward four of the recommendations to
council. At the Commission's request, City Attorney Woito attended three meetings to advise
the commission on elections and primary voting, campaign finance disclosure, and non-
discrimination provisions,
The Charter Review Commission met with former Council members and Mayors J. Balmer and
D. Courtney and former council candidates J. Smith and P. Egli on September 29, 1994 to
discuss campaign disclosure, four year terms of office, the mayoral selection process, council
compensation, and changing the present primary and general election systems. Former
council members W. Ambrisco and R. Larson also provided their written comments.
A public hearing was held on November 2, 1994 to receive public input. Rusty Martin
proposed establishing six council districts and an at -large mayor. Chris Randall stated that
council compensation should be increased. Four telephone calls were also taken during the
broadcasted public hearing commenting on district representation and neighborhoods.
The Charter Review Commission makes the following recommendations which the commission
believe to be non - substantive in nature and recommend Council adoption by ordinance rather
than submission to the voters:
Non - Discrimination
To add language to the Charter Section 2.08E to read, "All appointments and promotions of
city employees by City —Council and CRY Manager must be made according to job- related
criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards
established pursuant to law." Motion carried, 612,
The Commission noted the change to reaffirm the original spirit of the charter and re-
enforces language alreadyln existence by city, state, and federal provisions. (Meetings:
7/14/94, 8/31/94)
DO
Penalties 16.04)
To recommend to Council that they take action and establish penalties with regard to Section
6.04. Motion carried, 8/0.
The Commission referenced charter section 6.02 stating "The council may prescribe
procedures..." And 6.04 stating "The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe
penalties... ", noting penalties were originally called for and never done. (Meetings:
11/30/94)
"Person" (6.01)
To change Section 6.01 to read, "The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on the
amount of campaign contributions made to a candidate for election to Council by a person as
defined in this Charter." Motion carried 8/0.
The Commission noted the definition of person contained in the.charter to include
individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, political party,
committee or any other legal entity. (Meetings: 11130/94)
General Recommendation
To recommend to Council that the next Charter Review Commission be convened one year
after the next census. Motion carried, 9/0.
The Commission realized the growth of the city and the impactthat growth has on the
size of districts; suggested charter review after the next census and establishment of
review to coincide with each ten year census thereafter. (Meetings: 12/8/94)
Staff Recommendations
To change Page 4, Section 2.06, Mayor., Subsection B., third line, replace "spokesman" with
"spokesperson." Motion carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 114/95)
To change Page 4, Section 2.08, Appointments., Subsection C., "The Council shall appoint
the City Attorney." Motion carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 1/4/96)
To change Page 6, Section 3.01, Nomination., Subsection A., last line in paragraph should
read ".,.not less than ten (10) persons." Motion carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 1 /4/95)
To change Page 17, Section 7.04, Procedure afterfiling. Subsection D. Validity of signatures.
Third line from bottom should read "...current voting rolls..." Motion carried, 8/0. (Meeting:
1/4/96)
Other key areas of discussion were:
Council /Manager Form. Moved and seconded to continue the Charter Review discussions
based on retaining the Council /Manager form of government. Motion carried, 9/0. (Meeting:
6/14/94)
City Manager Duties. Commission recognized the State Code lists City Manager duties and
agreed to retain the Charter section. (Meeting: 7/14/94)
,3'1
NO
Term of Office. (Four years per and no limit on number) Moved and seconded that the term
of office remain four years, Motion carried, 6 /2. (Meetings: 7/14/94; 11/16/94)
Moved and seconded to move limitation of term of office to the resolved list, Motion carried,
7/1. (Meeting: 11/16/94)
Recall. Moved and seconded to remove "recall" as a discussion item. Motion carried, 6/0.
