Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-26 Bd Comm minutesFINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 4b 1 MINUTES -September 14, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Royceann Porter (5:40pm), Peter Jochimsen, Joseph Treloar, Angelina Blanchard-Manning MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Wyss and Officer Schwindt of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Treloar and seconded by Jochimsen to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. Minutes of the meeting on 08/10/10 ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -July 2010 ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -August 2010 Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. CONSIDER MOTION APPOINTING A TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR Moved by Jochimsen, seconded by Blanchard-Manning to appoint Joseph Treloar as the temporary Vice Chair. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. NEW BUSINESS Select Nominating Committee -Jochimsen and King volunteered to be on the nominating committee and will meet and report back to the Board at the next meeting. City Manager Search Process -King said he would be available to participate in the City Manager search process as requested by City Council. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum -Tuttle informed the Board that the Grant Wood gymnasium was not available but The Spot, which is on the southeast side, was reserved for the forum. Board members agreed that The Spot would work for the forum. The Board discussed receiving questions & comments before the forum. It was decided that they would attempt to address all correspondence received at the forum. The Board wanted items forwarded to them and they would discuss at their regular monthly meeting on November 3~d. The City Cable division will record the forum and rebroadcast at a later date. Treloar and Blanchard- Manning volunteered to be on the forum sub-committee and draft a summary of the forum to forward to Council after Board review. PCRB September 14, 2010 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SESSION Porter informed the Board that she had been contacted by someone that wanted a complaint form and needed help filling it out. Porter asked legal counsel if Board members should assist in filling out the forms. Pugh stated that it could possibly muddy the view point of the member if they assisted in filling out the form, in which they may have more information than the rest of the members and they would know the identity of the officer so it would be best if the person requesting the form had someone else help them fill it out. Jochimsen inquired if the different police entities that help out for home Iowa football games are considered employees of the University. Wyss stated that even if an Iowa City officer is contracted out by the University, they are still an Iowa City police officer and they would want to look into any complaints regarding those officers. None. Not Needed. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • October 12, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • November 3, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm (Moved from 11/9) • November 9, 2010, 7:00 PM, The Spot -Community Forum • December 14, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jochimsen to move the regular monthly meeting from November 9th to November 3~d due to the scheduling of the Community Forum. Motion carried, 5/0. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Jochimsen, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:02 P.M. Motion carried, 5/0. j ~ ~ O zz~~~ ooc~~, ~~y ° ~ ~~r~ c °~ c c. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o c c o ~ ~ ~; o d ~ o UQ < ~• C y q A c ^~ ~ O d ~ rr; z O .7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ A ~ ~ ° t '~ O ^p ~ O G. ~~i ' Y i a ~ 7Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~-+ r-+ ~ ~ ~ yyy / r ~ N N W N N W W N y a ~ o ~ ~ ~ z z ~ z z N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ i i ~ ~ ~ J A O ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ W Cr] A ~ ~ z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~; I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ i i i i ~ ~ ~' ~ ' ~ W J i i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N.. 00 i i i i ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ O ~O i i i ~' ~ ~ X ~ -+ O N i i i i i i i i i y ~ ~c d y~ ~' ;~ n a ~ o ~ o ~+ n O b r F~1 n n Cri U 4b 2 MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 - 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin MEMBERS ABSENT: Le Ann Tyson STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, OTHERS PRESENT: Marty Roth, Jean Walker, Kristin Breaux, Marinda Tuttle RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Anderson, Sheerin, Jennings and Eckstein were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 11 2010 MEETING MINUTES: Eckstein noted a missing "not" on page 6. Anderson moved to approve the minutes as amended. Eckstein seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Tyson excused). SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC10-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Marty Roth on behalf of First Mennonite Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a church facility located in a Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 2 of 14 Howard shared a location map and aerial view of the church property, noting that there had been a special exception for an addition to the First Mennonite Church in 2009. Howard explained that the site plan for the church proposes a 1,600 square foot addition on the west side of the property. She said the proposal calls for closing a portion of the driveway and sodding that area with grass. Howard said that there are specific criteria for church additions. The church is required to have access to a collector street, an arterial street or a street with pavement equal to or greater than 28 feet in width. Howard explained that the streets involved in this expansion are only 25 feet in width, but are both designated as collector streets. This specific criterion is therefore met. The second specific requirement is the setback requirements for institutional uses. Howard said that a front setback of 20 feet, a side setback of 20 feet, and a rear setback of 50 feet are required. Howard explained that the church exceeds the setback requirements. The third specific criterion is that the use is compatible with the neighborhood. Howard said that the staff report prepared by Sarah Walz addresses the various aspects of neighborhood compatibility that the Board can take under consideration. She said that staff feels that the application satisfies these criteria because the addition is a small one-story addition of only 1,600 square feet which will not be particularly visible from neighboring properties due to the topography of the site. Howard said that the addition has been designed to complement the existing church building and will fit in with its architectural style. She noted that there will not really be any additional capacity or parking issues resulting from the addition so there should not be additional impacts on neighboring property owners. Howard noted that the staff report identifies a number of other possible considerations for neighborhood compatibility but that she was not going to go through all of them. Howard said that the general standards require that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff noted that the addition does not expand the sanctuary space so there is no additional traffic or other effects on the neighborhood. She said that the fire department did note that there will need to be a designated fire lane now that access to the site will be somewhat more restricted. She said the Building Official will assist in establishing the best way to do that. Howard noted that this is an existing property and the surrounding areas are fully developed so all utilities, access roads, drainage, etc., are already in place. The transportation planners have reviewed the site plan and believe that the remaining access drive is appropriate and adequate to serve this use. The staff report notes that the site is in compliance with all other aspects of the zoning code, as it was required to be updated for a special exception granted last year. Howard noted that at the time of site plan review any outstanding or additional matters will be brought into compliance. Howard said that the Comprehensive Plan encourages institutional uses such as churches within residential neighborhoods so long as they meet the requirements of the zoning code and are designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; as already noted, staff believes this is the case for this project. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 3 of 14 Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00007, a special exception to allow a 1,600 square-foot addition to a religious facility in the Medium Density, Single-Family residential (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1) Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with this application; 2) The remaining drive providing access to the rear parking area must be assigned as a fire lane. Howard offered to answer any questions the Board might have. There were none. Sheerin invited the applicant to present the proposal. Marty Roth, 134 12`h Avenue, spoke on behalf of First Mennonite Church. He said that they do not believe that their addition will have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. He said they are looking to make their space more functional for the activities they have going on from day to day. Jennings asked the applicant if it is correct that the Phase #1 addition indicated on the plat has actually been completed, and Roth said that was correct. Jennings noted that there is a handicapped accessible area on Myrtle Avenue as well as the existing wrap-around entry which the applicant proposes reducing. Roth said the driveway would be changed to function as basically adrop-off spot for the front entrance. Jennings asked if there might be a safety problem at busy functions with this new drop-off configuration. Roth said he understood the concern, but that he believed the drop off location in question would be used only on occasion and that the one with the handicap access would be the primary one. Roth noted that there is also handicap access from the back of the building. Jennings said he was just wondering about the rationale behind keeping that drop-off site. Roth said that he did not really know. Jennings noted that it was likely aself-limiting drop-off site, and Roth said that was correct. Roth noted that the two other drop-off sites would be far more widely used. Anderson said that it appears from the rendering provided to the Board that there are no points of entry on the addition. Roth said that there actually is one very small point of entry on the southeast corner, and agreed that it was not very clearly indicated on the site plan. Jennings asked if there might need to be some adjustments made and some parking spaces removed in order to accommodate the designation of a fire lane. Howard said that she believed code requires a 20 foot wide drive for a fire lane and that this meets that requirement. Anderson said that the staff report indicates there is currently sufficient parking on site to meet the needs of the facility. He asked how many extra spaces there were in the event that the Board wished to cut back on the number of parking spaces. Howard said she did not know if the church exceeds the parking requirements or not. She said the parking requirement is based on the size of the largest meeting room in the facility, in this case, the sanctuary. She said there is no additional parking required for the addition because the sanctuary size is not being expanded. She noted that the parking requirement for churches is generally quite low. Howard pointed out that the fire department can of course fight fire from the front of the building as well. She said that the goal of the new fire lane designation was to make for adequate circulation. There were no further questions for the applicant and Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion. She invited anyone who wished to speak in support of the application to come Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 4 of 14 forward. Jean Walker, 335 Lucon Drive, said she was not opposed to the addition, but that she did have concerns about the cul-de-sac being closed off. She said her concern was about cars backing up into the street. She said that cars come hurtling up Greenwood Avenue which could pose a hazard to someone backing out of the drop-off area. Walker asked if there was a way that the drive could be connected to the other entrance in some way to allow for a turn around, thus avoiding altogether the issue of cars backing out of the drive. Walker said that she is the neighborhood representative and that she was just curious on the neighborhood's behalf what the actual use of the new addition would be. There was no one else who wished to speak for or against the application, so Sheerin invited the applicant to respond. Roth said that the fellowship hall is being renovated and part of the current space is being incorporated into new restroom facilities. Roth said the additional space is intended to compensate for the gathering space lost by the addition of the restrooms. Sheerin asked if staff had additional comments. Howard said that in regard to Walker's concern about the turnaround, she was not privy to the discussions that took place between Walz, the applicant, and the transportation planners, but it is her belief that some sort of turnaround will have to be provided for as the city will not allow cars to back out into the street. Howard said that it might be wise to add a condition to the approval of the special exception that requires the drop-off point to either be eliminated or designed in such a way that there is adequate turnaround space. She said the turnaround space would then be reviewed at the site plan review. Sheerin asked how the Board would characterize that driveway if they were to place a condition on a turnaround for approval. Greenwood Hektoen suggested calling it the northern Greenwood entrance. Sheerin asked if anyone cared to discuss the possibility of adding an additional condition to staff's recommendations prior to making a motion. Eckstein said that was a wise suggestion. She said that she herself was aware that the traffic there can sometimes be intense. She said it makes perfect sense to her that a condition of approval be that there be adequate space for all vehicles to turn around, or that the drive be closed. Eckstein said that whichever option was preferable to the church was fine with her. Anderson said his preference would be to get rid of the drive altogether. He said his initial understanding of the staff report was that the driveway was in fact going to be eliminated. Anderson said that given the complexity of the potential traffic patterns of the site it really makes sense to get rid of the drive altogether. Sheerin said she agreed with that assessment. She said that with two other entrances she did not see that the function a third drive would provide could outweigh the potential safety hazards it poses. Jennings said that it seems as though most potential uses would be ones in which a fair number of people arrived and or departed at the same time, and so there could be a bit of congestion involved. He said that it is not unlikely that in such an instance the drive may be self-limiting and therefore not much use. He suggested that it makes the most sense to have the drive eliminated entirely, or given full turnaround status. Sheerin said that she is fine either way: Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 5 of 14 closing it off or making it a turnaround. She asked if calling it the northern Greenwood entrance was sufficient. Howard suggested calling it the northeast drive. Jean Walker suggested making the driveway swing around to connect to the handicap entrance and then designate it as a one-way to help the circulation. Walker said that she would like to add that the church has been a truly wonderful neighbor to the neighborhood. Jennings said he is not interested in adding or putting undue burden on the church so he does not want to require them to do more at greater expense. He said that connecting the drives per Walker's suggestion might actually further complicate matters. Jennings asked the applicant if he had a preferred course of action. Roth said he preferred having the option of considering a turnaround and thoroughly discussing the matter with staff. Roth said they would appreciate that flexibility. Anderson asked for clarification on the traffic flow Roth had in mind and Roth explained. Jennings said that as he understands it one goal of the entrance at that end of the building is to facilitate use of the handicapped entrance and people being dropped off. Jennings asked if it was correct that as it is now that entrance sometimes has the backing-out issues being discussed. Roth acknowledged that it sometimes did. Jennings said city staff might have suggestions as to what direction aone-way drive would flow. Anderson said he would be fine with either option. Sheerin said she was okay with the northeast entrance being closed off but was concerned how the other option could be worded. Anderson suggested saying that the drive would be connected to the handicapped drop-off site subject to transportation planning staff approval. Roth said that a common thing for folks in his neighborhood to do was to maneuver so that they can use church property to launch an illegal right turn. Sheerin suggested language that requires the northeast Greenwood entrance to be closed off or connected to handicapped parking off the Myrtle entrance subject to staff approval. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the Board was saying they would not support a cul-de-sac bulb on the drive, and the Board indicated that was correct. Eckstein said that the two options on the table are to either close it or to make it a u-shape drive connected to the handicapped entrance off of Myrtle. Howard asked if the Board was sure that they wished to eliminate the option of having a simple turnaround. She noted that the turnaround option would actually be the one that generated the least amount of traffic, which seems favorable for an entrance that seems to be most problematic from a traffic standpoint. Howard said that it may be good to give the transportation planners all three options to look at. Anderson said that he would prefer the idea of a turnaround over athrough-way because it would result in less traffic; however, it seemed to him that if the idea was to discourage use it made more sense to just get rid of it altogether. Jennings said that the quandary seems to be that making the drive athrough-way changes its fundamental use, but making it a bulb would be self-limiting; however, Jennings said, his opinion would be to connect it if that was deemed safe by traffic planners, or, if it was not deemed safe, to just eliminate it. Eckstein said that Roth knows the property so having heard from him she is willing to take the risk that the two proposed options are sufficient. Eckstein said the third option seems far less attractive to her. Anderson suggested moving the entrance of the drive further up Greenway to avoid being so close to the intersection of the two streets. He noted that this could be more trouble and expense than it was worth. Anderson asked if the church would have to remove the tree that appears to be in the most obvious route for connecting the two drives. Howard said she was not sure but that it Looked like there was room for the connection without removing the tree. The Board members indicated that they wished to provide only the two options for dealing with the drive. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 6 of 14 Eckstein moved to approve EXC10-00007 to allow a 1,600 square foot addition of a religious facility in the Medium Density, Single-Family residential (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1) Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with this application; 2) The remaining drive providing access to the rear parking area must be assigned as a fire lane; 3) The northeast Greenwood entrance be either closed off or connected to the handicapped parking area off the Myrtle entrance, subject to staff approval. Jennings seconded. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited findings of fact. Eckstein stated that the addition does not affect compliance with the setback requirements and that Greenway and Myrtle, while only 25 feet wide, are appropriate as collector streets. She said that the addition requires no change to the parking amount or configuration as it does not affect the number of congregants able to gather in the sanctuary. Anderson stated that the neighborhood compatibility requirement is met because the size of the addition and the proposed materials are compatible with the area. He added that it is important to note that the addition does not expand the assembly area of the church. Anderson said that the site plan and the proposed conditions for approval address the conflict points in the traffic circulation along Greenway and Myrtle Avenue. Jennings found that the proposed addition does not expand the assembly sanctuary area of the church, so it will not generate additional traffic to the facility. The principal parking area is located to the rear of the building and all required screening for parking areas is already in place. Jennings noted that the establishment of the specific proposed exception does not impede the normal and orderly development of property in the zone. Eckstein added that the topography of the site is such that the addition will not be visible from the front. Sheerin agreed with the findings stated and added that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of institutional uses within residential neighborhoods. Sheerin said that a member of the public has stated that the church is a good neighbor. Sheerin said the conditions placed on approval will help reduce traffic conflicts in the area. Sheerin called for a vote. A vote was taken and the motion was approved 4-0 (Tyson excused). EXC10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Steven Breaux for a special exception to allow a reduction to the principal building setback (front) for property Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 7 of 14 located at 1122 E. Washington Street, a Medium Density, Single-Family (RS-8) zone. Howard explained that the application is for a setback reduction for an existing porch for which the property owner wishes to change the roofline. Howard explained that setbacks are in three- dimensional space, and include any encroachments above the first floor. Howard said that the location map shows that this property is in an older part of the city in which there is some variation to the setbacks for frontages. Howard pointed out that there are a lot of buildings on the street that sit closer to the street than the minimum required setback of fifteen feet. In such a case, Howard explained, if 50% or more of the buildings are closer to the street then the required minimum setback, the property owner can average the two buildings on either side of the subject property to establish their setback. Howard said this is a case where averaging could apply; however, the buildings on either side of this particular building do not sit closer than the fifteen foot setback. Howard shared photographs of the structure. She noted that the slope of the current porch roof is quite flat which has led to some drainage problems. Howard said that the applicant is proposing putting some pitch on the roof to improve drainage. She said the proposed height and design of the structure has been reviewed by staff, and that staff has recommended making the eaves the same height to unify the roofline. Staff suggests this slight modification in order to help the gabled roof design fit in better with the design of the existing structure. Staff also suggests requiring a minimum pitch of 3/12 for the roof in order to ensure improved drainage function, with a maximum height of thirteen feet at the roof's apex. Howard said that the specific standards for a setback reduction require that the situation is peculiar to the property in question. Howard said that the building is already in existence and the purpose of the change is to improve the design and function of the building. She said that there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback standards because of the drainage problems and the age of the structure. Howard said the existing roof is leaking and needs to be replaced to function properly. Howard stated that granting the exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations as they are intended to maintain light, air and fire separation, access for fire fighting, and privacy, and this setback reduction does not change that because it is a roofline adjustment. Howard said that this exception reflects the general scale and placement of the structure in the city's neighborhoods. She noted that there are other homes along the frontage that do extend into the fifteen foot setback so this would not be particularly out of character for that particular neighborhood. Howard said that any potential negative effects of the reduced setbacks are mitigated to the extent possible as staff has made specific recommendations for the height and design of the eaves and pitch of the roof. The subject building is set back farther than the required three feet from the property line. Howard noted that the general standards repeat a lot of the information she used to support the specific standards, and said that the Board had carefully read the staff report and could make their findings accordingly. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 8 of 14 Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00008, an application to reduce the required front principal setback from fifteen feet to eight feet for a property located in the Medium-Density (RS- 8) zone at 1122 E. Washington Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) The setback reduction is for the purpose of altering the roof of the existing porch only and no other portion of the existing porch should be enlarged; 2) The proposed roof will be no taller than 13 feet at its apex; 3) The proposed gable will have a minimum 3/12 slope to ensure proper drainage; 4) The height of the eaves of the porch must match the height of the eaves of the house. Eckstein asked if staff has discussed with the applicant the recommendation that the eaves should match the height and design of the house. Howard said she did not know for sure but noted that the applicant may be able to answer that question. Eckstein asked if the neighborhood was in a Conservation or Historic District and Howard said it was not. There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to present the proposal. Kristin Breaux, 1122 E. Washington Street, spoke on behalf of the application. Breaux stated that she believed the original drawings simply had an error on them and that it had been their plan all along to match the new eave to the existing eaves. There were no questions for the applicant and Sheerin invited anyone wishing to speak in favor or against the application to come forward. Marinda Tuttle, 1126 E. Washington Street, said that she owns a home adjacent to the subject property. She said she appreciated the opportunity to provide input on the project and said she was excited for Breaux because she has a wonderful home that they have worked very hard on. Tuttle said she did have some questions and concerns that she wanted to address. Tuttle said that it was correct that the neighborhood is not in a Historic or Conservation District, and that the issue of whether to attempt to designate the neighborhood as such has been brought up before. Tuttle said that in just the one block there are eleven older homes that could have historic or conservation characteristics. Tuttle said that one of her concerns is that when nearby duplexes were built they were granted an exception to allow for the encroachment of their porches into the setback area. Tuttle said that her property is adjacent to one of those duplexes, and at the time that the special exception was granted she did not think the setback issue was a big deal. Tuttle said that one of her concerns with this project is the height of the porch. She said she agrees with the fact that something needs to be done on their property to improve runoff from the roof. She said she would like to see the height of the roof be as minimal as was possible. She said that she would be in favor with tying in the design of the eaves with that of the house as that ties in well with the rest of the neighborhood. Tuttle said that there are a lot of concerns in the neighborhood with maintaining a certain characteristic of the area. She said that it is important to incorporate and control the runoff at the subject property in such a way as to improve the structure but maintain the look and feel of the adjacent properties. She said that the change in the roofline to more than double its current height is problematic. Tuttle said that she herself has been affected greatly by the runoff from this property and has experienced property damage because of that runoff. Tuttle asked if the Board considered whether the addition matches the older section of the house or the newer section of the house. Eckstein said that the documents that the Board had been give do not indicate that the two roofs will Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 9 of 14 necessarily have the same pitch. Howard noted that there is an additional diagram in the staff report that shows the minimum pitch necessary, the 3/12 pitch. Howard said the height of the gable is three feet instead of five on that diagram. Howard asked Tuttle if she was requesting a lower pitch or height to lessen impact. Tuttle asked if she was correct in her understanding that the Board does not necessarily require the addition to be an exact match to the existing house. Greenwood Hektoen said that while the Board could include that as a point of consideration, it was not a factor the Board was required to satisfy. Tuttle said she was just trying to gain an understanding for the project. She said she had attended previous special exception hearings and in an effort to get along with her neighbors agreed to things which she had not believed at the time would have a great impact on her neighborhood. She said that she had been very wrong about the impact of those special exceptions, and did not want to make the same mistake this time. She said her concern was the height of the eaves and she would like to see something worked out so that the property owners are able to benefit structurally and the neighbors are able to benefit from an appearance standpoint. Tuttle said that her primary concerns are the amount of runoff she will get from the roof, and the appearance of the home based on the height of the eaves. She said she had been greatly affected by the height of the property on her other side and had not thought she would be. Sheerin asked Tuttle how she felt the special exception might affect her. Tuttle said that when something gets taller it is hard to visualize it from a diagram, and it is difficult to foresee how much your view will be shut obstructed. She said there is a beautiful old woods behind her home and when the next door structure was allowed by special exception to project three feet farther forward and to the rear, it really shut out her view in a way that she had not foreseen. Tuttle added that she did want to see something positive happen for the Breaux family, so she hoped there was a way to benefit them while keeping the height of the eaves down. Anderson asked Tuttle if it was her preference to have the shallowest pitch possible, or to match the roof pitch of the existing addition. Tuttle said that if the Board cannot consider matching the pitch to the existing roof then she would propose something that still assists the property owner with their drainage issues, matches the gutters and the property, but is kept at a 3/12 height. Tuttle said she did not know if that was feasible or not. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the recommendation is that the roof is no taller than thirteen feet at its apex. She asked if that meant from grade to the point of the roof and Howard said that was correct. Howard said that the 3/12 pitch would be the least intrusive. Sheerin asked if this meant that the 3/12 minimum pitch could be changed to a maximum of 3/12. Anderson noted that the thirteen feet spelled out in the recommendation allowed for a five foot height. Eckstein said that she was hearing three concerns from Tuttle: 1) drainage concerns, 2) aesthetic concerns, and 3) view corridor concerns. She said that these three concerns are within the general purview of the Board, as the Board are asked to consider the special exception's impact on the well-being of the neighborhood. Sheerin said she was not sure that a view could be considered within the Board's purview. Greenwood Hektoen said that it could be if it was considered to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties. Anderson said that the Board could also consider the need to maintain light, air, and fire separation and Sheerin said that would be more to the point in her opinion. Greenwood Hektoen said that the general purpose of having setback requirements is to allow a certain space and view between structures. Eckstein said she was inclined to prioritize Tuttle's concerns. She said that for her the drainage issue is one that she would want to think through. Eckstein said that as she lives in an older neighborhood surrounded by older homes she is aware that any changes to her property result in drainage changes to the neighbors' properties. Eckstein said there is not much information in Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 10 of 14 the staff report telling the Board what happens to the water in this neighborhood when the pitch of the roof is changed. She said that one can only assume that without considerable downspout work the water will go toward the neighbor's rather than toward the front. Howard said she assumed there would be gutters attached to the eaves to direct the water. Sheerin suggested that the applicant address the question. Breaux said there is a plan for extensive gutters on the side of the house and they have set up throughout the yard a lot of drainpipes. The gutters will run down into the drainpipes and will go out through the back toward the ravine at the back of the house. Breaux said that a lot of the drainpipes are already in place, they need only to connect the new gutters to the existing pipes. Sheerin asked if there was anything else Breaux wished to respond to. Breaux said that in regard to the pitch, their proposal to staff had not been set in stone and had been understood to be open to suggestion. Jennings asked if the homeowners had a preference for the pitch. Breaux said that the preference would be to have the roof at the highest allowable pitch for effective drainage. She said that the aesthetics are not as important to them as the drainage. Anderson asked what the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would recommend for the pitch if the matter were before them. He asked if HPC would prefer to see slightly different pitches for the eaves or a straight match. Howard said that because the home had been considerably altered from its original structure it would be difficult to say. Jennings said that his understanding is that the applicant's main concern is that the roof be able to adequately address drainage to protect the integrity of the house. He said that it sounds