Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-10-2015 Charter Review Commission1r , _r = ikk 0=1q_ Wft*� , d uty Of THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:45 AM Helling Conference Room 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED a. Minutes of the meeting on 1/27/15 b. Correspondence from: 1. Jo Dickens 3. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF 4. REVIEW CHARTER 1. Language for Changing Qualified to Eligible for Initiative and Referendum • Proposal from Chappell (x2) 2. Mayoral duties 3. Use of word "citizen" in Citizen's Police Review Board 4. Other parts of the Charter as time allows 5. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF RED -LINE VERSION 6. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION a. Language regarding selection of mayor • Proposal from Kubby b. Other 7. PUBLIC COMMENT 8. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM (tentatively set) • Harvat Hall -February 24 (6:30 p.m.) • Publicity (SEE PAGE TWO) Charter Review Commission Agenda — February 10, 2015 Page 2 9. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE - (7:45 AM unless specified) • February 13 • February 24 • February 24 (6:30 p.m. Public Forum) • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 [Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015] maw Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2015 — 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Mark Schantz (8:15 via telephone; left 8:20 due to phone problems), Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef (left at 9:30) Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 01/13/15 — b. Correspondence from: 1) Dave Martin; 2) Rita Bettis; 3) Vanessa Ryan; 4) Mary Murphy; 5) copy of Corridor Business Journal editorial (Chappell); and 6) Tom Carsner Chappell asked if there was any discussion on the correspondence they have received. Kubby stated that she would like to hear Dilkes' response to Rita Bettis' letter. Dilkes stated that she has already given the Commission a memo on the Constitutional issues and has also shared the statutory analysis on this issue. Kubby noted comments they have received regarding their public input process and that it is too restrictive. Members asked if there were any specific examples given. Chappell stated that he did not take the comment in quite the same way, that he heard that there should be more public outreach. Chappell stated that they have sought comment on specific issues, and comments in general, since April 1 when the Commission began. Kubby spoke to what they could possibly be doing to make this process more helpful for the public. Chappell said that perhaps they will have time at the end of their review to address this question and get some feedback on what they could have done better in the overall process. Atkins moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. Council Compensation — use of CPI language (Karr) — b. Initiative and Referendum petition language from Clinton, IA (Karr) — c. Reports from Members Shaw stated that he recently received a phone call, in addition to several conversations he has had, regarding the direct election of the mayor, and the initiative and referendum issue. What he heard was to maintain the election of the mayor by the City Council. As to the initiative and referendum issue, Shaw has heard that if this were to be modified, then the number of required Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 2 signatures should be increased. Vanderhoef stated that she has had several phone messages, particularly on the election of the mayor issue. The comments have been the same as what Shaw has heard, to leave the selection of the mayor as it currently is. REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM: a. Election of Mayor Chappell asked how Members would like to proceed with 'election of the mayor' and 'district representation.' Chappell reported that his notes show that there was not a majority of Members wanting to make a change to the mayoral selection process; noting that he likes the current process and believes it works well. Shaw stated that he read Kubby's proposal and that while it is persuasive, he is still not in favor of a change. Kubby spoke to why she believes they are ready for a change and further explained her stance on this issue. She stated that she believes this type of change helps them to create a different structure. Kubby noted that one thing she left out of her suggestion was a term limit for the mayor. She believes the voters should determine this, but would be open to further discussion on it. Sullivan asked Kubby to speak to Schantz's proposal for the section regarding powers of the mayor, etc. She noted that he spoke to the mayor powers and duties in B of his proposal rather the election process. Further discussion occurred later in the meeting. b. District Representation See discussion later in the meeting. C. Council Compensation Chappell stated that they would begin with the council compensation issue, as they had two Members absent during last meeting's discussion. He summarized the conversation from the last meeting, noting that those who were supportive of making a change to the Charter were Atkins, Schantz, and Kubby; with Sullivan, Shaw, Craig, and Chappell wanting no change relative to council compensation. He asked Moyers -Stone and Vanderhoef for their opinions on this matter. Vanderhoef stated that she does not believe that this belongs in the Charter, first of all; and believes the Charter should stay as is. Moyers -Stone stated that she also does not see a reason to change this section. She added that she has not heard enough talk about this, that it really does not appear to be an issue for most people. Chappell noted that he would like to move on then to the other items since this appears to not have a majority of the Members interested in recommending a change. Kubby stated that they did hear from the public on compensation, and that there was talk from many that the current compensation is too low, that it could be a possible obstacle to running for office. She added that she believes they need to make an "informal" recommendation to Council to look at the issue seriously and do something about it. She reiterated what had been said previously, that the compensation is 'too low for the work that is expected' of council members. Chappell added that he is perfectly comfortable with making such a recommendation to Council in their final report. He asked if someone wanted to volunteer to come up with some language on this issue, and Kubby responded she would prepare something for the next meeting. She stated that she does want this in the Charter and that she is passionate about the issue, as she believes it makes a big difference. Chappell then asked if there was a motion to keep the Charter as it is, relative to council compensation. Vanderhoef moved to keep the language in the Charter as is, relative to Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 3 council compensation. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1, Kubby in the negative, Schantz absent. d. Initiative and Referendum Chappell summarized earlier discussion regarding 'qualified' versus 'eligible, noting that those supportive of a change were Schantz, Sullivan, Shaw, Atkins, Craig, and Kubby; while not supportive of a change was Chappell. He noted that the majority of Members were also agreeable to an increase in the number of signatures required on a petition. Chappell stated that he would agree that if they were to make a change they should increase this number. Moyers -Stone stated that she is also against making a change and briefly touched on why this process should be somewhat difficult to undertake. Vanderhoef spoke to input she received, stating that if you are not a registered voter, you are not in the draw forjury duty, and that this is part of the participatory part of the overall process. Chappell stated that he has written a preliminary draft of the changes that would be necessary to change 'qualified' to 'eligible,' and that he and Dilkes have had some conversations regarding this. Looking at the process that the Clerk's office goes through currently, he added that they are trying to decide what steps still need to be a part of this. He hopes to have a draft ready for the Commission's review prior to their next meeting. Chappell then asked to have a vote on this matter. Several Members stated that their vote would be predicated on the number of signatures required. Craig spoke to what she has heard about this issue, noting that if there is to be change, people need to then participate in the change. At this point, Schantz joined the conversation via telephone connection. Craig continued, sharing some information she found on a web site called Ballotpedia, similar to Wikipedia. She added that she does not understand the reasons behind people not wanting to register to vote. Members spoke to online registration in the future and how this might change things. Kubby stated that by signing a petition; however, many people are making the first step towards participating. Craig then responded to Kubby's question on the number of required signatures on a petition and whether this should increase. Noting that the number using the latest Census would be around 3,600 and stated that they should at least use this number. She added that if they were to go to 'eligible,' then perhaps the number should be closer to 5,000. The discussion turned to participation in the governmental process and what it means to some people. Chappell then stated that unless someone has changed their vote, the Commission will be recommending changing the Charter from 'qualified' to 'eligible.' He added that at this point they should probably discuss what the number of signatures should be, since this also has a majority of the Commission's approval for change. Chappell noted that Sullivan has come