(Meeting: 6/29/94)
Initiative and Referendum. Moved and seconded to move Initiative and referendum to the
resolved list. Motion carried, 8/0. (Meetings: 6/29/94; 11/16/94)
Mayor Selection. Moved and seconded to move mayor selection to the resolved list. Motion
carried, 7/1. (Meeting: 11/16194)
Council Compensation. Moved and seconded to move council compensation to the resolved
list. Motion carried, 6/2. (Meeting: 11/16/94)
Campaign Finance Disclosure. (Follow-up enforcement; discrepancy with state; and $60
limitation) Moved and seconded to recommend to Council that they take action and establish
penalties with regard to Section 6.04. Motion carried, 8/0, (Meetings: 7/14/94;11/16/94;
11130194)
General Voting, Moved and seconded that in the general election for every sent that is open,
every voter votes for every seat. Motion carried, 6/2. (Meeting: 11/30/94)
Elections. (Primary voting, 2,10 Vacancies) Moved and seconded to retain Charter Section
3.02 Primary Election. Motion carried, 6/4. (Meetings: 7/14194; 11/30/94; 12/8/94)
Districts. (Number, representation; neighborhood) and Council Size (number) Moved and
seconded to retain the current system of 7 council members with 4 at large and 3 residential
district. Motion carried, 6/3. (Meeting: 12/8194)
Staff Recommendation.
Moved and seconded to not change Page 8, Section 2.12, Prohibitions., Subsection B., third
line, sentence should read "However, the council gr its members may express..." Motion
carried, 8/0. (Meeting: 1/4/951
By the 1994195 Charter Review Commission:
John McDonald, Chair Kathy Penningroth
Patt Cain Ann Rhodes
Paul Egli Clayton Ringgenberg
Mary Geasland Craig Willis
Jeff McCullough
sharecftWerklJ11g3.7mk,lks
3(1
N
0
E
lfta4
• AGENDA
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 31, 1995
7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ITEM NO. 1 - CALL TO ORDER. � J
ROLL CALL.
ITEM NO. 2 - SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS.
a. Presentation of Citizenship Awards to the following Regina Elementary
School students:
(1) Sera Murphy
(2) David Welsh
b. Charter Review Commission Recommendations
c. Presentation of award to the City of Iowa City on behalf of the 18th
Annual Parsons Technology Iowa City Hospice Road Races.
ITEM NO. 3 - MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS. P jtaev
a, Community Fitness Awareness Week - January 29- February 4, 1995 �' /
b, American History Month - February 1996,-Jlii,
Black History Month - February 1995.
ld� Girls and Women in Sports Day - February 2, 1995. - 0114H, :Ao °rcC2e«��d
e. Sertoma's Freedom Week -February 12 -18, 1996
f. Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Days - February 11 & 12, 1995.
ITEM NO. 4 - CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR
AMENDED.
a. Approval of Official Actions of the regular meeting of January 17, 1995,
as published, subject to corrections, as recommended by the City Clark.
b. Minutes of Boards and Commissions,
(1) Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission meeting of December
21, 1994.
(2) Board of Library Trustees special meeting of January 12, 1995.
(3) Broadband Telecommunications Commission meetingofDecember
19, 1994.
(4) Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 19, 1986.
(6) Charter Review Commission meeting of January 4, 1996.
Agenda
Iowa City City Council
Regular Council Meeting
January 31, 1996
Page 2
C. Permit Motions and Resolutions as Recommended by the City Clerk.
(1) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for Mike's
Place, Inc., dba Mike's Tap, 122 Wright St. (Renewal)
(2) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for One
Poor Student, Inc., dba One Eyed Jake's, 18 -20 S. Clinton St.
(Renewal)
(3) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for Motif
Ltd., dba Bo- James, 118 E. Washington St. (Renewal)
(4) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for
Vanessa's of Iowa City, Inc., Givanni's Italian Cafe, 109 E. College
St, (Renewal)
(6) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for R.T.