as though the property owner has attempted to address the problems of where the water will go once it has left the roof. Jennings asked if the property owner had worked with a landscape architect to come up with their drainage plan. Breaux said that they had used standard black drain the wrapped in cloth all along their sidewalk and driveway. Eckstein said she too had a porch with a slight pitch somewhat like theirs, so she wondered if they had considered fixing the drainage problem with the gutters and the downspouts rather than changing the structure of the roof. Breaux said the main problem with the drainage comes in where the porch roof attaches to the house. She said that is where a lot of the leakage is coming from, not necessarily from leaky gutters. Jennings noted that it sounds like the water is not making it to the gutters. Breaux said that was correct and that there was nothing structurally wrong with the roof itself other than its shape which does not allow the water to come off the roof. There were no further questions from staff and Sheerin invited discussion from the Board. Eckstein suggested including in the motion a clear statement that the downspouts and drainage will flow away from the house. She said it is what the applicant intends, but the drawings do not indicate that the drain tiles will be in place. If the drain tiles were not in place then the water would flow toward the neighbor's property, which would be a significant problem for the neighbors as has been expressed by Tuttle. Greenwood Hektoen asked Eckstein to clarify what the actual language for that condition might be. Eckstein said that it is important not just to assume but to articulate that a part of this plan is to include these drain tiles that will run the water from the roof to the back ravine. Greenwood Hektoen asked if she meant that the condition would be that the downspout is connected to the drainage tile. Jennings said that would probably fall under the specific standards that state that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Greenwood Hektoen said that Eckstein's point could certainly be a finding of fact, but if the Board wants as a condition of approval the requirement of a physical connection between the roof and the drainage then that is what would need to be articulated. Eckstein said that the condition could Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 11 of 14 state that the proposed altered roof be connected to drainage the that conducts runoff to the back of the house and away from neighboring properties. Howard noted that the topography of the site cannot be changed and the nature of water is that it drains downhill, so she suggested a condition that states that the change should not increase the rate'of drainage onto the neighboring property. Howard said there may be drainage that is happening on the neighboring property right now, so it would reasonable to say that the change itself should not increase the drainage onto it. Eckstein said that makes sense. Sheerin clarified that this would change the proposed condition to state that the changes would not increase drainage to the neighboring property. Eckstein said that would leave it to staff to negotiate just what that would look like. Jennings asked if the Board was expressing a preference in regard to pitch. Anderson said that his understanding of Tuttle's comments was that she felt as though some of the projects of neighboring properties had intruded upon her view. He said that the logical solution would be to require the pitch to be the minimum that would satisfy drainage concerns. He said the additional two feet of clearance would allow for some extra light and decrease the mass near the sidewalk. Sheerin asked if Anderson was proposing changing the second condition to state that the roof would be no taller than eleven feet at its apex, and Anderson said he was. Greenwood Hektoen asked Howard if a 3/12 slope could be anything other than eleven feet. She said she was wondering if the second condition could just be eliminated and then the word "minimal" could be removed from the first condition. The Board seemed to agree that was a good course of action. Sheerin noted that the Board also wanted to require that the eaves would be at the same height. Eckstein expressed concern that the Board could be requiring things that are architecturally impossible. Greenwood Hektoen said that was part of the reason she wanted to eliminate the second requirement, because she was not entirely certain how the math would work out. Eckstein said that she was afraid that if the Board stipulated that the eaves must match and that the slope must be 3/12 then there could be a conflict between those two requirements. Jennings said that the drawings show that it is possible to have both of those requirements fulfilled; however, what is unknown is what the maximum apex at grade would be; that is why the second condition should be removed. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited a motion. Jennings moved to approve EXC10-00008, an application to reduce the required front principal setback from fifteen feet to eight feet for a property located in the Medium- Density (RS-8) zone at 1122 E. Washington Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) The setback reduction is for the purpose of altering the roof of the existing porch only and no other portion of the existing porch should be enlarged; 2) The proposed gable will have a 3/12 slope to ensure proper drainage; 3) The height of the eaves of the porch must match the height of the eaves of the house; and 4) The changes should not increase drainage to the neighboring property. Anderson seconded. Sheerin invited the findings of fact. Greenwood Hektoen advised board members to include comments made in the public hearing in addition to those given in the staff report. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 12 of 14 Anderson addressed the specific standards. He said that the situation is unique to the property in question. The house was erected prior to the establishment of the zoning code and the setback requirements, so it is already within the fifteen foot required setback. This creates a situation where the homeowners cannot benefit from setback averaging and are left with a structure clearly within the fifteen foot front setback. He said there is practical difficulty with complying with the front setback because of this. Anderson found that the granting of this exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback requirement because there remains sufficient separation for light, air and fire protection. He said the potential negative effects resulting from the decreased setback are mitigated to the extent practical. Anderson said that concerns about drainage expressed by the neighbor and the solution offered by the applicant during the public hearing spoke to that issue. The subject building will not be located closer than three feet from the property line at the side or rear of the property, Anderson said. The distance at which the roof encroaches into the setback area is not being changed, only the pitch of the roof is changing. Jennings stated that regarding the peculiarity of the situation to this property, it should be noted that changing the roof angle of the porch does not extend the house any further into the setback; however, the change to the roof is considered an enlargement of the nonconformity. Greenwood Hektoen advised the Board to include a finding about its decision to change the height of the pitch. Anderson found that the determination to limit the pitch of the roof to 3/12 will maintain the maximum amount of light and air separation for neighboring properties while allowing for the drainage resolutions the property owner is seeking. Eckstein said that the decision to limit the pitch of the roof is also consistent with a desire to promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences while providing flexibility so that the building is compatible with other structures in its vicinity. Sheerin said that this is also true in regard to the requirement that the eaves match the existing eaves. Sheerin invited findings on the general standards. Sheerin noted that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare because it does not bring the structure any closer to the street and will not reduce the amount of separation between the subject house and the adjacent properties. The exception is limited to the porch roof and the height of the roof has been limited to maintain separation of light, air and fire protection. Sheerin said that the special exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially reduce or impair property values in the neighborhood because the height has been limited and a condition has been added to ensure that drainage issues are not exacerbated. The normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties will not be impeded by this special exception for the same reasons. Adequate utilities and access roads are in place for this property and the drainage issues are addressed by the plans for implementing this special exception. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 13 of 14 Sheerin said that this change will have no effect on ingress or egress because it involves only the roof. The property does comply with all other applicable standards to the zone in which it is located. The applicant must submit a final drawing to the Building Department in order to obtain a permit to begin construction. Sheerin stated that the proposed exception is not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Tyson excused). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Eckstein moved to adjourn. Anderson seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Tyson excused). '~ H Q M~ W 0 0 N L O v W Q a~ t ~+ 0 N O M O ~ o ~C )C ~C 1C Q O~ x x o x x X X X O O °' X 1C X X X ~o N x X x O X ~ X X x X x d' 0 x x X x x M O X X X O X N x O X X x V1 N ~ V1 M L '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y'X o 0 0 0 0 ~ W O O O O O c c c G 'y 'i i Y b ~ O ~ ~ A C V ~ N ~ ~ ("' a Z ~ C C . ~ ~ O ~ U J ~ G m ~ o '~ N X w c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~-. ~+ C_ O a a cd C GJ N ~+ O C u L O L (d t C ~L 7 '~ v C G.0 .N GJ L u L L L ~ ~ C •}, ~ v ~ a~ ~ ~ ~, O O Z Z X ~ ~ Z 4b 3 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Whitt RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair McMahon called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1228 Sheridan Avenue. Kuecker said this house is in the Longfellow Neighborhood. She said the owner is requesting approval for some work that was done without a permit, including insulation of a rear patio door, construction of a rear deck/stair, alteration to a window opening on the east side of the house, and the installation of a gas fireplace vent. Kuecker showed a photograph of the door to the rear deck. She said it is a French style door with one side that opens and one that is stationary. Kuecker said the deck is essentially just stairs coming down off that door. She said in staff's opinion, the patio door meets the guidelines and will have minimal impact on the historic integrity. Kuecker said staff does believe that trim needs to be installed around the patio door to match the trim of the other windows of the house. She said staff feels the deck/stair meets the guidelines, and it meets the setback requirements and such of the rear deck standards. Regarding the side window and fireplace vent, Kuecker showed the size that the window had been. She said the window has now been made smaller and showed where the siding was pieced in. Kuecker said the fireplace vent has been installed below. She said the guidelines allow for window replacement but in general require that new windows retain the size and type of the original windows. Kuecker said the Commission has made exceptions for window sizes and patterns if the proposal is in keeping with the architectural character of the house. Kuecker said staff believes that the retention of the original window would have been most historically accurate. She said, however, that it is not uncommon for acraftsman-style house to have a short, high window on the side. Kuecker referred to some images in the packet that demonstrated this. Kuecker said staff feels the shorter window is in keeping with the architectural style, provided that it is trimmed to match the other windows on the house with either a new window or this window being retrofitted to have some sort of decorative grillwork as shown in many of the examples. She said the best solution is probably to have some vertical muntins to match the other windows on the house. Kuecker said staff believes the fireplace vent should be painted to match the siding color. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the project at 1228 Sheridan with the conditions that: the exterior of the fireplace vent be painted to match the siding of the house; the side window and patio door being trimmed in wood to match the existing window and door trim; a decorative, divided light pattern being present in the new window; and Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2010 Page 2 the window being solid wood or metal clad solid wood with the divided light pattern either being true divided lights or created with muntin bars adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin bars. Baldridge asked what is above the French doors in the rear. Kuecker said it is replacement siding to fill in the gap. Ackerson asked if the fireplace vent would hold paint well with the heat. Kuecker said it may not hold paint as well as the siding will, but it will hold paint, although it may need to be painted more often than the siding would be. Whitt, the applicant, apologized for the way this has come about -coming before the Commission after the fact. She said she had thought she had done everything she needed to do. Whitt thanked the Commission for considering her request and thanked Kuecker for her help and recommendations. She said she wants to do what is right by the Longfellow District and by her house. Whitt said she has been trying to respect the history of the house as well as its future in making her decisions. Kuecker said that Whitt had applied for what she thought was needed for a certificate to open up the front porch, Kuecker said that was approved by a certificate of no material effect. She said Whitt was unaware that these other items required review, although she did know that her house is in a district. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1228 Sheridan Avenue with the following conditions: the exterior of the fireplace vent be painted to match the siding of the house; the side window and patio door being trimmed in wood to match the existing window and door trim; a decorative, divided light pattern being present in the new window; and the window being solid wood or metal clad solid wood with the divided light pattern either being true divided lights or created with muntin bars adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin bars. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Downins Swaim, and Wagner absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 12, 2010: Michaud said that on page six, in the fifth full paragraph, the word "reserve" should be changed to "mature." MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 12, 2010 meeting, as amended. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Downing, Swaim, and Wagner absent). 2010-1 I WORK PLAN: Kuecker said she prepared a list of the items discussed at the last meeting. She asked for suggestions. MOTION: Litton moved to approve the Historic Preservation Commission's 2010-11 Work Plan as presented in the September packet. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Downing, Swaim, and Wagner absent). OTHER: Kuecker stated that she would be sending out a press release soon to request nominations for historic preservation awards. She said the awards have been scheduled for November 14. Kuecker asked Commission members to inform her of any properties that may be eligible for awards. She said that the Commission also usually recognizes some properties from the County, which are compiled by the Johnson County Historical Society. Kuecker said the new handbook, which was approved unanimously by the City Council, has been distributed to Commission members. Baldridge said he was disappointed when he noticed the huge concrete foundation in the 900 block of Burlington Street. He asked what could be done to avoid situations like this. Historic Preservation Commission September 9, 2010 Page 3 Kuecker said the Commission does not have any purview over zoning issues. She said if the property had been in a district, the Commission would have some purview. Michaud asked about the street facing garage door. Kuecker responded that a property owner could get a special exception to the regulation if there is not alley access. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O ~_ O U Z O F= a W W a v 0 N 2 O O U W W z Q D Z W Q N ~ ' r r ~ , ~ r r ~ ~ O ' ' ' ~ •- X X X ~ ~ X X X ~ ~ X X ~ x x x o x x x x o x x ~ ~ X X X ~ X ~ X X W ~ X X X X ~ ~ X X X X X co ti N X X X X ~ w ~ X w_ O w O X X r X X X X X X X ~ X X x x x x x x x w o x x x ~ M ~ Z Z Z Z ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z o x o x o x x x o o x N ~ ~ ~ X X X X ~ X X X X X r X M ~ N M r- r' ~- N O N ~- M N ~ ~ W rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M rn N M H ~ z ~ Y O ~ Y a ~ = ui O O_ ~ ~ m W ~ W ~ Y m J ~ C9 Z ~ o a Z ~ N Z oa0 w ~ ~ Q Z ~ ~ o Q ~ Z 2 ~ ~ ~ a D Q = U ~ W ~ ~ ~ Z a J z L7 ~ Q N Q ~ Z Z Q p ~ V Q ui m ~ ~ Y Z ~ Z C7 Q 3 0 0 N E 0 -o O ~ o U Z N x ~~ c y~ ~ C N ~ f0 ~~~ ~ ¢ z° o a ¢ ~~ ~~ Z u u w ~ u xOOz 10-26-10 4b 4 APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Eastham STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Eastham absent) to approve REZ10-00004 with conditions noted in the motion approved at the Commission's April 15, 2010 meeting, with the exception that a revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan illustrating two additional wetlands, B and D, and a wetlands mitigation site located in Outlot C, be recommended for approval in lieu of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan recommended for approval on April 15, 2010. The Commission also voted 6-0 (Eastham absent) to approve SUB10-00005, with the exception that a revised preliminary plat showing the additional wetlands and wetland mitigation site be recommended for approval in lieu of the preliminary plat recommended for approval on May 6th, subject to approval by the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of a Wetland Mitigation Plan consistent with the Sensitive Areas Development Plan approved as part of REZ10-00004. