HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-10 Ordinance^~„~,~ CITY OF [C7WR CITY 19
~~~~~~~~
~~~~-~ RA ~ D ~ M
~E~~
Date: February 4, 2009
To: City Council
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Alcohol
On your agenda for February 10, 2008 you will find the following:
1. A resolution that: 1) amends the guidelines for license renewal to state that effective July 1,
2009 an application for renewal of a liquor license will be denied for an establishment with a
PAULA rate greater than 1.00 per visit with at least 18 visits during the 12-month renewal period
and 2) confirms use of the on-premises liquor license renewal forms for the police and fire
department.
2. An ordinance increasing the fine for a person under-19 who is on the premises of a licensed
establishment after 10:00 p.m. to $500.00.
Your agenda does not include an ordinance regarding civil and criminal penalties for
consumption of alcohol by employees of a licensed establishment. I am no longer
recommending this ordinance. This memo will explain the change in my recommendation. If,
after reading this memo and discussing it among yourselves you choose to proceed with the
ordinance I will put the ordinance on your February 24 agenda for first consideration. To
summarize, I am recommending against the ordinance for the following reasons:
1) At your last meeting the Police Chief told you that consumption by wait staff is not a
common problem. With respect to the breath tests, and the civil license sanction, after
additional research I continue to be of the opinion that the civil as opposed to criminal context of
the breath tests (the ordinance specifically states that it may not be used for criminal
prosecution), the highly regulated nature of the liquor industry, the ability of the employee to
refuse the test, and the Court's characterization of breath tests as "minimally intrusive" support
the constitutionality of the measure. However, the lack of evidence that consumption by wait
staff is a serious and immediate concern could prove problematic. You can put the criminal
penalty against the individual employee on the books and it may be a helpful tool for the police
in some situations. As I stated earlier, however, in the absence of a license connection I think it
will have little impact on the larger problem of underage and over consumption.
2) My review of the police statistics since your last meeting reveal that there has been a steady
decline in the number of bar visits and compliance checks for sales to minors over the last
several years with no corresponding decrease in the number of charges per visit (i.e. the
problem has not lessened). PAULA charges and compliance checks for sales to minors are the
most direct tools we have to address underage drinking. A citation for sales to minors has a
direct impact on the establishment's license as will PAULAs once we implement the 1.00 per
visit renewal criteria. Simply increasing our use of the tools already available can have the
desired effect of penalizing underage persons who choose to drink and encouraging
establishments to better control minors' access to alcohol within their establishments. While I
understand that optimal use of the available tools may require a discussion of police resources,
it seems more responsible to have that discussion than to put more laws on the books with the
resulting expectation that such new laws will have an impact.
February 4, 2009
Page 2
Here are the statistics:
1. Bar visits/PAULA and Under-19 charges
Visits to Bars PAULAs written in bars Average PAULA rate Under 19 Charges Under 19 rate
`02 2406 1953 0.812 N/A N/A
`03 1928 1797 0.932 134
(Sep-Dec only) .160
(835 visits
Se -Dec)
`04 1385 1066 0.770 102 .074
`05 1448 1506 1.040 125 .086
`06 1266 1066 0.842 96 .076
`07 1167 837 0.717 77 .066
`08 1065 766 0.719 70 .066
2. Compliance Checks for sales to minors:
2006 - 5 checks in March, July, August, September and October
2007 - 2 checks in September and October
2008 - 2 visits in January and October
Please give me a call if you have questions.
cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager
Dale Helling. Assistant City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Sam Hargadine, Police Chief
Andy Rocca, Fire Chief
Matt Johnson, Captain of Field Ops.
Sgt. Troy Kelsay
John Grier, Fire Marshall
Eric Goers, Assistant City Attorney
Marian Karr
From: Dale Helling
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:06 AM
To: 'Clark, Aaron J'
Cc: Council
Subject: RE: Proposed Breath-Test Ordinance
Dear Mr. Clark,
Thank you for your email to the City Council regarding "Proposed Breath-Test Ordinance".
It will be forwarded to all Council Members and accepted as official correspondence as
part of the consent agenda of an upcoming Council meeting.