Grunts, Inc., dba R.T.'s, 826 S. Clinton St. (Renewal)
(6) Consider a motion approving an Outdoor Service Area for R.T,
Grunts, Inc. dba R.T.'s, 826 S. Clinton St, (Renewal)
17) Consider a motion approving a Class "E" Liquor Permit for Hy -Vee
Food Stores, Inc., dba Hy -Vee Food Store N1, 601 Hollywood
Blvd. (Renewal)
(8) Consider a motion approving a Class "E" Beer Permit for Hy -Vee
Food Stores, Inc., dba Hy -Vee Food Store k1, 601 Hollywood
Blvd. (Renewal)
(9) Consider a motion approving a Class "E" Liquor License for John's
Grocery, Inc., dba John's Grocery, 401 E. Market St. (Renewal)
(10) Consider a resolution Issuing a Dancing Permit to One -Eyed Jakes,
18 -20 Clinton St, and R.T.'s, 828 S. Clinton St.
10 (11) Consider a resolution issuing a Cigarette Permit refund to Loo's
Standard, 130 N. Dubuque St,
d. Setting Public Hearings.
(1) CONSIDER A MOTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRU-
ARY 14, 1996, ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS,
Comment; The Charter Review Commission has held twelve
meetings since their appointment in May of 1994. The recommen-
dations of the Commission will be presented to Council at the
formal meeting of January 31, 1996. Citizen comments will be
received at the public hearing on February 14, 1996,
9
1
I
t
pC •.
#2b page 1
I'1'SM 140. 2 - SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS.
b. Charter Review Commission Recommendations
Horow/ Charter Review Commission Recommendations. Mr. McDonald.
John McDonald/ How soon you forget, right. I get to sign in.. I
don't know if I have ever done that before. Madam Mayor,
council members, Mr. Atkins, Mr. Melling, Ms. Karr, Ms. Woito.
Nice to see all of you. I have the privilege of standing in
front of you tonight to present the recommendations -to
represent the CRC to present the recommendations of the CRC
which you appointed last May. Just a couple of brief comments.
We will present our recommendations to you tonight. As I
understand it we are going to set a p.h. for two weeks to
allow the public to respond. To give you an opportunity to
review those recommendation and then we will have a more full
blown discussion, so to speak, in two weeks on the issues. one
thing that I did want to say. I did notice that I do have
several of the Commission members here tonight. Patt Cain, Ann
Rhodes, Kathy Penningroth, Jeff McCullough, Mary Geasland.
Most of you that sit at that table up there I know you don't
get credit very often for doing many things right. But I have
to say you people out did yourself when you appointed this
Commission. I have never had the opportunity to work with the
finer group of people than I did with this Commission.
Horow/ Left handed compliment.
McD/ Karen, to tell you the truth, I would take this Commission any
day, We started meeting last May. I do think the Commission -
There is an old saying about give a busy person something to
do and they will get it done. You appointed a very busy group
of people but they were just superior in reviewing I believe
the Charter. We went through it paragraph by paragraph,
sentence by sentence. I do not know or I cannot think of an
issue that was left off of the table. We solicited input every
way we knew how to do it. In fact, we did set a first when we
had our p.h., which was not real well attended. It was
publicized. There were not a lot of people but we had our
first call -in p.h. and we did receive a few phone calls
actually. So, we tried something a little different. It worked
out fine but we tried in every way that we knew how to do it
to get the word out that we wanted people's opinions. And as
we reviewed the Charter, as I said, I don't think there was
any stone left unturned. You will have the opportunity to
review it. You have been receiving our minutes. You will want
to possibly refer back to soma of the minutes so that you can
get a little bit better flavor of the discussion that took
place. We had good discussion on every issue. Most votes were
This rep resents only o roosonably accurate transcription of the Iowa Cky coundl meatin of,lanuory 31,19 B.