up with a proposal regarding this. Sullivan asked if they could first discuss why 'qualified' should remain in the Charter, in order to make their case for recommending a change to 'eligible.' Craig asked Sullivan if he could give the top three reasons why someone would not register to vote. Sullivan responded that one, the person does not want to serve on jury duty; second, they do not want their name and information to be public record; and third, they do not want to turn up to vote. (Schantz had to leave the meeting at this point.) Shaw stated that to him moving from 'qualified' to 'eligible,' and changing the number of signatures does not appear to lessen the awareness that may be created by distributing a petition. In the end, then, only those that are registered to vote will vote on the issue. Kubby asked Shaw if he had a number in mind, and he spoke to Sullivan's memo, stating that if they were to go by Sullivan's proposal, it would only increase by 150 signatures. He noted that this would not be unduly burdensome at all, but Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 4 that he is not sure of an exact number. He also questioned if they shouldn't do a percentage of 2013's voter turnout statistics. Chappell noted that if they look at the Census data that Karr provided, it puts them around 3,600, based on a comparison of the city's population when this provision was adopted, compared to the 2,500 and the current population. He touched on why he believes the 3,600 more closely represents where they should be on this issue. He asked what others think about this number. Sullivan stated that he believes his memo stands, and he also referenced the ACLU memo, noting that the State only requires 10% of eligible electors and that they should not require more than this. Speaking to this briefly, Dilkes stated that when this was written into the State code, nobody was thinking about initiative and referendum. Kubby stated that she would like to have two different votes here — one on the number of signatures, and then a second for the 'eligible' issue. Chappell then asked for everyone's stance at the present time on the number issue. Moyers - Stone stated that at first she was at 5,000, but that the more she hears it does make sense to base the number on some methodology. She did not think the 2,660 was enough of an increase, and that using the Census number is more in line with what she is thinking. Kubby stated that she would like to keep the number at 2,500. Craig responded that she would like to see 4,000. Chappell noted that he is comfortable with 3,600. Atkins stated that he too would be okay with 3,600. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to see it done via a methodology tied to the Census with an escalator as the Census changes. Shaw stated that he is at a number somewhere between 3,600 and 4,000. Members continued to discuss this issue, as they attempted to agree on some type of methodology to use in determining this number. Chappell noted that he is hearing a majority for 3,600. He asked if there was a motion for this. Shaw moved that the Commission vote whether to increase the number of eligible electors to some number higher than 2,500. Chappell stated that this is not what he meant, and Shaw asked if he wanted the number stated as exactly 3,600. Craig stated that she would like to revisit the actual math that they are using to reach the 3,600 number. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to get the number tied to the Census. Karr then further explained that on December 23rtl, she verbally reported that if they were to look at the information previously used, from the 1970 Census, and the 2,500 required at that time, and then compared it only to the Census figures — not the voters — the Census population was 46,850 and it was 'no fewer than 2,500 voters.' This came out to the percentage of .0533617. If you take this same number consistently through, Karr noted that in 1980 it would have been 'no fewer than 2,695,' the 1990 would be 'no fewer than 3,187,' the 2000 Census would show 'no fewer than 3,320,' and the 2010 population would have reflected 'no fewer than 3,621.' Chappell asked Dilkes for some guidance at this point, noting that he would like to have a motion to vote on a particular number that they would then vote on, followed by a motion to change the Charter to allow for'eligible' at this particular number. Kubby noted that the vote needs to reflect 'if' they change it from 'qualified' to 'eligible,' and everyone agreed. Members continued to discuss the issues at hand, with Sullivan asking Chappell and others if they see this as something the Charter Review Commission will need to revisit every 10 years. Chappell stated that he believes the Commission will need to revisit this in 10 years, if they do make a change, just to see if it is working well. Shaw made the motion that if they make the change to 'eligible,' that the number of signatures required be raised to 3,600. Atkins seconded the motion. Atkins asked for some clarification again on how they are arriving at the 3,600 number. Chappell explained how the initial number was set, and how using that they Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 5 have now arrived at the 3,600 number. Chappell then reiterated the current motion. Vanderhoef asked if she should make a second motion then to tie this number to the Census. Chappell stated that she could do that, and Dilkes added that she could also make a motion to amend the current motion. Vanderhoef reiterated that she would like to see this number automatically bumped with Census, starting at the 3,600 number. Chappell moved to amend the motion to add language tying the number to the Census so that it changes every 10 years. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Shaw then moved to amend original motion, stating that he would add that it be rounded to the nearest hundredth. Chappell and Vanderhoef accept this friendly amendment. The motion to accept the amendment carried 5-2; Atkins and Kubby in the negative, and Schantz absent. Next the vote moved to Shaw's motion with the amendment and friendly amendment on it. Sullivan spoke briefly to this issue before the vote was taken. A vote was then taken to increase the number of signatures to 3,600, should the 'eligible' change take place, tie this to the Census information, and round to the nearest hundredth. Motion carried 5-3. Kubby then moved to change 'qualified' to 'eligible' elector for initiative and referendum. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3; Vanderhoef, Craig, and Chappell in the negative. Chappell noted that in the Commission's report, they will therefore be recommending to the City Council that the Charter be amended to allow eligible voters, instead of qualified, to sign petitions for initiative and referendum, and the floor will be at no fewer than 3,600 signatures required. There will also be language added so that on a decennial basis when the Census comes in, this number will be adjusted accordingly. The Commission returned to discussion regarding election of Mayor. a. Election of Mayor (continued) Members continued to discuss the mayoral appointment and powers. Kubby spoke to the various arguments regarding a directly elected mayor, versus having the council make this appointment. She added that she believes the mayor will have more 'power' if elected by the voters. The conversation also covered the city manager position and what types of power this position holds. Chappell then asked each Member where they stand on this issue. Vanderhoef stated that she believes the mayor should be selected by the council and therefore does not desire a change in the Charter at this time. Atkins stated that he also believes it should stay the same. He does believe that there needs to be some type of transparency, however, built into the process. Craig also agreed that there should be no change, and she also agreed that transparency is an issue. She added that the agenda -setting power should go to the mayor, as well. Sullivan stated that he has struggled with this issue, and that after hearing input from the public, he believes a change is desired here. He agrees with Kubby in that the mayor should be elected by the public. He believes a good compromise would be to elect a 'weak' mayor. Moyers -Stone stated that she also believes this process should not change. She believes there is already a compromise with the at -large and district positions. Chappell noted that if his notes are correct, Schantz is also for changing how the mayor is elected. This would then put them at a 6-3 vote on the matter, with 'no change' being the decision. [Further discussion later in the meeting] The Commission returned to discussion regarding district representation. b. District Representation (continued) Chappell asked Members to comment. Sullivan stated that he would go either one way or the other — either close down the general election to just district voters or open up the primaries to everyone. Vanderhoef stated that she believes the process works well the way it is currently. Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 6 She added that she might entertain some modification if there was interest by Commission. Craig stated that she would be in favor of no change, as did Shaw. Kubby stated that she would like to see some type of transparency for the Charter that is not too specific and that could function well from the perspective of a council member. She added that she is working on a proposal for this section and would have something for the next meeting. Atkins stated that he does not believe they need to change this section, as did Moyers -Stone. Chappell weighed in then, stating that he is also for no change at this time. He stated that he believes the system they have is a good one. With this information, Chappell noted that there appear to be seven for no change, one for change, and one for `light' change (Sullivan). Chappell then asked if there was a motion to keep the Charter as it currently is, with regards to district representation. Vanderhoef moved to keep the Charter as it is currently with district representation. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2; Kubby and Sullivan in the negative, Schantz absent. The Commission returned to discussion regarding election of Mayor. a. Election of Mayor (continued) Members discussed the powers of the mayor and how this interacts with the city manager position. The setting of the agenda was discussed at some length by Members. Vanderhoef noted that a practice of the council has been that if three council members want an issue put on the agenda, that this is enough to move the issue forward. Sullivan noted that Schantz's proposal talks about the mayor 'representing the City in inter -governmental relationships.' Kubby stated that there are many inter -governmental relationships already that the mayor attends to. Members continued to discuss the topic of selecting council members for commissions, and the selection of members to City boards and commissions by the council. Chappell asked that they move ahead at this point with a vote on the mayoral issue. Shaw moved to keep the selection of the mayor as it currently is in the Charter. Moyers -Stone seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2; Kubby and Sullivan in the negative, Schantz absent. Chappell asked that they add an agenda item to further discuss Schantz's proposal on the mayoral issue, more specifically the powers of the office. [Proposal (Sullivan)] e. Other parts of the Charter as time allows — None REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: Chappell noted that everyone has a copy of the report from 10 years ago. He suggested they follow this same format as they draft their report. He briefly touched on the important sections of the report and how he would like to continue with it. Chappell then asked the group for their consensus on how to move forward with this. Atkins stated that he works best from a draft, so he would appreciate having a draft report. Sullivan agreed that the previous report format works well, and he stated that Chappell has done a good job of taking on this type of task. Others agreed that Chappell should move forward with preparing a draft report for review by the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Hampel addressed the Commission, thanking them for their work. She stated that the entire process has been quite fascinating for her. She noted how opinions have changed over Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 7 the course of the meetings, as Members further discussed issues and also took in public comment for consideration. Speaking to the issue of increasing signatures for initiative and referendum, Hampel stated that she is not in favor of this. Hampel spoke to some research she has done on the issue, sharing with Members the numbers she uncovered in her work. She stated that it appears the number came about from the number of voters, not population, and she questioned changing this to follow the Census numbers. Hampel continued, speaking to some of the past elections and the voter turnout numbers. She spoke to how the proposed change to 3,600 could impact this process, and asked what the Commission plans to do with the current language referencing "...equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular election,...... Hampel stated that it appears to her that the original number was based off the number of people who were voting, not population, and she again quested making the proposed change. Chappell stated that they have not had any proposal to increase the 25% number. He added that he believes it would be good to have that number be relevant again as it would mean there are more people voting. Hampel spoke to how typically it depends on the issues on the ballot as to how many voters are going to turn out. Kubby then spoke to the original number and how it was arrived at, stating that there are no notes to refer to on the matter. Sullivan thanked Hampel for her input, stating that these are interesting points to consider. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell stated that the hope is to have a red -lined version done and ready for discussion at this meeting. The plan is to let the public come and react / respond to the draft, similar to the first forum they held. Karr asked Members when they need this redlined version, and Chappell spoke to timelines for this draft. He stated that he would like to set an extra meeting now, prior to the forum on the 24'h, in case they need the time to complete their draft. Members briefly discussed schedules, finally agreeing to add an extra meeting on February 13. * Harvat Hall — February 24 — 6:30 P.M. * Format, advertising, and televising — televise live TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7.45 AM unless specified): February 10 February 13 February 24 (Public Forum) (will meet in morning if needed) March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Vanderhoef absent. Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - A cn yr a� o� W w c® W W 0 0 NAME EXP. O o W W N � 0 o A N N w m w o A o0 o w A 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 X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 411/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 411115 O X X 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/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/1 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X X O/ X X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X 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 X X Vanderhoef E Key., X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 9 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2015 TERM N N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 'o w w w N NAME EXP. 0 W N w CD o) -4 w N -4 0 w A A O w o N A a a s (n w j w 01 yr N w ✓s w in 4/1/15 X X X X X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 411/15 X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X O/ X X Schantz E Melvin 411/15 X X X X X X Shaw Anna 411/15 X X X X O/ X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 411115 X X X X O X Vanderhoef Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time 11�?t) (1 ) Marian Karr From: Jo Dickens <jodickens05@gmai1.coru> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:29 AM To: City Charter Subject: Charter Review Dear Iowa City's Charter Review Commission, I am writing to express my hope the commission, when reviewing our current charter, will not change the process by which we select our mayor. The concerns currently being expressed by a few in our community are the same concerns noted in the 2004 review. Those included generally the secrecy of or lack of transparency in how the council members choose the mayor and the inability of members of the general public to vote for a mayor or otherwise participate in the process. After a considerable amount of time spent on discussing the method used to select the mayor, both in its regular meetings and at interactive public meetings the 2004 commission determined that the potential problems with such a change included the risk that someone could be elected Mayor without any experience working on the council and that a mayoral election could degenerate into a popularity contest. I would like to add that there would be a high probability of losing qualified city council representatives if they have to run against each other in a mayoral election. We have too few people in our community willing to serve in this capacity and a change in the process of selection of mayor by public election would prove detrimental to our city and our council. I believe our current system, despite the concerns, has worked well and I am asking that the commission not recommend an amendment to the charter on this issue. Thank you, Jo Dickens 1655 N. Dodge St. Iowa City, IA �J PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. PREAMBLE tmr�earrs:mnmf�srr�ret�rsr.�s�arses�:ermrsrrrsse:n • M1u�i�m= ir . :ersr:r.[nerrnrr.*rrnr.!s�rer�rs�trrsn�s�. ..nrtsrrarsT jam We, the people of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the Constitution and statues statutes of the State of Iowa and the principle of self-determination, do hereby adopt this Charter and confer upon it the full home rule powers of a charter city. By this action we adopt the following principles: 1. Resident participation on an Inclusive basis In democratic self-government. 2. The provision of service relating to the health, safety, an(] welfare of its residents in a fair, equitable and efficient manner. 3. The conduct of city business Inconformity with due process, equal protection under the laws, and those individual liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Iowa, and local ordinances. 4. Civility by city employees In their Interactions with the public. PAGE 2 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. DEFINITIONS As used in this charter: 1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa. 2. "City council" or "council" means the governing body of the city. 3. "Councilmember" means a member of the council, including the mayor. 4. "Shall" imposes a duty. 5. "Must" states a requirement. 6. "May" confers a power. 7. "Eligible elector" means a person eligible to register to vote in Iowa City. 8. "Qualified elector" means a resident of Iowa City who is registered to vote in Iowa City. 9. "Board" includes a board, commission, committee or other similar entity however designated. 10. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, political party, committee or any other legal entity. 11. "Ordinance" means a city law of a general and permanent nature. 12. "Measure", except as provided in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE I. POWERS OF THE CITY Section 1.01. Powers Of The City. The city has all powers possible under the constitution and laws of this state. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) PAGE 3 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. 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. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 1.03. Savings Clause. If any provision of this charter, or the application of this charter to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL Section 2.01. Composition. The city council consists of seven members. As provided in article III, four, to be known as councilmembers at large, are to be nominated by eligible electors of the city at large, and three, to be known as district councilmembers, are to be nominated by eligible electors of their respective districts. All councilmembers shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city at large. (Ord. 85-3273, 12-17-1985) Section 2.02. Division Into Council Districts. The council, by ordinance, shall divide the city into three council districts of substantially equal population. These districts are to be designated as council district A, council district B, and council district C. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.03. Eligibility. 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. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 2.04. Terms. At the first election under this charter, all seven councilmembers are to be elected; the councilmember 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 PAGE 2014 15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. _.. 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. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.05. Compensation. 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. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) 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 tern for a term of two years. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) 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. (Ord. 95-3671, 3- 28-1995) C. The mayor pro tern shall act as mayor during the absence of the mayor. (Ord. 85- 3227, 3-12-1985) 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. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) Section 2.08. Appointments. A. The council shall appoint the city manager. B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) PAGES 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. D. The council shall appoint all members of the city's boards, except as otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) 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. 95-3671, 3-28- 1995) Section 2.09. Rules; Records. The council may determine its own rules and shall maintain records of its proceedings consistent with state law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.10. Vacancies. The council shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective city office as provided by state law. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.11. Council Action. 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. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1- 2005) Section 2.12. Prohibitions. A. A councilmember may not hold any other city office or be a city employee or elected county official while serving on the council nor hold any remunerated city office or employment for at least one year after leaving the council. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) 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. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) PAGE 6 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. C. A councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any person appointed by or under the control of the city manager. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE III. NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION Section 3.01. Nomination. (Changes are requires by State law —see CA 7/9/14 memo) A. An eligible elector of a council district may become a candidate for a council district seat by filing with the city-elerlc Johnson County Commissioner of Elections a valid petition requesting that his or her name be placed on the ballot for that office. Unless otherwise provided by state law, tThe petition must be filed not more than sixty five (W eighty-five (85) days nor less than forty (40) sixty-eight (68) days before the date of the election. and Unless otherwise provided by state law, the petition must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's district equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. An eligible elector of the city may become a candidate for an at -large council seat by filing with the city clerlE Johnson County Commissioner of Elections a petition requesting that the candidate's name be placed on the ballot for that office. Unless otherwise provided by state law, tThe petition must be filed not more than sixty-five (65) eighty-five (85) days nor less than ferty-(40) sixty-eight (68) days before the date of the election . and Unless otherwise provided by state law, the petition must be signed by eligible electors equal in number to at least two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at the last regular city election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) 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. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) 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. (Ord.85-3227, 3-12-1985) PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. Section 3.03. Regular City Election. A. In the regular city election, each council district seat up for election shall be listed separately on the ballot and only the names of candidates nominated from that council district shall be listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. However, all qualified electors of the city shall be entitled to vote for each candidate. The three council district seats shall be designated on the ballot as council district A, council district B and council district C and each shall be elected at large. B. The at large council seats shall be designated on the ballot as such. (Ord. 85-3227, 3- 12-1985) ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER Section 4,01. Appointment; Qualifications. In appointing a city manager, the council shall consider only the qualifications and fitness of the person without regard to political or other affiliation. During his or her tenure the city manager shall reside within the city. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 4.02. Accountability; Removal. A. The city manager is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office at its pleasure. �ermination pay shall be as determined by contract. Ilaless otherwise provided by contract a city manager removed by the ..•.. nell is entitL.d W thpl, gol tion ofre...,,.,..i __ . Comment[C11: My notes for this change read 'A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay as provided by contract." B. Upon the resignation or removal of the city manager, the council shall appoint an But l admit this dlfCa55len got little confusing for individual qualified to perform the duties of city manager to serve at the pleasure of me as to where we finally ended up. council or until a city manager Is appointed. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 4.03. Absence; Disability Of City Manager. The city manager may designate a qualified city employee as acting city manager to perform his or her duties during a temporary absence or disability. If the city manager does not make such a designation, the council shall appoint a qualified city employee to perform the duties of the city manager until he or she returns. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) PAGER 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg._ Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager. A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall: (1)Insure 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, reclassification, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires, subject to state law. (3)Appoint the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department with the approval of the city council. (4)Supervise the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, including their suspension or discharge as the occasion requires. Such supervision shall not be subject to approval of the city council. (5)Appoint or employ persons to occupy positions for which no other method of appointment is provided by state law or this charter. (6)Supervise the administration of the city personnel system, including the determination of the compensation of all city employees appointed by the city manager subject to state law or this charter. (7)Supervise the performance of all contracts for work to be done for the city, supervise all purchases of materials and supplies, and assure that such materials and supplies are received and are of specified quality and character. (8)Supervise and manage all public improvements, works and undertakings of the city, and all city -owned property including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and have charge of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided by state law. (9)Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the city. (10)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. PAGE 9 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. (11)Prepare and submit to the council the annual budgets in the form prescribed by state law. (12)Provide the council an itemized written monthly financial report. (13)Attend council meetings and keep the council fully advised of the financial and other conditions of the city and its needs. (14)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, except as otherwise provided by state law. (15)Provide necessary and reasonable clerical, research and professional assistance to boards within limitations of the budget. (16)Perform such other and further duties as the council may direct. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1- 2005) B. The city manager, in performing the foregoing duties, may: (1)Present recommendations and programs to the council and participate 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. (Ord. 85- 3227,3-12-1985) Section 4.05. Ineligibility; Prohibited Acts Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the city manager shall not take part in any election of councilmembers. This prohibition shall in no way limit the city manager's duty to make available public records as provided by state law or this charter. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Section 5.01. Establishment. PAGE 10 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. A. With the exception of the citizens police citizens review board, the council may establish boards in addition to those required by state law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The council may reduce or increase a board's duties, transfer duties from one board to another or dissolve any board, except as otherwise provided by state law or this charter. X B. There shall be a permanent citizens police citizens review board, which shall have vested in it the following minimum powers: 1. To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing c4l;ens views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police department;. and 2. To make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the city council. 2.3. To investigate citizen claims of misconduct by sworn police officers and to issue independent reports of its findings to the city council; and 3. 4. The authority to subpoena witnesses. (Res. 07-262, 8-31-2007) Section 5.02. Appointment; Removal. The council shall, subject to the requirements of state law, 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 applications by citizens residents. Council procedures for the removal of members shall be consistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 5.03. Rules. A. The council shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all boards, which must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by-laws and rules pertaining to open meetings and open records. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. The council shall specify, for each board, methods for informal and formal communication with council, time schedules for the completion of reports requested by council and such rules as it deems appropriate. PAGE 11 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. C. A board may establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent with state law, council rules, and this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Section 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions. 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. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) Section 6,02. Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures. The council, by ordinance, may prescribe procedures requiring the disclosure of the amount, 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. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 6.03. Definition. (Changes are requires by State law) Within this article "contribution" shall be defined as that term is defined in chapter-56 68A ("campaign finance") of the code of Iowa. (04 05 4162, 3 ' 2005) Section 6.04. Violations. The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe: (1) penalties for the violation of the contribution limitations and disclosure requirements it establishes pursuant to this section; and (2) when appropriate, conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to serve on council if elected, consistent with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Section 7.01. General Provisions. SEE TWO PROPOSALS ATTACHED P-Authotity__ _ (1)lnitiative. The qualified electors have theme ose measures to the council SEE TWO PROPOSALS ion 7.018(3). If conflicting measures are electio the one receiving the greatest nun extent of su conflict. / B. Referendum. If a m?IJ% in favor of repealing the the election results. (Orc Section 7.07. PAGE18 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. r€d by majority vote at the same affirmative votes shall prevail to the of th�'qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote e, it rshall be considered repealed upon certification of On Establishment Of SfThaer Conditions Or Requirements. The coun 'may shall not set, except by charter amendment, itions or requi mentwhichs affecting initiative and referendum.� ARTICLE Vill. CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW 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 special city election, and the 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 valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council, the council must submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special city election, and the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting. C. If a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council proposing an amendment to the charter, the council must submit the proposed amendment to the voters at a special city election, and the amendment becomes effective if approved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 8.02. Charter Review Commission. The council, using the procedures prescribed in article V, shall establish 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 review the existing charter PAGE 19 2014-15 REVIEW As of 1/13/15 mtg. and may, within twelve months recommend any charter amendments that it deems fit to the council. The council shall either exercise its power of amendment pursuant to section 8.01E of the charter on a matter recommended by the commission or submit such amendments to the voters in the form prescribed by the commission, and an amendment becomes effective when approved by majority of those voting. (Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) CHARTER COMPARATIVE TABLE The home rule charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 76-2792, on January 2, 1976. The following table shows the disposition of amendments to the charter: Ordinance Number DateDisposition 77-2826 3-15-1977 6.01 77-2858 9-6-1977 7.05E 77-2864 9-6-1977 3.01 85-3227 3-12-1985 Definitions 7,8, 2.01, 2.03, 2.05_2.08, 3.01_3.03, 4.04, 5.02, 6.04, 7.01_7.05, 8.01, 8.02 85-3228 3-12-1985 6.02 85-3273 12-17-1985 2.01 90-3462 6-26-1990 7.03A, 7.04A 95-36713-28-1995 2.06B, 2.08C,E, 3.O1A, 6.01, 7.04D 05-4152 3-1-2005 Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05, 2.11, 2.128, 3.O1A, 3.02A, 4.04A, 5.02, 5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03B,C,E, 7.04A,B,C, 7.05, 7.06, 8.01, 8.02 Res. 07-262 8-31-2007 5.01 Footnote 1: The home rule charter of the city, adopted by the voters of the city on November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 76-2792 on January 2, 1976, pursuant to I.C.A. section 372.9, inset out herein as adopted and amended. Cl IANGING QUALIFIED TO ELIGIBLE (while keeping the existing system) ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND 1119F1iRI NDUM Section 7.01. General Provisions. A. Authority. (1)Initiative. The qualified -eligible electors have the right to propose measures to the council and, if the council fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the measure submitted to the voters at an election. (2)Referendum. The qualified -eligible electors have the right to require reconsideration by the council of an existing measure and, if the council fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances, amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan already enacted by council. B. Limitations. (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. (h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law. (i) Amendments to this charter. (j) Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance or the land use maps of the comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps. (k) Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or construction work. (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 measure proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum petition and repealed by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition. C. Construction. (1)Scope Of Power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and referendum powers upon the g4a44e4-eligible electors of the city. (2)lnitiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because it repeals an existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an existing measure. (3)Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a measure in whole or in part. D. Effect Of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full force and effect until its amendment or repeal by council pursuant to section 7.05JA) or until a majority of the qualified electors voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the measure and the vote is certified. E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the city, its agencies or any person in reliance on the measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings; Affidavit. A. Commencement. One or more qual44e4-eli ible electors, hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered. B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears to have signatures of one or more g4aMed-eligible electors. The city clerk shall issue the appropriate petition forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for filing. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement of proceedings and the preparation of initiative and referendum petitions. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures. A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualifled-eligible electors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent j2Mof the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but such signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer than the number equalingtv.ia thpugand five hi. ndredfive point thirty three percent (5,33%) of the population of the City of Iowa City as determined by the most recent United States Decennial Census, rounded to the nearest hundredquallf'� ^'Gt^-5. Any petition that does not, on its face, contain the minimum required signatures defined herein shall be deemed insufficient for filing under this article, and no supplementary petition shall be permitted. (Ord. 90-3462, 6-26-1990) B. Form And Content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person signing shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name, address of the person signing and the date the signature is executed. The fqFfn shall also ide space feF the is blFth ate bist a failure to enteF „ borth ate shall not Invalidate signer's signature Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or referred. C. Affidavit Of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a -an qua44ed-eligible elector certifying: the number of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.02JA1 was filed. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the council of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on a referendum petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption; however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adoption, the signatures must be secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.021A1 was filed. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) F. Revocation Of Signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the city clerk, a signatory may revoke his or her signature for any reason by filing with the city clerk a statement of his or her intent to revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing. A. Certificate Of City Clerk; Amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is filed which contains the minimum required signatures, as set forth in section 7.03:(Al above, the city clerk shall complete a certificate as to the petition's sufficiency. If the petition is insufficient, the clerk's certificate shall specify the particulars wherein the petition is defective. The clerk shall also promptly send a copy of the certificate to the petitioners by registered mail. A petition certified insufficient may be amended once, provided, however, that one or more of the original petitioners files a notice of intention to amend the original petition. Such notice must be filed with the city clerk within two days after receiving a copy of the certificate, and the petitioner also must file a supplementary petition upon additional papers within fifteen days after receiving a copy of such certificate. Such supplementary petition shall comply with the requirements of subsections B and C of section 7.03. Within fifteen days after a supplementary petition is filed, the city clerk shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition, as amended and supplemented, and shall promptly send a copy of such certificate to the petitioners by registered mail, as in the case of an original petition. If a petition or amended petition is certified sufficient, or if the petition or amended petition is certified insufficient and one or more of the petitioners do not request council review under subsection B of this section within the time prescribed, the city clerk shall promptly present the certificate to the council. B. Council Review. If a petition has been certified insufficient by the city clerk and one or more of the petitioners do not file notice of intention to amend it, or if an amended petition has been certified insufficient by the city clerk, one or more of the petitioners may, within two days after receiving a copy of such certificate, file with the city clerk a request that it be reviewed by the council. The council shall review the certificate at its next meeting following the filing of such a request, but not later than thirty days after the filing of the request for review, and shall rule upon the sufficiency of the petition. C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the council's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) 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 ffua!#ied-eligible elector whose name it purports to be, or it was not voluntarily and knowingly executed. A valid ° nat ,. need not be on the i.,eRtical feFffl i, •• hiGh the quainfled eleeteF's name appeaFs en the voting rolls, n9F may a signatuFe be deeFnpd Invalid herausp the addr ess aecompanying the Rame an the petition is diffeFent fFG17A the addFess for the same Ramp, an the .(Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) 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 measure or reconsider the referred measure. If the council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the council fails to repeal the referred measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally determined sufficient, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. If at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled initiative or referendum election the council adopts the proposed initiative measure or adopts a measure which is similar in substance or if the council repeals a referred measure, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred measure shall not be submitted to the voters. B. Submission To Voters. (1) Initiative. The vote of the city on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty day period provided for consideration in section 7.051AI provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 110 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. (2) Referendum. The vote of the city on a referred measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the thirty day period provided for reconsideration in section 7.05jA] provided that the referendum petition was filed no less than 80 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. The council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of the referendum petition with the city clerk. C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's expense in the manner required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.06. Results Of Election. A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results. The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as measures of the same kind adopted by the council, except as provided in section 7.011131(3). if conflicting measures are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. (Ord. 05-4152,3-1-2005) Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements. The council shall" not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendumwhich are h1gheF ^• FAeFe stringent than these imposed by this(Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) CHANGING QUALIFIED TO ELIGIBLE (with a simplified system) ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Section 7.01. General Provisions. A. Authority. (1)Initiative. The cµai #ied elieible electors have the right to propose measures to the council and, if the council fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the measure submitted to the voters at an election. (2)Referendum. The ""elisible electors have the right to require reconsideration by the council of an existing measure and, if the council fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances, amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) include a proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy or plan, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, policy or plan already enacted by council. B. Limitations. (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. (h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law. (i) Amendments to this charter. (j) Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance or the land use maps of the comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps. (k) Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement" shall mean any building or construction work. (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 measure proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article, may for two years thereafter be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original initiative measure. No measure referred by referendum petition and repealed by the vote of the council without submission to the voters, or repealed by the voters pursuant to this article, may be reenacted for two years thereafter except by vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original referendum petition. C. Construction. (1)Scope Of Power. It is intended that this article confer broad initiative and referendum powers upon the ,."deli ible electors of the city. (2)lnitiative. It is intended that (a) no initiative petition will be invalid because It repeals an existing measure in whole or in part by virtue of proposing a new measure and (b) an initiative petition may amend an existing measure. (3)Referendum. It is intended that a referendum petition may repeal a measure in whole or in part. D. Effect Of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full force and effect until its amendment or repeal by council pursuant to section 7.05{A) or until a majority of the qualified electors voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the measure and the vote is certified. E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the city, its agencies or any person in reliance on the measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings; Affidavit. A. Commencement. One or more qual#ied-eligible electors, hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the measure sought to be reconsidered. B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affidavit for filing if on its face it appears to have signatures of one or more q aWied-eligible electors. The city clerk shall issue the appropriate petition forms to the petitioners the same day the affidavit is accepted for filing. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms and affidavits suitable for the commencement of proceedings and the preparation of initiative and referendum petitions. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.03. Petitions; Revocation Of Signatures. A. Number Of Signatures. Initiative and referendum petitions must be signed by qualified -eligible electors equal in number to at least twenty-five percent J252kLof the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but such signatures of eligible electors shall be no fewer than the number equaling five point thirty three percent (5.33%) of the population of the City of Iowa City as determined by the most recent United States Decennial Census, rounded to the nearest hundredqu^''',,,,ed-eleet9+&. Any -petit signatures defined herpin shall be dppmed insuffiripnt fnF filing undeF this aFtiele, and no supplementafy petition `hall be ^^r^'tt^'. _For example, for any year in which the 2010 Decennial Census is applicable, the required number of signatures is 3600, which is a population of 67,862 multiplied by 5.33%equaling 3617 and rounded to the nearest hundred.(Ord. 90-3462, 6-26-1990) B. Form And Content. All papers of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person signing shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name, address of the person signing and the date the signature is executed. The form shall also provide space faF the signer'sh(.thdat. but a failuF^ t^ enter a Wrthdate shall not Invalidate ^ signer's signat,r^, Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or referred. C. Affidavit Of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a -an qualifies-gIi ible elector certifying: the number of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures on an initiative petition must be secured and the petition filed within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.021AI was filed. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. Referendum petitions may be filed within sixty days after final adoption by the council of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more than two years after such final adoption. The signatures on a referendum petition must be secured during the sixty days after such final adoption; however, if the petition is filed more than two years after final adoption, the signatures must be secured within six months after the date the affidavit required under section 7.021A1 was filed. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) F. Revocation Of Signature. Prior to the time a petition is filed with the city clerk, a signatory may revoke his or her signature for any reason by filing with the city clerk a statement of his or her intent to revoke his or her signature. After a petition is filed a signatory may not revoke his or her signature. The city clerk shall cause to be prepared and have available to the public, forms suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) Section 7.04. Procedure After Filing. A. Validity Of A Petition. A petition is valid if it contains the minimum required signatures by elielble electors in the required form and with the required content and accompanied by the Affidavit of Circulator as set forth in Section 7.03. The petition shall be examined by the city clerk before it Is accepted for filing. If the petition appears valid on Its face it shall be accepted for filing. If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be considered Invalid and returned to the petitioners. Petitions which have been accepted for filing are valid unless written objections are filed with the city clerk within five working days after the petition is received. A. Certificate of City Clefki Amendment. Within twenty days after a petition is filed "Ohleh contain; the minimurn real signatures, as set forth In section 9 03 /A1 above the city clerk shall complete -a certificate as to the netitien'S 54"Clenry. IF the petition i Insufficient, the cinrl.4 sprtifirate shall specify the nartleula.s ..,he.ein the petition is slefertive The clerl, shall also nrerni tly send a cony of the certifleate to the petitioners by registered mall. A petition certified , B. Hearing On Obiections; Objections Committee. Written objections timely filed with the city clerk shall be considered by an Objections Committee made up of the mayor and city clerk and one member of the council chosen by the council by ballot, and a majority decision shall be final. The hearing on the objections shall be held within ten days of receipt of the objections. C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the Objections Committee's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. G. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, eoua Feview gf the eAuRrik shall be by wFit G eeFtia FaFt (04 05 4152 9 1 2005) mxnrr , . _ . �� ..... , .. .. ... .... ...:. - . .. .. .. Section 7.05. Action On Petitions. A. Action By Council. When an initiative or referendum petition has been determined suffk4eMvalid, the council shall promptly consider the proposed initiative measure or reconsider the referred measure. If the council fails to adopt a proposed initiative measure and fails to adopt a measure which is similar in substance within sixty days, or if the council fails to repeal the referred measure within thirty days after the date the petition was finally determined valicI&LAeient, it shall submit the proposed or referred measure to the qualified electors of the city as hereinafter prescribed. If at any time more than thirty days before a scheduled initiative or referendum election the council adopts the proposed initiative measure or adopts a measure which is similar in substance or if the council repeals a referred measure, the initiative or referendum proceedings shall terminate and the proposed or referred measure shall not be submitted to the voters. B. Submission To Voters. (1) Initiative. The vote of the city on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty day period provided for consideration in section 7.051AL provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 8011-0 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections-. (2) Referendum. The vote of the city on a referred measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the thirty day period provided for reconsideration in section 7.05jAL, provided that the referendum petition was filed no less than50-80 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. The council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of the referendum petition with the city clerk. C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at the city's expense in the manner required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa Code. The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed measure shall be indicated on the ballot. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.06. Results Of Election. A. Initiative. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a proposed initiative measure vote in its favor, it shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results. The adopted measure shall be treated in all respects in the same manner as measures of the same kind adopted by the council, except as provided in section 7.01161(3). If conflicting measures are approved by majority vote at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. B. Referendum. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on a referred measure vote in favor of repealing the measure, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.07. Prohibition On Establishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements. The council shall" not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum. which are d{igher-er k1nore W;.... t th— tWse imposed by this ChaFte (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) To: Charter Review Commission Date: Feb. 4, 2015 From: Karen Kubby Re: Transparency in Mayor Selection and Compensation Issues Transparency in Mayor Selection As a Commission, the majority has rejected the idea of a city-wide elected Mayor, yet also said that we'd like to see more transparency in the selection of the Mayor. The issues are complicated, as there are many layers of process that informally takes place in determining the Mayor. Here is what I see as the issues: 1. Council members talk with each other one-on-one between the election in November and the first organizational meeting of the next Jan. 2. There typically is no public statement from those seeking or nominated to the office. 