It was not Council's intent to include for breath testing musicians or other entertainers
who may be appearing in a bar. The ordinance is directed toward employees such as servers,
bartenders and security staff who are responsible for ensuring that alcohol is properly
and legally disseminated and consumed in a safe environment.
I hope you find this clarification helpful in addressing your concerns.
Regards,
Dale Helling
Assistant City Manager
-----Original Message
From: Clark, Aaron J [mailto:aaron-Clark@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:21 PM
To: Council
Subject: Proposed Breath-Test Ordinance
Council,
As a fifth year citizen of this fine city, I feel compelled to weigh in on the proposed
breath-testing of bar employees and entertainers in Iowa City, as I've come to learn of it
from the Daily Iowan. While I agree that the waitstaff at an establishment should remain
sober in an effort to better safeguard the patrons therein, the proposed testing of
entertainers worries me. Iowa City has made a name for itself among the music community
at large, as a key gateway city for East-West tour routes, and the cities' venues' musical
histories are varied and rich. Entertainers from all musical inclinations grace our city
often, and bring a great cultural and social richness to its citizens and the many
students who have come here, many of whom have done so seeking the very richness that
relies on the bustling social scene, forged in large part by the desire for and presence
of quality musical appearances.
It seems to me, and I doubt that I'm alone in the feeling, that the random testing of
musicians who have come to both enhance and enjoy the culture of the city would put a
great strain on the current and future relationship between the city's venues and the
musical community. I won't say that I am of the opinion that a musician should weigh
their sobriety heavily when considering a performance, but as far as where the
responsibility to protect the patrons of our town's bars lies, it doesn't seem like local
or visiting musicians should have to be concerned.
Civil rights issues aside, this is my only concern with the proposed ordinance. An
amendment to the proposition, narrowing the possibility of random testing to just the paid
regular staff of establishments serving alcohol seems like an idea that would serve the
interests of the Council, the patrons of said establishments, and any future musicians or
fans of music that may wander through or bury their roots here.
Regards, and all the best to you in your deliberations.
1
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Dale Helling
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:14 AM
To: 'Coy Davis'
Cc: Council
Subject: RE: Alcohol checks
Dear Mr. Davis,
Thank you for your email to Council regarding Alcohol Checks. It will be forwarded to all Council members and
accepted as official correspondence as part of the consent agenda for an upcoming Council meeting.
It was not Council's intent to include for alcohol testing musicians or other entertainers. Rather, it is meant to
include those employees such as servers, bartenders, and security staff who are responsible for ensuring the
proper and legal dissemination and consumption of alcohol in a safe environment.
I hope you find this clarification helpful.
Regards,
Dale Helling
Assistant City Manager
From: Coy Davis [mailto:kazgul@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:59 AM
To: Council
Subject: Alcohol checks
I just read the article about your intention to test servers and entertainers blood alcohol levels. I must
say, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler would be so proud.
1 /27/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Marian Karr
From: Caroline Dieterle [caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Council
Subject: Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Page 1 of 10
Council members:
I think the proposed alcohol ordinance will cost the City a good deal of money -both in costs to enforce
and losses in revenues - as well as generate much ill will.
Additionally, the portion allowing breathalyzing of employees and contract workers is, I believe, an
infringement on their 4th Amendment rights; the logical extension of Atty. Dilkes' position on this is
that it will be permissible also to do searches of their clothing and personal possessions -all without a
warrant.
Some of you have said that the ordinance would not affect musicians and entertainers -but some have
said that it would. If it is not intended to affect them, they should be specifically excluded to protect the
live music scene in Iowa City - an asset for which Iowa City is famous .Please don't make the serious
mistake of driving live music out of Iowa City.
You may remember that a few years ago the University was poised to close down the International
Writing Program; a huge grassroots effort managed to stave off that calamity, and now the UI and Iowa
City have been nationally honored for having it here. Similarly, the City paused last Sunday to honor
Glen Epstein and remember his contributions to the Writers Workshop, which is where so many notable
American authors got their start -many of them in the 60's and 70's when Iowa City was considerably
more liberal regarding alcohol than it is now. Prohibition doesn't work -and causes additional
criminality and tragedies.
- Caroline Dieterle
Below is a small sampling of comments found in online forums around the country, reacting to the Jan.