F013136
#2b page 2
not unanimous which you all can understand how that system
works. And we finally came to consensus on the recommendations
that are before you tonight. So, again, I thank you for the
Opportunity to serve. The Commission did, in my opinion, an
excellent job and we will plan on discussing it in further
detail with you in a couple of weeks.
Horow/ I will look forward to two weeks. Thanks, John.
Throg/ Thanks to the commission, too.
MeD/ Thank you.
U
This ropreoents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 31, ME
F013195
I
u
3
\11'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On February 14, 1095, the City Council will
hold a public hearing on the Charter Review
Commission recommendations. The City
Council appoints a commission to review the
City Charter at least ones every ten years.
This hearing will be held during the Council's
regular meeting at 7:30 p,m. In the Council
Chambers in the Civic Center.
Comments from the public will be received at
the public hearing on February 14,1995, In the
City Council Chambers at the Civic Center or
written comments may be submitted, at any
time, to the City Clerk's Office at 410 E.
Washington Street,
durk\cc2-14.nph
A page 1
ITE14 NO. 6 - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
RECOMMBNDATIONS.
Horow/ Before we start the public hearing I would like to publicly
acknowledge the commission members and give them a memento of
their endeavors. A cushion for your seat for all the meetings
you've attended. This is to keep you from coming up one by
one. I've asked- Jeff, are you able to come forward. I can
certainly -- Craig Willis is not here. John McDonald is,
chairperson.
Kubby/ Johnny MOD, yeah.
Horow/ Clayton Ringgenberg. Clayton's not here. Patt Cain, front
and center here.
Kubby/ so will you show what the people are receiving.
Pigott/ What is it they're getting, Sue?
Horow/ It's a little surprise. Paul Egli is not here. Kathy
Penningroth is. Kathy why don't I use this. This, if you can
get it, is the seal of the city and it is a paper weight and
we ask you to use it in good stead and think of us and think
of the time you've spent with us. Mary Geasland, And Ann
Rhodes.
Now I declare the p.h, opeti. Do the commission members have
any comments that they would like to make?
Throg/ Would it be possible to ask questions?
Horow/ Sure.
Kubby/ I didn't see this in the Review Commission's minutes but I
wondered" if their was any discussion of proportional
representation or different kinds of voting systems for the
city? I kind of doubt there was or it would've shown up in the
minutes because that would be- Oh Patt's indicating there was.
I'd love to hear a little bit about what that discussion
entailed.
John MOD/ What exactly do you mean, .Karen?
Kubby/ Different voting systems so you could- there are lots of
different proportional representation voting schemes that
different communities and different countries have used so
that it's not a winner take all situation. So that maybe your
This represents only a reasonably accurate
WS021495
A
,#6 page 2
second preference can win and you still have some say in the
process even though your candidate didn't win. it's not a very
clear explanation, but I saw some other commission members
remembering a conversation so-
McD/ I€ I'm understanding you correctly, I would have to say that
we did discuss different methods, different systems. For
example we had a lengthy discussion on- One of the things, and
it seems. like every Charter Review Commission does this, talks
about our district system which sometimes is rather confusing
to some people, but as most of you are aware of, this was on
the ballot ten years ago in 1984. It was voted at that time to
retain the system. We again discussed that type, discussed the
present system in depth. one of the other things that was
suggested to us actually during our p.h. some one that did
appear did suggest to us that maybe we ought to go to strictly
a total district system where there would be six council
members elected from a district and the mayor elected at
large. We did discuss that. We did discuss the primary system
that we have followed over 'the past several years, over the
past 20 years since the original charter was adopted back in
1974. We discussed in detail the possibility pros and cons of
eliminating the primary system where two top vote getters say
for example it was, there were two at large seats set up in
the particular election where the two top vote getters would
be the ones elected. We- In my opinion unless you're talking
about something different we did talk, we did discuss in quite
a .bit of detail different voting methods, different ways of
electing city council members and unless there was something
that we overlooked that you're thinking of, i can't think of
anything that we did not discuss.