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by The Moss Green Development Corporation for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Planned Development Overlay Office Research Planning and Zoning Commission September 16, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 6 Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD- RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235- acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Miklo stated that the Commission had reviewed this development several months ago and had recommended approval subject to the delineation of the wetlands. At the time the plan was approved the thought was that there was one wetland and there was a question as to whether or not it was jurisdictional. The wetland study has since been completed and it has been discovered that there are actually a number of wetlands in the corridor near the stream. Some of them are too small or isolated to be considered jurisdictional by the Army Corp of Engineers or the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. There are two wetlands, one in the western portion of the development and one in the eastern, that would be considered jurisdictional if they were associated with the stream. Because there was some question, there was going to be some fairly lengthy review at the federal level so the applicant opted to go ahead and determine that the wetlands are jurisdictional in order to move the planning process along. As a result, Miklo said, there needs to be a modification to the Sensitive Areas Development Plan previously reviewed by the Commission. Miklo said that a request is being made to reduce the required buffer. The smaller wetland would be eliminated and mitigated because it happens to be exactly where the proposed stream crossing is located. Miklo said that the proposal is that the Commission recommends approval of the plan to City Council with two changes from what had been previously reviewed. The first change would allow the buffer on the larger wetland to be reduced. The second change would allow the smaller wetland to be eliminated and compensated for by the creation of a new wetland in another location. Code requires a 3:1 ratio when replacing wetlands: if one acre is disturbed then three acres must replace it. In this case, Miklo said, less than one-third of an acre is being disturbed but over two acres of wetlands are being reestablished. Miklo said that all other aspects of the plan and the plat are essentially the same as what the Commission has already recommended for approval. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. There were none and Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, Pelds Engineering, Des Moines spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that though the developer and the wetlands specialist they had hired believe that the wetlands are isolated and not affiliated with the stream, they did not want to wait for a federal process to determine that before they could proceed with development. He noted that the mitigation ratio they have planned is 25:1. He said that even the Corp agrees that the mitigated wetlands the developer has planned are a natural fit for the area and will be an improvement over what is there presently. Pelds said everything else about the plan should be exactly as it was when originally recommended for approval. Freerks invited questions from the Commission. There were none, so she invited other members of the public to speak to this issue. Seeing none, the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Payne motioned to approve the recommendation for REZ10-00004 with conditions noted Planning and Zoning Commission September 16, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 6 in the motion approved at the Commission's April 15, 2010 meeting, with the exception that a revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan illustrating two additional wetlands, B and D, and a wetlands mitigation site located in Outlot C, be recommended for approval in lieu of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan recommended for approval on April 15, 2010. In addition, Payne motioned to approve SUB10-00005, with the exception that a revised preliminary plat showing the additional wetlands and wetland mitigation site be recommended for approval in lieu of the preliminary plat recommended for approval on May 6th, subject to approval by the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of a Wetland Mitigation Plan consistent with the Sensitive Areas Development Plan approved as part of REZ10-00004. Weitzel seconded the motions. Plahutnik said that if staff is comfortable with changing the buffering in the northern area of the property then he sees no reason why it would not be a good idea. Payne agreed. Freerks said that the plan recommends a good ratio swap in terms of the wetlands, noting that it is not often that a 25:1 ratio is proposed when only a 3:1 ratio is required. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Eastham absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 2, 2010: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Plahutnik seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Eastham). OTHER: Discussion of the Capital Improvements Program: Miklo explained that every January the City Council begins the preparation of a City budget which includes a Capital Improvements Program that lays out what the City will be spending on capital improvements over the next five years. The plan also includes a list of unfunded priorities, items identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or identified as a City need, that are on the list but not in a funded year. Miklo said that he had provided the Commission with the Planning Department's list from last year. Staff has reviewed that list and tailored it to what they see as this year's needs. Miklo said the list represents a starting point for what staff's thoughts are. Miklo noted that while there is discussion at the departmental and committee level, it is the City Council that decides what ultimately makes it into the Capital Improvements Plan. Miklo said that there were two key policies the Planning Department had looked at for this year: 1) matching state and federal funding sources, especially for flood recovery, and 2) to grow the Planning and Zoning Commission September 16, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 6 commercial/industrial tax base, including the development of new green-field sites and new investment and revitalization of existing sites. Miklo explained that the proposed industrial park on 420th Street would be an example of a green-field site. Miklo said that the Riverfront Crossings or Towncrest revitalization plans would be examples of new investment and revitalization. Miklo stated that past projects have sometimes concerned themselves with quality of life issues, such as the construction of trails, or the construction of new streets to spur residential development. Given the economic realities of the present, Miklo said, those kinds of projects do not rise to the top of the list in staff's opinion. Miklo asked Commissioners for their input on the proposed list. Miklo said that the construction of and continued development of the commercial/industrial areas in Iowa City are key to the expansion of the tax base and the creation of jobs. Miklo said that elevating Dubuque Street and the Park Road Bridge are important flood recovery projects, and will take advantage of available state and federal funding. He noted that it is also a key economic development factor to keep one of the primary entrances to the city fully functional. The First Avenue railroad crossing is important to keeping one of the few north-south arterials in the city unblocked. Miklo said it was important to the vitality of eastside and southeast side businesses to reduce traffic problems on First Avenue. Freerks asked if there were grant dollars available for that project. Miklo said there were some but there are also City funds budgeted. He said that this was one of the most expensive projects. He noted that there is a lot of community support for this. The improvements to the Burlington Street streetscape through medians have been slowed down with the talk of University building in the area. Miklo said that the idea is to coordinate that project with the University. The signalization of Mormon Trek/McCollister Boulevards and old Highway 218 is seen to be a priority project. The projects for pedestrian and bicycle access would largely require outside funding in order to be completed. Downtown enhancement projects include streetscapes for Gilbert Street and Northside Marketplace, and the construction of a multi-use parking facility at the site of the old St. Patrick's Parish Hall. Plahutnik said that he felt the community still did not have a clear vision as a community for what should be done with the area just south of Burlington Street. Miklo said that the EPA study done last year was fairly broad and did not include a concrete plan. He said the City has received an additional award from the EPA to do a more detailed study of the old wastewater plant and City Carton area. Miklo said they now hope to have a vision for that area to present to the Commission by the fall that might translate into a larger vision for the Riverfront Crossings area. Miklo added that if the School of Music is located on Burlington Street then it would be buying space in the Heironymous building, which would be a great benefit for that area. He said that there is also a possibility that Midwest One Bank will be building a headquarters in that Planning and Zoning Commission September 16, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 6 area, which would also be a plus. He said that Plahutnik was right about the need for clearer direction for that area. Miklo said there will be a DOT plan to improve Interstate-80 which the City hopes will allow Iowa City to urbanize the Dubuque Street interchange and put traffic signals at the off-ramp and improve traffic flow. The goal would be to have a pedestrian bridge in the area that would provide access to Waterworks Park and the county subdivisions to the north. Miklo said that the Towncrest area has been studied as part of the Southeast District Plan. He said that as that plan progresses they would like to make sure there is funding available for streetscape improvements. Miklo said there could be partnerships with a private developer to do some construction in the area. Miklo said there's been some discussion of improving Riverside Drive in conjunction with the Miller/Orchard neighborhood and the Riverfront Crossings project. Both the state and federal funding for flood-related buy-outs will be coming to an end, Miklo said. This will leave small pockets of scattered homes in those floodplains are which presents difficulties for the City. Miklo said that they would like to see some funds set aside each year to purchase those homes as they came on the market. He said that while this seems like a great expense it would cut down on maintenance costs in the long run. Payne asked if that area would then eventually become part of City Park and Miklo said it would. Miklo said that these are the priorities staff sees for the next five years. He asked the Commission to give the list some thought and provide staff with feedback on it. ADJOURNMENT: Busard motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Eastham absent). Z O N ~~ 00 UW ~ ~ Z V r ~ Z N DO a ~ ~ ~ ZQ Z Z a J a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X `n X X X X X X X v ~ X X X X X ~ o x x x o x x ~ I,f> X X X X X X X ' X X X X X X X d ,a X X X X X X D M O X X X X X X ~ N x x x x x x x r N X X X X X x X r ~ r ~ r ~ M ~ N ~ Lf') ~ In ~ t'7 ~ W ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ..X W W ~ ~- a 'J w J J J a Q ~ ~ = V Z a N 2 L ~ W U Y ~. ~ fA ~ Z J ~ _ ~ W W ~ N W a l- W d Z 2 f- ~ cn ~n w o- ~ a - w a z ~ m a w ~ tL o Y a a ~ a ~ c~ z H W w a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X N X X X O X X p ti X X X X X X ~ ~ X X X X X ~ ~ x x x x x x o ~ ~ X X ~ ~ X X N x x x x o x o M N W e- ~ M N In IC') ('7 wa ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~ ~..X o o o o o 0 0 W W ~ ~ J J ~ ~ m u a Q ~ ~ 2 ~ Z a N 2 ~ o W ~ Y ~ G Q Y N ~ f- W W a F- W a Z 2 H ~ v> v~ w a >- a - Z m W LL Y a C. ~ C7 z H W W Z E 0 ~~ O `~ Z ~ ~ a~ U p~ ~ X c ~ ~ ~ c ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~~QZ o d Q n n Z nnw~~~ xOOz w Y Approved Minutes July 2010 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 15, 2010 ROOM 208, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Menem Bem-Klug, Chuck Felling, Rose Hanson, Jay Honohan, Sarah Maiers, Jean Martin Members Absent: Michael Lensing Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light Others Present: Jo Hensch, Howard Hensch RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Jay Honohan chaired the meeting. AP, PROVAL QF MI„ NUTES F,_ ROM JI~NE,17, 2010 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the Jun®17, 2010 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. MaierslBern-Klug. ~UB_ LIC DISCUSSIQI~QF ITEM, N„ OT nN THE AGENDA: None. GOMMISS_ION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will visit the City Council and the Board of Supervisors to report on the July meeting of the Senior Center Commission. Kopping reported that she held a meeting with the shop's volunteers and consignors on June 23, during which there were not many strong opinions in favor of keeping the shop open. Those who attended the meeting understood that the program was suffering and was not serving its intended purpose. 4b 5 Approved Minutes July Zoo Jo Hensch said that most everyone at the meeting seemed to be on board with the idea of dosing the shop. She said it was increasingly dissatisfying as a volunteer opportunity. She said the shop's operation was no longer financially viable either. Hensch reported that there was only about $1,000 in sales so far this calendar year. A consignor is issued a check whenever they are owed $5 or more, but as she understands it from Kopping, it is estimated that each check costs the City $12.50 to process. The Senior Center only receives income equal to 20% of the sale amount. This does not add up to much revenue for the Senior Center, given the cost of operation. Hensch said that the volunteers and consignors had discussed some exciting possibilities for selling crafts at the Senior Center and throughout the community, including participation in craft shows at Sycamore Mall, Iowa City Rec Center, and other local events; as well as holding craft fairs at the Senior Center a couple times a year. Hanson pointed out that many of the craft program participants live at Ecumenical Towers and cannot drive, so accommodations should be made for off-site activities. Kopping said that at the Eldercraft Gift Shop potluck today, conversations focused on what wasn't working about the gift shop and what can be done differently in the future tomake acraft-related program more successful. She said people are sorry to see the shop close, but overall, they are accepting. Maiers said she is pleased with all of the new ideas for selling crafts. Felling asked if many of the consignors are homebound seniors. Hensch said she wasn't sure, but that she new many of the sellers from Ecumenical Towers cannot drive. Felling said it will be important to maintain an outreach component in future craft sales activities. Maiers said the Commission has given the issue of dosing the gift shop a lot of discussion and consideration, and they were ready to make a derision. Motion: To recommend to the Senior Center staff to close the Eldercraft Gift Shop. Motion carried 6/0. Maiers/Martin, FRIENDS OF THE CENTER PD Honohan said Friends of the Center will meet at noon on July 22 in room M02 of the Senior Center. 