Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-2014 Charter Review CommissionTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND AL L M EETINGS i T •i ►1 &Si ok MEETING AGENDA Monday, November 10, 2014 7:45 AM Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED a. Minutes of the meeting on 10/28/14 b. Citizens Police Review Board 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF a. League of Women Voters Forum b. Compensation History 4. REVIEW CHARTER a. Compensation of council members b. Use of word 'citizen" c. Preamble and Definitions d. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) 5. PUBLIC COMMENT 6. SCHEDULE NEXT PUBLIC FORUM a. Date b. Location c. Time d. Format TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE — [BRING 2015 CALENDARS] (7:45 AM unless specified) November 25 December 9 December 23 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] 8. ADJOURNMENT Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 2014 — 7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Adam Sullivan (arrived 7:50), Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers -Stone Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. a. mmutes oT the meetings on IUr14114 — c;nappeii oegan the aiscussion of the October 14 meeting minutes by stating that he noticed on page 2, at the top, second sentence from the end of the first partial paragraph, where Sullivan was speaking. It states 'majority' instead of 'minority.' Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0, Schantz, Sullivan, and Moyers -Stone absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell noted that he was in contact with Linda Schreiber again, trying to get more specifics on what they are looking for at their forum. He noted that she thought the format would involve three or four Charter Review Members. He reported that Schreiber stated that in addition to individual introductions, they would like to see a summary of the Charter history and timeline. Chappell continued, noting that typically the League likes for their forum to be 'their' forum, which is normal for these types of meetings. He stated that they do need to decide who is going to attend the forum. Members began a discussion on this issue, with Atkins noting that he is okay with the Chair speaking for the group. Chappell noted that whoever attends can speak for themselves as a Member of the Commission. Members weighed in on how they feel about several Members attending such a forum and how they would respond to questions, etc. Chappell noted that he believes the League is trying to get more people involved in the process, and by doing so, it could help this Commission get more public involvement at their next forum. Chappell stated that it is up to the Commission, that he could go as the Chair and speak for the group, or they can decide on several Members attending. Shaw stated that he is not comfortable with three or four Members attending, and he gave an example of someone asking a loaded question and how it would be addressed. Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 2 The discussion continued, with Kubby giving some examples of how having Members respond to questions at a forum such as this is not really much different from the meetings they are holding themselves. Vanderhoef noted that at a forum it is a sound bite — not the full conversation that Members have at their own meetings. Kubby asked if Members have a problem with attending the League's forum. Craig noted that she is not against it, but that she does not think they are far enough along to respond to questions, other than the process they are following. Chappell stated that he would have no hesitation with any of the Members speaking at the forum. He added that attending the League's forum will be good publicity for their own public forums. Chappell then asked Members if they want him, as Chair, to participate in the forum. Everyone agreed that he should. He asked if others are interested in attending, or if now there is a desire that only the Chair attends. Vanderhoef stated that she would be okay either way. Atkins spoke to some of the questions that may be asked at this forum, noting that they will probably be pretty specific. He stated that they need to use caution in responding to such questions. Having said this, he would be okay with three or four Members attending or just the Chair. Sullivan stated that he has every confidence in the Chair attending and responding to questions. Members continued to express their concerns with this type of forum, what type of questions might be asked, and how the questions are deflected by the Chair and/or Members in attendance. Kubby noted that it is not necessarily about deflecting, that it is more about not being definitive. She added that for her the whole purpose of the process is to have people understand all the different elements that come together. Shaw stated that whether or how Members respond at the forum will depend on the format and how the questions are directed. He noted that in a panel setting, it gives them a chance to say what it is they are doing and to note that they have not yet received a final decision, etc. Shaw stated he is okay with the Chair attending and that he would recommend as many Members going as possible. He added that if the format is a panel style, then Members may be a part of that panel and that this is where those comments come into play. Craig reiterated that they can only have 4 attend; otherwise it becomes a meeting. Kubby stated that if they are asking for three or four Members to attend, then it will most likely be a panel type format and the questions will be directed at the panel. Chappell stated that in his opinion, the League's forum is only a positive thing for them to participate in. Karr asked if the forum is expected to be televised. She noted that those Members who do not wish to attend could watch it, if it is indeed televised. That way it would allow everyone to see it and be able to hear the exchanges