Kubby/ I'm talking about something different and I don't know,
there were some shakes of the head from other commission
members that maybe could remember that conversation.
Horow/ Are you asking about the run -off?
Audience/ (can't hear)
Pigott/ No. sort of the Lani Guinier issue. You know she talks
about the list of people to rank them one through ten,
Jeff McCullough/ an the issue of proportional representation, we
mentioned that. We didn't really look in depth at that, at any
proportional representation system per se. We talked about it
in terms of an alternative to what we now have. And early on
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 14, 1995.
W8021495
i
96 page 3
in the process mentions were made that we concentrate our
discussions on the council manager form of government only.
And the commission voted to do that. And from that point on,
it became not really productive to talk about alternative
systems other than the council and manager form and then how
you would elect that. So from that point on we sort of
disoussed the details of that system.
Horow/ Thank you very much.
Kubby/ Any other comments?
Throg/ I guess I'd like to ask John another question if he doesn't
mind unless any of the other commissioners would like to
respond. I'm vaguely remembering John that there were a couple
or so recommendations from the commission about which the
commission was significantly divided. I don't know, like 6 -3
votes or 6 -4 votes-or something along those lines. Do you
remember what those recommendations were and could you give us
a sense, the people who are listening give them a sense of
what the nature of the disagreement was?
MOD/ I'll try to remember right of the top of my head, Jim. There
were very few unanimous votes to be quite honest. When it
actually came to taking, a vote. As Jeff mentioned a minute
ago, we started out at our first meeting -
Horow/ (can't hear)
MOD/ Thank you.
Throg/ Thanks, Marian.
MOD/ That's why you're so good. We started out at first meeting and
as we got into the discussion a little bit about what we were
going to do, we came to the realization that maybe the first
thing'that we ought to think about, are we going to change the
form of government under which we operate. And so this
happened very early on where the issue of council manager form
p) of government under which. Iowa City operates was put on the
table and we decided that we had better, the commission as a
group, had better make a decision very early.on because this
could change the whole reason for being there. That was one of
the few unanimous votes we had. That was-
Horow/ 9 -0.
JThis represents only a rea§onobly accurate transcription of tho Iowa Chy council maafing of February 14, 1995.
WS021495
v
16 page 4
McD/ 9 -0 on that particular one. And then we went from there. Again
as far as- I think the closest vote we had if I remember
correctly was 5-4 vote,
Horow/ on elections.
McD/ And that was yeah that particular one was -
Horow/ Page 3 op elections.
McD/ On the primary election process, And as I talked about a few
minutes ago we did talk about this at length. We talked about
it in detail. And again the majority of the commission voted
to maintain the system that we do have in place at this
particular time, That was the closest vote that we had. There
were several others, 6 -2, a couple of 6 -3 votes. We throughout
the whole process as I mentioned two weeks ago when I
presented the recommendations to you, I really I felt and I
hope the commission does and I think they do from my
conversations them that there was not an issue that was not
discussed thoroughly and I guess I did- I did not when we went
into this thing, and I don't think any of them went into it-
I think went into it with the same attitude, I would've been
very surprised if all the votes would've been 9 -0. I mean you
had a diverse group of people. with some differences. Some very
involved people, active people that had some very good ideas
about how things should go and how they should operate. We
explored all of them I think to the fullest. And once we made
our decisions we moved on to the next issue. Was there a
particular one that you wanted to discuss in more detail, Jim?
Throg/ No I'm just trying to give viewers at home and' whoever might
read our transcripts some sense of whether the commission was
divided to a significant degree on any particular issue.
That's all.
McD/ Very quickly again for the viewers I'll just very quickly run
down, you know, the discussion on four year terms and term
limits. We had a lengthy discussion on that. The vote was 6 -2
E) : to maintain the system as we have it, to maintain, to continue
the four year terms and not put a number on term limits. Mayor
selection process was another issue. Should the mayor continue
to elected by the council or should the mayor be elected at
large by the community. The vote was 7 -1 on that to continue
the system that we have in place. Compensation for council
members. There was a suggestion that you all get paid nothing.