4n the agenda for the meeting will be election of officers and determining a regular meeting time. Approved Minutes July 2010 OPT ONAI.OVERVIEW; Kopping said she received 2 internal applications and 115 external applications for the operations assistant position. She and Light interviewed 5 people and hope to make a hiring decision soon. Kopping reported that the roof replacement project has not yet begun, but a bid was accepted and work will start soon. Repairs to the weight room showers have been completed, and the stalls are again open for use. The exterior building sign will be replaced or updated in the near future. This project had been delayed because of Craig Buhman's medical leave. The staff is working on the program guide for the fall. It will be released in mid- August. Honohan referred to the Senior Center Gift Fund report in the Commission packet. He asked if any of the balance in the gift fund can be drawn and used by Friends of the Center. Kopping said no. Honohan reminded the Commission that in previous years, the Commission has been able to transfer funds from the gift fund to Iowa City Senior Center Fund, Inc. for investment. The City of Iowa City's Finance, Legal, and Accounting Departments disapproved of this practice, and it is no longer allowed. Honohan said donations to Friends of the Center should be advertised and promoted as the preferred way to provide long-term support to the Senior Center. Maiers reminded the Commission that they can still make recommendations for the use of the money in the gift fund, but cannot invest it. Honohan suggested identifying a need for the money in the gift fund and spending it soon. Honohan said he will advise the Friends of the Center boarc! to create a solicitation to local attorneys letting them know how to have their clients contribute to the Friends of the Center and the Senior Center Endowment when planning for their estates. Bern-Klug said the Senior Center website should clearly outline options for donating to the Center and identify the preferred way to donate. Kopping pointed out that $10,000 in the gift fund is designated for the Senior Center's support of the Nutrition Program. This came from the estate of Ellen Swanson. Approved Minutes July 2010 Hanson noted that the majority of the meals served by the Nutrition Program are outside of the Senior Center. She said not many people are served meals at the Center, and the menu is not always of high quality. Motion: The Senior Center staff should identify possible ways to spend the money in the gift fund, especially the funds designated for support of the Nutrition Program. Motion carried on a vote of 610. MaierslFelling. MMISSION DISC Honohan asked about the discrepancy between the number of members and the number of parking permits purchased. Despite having nearly 1,300 members, only about 200 parking permits were sold in fiscal year 2010. Light attributed this to several things: couples with family memberships often share permits; some members walk, take the bus, or use parking permits issued by their employers; many working members only visit the Center before 8 AM and after 5 PM, hours when street parking is free of charge; Center volunteers receive free parking validation while volunteering; and some members don't came often enough to invest in a parking permit or have opted to purchase a parking punch card instead of an annual permit. Light said she is fairly confident that parking validation stamps are not being issued to ineligible participants. However she wilt remind the front desk staff to remain in the habit of checking parking permits whenever issuing validation stamps. Kopping asked Light to find out how many hours of parking validation were issued in fiscal year 2010. Bem-Klug suggested having a brief board education on Senior Center budget and accounting procedures at the next Commission meeting. Kopping said this is a good time of year for that sort of education. Honohan said he was aware of four new members who were attracted to the Center by its fitness equipment. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Maiers/Felling. w d .~ 3 =o ~~ 0 ~ N d ~ O a a Q C 0 .~ .C V w L N ~ ~i. d d v O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~Q } c0 r (~ r 1 1 ao r r r 1 r N 1 O_ cfl r , 1 _ ~ ' Z Z Z z Z Z X X X X ~ X X x x x x x x ~ N x x x x x x ; ~ x x x o x x x N X X i X X X X X M a x X x X o X X N r X X ~ X X 0 X 0 to ~ . r N N O O 07 N r Q r r r r r O r r a a a a a a a a ~ r r r ~ r r r r r 1 E Cn ~ m '~ m ~ ~ rn ~ ~ m S to ~ C p J N ~ ~ t Y ~ ° U Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ i v N L N 7 ~ ~ C ~' N N y ~ ~ t0 ~~~ o~ aQazz II 11 II II W ~ 11 XOOZ aTi Y Airport Commission September 23, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION September 23, 2010 - 4:45 P.M. Lobby Conference Room -City Hall Members Present: Howard Horan, Minnetta Gardinier, Steve Crane, Jose Assouline Members Absent: Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: 4b 6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 4:51 P.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSIONIACTION: 2011 Air Race Classic i. Consider request for funds - Gardinier recused herself as a commission member. Tharp noted that this was a follow up discussion from the regular meeting. Tharp gave Members a copy of the letter from the Iowa 99s and summarized the discussion from Thursday stating that the opinion was to donate $2000 to the Iowa 99s for the Air Race Classic start site fee. Horan moved to donate $2000 to the Iowa 99s for the Air Race Classic fee. Crane seconded. Motion passed 3-0, Gardinier recused. 2. FY2012 Budget -Tharp noted that at the regular meeting there hadn't been a final plan for completing the budget. He noted that the FY2012 budget materials were received earlier in the day and that he had two meetings with finance and Commission members to give them an overview of the budget process. Members discussed how to complete the budget and align with the proposed timelines from the Finance Department. Crane and Gardinier volunteered to be on a subcommittee with Tharp to prepare the budget for Commission approval. Members then discussed how to best get the Commission to approve the budget and meet the timeline set out by the Finance Department. Consensus was to move the October regular meeting up to the 14tH ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 5:02 P.M. CHAIRPERSON DATE ~o .~ o to N to _ M N 0 ~ .~ E N N Q. N N cn a. O~ N ~~o O V N VZQ W aZ OC ~ QQ NI II XI XI XI XI I I Q>' ~° 1 ~ XI XI XI I I ~ 1 O 1 1 Q1 ~ XI XI XI XI XI I 0 ~ X X ~ X I ti X ~ X X X X X I ti l X X X X X ti ti X ~ X X 0 l o NI W O X X X X I ; 0 N X X X 1 1 X O I I o W W X 1 X X f O O ~ I X X X 1 I 1 X 1 M ~ X X X ~ ~ X X I N it X X X X X r (h In ~ N ~T N O a \ \ r \ r \ r 1 r \ r \ r ~ W r M M M M M M M N ' ~ ~ ` ~ N ~ ~ ~ L ~ rn c~ 3 m ~~ ~ c ~ 2 `~ Z C7 ~ C~ ° Q = cn - m (~ L ~ d V ~, w :r ~ y C C d ` ~ ~ C ++ °'aaZZ° II II II II II XO~Z 1 ~I W Y Airport Commission September 16, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Jose Assouline Members Absent: Steve Crane, Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Matt Wolford FINAL 4b 7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council actionl: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Minutes from the August 19, 2010, meeting was reviewed. Assouline moved to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2010, meeting as submitted; seconded by Gardinier. Motion carried 3-0, Crane Absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park - Dulek stated that they were scheduled to close on Lot 10 this week; however, there was an error in the legal description that was approved by city council, and that it would have to be re-approved with the corrected description. b. Airport Farm Management -Tharp stated that he has been going through the wildlife regulations from the FAA and has a message in to the State wildlife expert. Basically he is trying to find what could be planted around the Airport that would not attract wildlife. Tharp responded to Members' questions, noting that the area in question is about 100 acres. The discussion continued, with Members debating what the best course of action would be. Assouline stated that he believes they should speak with the farm manager to see what he thinks. Tharp will continue to work on this issue and will report back to Members. c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM -Horan noted that David Hughes is available via telephone if anyone has any questions. Tharp shared that the status has not changed on these issues. Airport Commission September 16, 2010 Page 2 i. Runway 7/25 & 12/30 - Consider a resolution accepting improvements to Runway 7-25 and Runway 12-30. Gardinier moved to defer this resolution and the obstruction mitigation resolution to the October meeting; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 3-0, Crane Absent. ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Tharp noted they were continuing their attempts to get the final paperwork signed by the contractor iii. Hangar ADrainage -Tharp noted that this began this week. Gardinier stated that she received communication from a local pilot regarding the timing of information sent to tenants. Tharp noted that letters were sent beginning with a June mailing to provide an update and further letters were sent following the pre- construction meeting with the contractor. d. 2011 Air Race Classic -Gardinier recused herself as a commissioner. Tharp noted that they have a request from the Iowa 99's for a contribution to the 2011 Air Race Classic. He briefly explained what this entails. Gardinier then spoke, stating that there will be 40 to 50 planes, and each plane has at least two pilots. They will be in the Iowa City area for afive-day period. Gardinier also noted that she met with the Iowa Children's Museum recently to discuss a children's event in conjunction with the Girl Scouts. There will also be a Friday Night Hangar party planned. Horan stated that he would like to make the $2,000 contribution to the race. Due to not having a quorum, a special meeting will need to be held before the end of September in order to meet the deadline. e. Corporate Hanger "L" -Tharp briefly let the Members know the status of this. He added that he is comfortable getting the grant signed so that they can return it to the State, signaling that they are going to use the money. Assouline moved to consider Resolution #A10-13, accepting the IDOT Grant; seconded by Gardinier. Motion carried 3-0, Crane Absent. f. Hangar H -Tharp stated this is to clean up the lease and to readjust the 20-year window that was agreed to with the research hangar. He then responded to Members' questions regarding this lease agreement, giving some history of it as well. Gardinier moved to consider Resolution #A10-14, approving the amendment to the lease agreement with the University of Iowa; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 3- 0, Crane Absent. g. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan Implementation; Budget; Management -The conversation began with subcommittees, with Horan stating that he would like to see others involved in the budget committee, other than himself. He added that the viewing area is great, but that they still need to get a platform built so that people can see over the fence. Gardinier stated that her concern had more to do with whether their subcommittees should look something like the strategic plan they recently did. Assouline stated that he would help out on the budget committee. Gardinier suggested Crane, as he has a financial background. The conversation continued, with Members discussing the various subcommittees and their structure. Tharp then talked about the upcoming finance/budget meetings on the 23rd, adding that if anyone has any questions to submit ahead of time, they should email him with those. Tharp then fielded questions from Members regarding this process. A special meeting will need to be held somewhere around October 7th, according to Tharp, in order to approve a budget, and before this special meeting, a meeting will be needed to put the budget together. Airport Commission September 16, 2010 Page 3 Gardinier noted that she will be out of town starting the 30`h of September, and Tharp will be gone the week of the 27`h to Kansas City. h. FBO /Iowa Flight Training /Whirlybird Reports -Matt Wolford with Jet Air addressed the Members next. He first shared the monthly report, adding that business has been up for Jet Air. Gardinier noted that a light is out on the fuel pump, and Wolford will check into this. She also stated that part of the screen is out, as well. i. Subcommittees' Reports -Gardinier noted that she will be meeting with Tharp and some others soon to review the details for the Air Race Classic. She also asked if there is any reason they would not be able to host youth events at the Airport. Tharp will check with the City's risk manager on this. Commission Members' Reports -Horan noted that he took his grandson to the Children's Museum recently, and that he had to show him the aviation exhibits first. He also brought him out to the Airport. k. Staff Report -Tharp noted that the floors are done, as is the parking lot. Gardinier stated that everything is looking good. Dulek state she would get back to the Commission with the schedule for the appointment of the new member. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING: The next regular meeting will be Thursday, October 21, 2010, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 7:19 P.M. Gardinier made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:19 P.M.; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 3-0. Chairperson Date c o o '~ •N o N N 1= v ~ ~ ~ a 0 fl-o_c61o 'a~a 00 .y W '~ ~ ~w ov ~z ~a o~ z a~ 'a ~. a 9/16 g Z X X X w p ~ Z ~ Z 8/19 X X X X X Z z 7/27 ~ g X X X X X Z Z 7/15 X X X X X z z 7/1 X X X X X Z z 6/17 X X w O X w O z z 5/20 w p X X X X z z 4/29 X X X Z X ~ Z 4/15 X X X Z X X Z 3/18 X X X Z 0 X Z 2/18 X X X Z Z X X 1/21 X X X Z Z X X M ~ ~ . ~ '~ N . et' . N ~ O a W X o 0 • 0 0 0 c 0 F- W M O M O M O M O M O M O M O W L d . ~ Q O N ~ cOd ~ C 'D O d O C a>, d O C d C9 1i 2 2 ~ C7 ~ Q cn C~ -7 ~ ~ N m a ~ N ` ~ ~, ~~ U X ~ ~ ~ . r ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ n Qaz >, II II W ~ YXOOZ Airport Commission August 19, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 - 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Steve Crane, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Jose Assouline, Greg Farris Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Harrel Timmons, John Yoemans, David Hughes, Matt Wolford RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action): NONE CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Minutes from the July 15, 2010, meeting were reviewed. Gardinier moved to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2010, meeting as submitted; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes from the July 27, 2010, meeting were reviewed. Crane moved to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2010, meeting as submitted; seconded by Gardinier. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp noted that Members have a report from the realtor that gives an overview of happenings with Aviation Commerce Park. He added that Van Meter is moving ahead with their plans and has started the FAA's study. Airport Farm Management -John Yoemans addressed the Members next. He noted that the thistles are now gone. He added that one of workmen hit the phone box in that area, and that they will be repairing this. He spoke briefly about what the Commission might want to do with the area on the northwest side that is currently weeds. Tharp joined the conversation, noting what the FAA regulations are on what can and cannot be planted around the Airport. The discussion continued with Members talking about what they may want to plant in this area. Tharp will research this further and will have a recommendation at the September meeting. 4b 8 c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM Airport Commission August 19, 2010 Page 2 i. Runway 7125 & 12/30 -David Hughes stated that they still have a couple of outstanding items on this project before they can close it out. Farris moved to defer the resolutions in Items i and ii to the September meeting; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 5-0. ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Hughes stated that they finally received the paperwork Formatted: Bullets and Numbering on the United hangar project. They have one signature left to get before this can be closed out. iii. 2010 Pavement Rehab -Hughes added that they have put the project out for bid, and they have only received one bid to date. Dulek asked that Hughes explain the bid process a bit further for the newer Members, which he did. On the pavement rehab project, it is being recommended to go ahead and reject the one bid received and to then re-bid this project for the 2011 construction season. Farris moved to reject the bids received, Resolution A10-11, on this project and to re-bid for the 2011 construction season; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 5-0. iv. Hangar ADrainage -Hughes next addressed this project. He briefly covered the bids they received. Four bids were within 10% of each other, according to Hughes. The discussion continued, with Members questioning Hughes on the construction bids. Gardinier moved to accept Resolution A10-12 awarding the contract as discussed to Maxwell; seconded by Farris. Motion carried 5-0. d. 2011 Air Race Classic -Gardinier noted that she sent Tharp an email today that outlines the Airport's operations during the race. e. Corporate Hanger "L" -Tharp noted that there is not much to update on this item. Once the land sale appears imminent, they can approve the grant and get things rolling. Gardinier left the meeting at 6:55pm 2010 - 2011 T-Hangar Rates -Farris recused himself from the discussion due to conflict of interest. Tharp noted that the recommendation from staff is to leave the rates as they are for another year. Tharp gave Members a brief run-down of why staff is recommending this. Assouline moved to keep the T-Hangar rates the same for another year; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 3-0; Gardinier absent and Farris recused due to conflict of interest. Tharp noted that this is the time to make any changes to the contract, as well, if the Members desire to do so. He stated that he has no recommendations for this, but wanted Members to be aware of it. Tharp added that the waiting list for hangars is steadily dropping. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan Implementation; Budget; Management- Tharp spoke to Members about the need for some tuck-pointing on the west side of the Airport terminal. He is gathering quotes at this time, but it looks like somewhere around $15,000 to do this project. Tharp noted that they have some money carried over for the parking lot rehab. This project starts tomorrow. New flooring in the terminal has begun too, according to Tharp. Members then briefly discussed where they are with the fiscal year budget. Tharp reminded Members of the upcoming Aviation Conference in Kansas City, September 28 and 29, which he will be attending. If anyone else would care to attend, they need to contact Tharp. Tharp then spoke to the Members about the budget for FY2012, letting the newer Members know about this process. Members agreed that a budget work session is a good idea, and Horan suggested a subcommittee. Airport Commission August 19, 2010 Page 3 h. FBO /Iowa Flight Training /Whirlybird Reports -Harrel Timmons shared the month's activity report with Members. He shared a concern about incorrect information going around regarding the length and width of the runways at the Airport. This sparked a brief conversation on the need to have up-to-date information passed around. i. Subcommittees' Reports -None. j. Commission Members' Reports -Horan noted that the City has extended invitations to boards and commissions for the City Manager search. k. Staff Report -Tharp reminded everyone of the pancake breakfast on Sunday the 29`n SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING: The next regular meeting will be Thursday, September 16, 2010, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: Assouline made the motion to adjourn the meeting seconded by Crane. Motion carried 4- 0; Gardinier absent. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 P.M. Chairperson Date c 0 v'^i O E o o ~; U Y ~ a a m m Q ¢ a D 00 vi w '~ ~ ~w pU U Z ,~ a o~ Qz 'a ~ a 8/19 X X x x X z z 7/27 g g x x x x x z z 7/15 x X x x x z z 7/1 X X x x x 6/17 X x w x w g g ~ O z z 5/20 w X X X X z z O 4/29 X x x z X p z 4/15 X X X ~ z X X ~ z 3/18 X X X Z ~ x z 2/18 x x x ~ z ~ z x x 1/21 X X X ~ z ~ z X X M ~ ~ N ~ N O a W K o 0 0 0 o O o ~ W O O O O O M O O V Q) W -~ ~ d ~ •~ ~ d d 3 ~ ~ d ~ ~ Z ~ C_ N to !a C ' ~ t N C7 ii == ~U ~Q ~U ~ ~ m E :. s N ~ ~~ ~~ W a~i .~- ~ "' C N ~ N ~ rn ~ a¢¢z II II >. II II W YXOOZ 7 U-Lb-~ U MINUTES 4b 9 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED September 21, 2010 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Dianne Day, Wangui Gathua, Martha Lubaroff, Howard Cowen, Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb, Dell Briggs, Yolanda Spears. Members Absent: Corey Stoglin. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Others Present: Charlie Eastham, Karla Detweiler. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): Yes. (See sanctuary city discussion page 12.) Day, moved to approve. Olmstead seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Spears and Briggs in the negative) CALL TO ORDER Briggs called the meeting to order at 18:00. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Eastham and Detweiler introduced themselves and explained they were present for the discussion on a sanctuary city. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE August 17, 2010 MEETING: Day, moved to approve. Olmstead seconded. The motion passed 5-0. (Spears and Cowen not present for the vote and Briggs abstained) CITY MANAGER INTERVIEWS Briggs will serve as the representative for the Commission. Lubaroff will serve as an alternate. CONNECTIONS KICKOFF Olmstead and Gathua will represent the Commission at this event on October 5th. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK Bowers updated Commissioners on the date for the Convocation. She also mentioned the plans to date. SANCTUARY CITY Day: I guess since I brought it up the last time I'm interested to see if you had a chance to read the packets. I think Harry has added some input on it as well. If you have any questions, comments. Bowers: It should be in the packet. Day: Four pages on the backside. Day: And then also some of the printed material is in here too that details stuff. Bowers: Correct all of it is. Day: So I thought that would, thanks for putting that in. I think that was good. Goeb: My question is our rule would be to recommend that this be adopted by the City Council or the Board of Supervisors? Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 2 of 14 Day: City. We're just looking since we are a City Commission, it would just be the City Council. Goeb: City Council, ok. Day: And my idea is that this, if you are basically in support of this, that what I am asking is that we would be requesting is that we basically approve. A couple of things. One that we basically approve of this ordinance as a basic working ordinance for them to consider. Goeb: The City Council? Day: Yes. So we, that they can consider it. We could recommend that the Human Rights Commission with a majority vote maybe would approve of the concept or just vote on that. This is something we feel they (City Council) should bring up as something on the agenda and something they should address. Briggs: Okay Day: The other thing I would just like to clarify on this again is this is a very narrow picture. I mean it's not looking at human rights regulations or law. It's not asking anyone to break any laws. It's basically if you look through this, and I've got those two to help me out if I misspoke. But it's essentially that um an application of this would be a consistency possibly for the Police Department in that now I'm not aware of any kind of general recommendation as far as if someone is you know the example I gave last time. If somebody is speeding and the car is pulled over, the person who is driving the car is breaking the law, and they need to you know pay the consequences. But the other passengers in the car are not driving, and so what this then would suggest is that it's not up to the local policeman to ask for papers of identification. Basically that's what it is. Or if someone, I mean and these are incidents that have happened before, which is why this came up. Another incident that's very common is if you have a family where maybe one of the spouses is an illegal immigrant and the other is not and there's abreak-in and something has been stolen. Chances are in a lot of communities they would not report that crime for fear that the undocumented individual would be asked for papers by the police investigating the crime, and the end result could be that person reported to ICE and be deported. So you have less law enforcement with that fear. Olmstead: It might not only be the Police Department, it could also be the Fire Department as they investigate, do an investigation they come across someone that may be an undocumented alien or immigrant. Day: So that is my understanding of the basic thrust of this. Its not, we're not interpreting federal immigration law at all. We're not addressing that. We're addressing to me, we're addressing individuals. Briggs: We're not addressing a local law or a local? I mean our local law enforcement. The police, we're not, how are we impacting on them as far as what we're telling them? Day: If this were passed then they would have a consistent guideline of stating that they do not, they are not required. They are suggested, possibly suggesting they do not have to ask for immigration papers of everybody in any situation. I mean it's providing some consistency to what the police do. Does that help? Goeb: One thing that I think is helpful to me in thinking about it is that the local police are not acting in rule of enforcing federal law. Briggs: I understand that. Goeb: Because immigration is a federal, a federal matter, and so the local police are not, do not have to act on behalf of the federal government. So they don't have to say oh my, you know, we have to check immigration Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 3 of 14 status of all these people that are involved either in this crime or in this gathering or whatever. That's not their role. Briggs: How well has this worked in other cities? Goeb: I don't, do we have some? Detweiler: Yes, there are a number of other cities who have adopted sanctuary resolutions and some of them don't use the term sanctuary, but in effect um have decided to not require local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration investigations. We have listed in the packet some of the cities. New York City, , Maryland. Goeb: Some major cities, isn't it true that New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, places like that do not because they from a practical point of view their concern besides you know enforcing federal law. Their concern is that crimes they will not be able to find witnesses to crimes. Day: Absolutely. Goeb: Because if somebody gets involved in the crime and they are undocumented. In other words somebody who witnesses a crime and is undocumented, they don't want to come forward because they're afraid that the local police are going to turn them in for being undocumented. So you know the things I've read in newspaper articles and such don't have any first hand experience, nor have I talked to anybody in any enforcement in other cities. But is it the local police and the mayors and such back this because its, it really helps the local police be able to enforce the local laws and to protect the local citizens because the undocumented folks don't have to worry about being turned in if they participate as a witness or a help to the police so. Briggs: Do we have any kind of stats as to how many undocumented people that ah that fall into this category? Have criminal backgrounds or any incidents of that. Day: Where? Briggs: Or as far as any time a police stops a person? Day: In Iowa City or nationally or? Briggs: Isn't that an issue also? So if I am to say that ah if I run across someone, let's say I do a stop and I happen to check. Have there been any incidents of reported people being found that had criminal backgrounds that maybe should not have or. Day: That are undocumented? Briggs: Right and that have left for those reasons? Gathua: I don't think I'm understanding the question? Day: You mean an undocumented immigrant who has a criminal background? Briggs: That has left a particular country for that very reason, and didn't get the documentation. Day: So that somebody broke the law in another country and came here illegally. Briggs: Right. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 4 of 14 Day: I have no idea on that Eastham: I thought I would comment Commissioner Briggs. As I understand your question. If a person is stopped by a local police officer is in a database, a federal or some other criminal database, and that database shows that that person has some kind of criminal record, then the police officer might, would I think the police officer's conduct towards that person would not be affected by this proposed ordinance because the police officer would be looking at a criminal offense that that person has been charged with or has been escaping from. Day: That's the issue not the immigration status. Eastham: And for that person that is a criminal, the issue is her or his criminal offense, not the immigration status. Briggs: Okay. Detweiler: May I ask, clarify a question? Briggs: Sure. Detweiler: Is your concern that this law would provide amnesty for people who are criminals? Briggs: It might possibly. Detweiler: I think that our, that the intent is not to protect criminals. Anyone who... Briggs: I understand that yeah. I agree with that part of it. I understand that, but I'm saying at the same time could you not. Detweiler: Unintentionally provide amnesty for criminals? Anyone who is guilty of a crime, I mean that, I mean this. I don't think that this would protect a criminal, someone who is _ Day: Not anymore so than it is right now, I don't think. Briggs: So if I'm, let's say I'm a citizen and my friend. I'm with my friend and he's stopped by the police. The officer will also ask me the question. Who are you? Days: And you say your name. Briggs: And I say my name and he asks for my identification. Correct? Day: What kind of identification? Briggs: Well let's say he asks for my identification, my driver's license or whatever, and he takes that and he goes back to his car and he runs a check, and he find out that I have a warrant. Day: And you do? Briggs: Right. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 5 of 14 Briggs: So wouldn't that be the same case that could happen also with anyone else that's in the car because I mean I was asked the same question. I think I'm documented, so what protection do I have that says because I'm riding in my car with my friends and there are several of us in the car. Am I protected under this? Day: Not against a crime. Briggs: But I haven't Day: But if you had a criminal record then that's in the database. If it's that you do not have proper. Briggs: It's not the crime it's the discovery of the crime by questioning and asking me those questions. So if he can not ask the same of another group of people in a car, and I guess I'm lost as to what you're saying that he.... Day: The difference is I believe is that they would, if you were an undocumented immigrant, they would not be obligated to report you to ICE. That's what this does. It has nothing to do with criminal backgrounds, breaking the law previous. Goeb: It doesn't protect the criminal. It protects the immigrant who is not, has not committed a crime. Cowen: But without documentation how do you know he hasn't committed a crime? I mean we're going to have a circular discussion here, and I think part of what you're saying Dell is in any circumstances, most people who get stopped for a traffic ticket, the police don't usually say okay who is in your car with you. Day: That's right, that's correct. Cowen: Unless there's some other stop intent, you know some other suspected intent, open beverages, you know whatever the intent is. I guess what they're trying to say is if they don't want essentially racial immigrant profiling just for the sake of saying oh you look like an illegal, and since you're illegal all the rest of the group in the car is illegal, now I'm gonna start asking for papers from everybody. So I think that's what they're trying to get at. Briggs: But of course racial profiling is alive and well. Cowen: Yeah absolutely I understand. Briggs: That's alive and well. Cowen: So will this but at least it is saying as we all are trying to hope that racial profiling is not alive and well, that it doesn't happen or we're not condoning it and we're saying it's illegal. At least we're saying this is illegal as well or not illegal, but not needed even though it will continue. But what we're saying, I guess what we're trying to say is we would not like it to continue if its intent is that the driver is pulled over for instance and is an illegal Briggs: So what you're asking is to protect one group. Cowen: In this case only for immigration status. In other words... Briggs: But you're asking to protect one group of people correct? Gathua: Just a moment. I'm not seeing it as one group because when you get stopped as a driver what do they ask for? Do they ask for, are they asking everybody for citizenship other than ID. So it's not a particular Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 6 of 14 group of people because if that _ asking for citizenship and immigration status of the driver that they stopped for. Briggs: Is it? If you ask for a driver's license or identification is it? Gathua: They don't just ask for ID or identification. They ask for citizenship and immigration status. Briggs: But is that part of his job? Can he do that? Should he do that? Gathua: That's one of the things we are discussing here because there is no guideline right now, if they want to break the law. Some of them do that. Briggs: How does this play out in the law itself? Day: What do you mean? Spears: My question is this. Have you guys worked with the Police Department about this already? Do they know that you're, that this is going on? Detweiler: We've had communication with the Sheriff and he was in support. Briggs: He was in support? Bowers: The Sheriff is with Johnson County just for clarification. That's not the Chief of Police. Detweiler: We've had some attempts, had some members of our committee (Sanctuary City) try to talk to the police. Spears: So are you using this forum like ah, we are you know supported as leverage to go and talk to them? Detweiler: To go and talk to the police? Spears: Yes. If we say that we agree that we should support this, are you using this as leverage to have that conversation with the Iowa City Police? Detweiler: Our intent here was, was um hoping for your support to take it to the City Council. Day: I don't know that it's anyone else's place to talk to the police. Spears: Well I mean, I guess what I'm hearing is that this will effect them too, what we're supporting will have some effect on them because we're citizens and we're saying this is what we want and as a group. But I didn't know if you guys (Sanctuary City Committee) are already forging alliances with them (police) to have them support this also, what you're writing and what you're requesting of them. So that's what I was wondering. Is this a conversation that has been going on between your group and City Police? Obviously Johnson County, but... Day: To me I think it is where do you start, and this I think was the Sanctuary City Committee was thinking the Human Rights Commission would be the logical place as far as a City agency, that is because it is dealing with human rights. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 7 of 14 Spears: Well I guess I thought that you know since it also deals with the police and how they're interacting with the citizens, that they would need a spot at the table and be at least on board to provide some kind of you know what they think or you know or, or how this will effect them, or maybe that's what I'm wondering. Day: I guess my thought was that that would be between the police and the City Council, not necessarily between the police and the Sanctuary City Committee or the Human Rights Commission. Olmstead: I think it makes sense to come here in the sense that it's also been, not just be the Police Department, but all investigative departments. Spears: Right and that's what I mean, I'm just saying is I don't, I want to make sure that um you know we're making, you know we're saying whether or not we support this, but we're not gonna be the ones that are going to be um out there. I guess I'd like to know where the police stand on this too. Why did Johnson County come on board? You know did they really believe that this is an issue or you know, are they going to be supportive of our community, all of our community members. It's just not what; you know I just would like to know kind of where they are (Iowa City Police) because they're there to protect us and also to serve the public also just like we are. Eastham: If I could just talk a minute. As a member of the Sanctuary City Committee I've observed our efforts to try to contact the, or to contact the Chief of Police of Iowa City and I think that ah those contacts have not lead to any conversation. Ah I actually know I can surmise about why that might be the case. My view is that ah conversations and input from the Chief of Police would certainly be an element as the City Council goes forward in trying to draft an ordinance, put together one that the Chief of Police is comfortable with if the Council directs the City Manager to do that. Um and I don't think the Council is going to, I wouldn't expect the Council to put together an ordinance that the Chief of Police was not... Spears: So you don't think that the reason that they're not being as communicative to you isn't negative. Eastham: I don't want to mischaracterize or speak for the Chief of Police, except to tell you what I think of how things appear from our end. Briggs: Any more questions? Any more discussion? Day: I guess I would like to see how the Commission feels as far as a possible vote on whether or not you would endorse... It doesn't have to be this specific ordinance. This is a sample ordinance, but that in theory or in practice that we would endorse this concept of a sanctuary city ordinance for the City of Iowa City. Briggs: You say this is a sample? Day: Yeah, it's just a working one they use in Chicago or Madison. I couldn't remember. It's just... Detweiler: Isn't it based on the Chicago? Day: Yeah. We can't write an ordinance, but this is something you have to start somewhere. Lubaroff: But if we were to do that then it would then go to City Council as a recommendation and then they would have to hash it all out. Day: Absolutely. Lubaroff: And agree or not agree. Day: That's right. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 8 of 14 Lubaroff: And if they agreed then they would write an ordinance. Day: If the City Council doesn't agree with this at all and they don't like it, then that's, Lubaroff: Then it's gone. Briggs: I guess I'm just not comfortable with at this point endorsing it until you know I guess I don't have enough information, and um I'm just not comfortable with sticking my name on it at this point. We can bring it to a vote. I don't think we have enough information yet. I'm just not comfortable with it so. Lubaroff: What more do you want to have Dell? Briggs: Well I guess I don't have clear enough explanations as to exactly what we're doing. There's nothing drawn up at this point. You have what may be you say is ah an example. Day: A working sample. I mean we're not lawyers to write an ordinance, but that's what Day: What is it that you're going to present to the City Council? Day: I would personally I would like to present this as a sample ordinance with the information that's in here as far as background for what the concept of the sanctuary city action is or ordinance. Detweiler: I don't want to interrupt. I would just like to emphasize that our, the concept of a sanctuary city is broader than just law enforcement. That is a significant piece of it, and our prospective is that we are um freeing local law enforcement to do their job better and not to have to concern themselves with federal, with enforcing federal immigration law, which is very sticky and complicated. Um but also this would be a way of promoting a sense of safety and well being for our whole community so that there wouldn't be some members of our community who are fearful of law, and also I mean as we're already talked about the people who are undocumented and would feel free to report crimes or to be witnesses in case of law, when laws are broken. But also the economic environment that, that um we our committee observes that undocumented immigrants play a significant role in the economy, and that we want to um foster a healthy economy and allow business owners to engage immigrants in their work in the workplace. To foster ah yeah a more vibrant economy in one which all people can contribute. Eastham: My perspective is that I'd prefer to live in a community where every resident feels comfortable living within the ah standards and principles of that community. I think Iowa City is an open inclusive community. We're very interested in having people live and work and go to school and seek out their own interests here. To do so without having things held over their head, and ah I think this is a good way to go about getting in that place. I think in regards to exactly how police officers would be effected by sanctuary city ordinance approach is as I said before is something that will be become illuminated and worked out as the process goes forward. Detweiler: Just overall we're wanting to you know be a welcoming community. A place where diversity is welcome, people are at peace and unafraid. Olmstead: In the packet of information that we have I did a lot of research and found a lot of cities in the United States and you'll see a list of cities that have already passed a don't ask don't tell policy. Day: Regarding immigration status. Olmstead: As far as immigration yes. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 9 of 14 Spears: I agree totally with what you're saying, absolutely without, I agree. The only thing I don't agree to is signing my name to maybe a pseudo kind of ordinance policy. I think that we should at least say that I think its a good idea for you to go to the City Council to present your idea without a doubt, but I don't want to put my name to this right here, this information where it comes to where you guys are providing um this information about all these different um, where you got it from whatever. What City did you get it from? Day: The ordinance? Spears: Yeah I don't think that I want to sign my name to the objective. I do think that the City Council needs to consider becoming a sanctuary city. Day: Okay so you would agree to that with, like the historical information that's in here? Spears: Just this historical information... Day: And not have the wording of the ordinance? Spears: Exactly. I don't think that the wording of the ordinance no, but I do think that our City Council needs to at least consider the information that you're presenting, that was presented in the packet. Goeb: Just to clarify, you support the concept, but not necessarily the particulars that were laid out in the sample ordinance. What parts of the ordinance were you particularly concerned about? Spears: t guess I think the City Council needs to at least consider it and consider it on its own merits with them (Sanctuary City Committee) bringing it to them. Whereas you know I don't know why we (Human Rights Commission) need to be the people to you know co-sign on them going to the City Council. Briggs: That's what I don't understand why we need to sign that, as far as you taking that to the City Council. Why do we need to sponsor it? Day: Part of it is getting it to the City Council. Briggs: You have access to the City Council. Day: Not on the agenda. Detweiler: We as ah faith based organization can not say here please put this on your agenda. Bowers: You can ask though at public comments. I mean just like you could ask the Commission to, so I just want to clarify that. They don't have to do that, but it is an option. Detweiler: But you have power to get it on the agenda. Bowers: I would have to clarify that. The Commission has the power to make a recommendation to the Council. So I would not phrase it the way you did. Spears: I do agree though that this is occurring in our community but I just don't. Day: Part of what I think anyway. Bowers: For the transcript one person at a time. Thank you. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 10 of 14 Spears: I'm just not totally on board with you going through us in order to get to the City Council to talk about sanctuary cities. That's where my point is. Briggs: That's where my point is and if I had to vote, if we are to bring this to a vote today um, I don't know if this is the right time to do it. I mean but if you want we can bring it to a vote. Day: I would like to bring it to a vote. I would like to make a motion that, move that we've, how do I want to word this...that the Human Rights Commission supports the concept of a sanctuary city ordinance be proposed in Iowa City or something. Bowers: Ok. That to me is a little murky. Just to make it clearer because one you've mentioned a concept and then an ordinance. So I just want to make sure. In prior discussion I got the impression that those could be two separate things that they could consider, but the motion you just made to me was everything together. Which is fine if that's how you want to do it? I just want to make sure. Lubaroff: How does the Commission make a recommendation to the Council, in what form? Bowers: It would have to be a majority. If it's not a majority then it's not a recommendation. Lubaroff: And it if were to be a majority then what? They (the Commission) submit something in writing to them? Bowers: It's documented in the minutes, and the Council would notice that. Goeb: How would it be brought before the Council? Bowers: They get copies of all the minutes, so they would see it, noted. If you've noticed on your minutes in your packet it says recommendations to Council no. If this was a majority then it would say yes and it would basically. Lubaroff: It would explain what the recommendations... Bowers: Correct, it would explain what you voted on to recommend. Goeb: Does that mean that the Council has an obligation to consider it? Does it require them to consider it? Bowers: My understanding is I don't think it requires them to. I think they always have prerogative as far as that's concerned. Goeb: So there's no way that you can really get to the Council in terms of a Commission, I'm talking more generally of saying or from the committee or from a Commission of saying that we want you or we're asking you, which means it is their obligation to ah consider something. In other words if it was the street commission or. Bowers: Yes it's an obligation to consider it, whether they would or not that I do not know. Goeb: So they can just say we are, we just aren't gonna consider it period without Bowers: That's my understanding. Olmstead: Is there a motion on floor? Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 11 of 14 Briggs: Well she was making the motion but she had to clarify it. Day: So if we, I would like to move. Bowers: Do you revoke the last one? Day: Yes. I think it should be two separate issues. So I would like to move that the Human Rights Commission support the concept of a sanctuary city. Briggs: That's your first one? Day: Right. Olmstead: I second that. Briggs: Motion has been made that the Commission support the concept of a sanctuary city. Role call. Spears: Can I get some clarification when you say we support the concept? Does that mean we're saying that they will go and just, then you will... Briggs: That's exactly what that means. Spears: You guys will go to present at City Council or we're saying, are you guys bringing this sample information? Briggs: That's what I'm assuming you're taking this sample with you correct? Day: The concept, purely concept not the ordinance. Briggs: The motion has been made and seconded. Bowers: Just for clarification though. When you say not the ordinance, do you mean the other materials other than the ordinance? Motion has been made and seconded by Olmstead. Roll Call. Day: I Gathua: I Lubaroff:l Cowen: I Olmstead: I Goeb: I Spears: I Bowers: I just want to make sure everybody is saying yes and not you're present. t just wanted to clarify. Briggs: Yeah they're voting. Bowers: Did you say your own name? Briggs: Briggs, No. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 12 of 14 Briggs: And your second motion? Day: So I would then like to move that the Human Rights Commission is in support of a working ordinance presented, I don't know how to word that. Or that the, I guess that the Human Rights Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a sanctuary city ordinance. Olmstead: I'll second that. Briggs: That we adopt ah? Day: No that we recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance sanctuary city concept. That they (City Council) adopt an ordinance. Briggs: Okay we recommend to the City Council. Spears: Can I get some clarification? Briggs: Yes, you can. Spears: Are you saying that we then bring this information as far as the sample ordinance. Day: That would include the sample ordinance. Spears: Okay thank you. Briggs: Can you do it all in one shot now? Day: Would include that we recommend that they adopt an ordinance. Briggs: The motion has been made and seconded by Olmstead. Roll call vote. Day: Yes. Gathua: Yes. Lubaroff: Yes Cowen: Yes Olmstead: Yes Goeb: Yes Spears: No. Briggs: No. Bowers: Just so everybody knows I would hope that each Commissioner if they get a call from somebody asking them to explain this, that each of you would be able to. The concept of a sanctuary city. I think that goes along with a yes vote. Goeb: Do you want us to be speaking of it to others? Bowers: You could get calls from the press, so I'm just letting you know that I think as an expectation that there should be some understanding of what was voted on. That could happen. Detweiler: Could I offer that I think any member of our committee would be happy to talk further with any of you if you have questions background. I'd be happy to talk with you and I'll give you my phone number if you would like. You can contact me Karla Deitweiler at 319-594-2646. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 13 of 14 Gathua: To add to that on immigration since I've been to the U.S. that I'm involved in, so just _ more information. Also for and information yeah. Briggs: All right moving on. ONE COMMUNITY ONE BOOK Reminder that the main program which includes a discussion with the author will be held on November 7th at 4 pm. HUMAN RIGHTS BREAKFAST The Breakfast will be held on October 28th at 7:30 a.m. at the Hotel Vetro. Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President to the University of Iowa Georgina Dodge will serve as the keynote speaker. Briggs, Spears and Lubaroff will serve on the selection committee. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES Goeb (Gathua, Day) reported on the Community Dialogues and another meeting will be held in October with Kelsey Kramer from the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights. ADA TRAINING The date for the training is October 6th from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m. at the Iowa City Public Library. Lubaroff will announce the program. Only 6 spots remain. STRENGTHENING LATINO/A COMMUNITIES PROGRAM Spears will attend the Conference as a representative from the Human Rights Commission. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Spears will be participating in a Cancer Walk and is up to 18 miles a day. Gathua and her non profit organization are still collecting cans to raise money to support the education of girls in Kenya. ADJOURNMENT Lubaroff moved to adjourn. Gathua seconded. The motion passed 8-0 at 19:01. Human Rights Commission September 21, 2010 Page 14 of 14 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2010 IMeetina Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/19 2116 3/16 4/20 5118 6/15 7120 8117 9/21 10/19 11/16 12121 Dell Briggs 1/1/11 X X O/E X X X X O/E X Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E X Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E O/E X O/E X O/E O/E O/E O/E Dianne Day 111112 X X X O/E X X O/E X X Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 X O/E O/E X X X X X X Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 X X X X X O/E X X X Howard Cowen 1/1/13 X X X X O/E X O/E X X Constance Goeb 1/1/13 X O/E X X X X X X X Fernando Mena- Carrasco 1/1/13 X X O/E X X X O/E R R R R R Harry Olmstead (8-1-2010) 1/1/13 - - - - - - - X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting/No Quorum R =Resigned - = Not a Member Sanctuary City Ordinance 1 WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City is a home rule unit of government pursuant to Artilce IlI, Section 38.A of the Iowa Constitution ;and 2 WHEREAS, Pursuant to its home rule power, the City of Iowa City may exercise any power and perform any function relating to its government and affairs, including the authority to "exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the city or of its residents, and so preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents" ;and 3. WHEREAS, To this end, the City of Iowa City pursuant to Title R of the City Code is dedicated to providing its residents with equal access to the services, opportunities, and protection it provides or administers ;and 4. WHEREAS, Conditioning the provision of services, opportunities, and protection on citizenship or immigration status or inquiring about such status in the course of said provision directly contravenes in intent and spirit the city's commitment to enci~ring equal access; and 5. WHEREAS, Local governments are increasingly pressured to become involved in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws by conditioning services and opportunities on, or inquiring about, immigrant status ;and (_ W~~REAS, The enforcement of civil immigration laws has historically been a federal government responsibility-a power first vested in the Immig~'ation and Naturalization Service and then in the Department of Homeland Security ;and 7. WHEREAS, "our liberties we prize-and rights we will maintain," and it is only at the City of Iowa City discretion that it uses its resources to enforce mandates that belong to federal government alone; and 8_ WHEREAS, Encouraging local governments that are not specifically equipped or trained to implement immigration and anti-terrorist measures to do so is likely to result in inconsistencies and decentralization that undermine instead of strengthening these measures ;and 9. WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City joins many cities that have official policies prohibiting their municipal agencies from inquiring about immigration status and unilaterally enforcing immigration law provisions; and 10. 