19 DI _article on,_Iowa Cty's_ impe~ld~ng alcohol ordinance:
A proposed new ordinance that would allow Iowa City police to breath-test
wait staff and entertainers at bars and restaurants...
Mike O'Donnell said. "The thought is that if you're not intoxicated, you can
be more accurate when checking IDs and keeping people safe in the bar. "
No Mike. The 'thought is' that you and your fellow Councilmen in Iowa City are all brain
dead assclowns.
When has a Guitar Player (you know Mike, an "entertainer") in a Bar ever had to check an ID?
And from my experience Drummers are not good at breaking up fights and "keeping people
safe".
1 /26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Page 2 of 10
Plus, most Rock Guitarists can't even play a basic E major Chord without a'snoot-full'.
BUST KIDDING (Except for Chuck Barry - he had to be completely smashed!)
------------------------------------------------------
As atouring musician who has played in Iowa City, I can tell you right now, I'm not going
back to Iowa City.
------------------------------------------------------
Why?....Iowa stays out of the news for a while and bam, some idiots, like these people have
to put us back in the spot light.
Sometimes Nanny-Statism masquerades as reasonable concern but its not very subtle this
time.
1. They are claiming that at one quarter of the BAC it takes to be impaired for driving a car
that waiters will have trouble reading dates.
2. They included entertainers - is the bass player checking IDs? And I'm not even sure
strippers have to read at all, much less read accurately.
Revenue and control. That's all. New powers for the local commissars.
When,oh Lord, when ,will we have drug tests for the politicians who propose these stupid
laws???
-------------------------------------------------------
Iowa city is (was) one of the great routing gigs for touring bands. it's right on I-80, within
five hours of Chicago, milwaukee, madison, minneapolis, Omaha, kansas city and st. louis.
during my college years there, i worked at a local live music venue where i saw a million
bands, including nirvana, smashing pumpkins, sonic youth, the replacements, husker du, the
melvins, helmet, the Jesus lizard and more.
if this ordinance passes, live music in Iowa city will cease to exist.
Ah ... Iowa, the autistic brother of retarded Utah. Way to make my state seem a little saner
with alcohol laws by comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------
1/26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Page 3 of 10
Actually sounds like the crap that Dallas did to Deep Ellum. Took a nationally known
music scene that was tied to the fame of SRV, ZZ Top, etc... and plummeted it into the
ground.
Only difference is that down here, it was the GOP behind the wheel on that agenda... god
forbid that the uptight douchebag conservatives move into an area and leave the natural
environment in tact. no, instead of finding an area matching their lifestyle and paying out
the ass for it, they'll find amiddle-class area with cheaper prices, then build the
McMansions all over the place and bitch when they have to interact with the locals.
Jah bless the ACLU.
Would they rather have the drinking in the bars or at houses off campus?
They tried cracking down in the bars in'98 and the DI tracked the sales of alcohol in the
city. Instead of dropping, alcohol sales shifted from the bars to Hy-Vee.
No matter what they try and do, short of reinstating the drinking age to 18, they will not
lower the number of underage drinkers at the U of Iowa.
Looks like there won't be any live music in Iowa City anymore.
So when do they plan to start on that serious stupid elected officials problem they have?
It seems that Iowa City is SO perfect that they have time to worry about stupid crap.
Banning plastic bags, busting smokers and huggers. Most cities don't have time to worry
about such things.
Now they want to make so cops can run breath tests on the bands playing in bars. I feel
better now. Morons.
I think that they are seeking to destroy the live music in Iowa City. They make the
ordinance, then hope it will pass.
It's neo-prohibition. MADD's founder left the group in the mid-1980s when she realized that
the goal was bringing in money and bringing back prohibition. She's since gone on to lobby
for bars and breweries against stricter laws.
1/26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance Page 4 of 10
----------------------------------------------------------
This is total bull. If this law passes and prohibits entertainers (i.e. bands) from having a
good time and throwing back a few with the crowd, some places in town will go under and I
will spit fire.
this has to be a joke. breathalizing bartenders is one thing -but requiring bands to be sober
is quite another! if that actually happens, Iowa city's vibrant music scene -one that was
nationally recognized at one point -will cease to exist.
if the authorities in 19th century arles had required artists to be sober, van gogh would have
been a housepainter!