That was gaining a lot of momentum at a certain point. But-
This reyresenta only a reasonably accurate trons011130011 of the Iowa City council meeting of February 14, 1998.
W8021495
es� .
#6 page 5
/ (can't hear)
Throg/ Somebody decided to double it.
McD/ Fortunately and I don't know if all of you did a little
lobbying on the side but the vote was 6 -2 to maintain the
present system of making, that you people would be the ones to
make that determination of what the compensation should be.
The representation, neighborhood districts, number of council
members whether it. should be seven whether it should be
enlarged-
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 95 -28 SIDE 2
McD/ Was to come up probably more frequently than any other issue?
Kubby/ I think it's because it's so confusing. This hybrid system
we have is so confusing to the general public.
McD/ It is Karen. And we talked at length about that and we all
agreed that there is, you know that it it is confusing. We
understand all of us that are involved understand the reasons
that it was implemented in the first place. The commission had
the good fortune to have two original Charter Commission
members on the commission in Patt Cain and Clayton Ringgenbeig
and they were designated our historians from the outset and
they were able to give some very good insight as to why some
things were done back in 1974 as to a lot of the discussion
that took place and the reasons behind some of the decisions
were made. I agree with you. It is confusing. We know that it
was implemented to make sure that all quadrants of the city
had representation. As I said earlier, we also know that this
was an issue in 1984 that went on the ballot in 1904 by the
Charter Review Commission at that particular time. That was
the only particular issue, if I remember correctly I think I'm
right on this. Marian, ant I. That was the only issue from the
1984 Charter Review. Commission that did go to the ballot. The
voters at that particular time voted to retain the system, but
3 - you're right, we do run in to this every couple of years as to
why in a primary only the voters in a district vote for the
candidate, but in a general election the whole city votes for
the candidate. We could not come up with anything better, I
r ° guess would be the best way to put it. And so we voted to
maintain it as it is.
{ Kubby/ so Marian what's the next step then?
in is represonte only a reasonably accurate transcdp600 of the Iowa City councll moaUng of February 14, 1996.
W8021490
4
#6 page 6
Horow/ I have another question.
Kubby/ Oh I'm sorry.
Horow/ I have one other question on this and that was having to do
with penalties. You charged us now to establish penalties, to
take action. What did this emerge from, this had to do with
council may prescribe procedures and by ordinance may
prescribe penalties noting that the penalties were originally
called for but never done.
Kubby / Are you talking about penalties for violating -?
Horow/ Violating financing.
McD/ Financial, yes.
Kubby/ Campaign finances.
Horow/ That is for us, according to the code, We have the charge
now and we must deal with this.
McD/ Because we operate on sort of a screwy system and, you know,
the State of Iowa and then there is always Iowa City sitting
out here. Actually this -we operate differently than the state
does. A person, a candidate, would get two different stories
so to speak or two different, sets of rules. They call our City
Clerk and get the guidelines as a local candidate for office
but then this is filed with the county which is reviewed by
the state and if they would happen to call the state they
would get a different set of rules than what was given to them
by our City Clerk. Actually Jeff, who was up here a little
earlier, Jeff McCullough, made some very good points on this
and Jeff was very involved on this in this area in a previous
job that he held and he had some very good thoughts and quite
a bit of expertise in this particular area and we, I guess,
why we finally came fourth with a recommendation that if we
are going to be different than what is state law requires,
then we should also implement some type of penalty which right
at the moment nothing exists. So, Jeff I don't know if you
want to add anything. You know a lot more about this in this
particular issue and area than what any of the rest of us did.