that take place. Craig again stated that she believes several of the Members should attend the League's forum. She believes it will be a great opportunity for them to get some publicity about the Charter and the process they are undertaking. Chappell asked who would be interested in attending. Vanderhoef stated that she does not have strong feelings either way. Craig noted that the minutes show Schantz, Atkins, and Kubby as having volunteered to attend. Shaw stated that he would be willing to go. Craig stated that she is not available on that day. Kubby stated that if Vanderhoef is going that perhaps they should check with Moyers -Stone, so Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 3 they don't have a former city manager and two former council members attending. Atkins agreed with this sentiment. Chappell suggested they solidify this at their next meeting. b. Compensation — Karr spoke to the requested comparison of salaries. She noted that this is Item 3(b) in the packets. C. Table of Income Guidelines and Definitions — Karr stated that she sent this information to Members earlier and that it is Item 3(c) in the packets. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Compensation of council members — Chappell stated that there appeared to be some consensus that the salaries are too low. He added that there is perhaps a slightly lesser consensus that something needs to be done about it in the Charter and no apparent consensus yet that if something does need to be done just what that would be. Chappell noted that Dilkes had suggested they take a look at how other cities handle this type of compensation, and that this is what Karr has provided for their review. Chappell continued, reviewing the information, stating that Iowa City is low on the compensation scale, but not as low as everyone may have thought. He noted that only one of the other communities addresses council compensation in their charter. Dulek noted that most cities do not have a Home Rule Charter, but instead a 'special charter.' She briefly described what a 'special charter' is, noting that in 1975 they froze their form of government 'as is,' and that there are only a handful of cities that have a Home Rule Charter, like Iowa City does. Kubby noted that as she continues to think about this, she is beginning to like the idea of having something about compensation in the Charter. She believes this removes the process from the people who will find it politically difficult to make this decision — the city council. Kubby stated that she does not want a set number in the Charter, but instead a community standard that changes over time. Sullivan stated that he agrees with Kubby on this issue, and that he would be interested in having some type of mechanism to ensure that the council takes some action item over a prescribed timeline. Members continued to discuss this issue, especially the idea of a formula that could be utilized. Craig noted that currently they are at 12.5% of median income. Chappell noted that the idea was to offset some level of income, for the time that council members are expected to put forth. Chappell stated that he is still not convinced that anything they do will really be enough to encourage underrepresented individuals to try and participate in the city council. Craig stated that she is a bit concerned about this amount, as the money has to come from somewhere every year. Members also discussed there being no monetary compensation, such as the School Board Members. Atkins stated that he is more inclined to say 'set it and forget it.' By this he means that they set in the Charter what the amount is, and that that is what it is. Vanderhoef stated that she thought the compensation was adjusted by CPI. Karr noted that it used to be this way, but that it was amended a few years back. She then gave some history, noting that Council passed an ordinance that tied the compensation to the CPI and had it automatically adjusted in accordance with this, via the budget. Then when the budget tightened some years back, the Council chose to amend this ordinance. She stated the CPI reference was not in Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 4 the Charter, but was a separate ordinance in the code. Karr will provide ordinance language history at the next meeting. Continuing the discussion, Chappell noted that it appears the City is approaching some tight times now, unless the legislature were to make some highly unlikely changes. He believes it would be an awkward and difficult time for the Council to come up with this money. Craig asked if others believe the Council would even accept a recommendation such as this, were the Commission to suggest it. She noted that this may put the current Council in an awkward position in April. Shaw stated that he is not sure that setting a floor for council salary would be a great idea in the Charter itself. He added that he believes individuals do not run for council positions for the salary but for other reasons. He stated that he is not persuaded an increase would encourage more individuals to run. Continuing, Shaw stated that having heard some of the comments about initiative and referendum, changing the mayor/council form of government, and the many strong opinions that people have shared, he questioned this Commission recommending a salary change with all of these other important issues being raised. He stated that something like that could leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Shaw asked how the salary would change for council, if they were to make it part of the Charter. Would it change again in 10 years? Chappell noted earlier discussion of making this a recommended change that they mention in their report to Council, recommending that Council discuss this issue and move forward with it. Chappell stated that it would be interesting to know the impediments to underrepresented persons from running for council seats. He questioned if it is the salary, or if it is due to council meeting every other