This is just more stupid finger-wagging by the sh**ty council. Iowa City a huge party
town!?! Puhleeze.
Maybe if they'd do a better job of urban planning and controlling sprawl the city council
would actually be earning their salary. Instead they're apparently running for school board
or ministry jobs.
It's ironic that Iowa City prides itself on being so progressive when they continue to push
blatantly unconstitutional proposals of fascism such as this.
I'm disgusted.
Perhaps every city council member should be required to take a breathalyzer test before
each and every meeting?
I guess we will postpone any plans to come play Iowa, we'd be in the slammer before we
finished our first set. What a joke, hope you guys stand up for yourselves
I don't see this ordinance flying too well since it's going way too close to prohibition. It's
just too easy for bar workers to rack up 0.02% BAC from the atmosphere with all the
alcohol in open containers.
If a member of staff downed some cough sryup or started chewing "Ice" type gum before
the "random" check would definitely spike the BAC levels artificially.
1 /26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Page5of10
While it could be claimed by the city council for some pathetic reason... it's only going to
hurt the city in the long run as the funds that would have been spent in town from partiers is
being allocated out of town.
Yet another reason not to live or visit Iowa City.
Too funny. Iowans have been sliding into the socialist abyss for many years. It's fun to
watch......from adistance. Hey, dummies, a government that's powerful enough to give you
everything you want is also powerful enough to take it all away. Hope you enjoy the
process!
I heard that the Mayor denied that a draft of this ordinance had even been written, long after
the ordinance was published in the packet, and AFTER THEY REACHED CONSENSUS
ON IT. They don't read the correspondence in the packets, they don't even read what they're
voting on. And they most certainly don't give a crap what we think.
This is going to be a typical case of the "law of unintended consequences" when people stop
going out and tax revenue shrinks. Thanks once again to out of touch government croonies.
Shouldn't the city council and officials be held under the same standards? No drinking when
any type of city business is being discussed, for the sake of the people and their safety. This
would and should include anytime that two or more officials gather together with the
possibility of city work being discussed. This should include but not limited too, dinner
parties, public or private, BBQ's sporting events, if another official visits another's official's
home.
You want to know how to table this. Show up to the City Council meeting and tell the Chair
that if this is passed you will start re-call preceedings and kick him and the coucil out of
office. This "idea" that the ID checks will be more thorough has no weight. Tell the councill
to provide the science behind this "idea". Also, what do ID checks have to do with
entertainment? How's Chuck's Sideshow Rodeo ability to entertain conflict with the ability
of the waitstaff to do their jobs. You poor people have morons running your city. Good luck
to you.
What the ****. Sons ofbitches. I hate it, I ****ing hate this ****. So now I have a glass of
wine, while I polish some glasses and I'm a criminal? Bull****. Bull**** Bull****.
If I get drunk at work, my boss can fire me. My boss is liable, it's his problem. Why doesn't
the government just take over all the bars and restaurants out there and we can eat at
1/26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
****ing Applebees every day.
Page 6 of 10
******* mother ****ers. Way to waste my day and tax dollars looking to over step your
reach into my pocket, in this constant attack on the restaurant and bar business. Just make
alcohol illegal already so I can open a speakeasy.
Why entertainers? So now the band has to be dead sober as well? Screw that. I usually have
a couple when we play to loosen up a bit.
So what is the purpose of testing the entertainers? They don't check IDs or monitor clientele
for excessive drinking. Are they even employees of the bars and restaurants or are they
contract performers?
Originally Posted by *******
"Cry me a river."
"Do you really expect anyone to care that you can no longer drink at your job? Drink when
you get off work like the rest of us".
So you feel that armed government should be able to come into a private establishment and
search your personal belongings?
That sounds like America?
Originally Posted by ********
"Cry me a river.
"Do you really expect anyone to care that you can no longer drink at your job? Drink when
you get off work like the rest of us."
The rights you don't use are the first to go.
I'm quoting this post again because it's a great case of watching America fall away from
where it should be, because it doesn't pertain to you personally.
Keep throwing your freedom away people.
Armed government employees coming into a private establishment and searching a person
1/26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance Page 7 of 10
is not legal.