If you would like to add anything to that, come on up here,
Jeff McCullough/ I am not sure how much more I can add other than
to say that the system we have now is confusing because Iowa
City has got its own campaign finance disclosure laws. The
This represents only a roasonably accurate traualptlon of 1113 Iowa Clty csundl meeting of Febmery 14, 1990.
WS021496
L
N6 page 7
only entity in the state that has such a thing other than the
State*of Iowa. So, enforcement is confusing for candidates.
But we decided as a Charter Review Commission that we would
keep that part of the charter. Some of us didn't want to. keep
it but we were voted down. So, saying that we are going to
keep that part of the Charter and allow the city council to
set 'limits 'means it is in your folk's court. You can set
limits if you want to but once you do you need to set
penalties according to the Charter and that is really the
issue that we have.
Horow/ Okay. Thank you very much. Marian, do you want to give us a
schedule?
Karr/ The recommendation concludes for the CRC that they view the
recommendations as being non - substantive and recommends
adoption by ordinance. After the close of the p.h, if you are
so inclined, an ordinance will be prepared and will be on for
first consideration at your next meeting.
Throg/ What alternatives are available to us and all I mean by that
is if the council so chose to, could it amend any portion of
the recommendations? If so, what would have to happen after
that. I mean I have no idea what the procedures are.
Karr/ I guess my first response would be one that the council may
always amend the Charter with or without the Charter Review
Recommendations. So if you wish to amend the Charter, that can
be done absent from and totally independent from the
recommendations if you are so inclined. If, indeed, you would
like to have the Commission look again at an issue that could
alter' their recommendations, that would be a matter between
council and the Charter Commission themselves. I guess it
would depend exactly on what -when you say alter the
recommendations or what options.
Throg/ Help me out here. What I mean -Let's say all the people on
the right side of this table wanted to elect three people
district wide. So that the person would be elected by the
electors of the district. Would the majority of the council,
in that case, be able to adopt an ordinance requiring that and
if so, what happens that?
Woito/ It is eventually subject to a ballot vote if you get
sufficient petitions to challenge your ordinance.
Karr/ The council, by ordinance, may amend the Charter, But within
Thla reptesenro only a raaeonabiy accureta tronscripgan of the Iowa City counc9 meeting of February 14,1996.
W8029496
#6 page 8
30 days of the publication of the ordinance, if the.petition
is signed by eligible electors equal to a certain percentage
then the question goes to the voters.
Throg/ All right, so, just to make sure I understand it. I have no
intention whatsoever of doing this. Let's say a majority of
council decided to chuck the city manager form of government
for a council manager form of government. And we adopted an
ordinance that said that: And it could be contested within 30
days.
Karr/ Yes.
Woito/ If you had the signatures, yes.
Baker/ But anything that we would recommend that is not contested
would become-
Karr/ It would be published and that would start the 30 days. 'If
nothing is heard within 3o days from that publication it is in
effect. And the reverse occurs also. The reverse where a
petition can be filed forcing council to consider it.
Throg/ At any point in time, anyone, as long as they get enough
signatures.
Woito/ Yes, anytime, regardless of the ten years.
Horow/ Are there any other comments by council or the public?
Kubby/ 'Just, again, thank you for all the time put in.
Pigott/ Thanks very much,
Nov/ Good Commission, thanks.
Horow% Declare the p.h. closed. Would council wish to consider
1%111', adoption of an ordinance adopting the recommendations of the
CRC?'
D
Kubby/ Yes:
NOV/ Yes.
WOito/ Directing staff to prepare it.
(1 Horow/ Directing staff to prepare the ordinance.
t,
�f This represents only a reasonably aocurate transcription of the Iowa City council mooting of February 14, 1906.
W$021496
)fY�
l��lfft�
b
0
a
f6 page 9
Kubby/ Does this mean we have to have some discussion on the
penalties section before you can create language?
Karr/ I would think that would be a separate ordinance.