Tuesday at 5:00. Kubby stated that she believes if they make a recommendation to Council about salary regarding their current ordinance that nothing will happen. She believes instead that the Commission's recommendation should state what they believe is best for the Charter, and then Council will accept or reject or put on the ballot what they want. Speaking to the other cities, Shaw questioned what they would be using as comparables in this situation. He believes they would need to set parameters. Sullivan spoke to this issue as well, stating that he believes using median income is a better way to go. Members continued to discuss this issue, looking especially at other cities within Iowa that they could compare Iowa City to in this regard. Craig stated she is not interested in doubling the Council's salary. She stated that there has to be a better way, especially when you look at how the School Board has such a diverse pool of candidates. Atkins noted that there also is an ebb and flow within the community in politics, and that 10 to 12 years ago, no one ran for School Board. Vanderhoef added that for the council elections, there used to always be a primary for the at -large seats, that they would have up to nine running for at -large. Both she and Atkins voiced that this is just part of that ebb and flow. Vanderhoef noted that when she joined the Council, they received $5,000 and the mayor was always given $1,000 more. When the CPI was added, she noted that it raised these amounts, since 2008, from the $5,000 she saw to the $7,000 they receive currently. Karr noted that during each budget cycle, the council does review each line item and that this would most likely be the time they would discuss the issue of council compensation. Chappell noted Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 5 that they don't appear to be anywhere near a consensus at this time regarding this issue, and that perhaps this will be one of the community discussion topics. Atkins added that he wants to believe that people run for city council because they believe they can make a difference, and that CPIs and items like this being incorporated into the Charter, would make him very uncomfortable. b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell moved on to the issue of the words 'citizen' and "person.' He noted that they have another memo from Karr regarding this topic. The discussion began with 'citizen,' most notably in Section 5, Citizens Police Review Board. Craig stated that something to talk with this board about would be if their view is that it is for'citizens' only. Karr noted that the renaming of the Citizens Police Review Board was an ordinance change based upon a recommendation from the City's Diversity Committee. She explained that you do not have to be a citizen to file a complaint. Kubby stated that they could leave `citizen' in this section and still change 'citizen' to 'resident' in the other sections. Kubby stated that Dilkes really clarified for them that the legal definition of 'citizen' does not mean you have to be a legal resident or a registered person, but that it's really about perception and being as welcoming as possible due to the connotation of this word. Craig noted that it is not in their Definitions section either and should be. Continuing the discussion, Vanderhoef noted that when the original Charter was written, Iowa City was not nearly as diverse as it is now, and there were very few non-U.S. citizens at that time. The ones that were here were primarily students at the University for just a few years. She believes that now they need the distinction of 'resident' and 'citizen' in that there are a number of individuals in the community that are not legal residents of the United States, and the City needs to be able to serve them, in the broader scope, if they have a problem within the community. Chappell stated that he is all for removing offense language to the extent that 'citizen' is going to be interpreted by some as being underinclusive or offensive. He is agreeable to changing 'citizen' to something else, but that once they start defining things, you have to be very careful. He added that every definition has any number of reactions to it. He stated that if they do change it from 'citizen,' his first reaction is to change it to 'resident.' However, if they define 'resident,' he believes it just gets more complicated. He asked how you would then define 'resident,' and if this would include 'persons' as they have already discussed the fact that 'persons' includes corporations, which other people do not like. Chappell stated that sometimes you just have to be able to say that people know what something means. Kubby agreed, stating that it would not have to be defined, that it is not defined currently. The majority of Members agreed that 'resident' is the preferable term here. Chappell asked if there was a consensus of Members wanting to change 'citizen.' Vanderhoef stated that she does not understand the connotation of why 'citizen' is not a good term. Kubby stated that it connotes citizenship, a legal status. Vanderhoef stated that if you have that status, then a resident is merely someone who physically resides in a city. She believes that this is the most appropriate term. She believes they should leave 'citizen' and use 'resident' only where it is in the protection of all the residents, but not necessarily given the rights of a citizen. Kubby stated that in looking through the document and seeing where the word 'citizen' is, it seems to appear that changing it to 'resident' does not cause any problems, except for the Citizens Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 6 Police Review Board, which they already talked about leaving as is in that section. C. Preamble and definitions — Sullivan noted that it appears in three places, one in the Preamble where it is talking about the CPRB and then again when it says 'citizens can apply for boards and commissions.' He noted that they had discussed adopting a