Imagine if they tired to make Dean Martin take a Breathalizer? Mr. Sinatra would have
Moose and Rocco "adjust" them. So, if they refuse a Breathalizer what do they do, take
your guitar? I guess they don't have a 4th or 5th Amendment out there in Iowa City. I say
boycott them. No entertainment. Not at bars, not at WEDDINGS! Not at political events. ---
This is nearing UK levels of stupid Nanny State laws.
I see what's happening here....just another tactic to destroy the downtown bar business, this
time, by trying to dismantle to vibrant music scene here.
The city council in Iowa City sucks. Plain and simple. They ought to all be ashamed. Of
course, they got elected. I guess that means that a majority of people voted for them. It
makes sense. IC is full of boneheaded 'oh-so-enlightened' liberal asshats. Government
intervention is their religion, so they're getting what they wanted and what they deserve.
Next they'll regulate how often you can flush your toilet, what you can eat, and what kind of
car you can drive in the city limits.
Iowa City, you are pathetic.
------------------------------------------------
Re: [Bay Area Blues ]unbelievable-is nothing sacred?
IMO, it's one more step toward the return of prohibition and the end of
public entertainment as we know it now. Drinking laws have been heading
that way ever since MADD was organized. Banning alcohol again could be
great for organized crime, the same as it was during the first prohibition,
and the same as the war on drugs is now. "Some Like it Hot" puts a funny
spin on underground entertainment during prohibition, but it wasn't so
funny in reality.
Jimmy Reed would be sloshing around in his grave! What is next-
inspecting employees for tattoos to make sure that they are not a bad
influence on the customers? However, I do suspect that nannies around
the world would be upset with you linking them with this proposed
ordinance...
1 /26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Page8of10
-----------------------------------------------
That's the largest consignment of bovine excreta that's ever been brought to my attention.
Next thing you know, NOBODY will be able to go to work drunk.
I have a maximum of 4 beers during an evening out, but this sanctumonious s**t drives me
nuts!
---------------------------------------------
Ifthis thing passes I think I'm gonna market a new line of instruments and microphones
with a built in breathalyzer! If your at .02 or higher they won't allow sound to pass!
The terrorists are winning.
That's the same as breathalyzing the air conditioner repair man when he comes in to a place
to fix the AC.
American Taliban...'real America' hates our freedom to listen to drunken guitar.
If you can perform your job function to the satisfaction of management then why should
anything else matter. If the bouncer is wasted and doing a sloppy job of checking ids then
there will already be plenty consequences.
Breaking News, Iowa almost completely depopulated!
"It's probably going to pass, "Councilor Mike O'Donnell said. "The thought is that if you're
not intoxicated, you can be more accurate when checking IDs and keeping people safe in
the bar. "
I have been to many, MANY bars over the years and have NEVER been carded by the
band. This looks like either a shameless cash grab or another move to give cops more
1 /26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
power, probably both.
I want to be in a bar full of drunks when a beloved bartender gets busted.
City Council overheard saying "all your base players are belong to us"
Page 9 of 10
iowa city is like a little socialist enclave in the middle of a cornfield. it makes san francisco
look like provo. i love it to death. it's a great town. small, highly intellectual... very
progressive. but the city has been at war with the bars for 30 years.
My town has been splitting it's time at war between the bars and the students. Mostly
students lately, though.
sounds like someone got MADD STUPIDD.
There..That's more like it. And how is making sure that all bar employees are absolutely
sober going to amount to anything? (hint: It's not)
~Frodo has lost the ring...The dumbasses now have it.
Sounds like another flat note in the eternal war between drunk UI students and histrionic
residential property owners on the Northeast side.
What they need to do is get rid of the city council. It is and has been a joke for 30 years.
They want to stop anything positive in Iowa City, and all they usually do is worry about
drinking. Iowa City is a great place and could be even greater if they worried about things
that would help our city.
"The thought is that if you're not intoxicated, you can be more accurate when checking IDs
and keeping people safe in the bar."
In other words, we're going to make a new law to make sure people don't break a law we
already have. Making $500 bucks a pop will just cover our expenses.
Logic fail.
Stop saying the city council doesn't do anything. They censured Bush dammit.
1 /26/2009
Fwd: Re: proposed alcohol ordinance
Page 10 of 10
This sounds a lot like Lincoln. The city is more than happy to take in all the revenue
generated by the University, but they'll crap on the students of said University every chance
they get. A-holes.