Kubby/ That would be an amendment. To go ahead and have the Charter
be renewed or whatever the correct -
Woito/ It would take two different ordinances,
Karr/ It would be two different-1 think we would prepare -
Nov/ Penalties wouldn't be in the Charter, would they?
Karr/ It is a subsection of the Charter but I guess I was thinkinge
We. could come up as two separate issues, one being an
ordinance detailing, and containing the recommendations and
then another one with the penalties since they weren't
detailed.
Kubby/ I guess I would like to look at what the state penalties
are. And if staff recommendations are different than the state
penalties, some rationale for what those to recommend to us.
Woito/ You also need a recommendation from staff on what you want
us to do for enforcement purposes for which there are none
now.
Horow /.That, I think, would have to be- Essentially you are doing
three things, one, you are preparing an ordinance to adopt the
changes or recommendations for the CRC and then another memo
stating out this business about the penalties and a third one
having to do with the enforcement. Okay, Anything else the
council wants. Thank you very much.
thla reprosents only a roasonably accurate trmscrlpUon of the Iowa City council malting of Fabruary 14, 1995.
W8021496
e",a
CITY OF IOWA CITY
q Im �T, M E M 0 R A N LD U M
DATE: December 15, 2004
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk f o��
RE: Iowa City Charter
Thank You for attending the December ls` Charter Review Conununity Discussion.
Recommendations of the Commission will be available on the City Website,
www.icgov.org, no later than Tuesday, January 11, 2005 or can be ticked up at the City
Clerk's office.
A final public bearing is scheduled for Thursday, January 13, at 7:00 PM in Harvat Hall,
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street; and will be televised live.
> �..". o n Q. 'w' C
0
c` w �• H m 0 o 0 o a w
'aw
WO
❑ m m 0 0
C a n. a w m °
P � w w ?� N o �, M ,:,, N �a o• m° d w c• G o S m p n" a o' d
;; ,p., < p ° I17 n ° p �' w p N � b .^.. � Oao ❑❑w �•'yOy � "b � � p w
�" "�'• a O �' F,+ '� OG w p° n C. ° �' w p p' p O �°, a W p° `Pd.
F+ • r o G°
• °"� o'° wG EF o.p ooa �. wd w
a
0 y p s ° pO
C �• p a 0 n �00
n w p ° G 'O O O o p
tlo.
p' `e o n .. .-..• ° w � �n "' p O p h7 to ° r' .N.. p-n
O t4 &+ O O n o w o Q
CL-
3, B o w p= w o y<y 00 C °❑ Z
y � I` tl' p, �• Vl �v�!i �. 'nd t�o p „°.� p p •i°i � � 1
Ro
{v o n p• hop <o no a
rr^�
�C' p ii m g.Ahb d^°n
tz
O ��-• GO 'O '+'1
o° w° O o w o' jo� a: w
'.p 00. tit a'o c p to
N a �
n a• R a r°-. .7. p FJ ti1 (o N O W 9 P� w� n �..j d
ss �n as
o n o.v y p A
f w w 9 y "'i1 m<° -� �• n n i� ti, y `� C fryD y
.a O
an
1W
w o < a
E�o m0 0
N A3
o N.
w
0 m
E�Moy�awyp•
a
:1 OE�
vfa Car �• �' p X
oo �'�•."bo d ..
o'
°o OAK m as o �
CL :� � h7 0 S. y a Gyp <`� w w.
!O p �+ O p tNi K C, m "� j `G P Pa O :: P.
M apo ° A go rn ° c E F a s tr
m
p b C. Op• O
a 0 o o d p O O �' ewe p pQ w
Sr' N �' 0 7 p. ° 5 p• E Ly .9
O ti p• rn q
CL 9
qq
Q' rA o
y y
go o°�o y w n°
B y<
ti n, 0 w p" ti y
a
° °*, 'o b o• w(A� ov �
x E m o n y ac aac m ti °°
•
n
V
V
I
z �
rt
r �
N�
N O
cp.