different Preamble, that Schantz had come up with something they are going to discuss at a future meeting. He noted that due to the wording in this reworded Preamble, it may remove many of their questions. Shaw stated that he believes it was given to them in the last few weeks — Schantz's Preamble. He asked if they could look at it quickly to see if some of their issues were indeed addressed here. Members then looked at the August 26 packet and reviewed Schantz's rewritten Preamble. Chappell asked Craig to read this aloud for Members. Kubby stated that she made a note that regarding the addition of '...and local ordinances' in the second to last bullet. Chappell stated that they really have not had much discussion about Schantz's rewritten Preamble at this point. Craig stated that Schantz did remove all uses of the word 'citizen' in the Preamble. It was noted that the use of 'persons' was also removed. Vanderhoef noted that the use of 'resident' here is how she would think of it being used. Kubby stated that she believes Schantz's version is missing a critical point, the benefits of Home Rule, and she believes this needs to be mentioned in the Preamble. She believes it to be such a fundamental piece of who Iowa City is and how the city government is structured. Vanderhoef agreed, noting that she also made notes to that effect. Chappell stated that it sounds to him like they are heading to some consensus on 'resident,' but that they still have the question of whether they make a change to the initial Preamble, or they look at a different Preamble. He stated that he would like to wait until the next meeting so Schantz could be a part of it. He asked that they turn to use of the word 'person' in the Charter. Kubby noted that there is some difference in how the word is used, such as in the Preamble. Vanderhoef stated that if they are looking at 'person' versus 'citizen,' they can look at Schantz's proposal and the first bullet states 'resident participation on inclusive basis and democratic self-government.' She added that this is one of the few place where she would use the word 'citizen.' Chappell stated that at this point, however, they are looking at'person' and whether or not to change something about the definition of the word 'person,' and whether it would cause any problems by doing so. Members continued their discussion, with Kubby speaking to corporations being 'people' and how they can articulate their distaste within the community that corporations are defined as people by the Supreme Court. This would be a semantic way of doing so. Chappell asked if anyone believes they need to change the definition of 'person.' Kubby stated that she does not like corporations being defined as 'people' in the Charter. She added that she will not block consensus on this issue, nor will she support it. Chappell asked if she has a change to propose on this issue. Kubby noted that she believes they should take 'corporation' out of the definition, and then in the sections where they Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 7 want corporations to be restricted, then they add the word 'corporation.' Sullivan asked how you would then deal with companies, associations, and political parties then. Kubby stated that the only place it really appears to be a problem is the section about Campaign Contributions. Craig stated that they would also want corporations, small businesses or whatever size businesses in their community to be protected. Kubby stated that they could do another search, looking for the word 'person' to see how many might need to be replaced. Craig stated that she made notes on this very thing as she went through the Charter. Shaw stated that he is not suggesting they create a definition for 'corporations,' but that they could remove from the definition of 'persons,' words such as corporations, partnerships, etc. and refer to Dilkes' comments about the Iowa Statute 490 or some other provision that defines it. Sullivan stated that he does not find the use of the word 'persons' to be an issue here. Chappell asked Kubby to propose some language for them to review and discuss at the next meeting, especially with the missing Members present to join in. Kubby then asked about who can sign a petition, she noted that it says 'each person signing shall provide certain information.' She gave the example of the president of an S Corporation, asking if a person could sign for the corporation and as an individual. Discussion ensued, with Chappell noting that a corporation cannot vote, that in those situations it is obvious. d. Primary vs. Run-off election — Chappell stated that after looking at all of the information they received, there appears to be no consensus to make a change from 'primary' to 'run-off.' He asked if Members agreed, and the majority did. e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — No discussion PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): November 10 — Chappell reminded Members of their special Monday meeting. He stated that he would try to send a reminder over the weekend, and Karr added that the packet should be going out no later than Friday, November 7. At the next meeting, Chappell would like to finalize who is attending the League's forum. Chappell asked Members to email him any issues of high interest. Karr stated that as soon as they can pinpoint their next forum, it will help in ensuring they are able to reserve the proper room. Chappell asked that they add this topic to the next agenda. November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Moyers -Stone absent. Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM O o 0 o O 0 O o 0 0 0 -* A Ul N O O V 00 00 K) (O Q f0 f0 O O h � NAME EXP. w W V o N O N W —* hi-+ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 411/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 411/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 411/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X X O/ Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/ X Vanderhoef E Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time � rlll p� CITY OF I O W A CITY�b a R ®,mom CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMUKANUUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: October 30, 2014 To: Charter Review Commission i From: Kellie Tuttle, CPRB staff idi Re: Charter language At their October 131h meeting the Citizens Police Review Board agreed to recommend changes to the Charter language as follows: ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Section 5.01. Establishment. CURRENT 1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens' views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the city council; PROPOSED 1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of the CPRB hearing (oitizens3 views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police department. RED -LINED VERSION January 14, 2005 At the first election under this Charter, all seven Councilmembers are to be elected; the Councihnember from Council District A, Council District C, and the two Councilmembers at large who receive the greatest number of votes cast for Councilmember at large are to serve for terms of four years, and other Councilmembers are to serve for terms of two years. Commencing at the next regular City election, and at all subsequent regular City elections, all Councilmembers elected to fill the positions of those whose terms expire shall be elected for terms of four years. Section 2.05. Compensation. The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the Mayor and the other Council members;, tmd4The Council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December immediately following a regular City election. (Ord. No. 85- 3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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 representative of the City, presiding officer of the Council and its policy spokesperson. 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. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No. 95-3671, § 1, 3-28-95) Section 2.07. General powers and duties. All powers of the City are vested in the Council, except as otherwise provided by State law or this Charter. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85) 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. D. The Council shall appoint all members of the City's Boards, except as otherwise provided by State law. E. The Council shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it appoints and shall provide for the method of compensation of other City employees. All appointments and promotions of City employees by City Council and City Manager must be made according to job -related criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards established pursuant to law. (Ord. No. 85-3227, § 2(2), 3-12-85; Ord. No, 95-3671, § 1, 3-28-95) Section 2.09. Rules; records. Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. 05-4152 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IOWA CITY CHARTER, CHAPTER 1 (DEFINITIONS) AND SECTIONS 2.03 (ELIGIBILITY), 2.05 (COMPENSATION), 2.11 (COUNCIL ACTION), 2.12 (PROHIBITIONS), 3.01 (NOMINATION), 3.02 (PRIMARY ELECTION), 4.03 (ABSENCE; DISABILITY OF CITY MANAGER), 4.04 (DUTIES OF CITY MANAGER), 6.02 (APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL), 6.03 (RULES), 6.02 (DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES), 6.03 (DEFINITION), 6.04 (VIOLATIONS), 7.01 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), 7.02 (COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS; AFFIDAVIT), 7.03 (PETITIONS; REVOCATION OF SIGNATURES), 7.04 (PROCEDURE AFTER FILING), 7.05 (ACTION ON PETITIONS), 7.06 (RESULTS OF ELECTION), 8.01 (CHARTER AMENDMENTS), AND 8.02 (CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION) AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Charter provides for the establishment of a Charter Review Commission at least once every ten (10) years; WHEREAS, the City Council did appoint a nine (9) member Commission to review the Charter on March 16, 2004 in Resolution No. 04-88; WHEREAS, the Charter Review Commission met twenty-four (24) times to review the Charter and held three (3) public hearings; WHEREAS, the Charter Review Commission made Its recommendations to Council on January 18, 2005; and WHEREAS, it is in the best Interest of the City to adopt said recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS 1. The "Definition" provision In the Charter Is hereby amended by repealing the definition of "ordinance" and adding the following new definition: "Ordinance" means a City law of a general and permanent nature. 2. The "Definition" provision of the Charter is hereby amended by repealing the definition of "measure" and adding the following new definition: "Measure" except as provided in Article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. 3. Article 11, entitled "City Council," Section 2.03, entitled "Eligibility," is hereby amended by repealing 2.03 in its entirety and adding the following new Section 2.03: To be eligible to be elected to and to retain a Council position, a person must be an eligible elector of Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to represent a Council District, must be an eligible elector of that Council District. 4. Article 11, entitled "City Council," Section 2.05, entitled "Compensation," is hereby amended by repealing 2.05 In its entirety and adding the following new Section 2.05: The Council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the Mayor and the other Council members. The Council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December immediately following a regular City election. 