This looks like either a shameless cash grab
Wow, you've never been to Iowa City. This IS THEIR favorite Tax. Look at the Daily
Iowan police blotter on a Monday. It's an entire page full of Public intox's and underage
drinking arrests. The DI even does a weekly column with bar graphs during football season
to show how many alcohol related arrest there were. This town LIVES on alcohol sales and
the subsequent fines. It's disgusting.
In an effort to curb Iowa City's epic drinking problem the city council may vote to allow
random breath-testing of bar employees and bands performing at local bars. Dishwashers,
base players, the ACLU not amused
Limiting when you can buy drinks, taxing drinks a bit higher... neither of these things
entered their mind... instead they choose to waste tax dollars and do this?
UUUUUUUUUUGH.
I live here. It's dull. And I'm a regularly gigging musician. The peak alcohol intake for our
band is maybe 2 beers in a night. Two of us usually just drink Pepsi.
And just think, we let Iowa choose our presidential candidates every election.
1 /26/2009
~/
Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, BY
REVISING TITLE 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED
"PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS," SECTION 8, ENTITLED "PERSONS UNDER 19
YEARS OF AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS" SUBSECTION E(1)
TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE WHO
VIOLATES SAID SECTION TO FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00).
WHEREAS, underage drinking in Iowa City has a significant and negative impact on the health,
welfare and morals of its citizens, and results in increased burdens on Iowa City's criminal justice
system and social services agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Code prohibits persons under the age of 19 from being present after
10:00 p.m. in a licensed establishment whose primary business purpose is the sale of alcohol; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to increase the fine for said offense to $500.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Section 4-5-8(E)(1) of the City Code is repealed and the following
substituted in-lieu-thereof:
1. A person under nineteen (19) years of age who violates the provisions of subsection C of this
section is guilty of a simple misdemeanor punishable by a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00).
SECTION II. Reaealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect on
Passed and approved this day of , 2008.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Ap oved by:
~. ~- ~- 09
City Attorney's Office
Annen/OrdB~Res/ORDunderl9penalty.doc
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 2/10/2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Corre:
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
21
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13, ENTITLED "AIRPORTS AND AVIATION," CHAPTER 1,
ENTITLED, "AIRPORT COMMISSION," TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE COMMISSIONERS FROM
SIX (6) YEARS TO FOUR (4) YEARS.
WHEREAS, Section 330.20 of the Iowa Code provides that the City shall by ordinance set the length
of terms of office for the Airport Commission and that the terms shall not be less than three (3) years and
not more than six (6) years;
WHEREAS, presently the term for a Commissioners is six (6) years;
WHEREAS, the Airport Commission has recommended decreasing the term to four (4) years to
increase the pool of citizens who may be interested in serving as a Commissioner; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
Title 13, entitled "Airports and Aviation," Chapter 1, entitled "Airport Commission," Section 2, entitled,
"Composition; Appointment; Term; Vacancies," is repealed in its entirety and the following new Section 2
is substituted in lieu thereof:
The commission created by this chapter shall consist of five (5) members who shall be appointed by
the mayor with the consent and approval of the city council. Upon expiration of the current six (6) year
terms, all appointments shall be for terms of four (4) years beginning March 1, 2009. Vacancies shall be
filled in the same manner as original appointments are made. At the request of the airport commission
and upon approval of the city council, the mayor may appoint a nonvoting, advisory commission member
who resides outside the city boundaries.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2009.
MAYOR
Approved:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 2 / 10 / 2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia, O'Donnell,
Wilburn. NAYS: NOne. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
~r_,---r,®~ C[TY OF IOWA CITY 22
:~u~,~~~
~~~~~ M E N CJ RA N D u M
Date: February 2, 2009
To: City Council
From: Doug Boothroy, Director; H.I.S. & Norm Cate, Senior Housing Inspector
Re: Increasing the initial fine for over-occupancy to $750.00
Over-occupancy is an issue that negatively impacts the quality and value of our neighborhoods.
Therefore, in 2002, at the urging of the Neighborhood Task Force, the City Council adopted the
nuisance property ordinance, as well as requiring the Informational Disclosure and
Acknowledgement Form to be reviewed and signed for all lease agreements.