3. The vote takes place with one nomination and a unanimous vote. It is seen as offensive or flying in the face of unity to have more than one candidate or a split vote. The options I've outlined below attempt to rectify these issues and to make the process more public. Some of these options could be suggestions for the council or be added to the charter. Option I: The selection process for the Mayor will take place solely at a public meeting. NOTES: This can be interpreted as the vote at a meeting which is status quo. It does not explicitly prohibit one-on-one conversations behind the scenes. If we want to prohibit this, it might need to be stated in the charter. Option II: The council will develop a transparent and public process for the selection of the Mayor. NOTES: This is the broadest charter language I could come up with to have something in the charter, yet have it be broad and developed by the body who will utilize the process, allowing for changes over time. The third option (below) is quite prescriptive and could be a suggestion for process to the current council in living out Option II. Option III: Nominations for Mayor shall be forwarded to the City Clerk by the second council meeting in November. The names of those who are self -nominated or nominated by another will be kept secret by nominators and the City Clerk. Nominees for Mayor will be announced one week before the first council meeting in December. At the first council meeting in December, each nominee shall make a public statement of decline or acceptance of the nomination. Each nominee accepting the nomination will make a brief statement as to what they can bring to the Mayor's seat. At the first meeting in January an instant run-off voting ballot will be supplied to each council member. These ballots will be made public at the end of the process. Each councilperson will vote their voting preferences with their first choice for Mayor receiving a 1, their second choice a 2, and so forth, until all nominees on the ballot have a number next to their name. Votes for all first choice preferences will be counted first. If a nominee receives a simple majority of votes, that person is declared the winner. If no nominee receives a simple majority of votes, the candidate receiving the least number of votes will have the ballots with their name as the number one preference redistributed, based on those ballots' number 2 preference. If a nominee receives a simple majority of votes, that candidate is declared the winner. This process continues until a candidate receives a simple majority of votes. NOTES: 1) The reason for the secrecy in nominations is so that there cannot be informal conversation or deals made for Mayor pro-tem behind the scenes before the nominees are disclosed in public. 2) The announcement of the nominees is made a week before they need to state if they accept or decline the nomination. If they intend to accept, it gives them a week to prepare their candidacy statement. (don't know how to prevent kibitzing amongst council members during this time). 3) The rationale for public statements by accepted nominees at a meeting sometime before the organizational meeting in Jan. is so that the public can hear them and make comments/provide feedback to their council members before they vote. 4) The instant run-off voting (IRV) method allows minority voices to create the simple majority in the event no candidate receives a simple majority on the first count. The minority then has more ownership over the final decision and creates a more diverse and cohesive group. IRV avoids multiple ballots and is a very simple and efficient way to have a more participatory election, with people voting their true preferences instead of voting for who they think can win. It also creates a more positive campaign, as a candidate is not just vying for your one vote, they are vying to be one of your top preferences (if I'm not your #1 preference, I hope I can be in your #2 spot). State law does not allow IRV for voting for council members, yet I don't know if this restriction would apply to the selection of a Mayor dictated by our Charter. Compensation There was not a majority to include compensation differently in the Charter, yet we agreed and heard from the public that current compensation is too low. Therefore„ we are looking for options to forward to council as to how to increase their compensation. I've not heard anyone seriously wanting to create a Compensation Commission, so that option is not listed below. Both options allow the amount paid to council members to go up only when the economy is up. Option I: Tie compensation to median income in Iowa City. The current compensation is just over 12% of median income for a one person household. The compensation could be 25% of a one person household in Iowa City and this would translate to $13,925 (sorry, I couldn't figure out how to cut and paste my median income chart to this word doc, yet we have one in a previous packet). Option II: Resurrect the resolution/ordinance that was rescinded on in 2009 that ties council compensation to the CPI and don't mess with it. Allow it to rise a little at a time, so a larger increase that can be very politically unpalatable is never necessary. CRY of I g'-k C(,OIVIIIVI[I[JINl['l11Y, DISCUSSION 11"O I[EI`� I'l[Al[, AMENDMENTS `11'0 o lKlection on Milayor o District Represent Cation o Initiative / Referendum (qualified vs. eligible) o Council Co,�Pensation I'VL;BLRZI[ ARY 2-Awg M15 6 o 30 P1`VI[ LlIARVAT 1'rl[AILL9 CITY HALL �11140 Ea,5t. WashR'ingtonj Street (Accessible to people with special needs.) QUESTIONS. a ritycharter(aiowacity.mlr) COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO IOWA CITY'S CHARTER The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. A community discussion on potential Charter amendments will be held February 24, 2015, at 6:30 p.m., in Harvat Hall at City Hall (410 East Washington St.). In the first part of the meeting the specific issues to be discussed include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor is currently selected for a two-year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The Mayor Is the a voting member of the Council , the official representative of the City, presiding officer o the Council, and its policy spokesperson. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain,',:I a rg e I y the same, should the Mayor instead be directly elected for a four-year termlby a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the at -large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible 'administrative changes to the Charter. At the present time a majority of Charter Review Commission members support no change in the language. (2) District Representation - Currently,t h e r e :a r e 3 district Council Members and 4 at -large Council Members. In a primary election selecting District Council candidates, only voters from within that district, participate. In the general election for those district seats all Iowa City voters may paiticipate. Should the district Council Members be elected only by the voters within the applicable district? At the present time a majority of Charter Review Commission members support no change in the language. (3) Initiative/Referendum'-requirement for qualified verses eligible. The City Charter allows individuals to submit initiative and referendum petitions to the City Council. When presented to. Council those petitions must either be adopted by Council or submitted to the voters for consideration. Currently individuals are required to be "qualified electors" (registered to voter) to sign such petitions. Should the Charter be amended to allow "eligible electors" (persons eligible to register to vote) to sign such petit`ons? (4) Council Compensation. Currently the Charter requires that Council set its compensation ;by ordinance, and the present annual salary for the Mayor is $8070 and Council Members' $7072. Some have argued that this salary discourages some people from running for City Council. Should the Charter require a higher level of compensation for Council Members and the Mayor to better reflect the time required to serve in those positions? In the second part of the meeting the public may raise any other issues relevant to the Charter. The Charter Review Commission invites everyone to be a part of this public discussion. Additional Information can be found on the City website citycharter@lowacity.org COMMENTS SOUGHT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO IOWA CITY'S CHARTER The Iowa City Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the City Council to review the Iowa City Charter. Pursuant to the existing Charter, amendments recommended by the Commission must either be adopted by the City Council or placed on a ballot for consideration by Iowa City voters. A community discussion on potential Charter amendments will be held February 24, 2015, at 6:30 p.m., in Harvat Hall at City Hall (410 East Washington St.). In the first part of the meeting the specific issues to be discussed include: (1) Election of Mayor - The Mayor is currently selected for a two-year term by a majority vote of the City Council members. The Mayor Is the.a voting member of the Council , the official representative of the City, presiding offip6r of the Council, and its policy spokesperson. Assuming the Mayor's powers and responsibilities remain I a r g e I y the same, should the Mayor instead be directly elected for a four -'year term by a majority vote of the citizens? This would require one of the'at-large council positions to be designated as the Mayor's slot and other possible administrative changes to Charter. VI i (2) District Representation - Currently t h e r e a r e 3 district Council Members and 4 at -large Council Members. In a primary election selecting District Council candidates, only voters from within that district,participate: ,'in the general election for those district seats all Iowa City voters may participate. Should the district Council Members be elected only by the voters within the applicable district? (3) Initiative/Referendum- reguirement'foraualified verses eligible. The City Charter allows individuals to submit initiative and referendum petitions to the City Council. When presented to Council those petitions must either be adopted by Council or submitted to the;voters for consideration. Currently individuals are required to be "qualified eleotors" (registered to voter) to sign such petitions. Should the Charter be amended to allow "eligible electors" (persons eligible to register to vote) to sign such petitions? (4) G&ncil Compensation. Currently the Charter requires that Council set its compensation by ordinance,, and the present annual salary for the Mayor is $8070 and Council,Members '$7072. Some have argued that this salary discourages some people from running fgr'City Council. Should the Charter require a higher level of compensation. for Council Members and the Mayor to better reflect the time required to serve in those positions? In the second part of the meeting the public may raise any other issues relevant to the Charter. The Charter Review Commission invites everyone to be a part of this public discussion. Additional Information can be found on the City website citycharter@lowacity.org