5. Article 11, entitled "City Council," Section 2.11, entitled "Council action," is hereby amended by repealing 2.11in its entirety and adding the following new Section 2.11: Passage of an ordinance, amendment or resolution requires a majority vote of all the members of the Council except as otherwise provided by State law. 6. Article II, entitled "City Council," Section 2.12, entitled "Prohibitions," Paragraph B is hereby amended by repealing B in its entirety and adding the following new Paragraph B: B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, which are subject to approval of the City Council, neither the Council nor its members may dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of any person appointed by the City Manager. However, the Council may express its views to the City Manager pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee. Prepared by: Marian Karr, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5041 ORDINANCE NO. 0e-4455 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL," TO FREEZE THE COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REPEAL THE REVIEW POLICY ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 97-3804. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to freeze the rate of compensation paid to the Mayor and City Council Members in recognition of the current economic climate; and to remove the review of compensation policy established by Ordinance 97-3804 providing for review in each regular election year in accordance with State Code. SECTION Il. AMENDING SECTION 1-5-3.A Repealing Section 1-5-3A in its entirety and adding a new section to read as follows: A. City Council Members. Members of the City Council shall be compensated at the rate of seven thousand seventy two dollars ($7,072.00) annually. SECTION III. AMENDING SECTION 1-5-3C. Repealing Section 1-5-3C in its entirety. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance 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 VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2010. Passed end approved MA ATTEST: Ap roved by: ,O)�L City Attorney's Office d PIWMC/NRp�MIS.000 day of August , 2009. 71141og Ordinance No. 09-4355 Page 2 It was moved by Wright and seconded by Champion that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bailey x Champion _Y_ Correia x Hayek x O'Donnell x _ Wilburn x Wright First Consideration July 28, 2009 Vote for passage: AYES: Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, NAYS: None, ABSENT: None. Second Consideration ---------- Vote for passage: Date published 8/26/2009 Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Champion, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at• which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time, AXES: Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia. NAYS: None, ABSENT: None. Prepared by: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk, 410 E, Washington St„ Iowa City, IA 52240; (319) 356-5040. ORDINANCE NO, 97-3804 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL," TO CHANGE THE COMPENSATION AND REVIEW PROCESS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this or- dinance is to raise the rate of compensation paid to the Mayor and City Council Members and establish a policy for further review of City Council compensation for the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section II. Amending Section 1-5-3. Repealing Section 1-5-3 in its entirety and adding a new section to read as follows: A. City Council Members, Members of the City Council shall be compensated at the rate of five thousand five hundred twelve dol- lars eighty cents ($5,512,80) annually. B. Mayor. Compensation for the Mayor will be the same rate as a City Council Member plus one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) annu- ally. C. Review of Compensation. Staff will adjust City Council compensation based on the cumulative annual percent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), US City Average, All Items, using the third quarter ending September 30 of the prior year and September 30 of the current year. The calcu- lated amount will be included in the annual budget for review by the City Council in each regular election year in accordance with State Code, Section III. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section IV. Severability. If any section, provi- sion or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudi- cation shall not affect the validity of the Ordi- nance as a whole or any section, provision or Ordinance No. 97-3804 Page 2 Ordinance No. page 2 part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. Section V. Effective pate, This ordinance shall be effective after Its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. A change In compensation shall be effective January 1, 1998. Passed and approved this 9th day of September (�, 1997. Mayor Attest: ) x uJ City Clerk City Attorney's office ordinance No. 97-3804 Page 3 It was moved by Kubby and seconded by Raker that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Baker X Kubby x Lehman x Norton x Novick Thornberry x_ . Vanderhoef First Consideration 7/29/97 Vote for passage: AYES: Vanderhoef, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Norton, Novick. NAYS: Thornberry. ABSENT: None, Second Consideration 8/26/91 Vote for passage: AYES: Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Norton, Novick, Vanderhoef. NAYS: Thornberry. ABSENT: None. Date published 9/17/97 From Commission Member dark Schantz Redistributed from 8/12 meeting Redistributed from 8/26 meeting Preamble to Iowa City Charter --Discussion Draft 2:0 WE, THE PEOPLE of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the State of Iowa and the principle of self-determination, do hereby adopt this Charter and and confer upon It the full powers of a charter city, By this action, we intend to foster: --resident participation on an inclusive basis in democratic self-government; --the provision of services relating to the health, safety and welfare of its residents in a fair, equitable and efficient manner; --the conduct of city business In conformity with due process, equal protection of the laws, and those individual liberties protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Iowa; --civility by city employees in their interactions with the public. 1