As a result, maximum occupancy standards for all rental units are now included on the
building's rental permit. Every owner is given that document after the building passes its rental
inspection. In addition, the rental permit is always available for viewing on-line. Furthermore, as
previously noted, landlords and tenants are required to review and sign the Information
Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form, which, among other concerns, addresses the
maximum occupancy of the rental unit. Therefore, if over-occupancy exists, the landlord and the
tenants have knowingly engaged in over-occupancy.
Over the past year, H.I.S has seen an increase in the number of 1St time over-occupancy
violations and 2"d offenses. Currently the maximum fine for 1St offense over-occupancy is
$250.00. That amount equals approximately one half of a month's rent for one tenant. The
amount of the fine does not seem sufficient to keep those that engage in this practice from
continuing to over-occupy their properties.
Therefore, H.I.S. recommends an increase in the municipal infraction fine for over-occupancy to
$750.00 for 1St offense, the maximum amount the State allows fora 1St offense violation. In
addition, Housing and Inspection Services also recommends that the 2"d and 3~d offense fine be
increased to $1,000.00, again the maximum amount the State allows.
~~
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE N0.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED
"GENERAL PENALTY," SECTION 2D TO PROVIDE THAT THE CIVIL PENALTY FOR OVER-
OCCUPANCY OF A RENTAL UNIT BE $750.00 FOR FIRST VIOLATION AND $1,000.00 FOR SECOND
AND SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS.
WHEREAS, over-occupancy of rental units is an issue that negatively impacts the quality and value of
neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, the maximum occupancy limit for a rental units is listed on the rental permit, which is
available on the City's website and which is provided to the owner when the unit passes inspection;
WHEREAS, landlords and tenants are required by City ordinance to sign the Information Disclosure
and Acknowledgement Form that specifically states the maximum occupancy of the rental unit;
WHEREAS, despite the actual and constructive knowledge of the occupancy standards by owners,
landlords, and tenants, there has been an increase in both first and second violations of the occupancy
standards in the past year;
WHEREAS, the civil penalties presently are $250.00 for first violation, $500.00 for second, and
$750.00 for third and subsequent violations of the occupancy standards and all other zoning code
provisions;
WHEREAS, section 364.22(1) of the Iowa Code allows the City to establish civil penalties for
municipal infractions in an amount of not more than $750.00 for first violation and not more than $1,000
for second and subsequent violations; and
WHEREAS, in order to increase compliance with the occupancy standards, it is in the best interest of
the City to raise the civil penalty for over-occupancy of a rental unit to $750.00 for first violation and 1,000
for second and subsequent violations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 1, entitled "Administration," Chapter 4, entitled "General Penalty," Section 2, entitled "Civil
Penalties for Municipal Infractions," Subsection D is hereby amended by adding the following:
The civil penalty for violation of sections 14=2A-5 and 14-26-5 shall be punishable as provided in the
following schedule for each day a violation exists or continues:
First offense $ 750.00
Second and subsequent offense $1,000.00
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2009
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by a _ ~ _ O ~
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 02/10/2009
Vote for passage: AYES:Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDI G TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTE 4, ENTITLED
"GENERAL PENALTY," SECTION 2D TO PROVIDE THAT THE CIVIL PEN TY FOR OVER-
OCCUPANCY OF A REN L UNIT BE $750.00 FOR FIRST VIOLATION AND $1,0 .00 FOR SECOND
AND SUBSEQUENT VIOL TIONS.
WHEREAS, over-occupand,~r of rental units is an issue that negatively impacts he quality and value of
neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, the maximum o upancy limit for a rental units is listed on a rental permit, which is
available on the City's website and hich is provided to the owner when the un~ passes inspection;
WHEREAS, landlords and tenan are required by City ordinance to si the Information Disclosure
and Acknowledgement Form that spec ically states the maximum occupanc of the rental unit;
WHEREAS, despite the actual and nstructive knowledge of the occu ancy standards by owners,
landlords, and tenants, there has been an ~ crease in both first and secon violations of the occupancy
standards in the past year;
WHEREAS, the civil penalties present) are $250.00 for first v' lation, $500.00 for second, and
$750.00 for third and subsequent violations f the occupancy st dards and all other zoning code
provisions;
WHEREAS, section 364.22(1) of the Iowa Code allows th City to establish civil penalties for
municipal infractions in an amount of not more tha $750.00 for ~rst violation and not more than $1,000
for second and subsequent violations; and
WHEREAS, in order to increase compliance with t occup cy standards, it is in the best interest of
the City to raise the civil penalty for over-occupancy of a ental nit to $750.00 for first violation and 1,000
for second and subsequent violations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CI Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 1, entitled "Administration," Chapter 4, enti ed " eneral Penalty," Section 2, entitled "Civil
Penalties for Municipal Infractions," Subsection D is hereb amend d by adding the following:
The civil penalty for violation of section 14-26-5 shall a punish le as provided in the following schedule
for each day a violation exists or continues:
First offense $ 7 0.00
Second and subsequent offense $1 00.00
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and arts of ordinances i conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any sectio ,provision or part of the O finance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication sh not affect the validity of the rdinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged ~ valid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rdinance shall be in effect after it final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this da~/of , 2009
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK '
Approved by
cf,- d
City Attorney's Office
Marian Karr
From: Pascoe, Judith M ~judith-pascoe@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:54 PM
To: Council
Subject: over-occupancy fine
Dear City Council Members,
I hope you will endorse the suggested increase in the fine for over-occupancy violations.
The over-occupancy of student rental property is a particular problem in the Northside
neighborhood. An increase in the violation fee will make it less likely that landlords and
property managers defy the occupancy limitations (or turn a blind eye when their tenants
do so).
I'm grateful to Housing and Inspection services for trying to address this problem.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Pascoe
Coordinator, Northside Neighborhood Association
1
Marian Karr
From: Howell, Perry [perry-howell@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Council
Subject: proposed over-occupancy fine increase
Dear City Councilors,
I live in the near north side of Iowa City, in a mixed owner occupied/rental neighborhood.
I am writing to strongly support the proposed increase in the fine for over-occupancy.
The reality of this regulation seems to be that, for a number of different reasons, it is
extremely difficult to enforce. The current fine structure and very low chance of ever
getting caught have combined to result in very, very low value for the current regulations
in deterring over-occupancy. A higher fine structure would at least lead the business
calculations of some people in the direction of compliance with the law.
I am sure this regulation would have a positive impact on the quality of neighborhood
life, and I urge all of you to support it.
Sincerely,
Perry Howell
317 Fairchild St.
Iowa City 52245
354-8768
1
Page 1 of 1
a a.
Marian Karr
From: ivetteapts@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Council
Subject: over occupancy fine increase?
Dear Members of the Council,
I am writing in response to the fine increase for persons who over occupy rental housing. My
understanding is that the current fee has been $250.00, and an increase to $750.00 is being proposed. I
think this is excessive. I also understand from several emails that this increase is being brought forth
from the Northside Neighborhood Association. Can I ask why is it that any whim from the Northside
Neighborhood is put to the top of the basket? Why is it that they feel the need to patronize rental
property owners and renters? Many of the renters in their neighborhood are associated with the
University of Iowa, and by paying rent are paying the property taxes that Iowa City enjoys spending.
I certainly do not think that overoccupying is justified. Do you think that anyone who has received a
fine of $250.00 has ever overoccupied again, or any of their friends? I am a landlord (three of the
properties that we own and manage are in the north end), a home owner, a parent of 4 children, one
who is a Uof I alum, one is a student now. We know what costs are to run businesses, run a home, pay
for college and college expenses.
Do you think that most persons can afford a fine of $750.00 to learn their lesson of living in certain parts
of Iowa City. I personally think. that they are here because they are interested in getting a good
education, they want to live in unique housing, because they want to walk to where they go to school or
go to work. Not because the occasional home owner only, or person who attends all things Northside,
lives next door and has their nose to the window at all times.
So give them a break, and think this through. Is this the worst thing happening in our town? Does
everything have to have a stiff monetary penalty for you to be happy? I think not.
I welcome your comments and encourage you to not increase this fine to $750.00 anytime in the near
future.
Sincerely,
Kayla Cress
4506 Dryden Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Great _Deals on_Dell Laptops_..__Starting at $499._
2/9/2009