'WHEREAS, Requiring or even promoting local enforcement of immigration laws gives rise to an increased threat of immigrant anal minority profiling and harassment ;and 11. WHEREAS, For the past 150 years the City. of Iowa City has been hope and home to immigrants from throughout the globe ;and Submitted by the Sanctuary Committee on 8/17/10 12. WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City has a tradition and culture of policies that propel the extension of human. rights and the protection of vulnerable populations ;now therefore, Se it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City: No entity, employee or agent of the City of Iowa City shall request information about or otherwise investigate or assist in the investigation of the national citizenshig ar federal residence or any federally issued immigration status of any person unless such inquiry or investigation is required by Iowa State Statute, federal regulations or court decision. Submitted by the Sanctuary Committee on 8/17/1C _: v ~. ;~ < r G ,_„ O C ~' z ~ ~ _ J O ~ Z ~ t O ~ ~ r C9 G O ~ . ~ < [: ~ O _ n ~i r ('y Q ~ c 2 n - ~ n li -, {-- O ~ ~ _~ n• ~ _ '-G ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ n G ~ - G n . ~ ~ ~ (J - _ ~ ~ ~+' G e'+ J ~ ~ r J J (Y r. < tr _ a: G c l O ?7 r ~• 2 ~. r ~ ~-~- ~ - ~ r ~ C "!. ~ r T• ~ G j < ~. J ~G O G O r J n r. O ~ r ('+ N G (; ~+ O < ~ _ '--' L J .~ ~ ~ ~ _ G O ~`~ Cr ~_ o 'J r. n c n- ~' f r CF v `' O ' (~ c= `-~ ~' ~ l i I'+ C'v O ~ n n r G rL` i ~ ~_ O n n 7 :r ~ V ~ n• ~ J O ~ ~ 1 O "• ~ '~ CV - `, r r. n J 'J n O 2 :f. ~u ~. fir: .'.J J ? r• O `- G C` o r~ o -o ~_ J J ~ ~ ~ ~-/ ~ w 'z n ~ ~ ~ ° - " r_ F,{ ~ ~ o ccU, F - ~ '' -~ ~ tea c c, J ° _-~ -~ - ~ ~- ~ ' ~ ~ ~ r-'- f "' ~ ~ r J ~ ~ n ~ - ..- - r- r ~ ~ G - s ~ ~ ~/ .,- G '_ -~ O a< A ~ ' ~ _ __ r C% C ~ r p C~ _. G ~ _ l ~ Cam ~`. J fL '/. G •r. . ~ ~ _ ~ . 1 J ~ '~' 1 O ~' ` ~: '= ~ n _ cn ~ ~ .~ _ - ~ _. T. O• G Y ~ ~ r ~ ~- = J ~ _ ^ O :. =_-•n • n ~ f O ~ .~-+ C: G ' !. ' ! O ~ ~ l. ~ G r J ~ O -f `< n --; ~ ~ r• ~ "!. ^ ~ ~~ ~ t O ~ ~ ~ `G 2 .~ r' ~ ~ G - C+ n ~ O- J -~ ~ G' r G ,y -,- r • C ,Ji. ~ `. J •~ v CS J r • ~. ~. :. -r. - ~ ~ I ~_~ ~ t'; v !~ ,_ ~G - -_ r•, -_ ~_ ~J ~ _ r J ~ ~ r ri - - _• n r r- ~ -' ~J_ .~ ~ J ~ ~ r ~ /J r •~-. ~ vl n ~ ~ ~ r'J. _ "J. "J. G r I _-~ O ~ ;r. L s O -y `G • ~' p ~ t G '--- ~ 'J n C: ^ • r7 C1 r fT' ~ G V ~ O r % ~- ~' ~ - ^ G r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"'~ J• < ~. f ~. C ~. r ~ ~ r _. ~ -- ~ :. _ I ~ ~ < '!] ~ ~ j ~_~ o ~ r n ~ -~ ~~ "!. i ~ ~• ^ < J J ~ ~ r, n -' .: -I. J ~ ~- C r l: s ('j /~ ~ "~ (7 ~ u J J .-- C' _ ' J ~ ~T 1 -- = r O -(T~ _ G ~ n O F• X J' `' '- C) J O r ~• n - r C? %~ ~ G '~ :ii - J ~• ~ ~ .~ - 1 =. F ~~l ^ 'I. r l^ ~.., J .- --~ ri u- Ci C+ O a Qti 1 n o ~ f J ~. :- C •") ~ ry :~- o r F% .~ ! R F= lj L' ~ (_ ~ ~ I' ~ O !~ ~, ~• R~ ®• "' - ' O 7 "~" ~'- ' ~ r ' G v _ ~ ~ z O ~ O - _ - C~ T ~ O :r - z ~ n ~ J ~ T Z r ~ ~: t/ T . J: ~] O ~ =+~ ~ T 'G ~ • ~' n r- ~ I -I I ~] ~ - ~ n ~' r = . v ~ n ~ r ~+ ~~ ~ '~ ~ ( . _. [ , _ ~ ~. ~ n O • r r, ~_ _- ~ _. ~ O _ < .- ~ ~ ' ~} f" ~ ~ c ~ .~ r j ~ ,~ J. ~ ' (i _ r. ~ =_ O J ~' ~ ~ - ~ ~,~+-e J ~ "~ - ~ G J =. ~' v v~ d' '"f P- ~-t CD nr i-~ `~ `^ l J ~y~y( H - (D (D O r-' ~_ O Federal Immigration Law and Local Enforcement In order to implement sanctuary policies limiting local enforcement of federal immigration law, it is necessary to understand the legal implications of such a policy, and what legal restrictions exist. This essay will briefly present federal immigration legislation, specifically pertaining to the authority of local agencies to enforce such legislation, and will reveal how with recent increased criminalization of migration, local law enforcement and service providers have been granted more authority and encouragement to enforce federal immigration law. Undefined local role in federal immigration law since 1952 Since its inception in 1952 the jurisdiction of state and local police in the enforcement of federal immigration law has ben undefined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A series of judicial decisions and legislation during the intervening years defined distinctions between civil and criminal provisions of the INA. Being within the United States borders without authorization or working without a visa or residency are civil matters. Wilful disregard of an order of removal is a criminal offense. Local police have been most often involved in enforcing criminal provisions of the INA, as well as enforcing the subject to removal of undocumented and documented persons convicted of a.crime within the United States. Prohibition of local enforcement, 1970s to 1983 U.S. Supreme Court has historically upheld preemption. That is, federal law supersedes any state law that may regulate immigration.ln a U.S. Department of Justice press release in 1978, it was stated that the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) employees are given special training that equips them with the unique ability to administrer the complexities of current immigration law, arguing that "the responsibility for enforcement rests with the INS, and not with state and local police." In 1983 this de facto local enforcement protocol was put into law in Gonzales v City of Peoria, instituting that local police are prohibited from enforcing civil provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because of the rigorous regulatory system outlined in the federal immigration legislation. Local agents were still given authority to enforce criminal provisions. The U.S. Department of Justice upheld preemption in the 1996 Legal Counsel Opinion, stating, "state and local police lack recognized legal authority to stop and detain an alien solely on suspicion of civil deportability, as opposed to criminal violation of the immigration or other laws." De Facto local enforcement In practice, local agents still routinely assist federal agents in enforcing immigration law, accompanying agents on raids, checking on immigration during routine traffic stops, and reporting acquired information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The ability of local agents to offer this de facto assistance to federal agents depends on local resources and-the political climate. As a result of this, federal immigration laws do not receive equal enforcement throughout the United States. Federal encouragement of local immigrant screening and policing, 1986 The passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act {IRCA) in 1986 placed observation and enforcement of federal immigration law more locally. Employer sanctions were introduced, penalizing employers who hire individuals unauthorized to work. The law required mandatory screening of employee prospects and records of Submitted by the Sanctuary Committee on 8/17/10 these procedures. The IRCA also encourages institutions such as universities, hospitals and even public service providers to require proof of citizenship upon application. Institutionalization of Local Immigrant Surveillance, 1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, furthered institutionalized undocumented immigrants' ineligibility to welfare and public services by requiring, not just encouraging, the verification of citizenship. The legislation also authorized state and local police to participate in instances of emergency when there was a substantial increase of foreign nationals, if sanctioned by state or local governing bodies. The law provided a means for state and local agents to enter into special written agreements with the U.S. Attorney General, in which local officers would be given special training to enforce civil provisions of immigration law. Until recently few local agencies had entered into such agreements, and even now they are confined to Southwest states such as Texas and Arizona. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 also authorized local agents to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants convicted of a felony. It also authorized the FBI to input records of previously deported felons into the National Crime Information Center database, making these sections accessible to all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Lastly, as a direct response to Sanctuary policies throughout the United States, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act nullified all local policies that prohibited state and local agencies, from police to social services, from reporting information to the INS. Thus, Sanctuary cities could no longer prohibit local agents from reporting immigrants status, but they could still prohibit them from seeking that information unless required by federal law (as in cases of criminal convicts), and simply encourage them not to report information regarding immigrants status obtained voluntarily by individuals to the INS. Summary, what does this mean for Sanctuary Cities? In summary, although following the terrorists attacks of September 11`h of 2001 local law enforcement and social service agencies have been increasingly encouraged and granted authority to enforce federal immigration law, no law requires such enforcement. Local police agencies are able to enter into specific agreements with the Department of Homeland security to receive special training and services from ICE to enable them to effectively enforce federal immigration laws. Relatively few agencies have done so, and currently no agencies in the Midwest are in official agreements. Local enforcement of immigration hinges on available local resources and the political climate regarding immigration and law enforcement. State and local governing bodies can limit or prohibit public agencies from actively seeking information about individual's immigration status. They can encourage employees and agents to refrain from reporting information they voluntarily receive to ICE, but are unable to legally prohibit the transfer of such information. For more information, contact: Submitted by-the Sanctuary Committee on 8/17/10 what is the U.S. Sanctuary Movement? A 'sanctuary city' exists when the governing body of a city or county has passed an ordinance or declaration that exempts law enforcement and other public officials from inquiring about a person's immigration status or reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities if the information is voluntarily presented to them. A Faith-based Movement The sanctuary movement saw its beginnings in the small living rooms of people's homes and the basements of local churches. Specifically, it began in 1981 in the Tucson, Arizona home of 1im Corbett, co-founder of the Sanctuary movement. A man named Jim Dudley was on his way to Corbett's for a dinner party when he encountered a lone man walking on the road and decided to give him a ride. When the two came to a border control check point, the young wandering man admitted that he was an undocumented Salvadoran and begged Dudley to get him through the check point. The border control officer saw through their story, apprehended the young Salvadoran and let Dudley go. Dudley and Corbett discussed the situation over dinner and eventually founded the Sanctuary movement. Corbett began to open his house as a small apartment to Salvadorans. He asked people to raise money for bonds. He then had the idea to open the movement up to the Quaker network, who years before helped another group of oppressed people escape north through the Underground Railroad. He proposed that Quakers from Mexico and the U.S_ should work together to help refugees complete asylum applications. He advocated starting a newsletter to keep refugees and their supporters informed about routes, travel conditions, and expenses for trips to the United States. Eventually, Corbett got to the point where he could no longer house refugees in his home by himself, so he asked for the help of Rev. John Fife. The two men met many immigrants and passed on their names and contact information. As a result, many immigrants were caught by Border Control Police with Corbett's and Fife's names. They knew if they continued, they could be arrested. They met together and discussed the issue and considered publicizing their work. This way, they could appear to be more than coyotes (those who charged money and lead immigrants across the border) while also heightening public awareness. The Sanctuary Movement claimed that the U.S. treatment of Central American refugees was violating the Geneva and Helsinki Accords, the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, and the 1967 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Corbett and his friends resisted federal law based on their faith. In the bible, the book of Numbers spoke of Moses and his commandment to establish "cities of refuge" for "the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there" In the late 1980s, during the peak of the movement, over four hundred churches took part across North America with around seventy thousand participants. From Churches to Cities Although faith-based organizations started the movement, universities and activist groups soon joined. The movement also gained support throughout cities, who denounced the use of local resources to aid federal immigration investigations. Some cities broadened their view of who deserved sanctuary status from specifically Central American immigrants to immigrants of all kinds and sought to accomplish policies that would provide more services to undocumented people in the country. Between 1984 and 1987, more than 20 cities declared themselves as sanctuaries. Most were merely symbolic declaration, but the city of San Francisco changed course from symbolic support to adopting an ordinance which prohibited city officials from inquiring about immigration status, and reporting voluntary immigration Submitted by the Sanctuary Committee on 8/17/1 information to the federal government. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, with the Patriot Act the national government attempted to delegate immigration investigation to focal and state governments. In response, many cities resisted, and passed resolutions restricting the use of local law enforcement to investigate immigration status. The New Sanctuary Movement In 2006, an immigrantjudge ordered the deportation of Elvira Arellano. Arellano had an 8 year old son who was a U.S. citizen and therefore decided to violate the judge's order and sought sanctuary in a church. This inspired more churches to come together with the intent of keeping immigrant families together. This New Sanctuary Movement, like the movement in the 1980s, provided services to immigrants facing hatred in the workplace and unfair deportation. The members of these sanctuary churches agreed to host families who faced deportation and had U.S. citizen children. Today's Sanctuary Cities In 2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that thirty-two different cities had formally recognized themselves as sanctuary cities. However, in 2007, researchers identified as many as seventy cities that have similar policies in place. The city ordinances that have evolved take many different forms. New York, for example, does not require government employees to inquire about immigration status, but they are permitted to provide. information to the federal government. Takoma Park, Maryland restricts state employees from asking about immigration status. Alaska and Oregon have adopted statewide sanctuary policies that prohibit officials working for the state to aid the enforcement of immigration law. The term "sanctuary" has gained a negative connotation over the years. In February of 2008, Mount Rainier, Maryland,. considered a proposal to declare itself a "sanctuary city." Their policies had not changed, as police officers already refrained from asking about immigration status. However, the mere use of the word brought many protestors and the city council eventually tabled the resolution. Many cities have ultimately adopted policies in accordance with sanctuary cities without claiming the label of a sanctuary city. To learn more about the Sanctuary City Movement, contact; Submitted by the Sanctuary Committee on 8/17/10 Page 1 of 1 Stefanie Bowers From: HarryO3@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:16 PM To: Stefanie Bowers Subject: Sanctuary Cities An August 14, 2006 report produced by the Congressional Research Service listed 31 cities and counties that have "don't ask, don't tell" sanctuary policies in place. They are: Anchorage, Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Chandler, Arizona Fresno, California Los Angeles, California San Diego, California San Francisco, California Sonoma County, California Evanston, Illinois Cicero, Illinois Cambridge, Massachusetts Orleans, Massachusetts Portland, Maine Baltimore, Maryland Takoma Park, Maryland Ann Arbor, Michigan Minneapolis, Minnesota Durham, North Carolina Albuquerque, New Mexico Aztec, New Mexico Rio Arriba County, New Mexico Sante Fe, New Mexico New York, New York Ashland, Oregon Gaston, Oregon Marion County, Oregon Austin, Texas Houston, Texas Katy, Texas Seattle, Washington Madison, Wisconsin. * Alaska and Oregon both have state-wide policies that forbid state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law. Oregon law, however, does provide an exception to allow law enforcement officers to share information on immigration status with federal authorities with those arrested for criminal offenses. Harry F. Olmstead 319-338-2931 1951 Hannah Jo CT Iowa City, IA 52240 The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems. -Gandhi 8/18/2010 Page 2 of 7 StatelCity Alaska Anchorage, AK (6113/07 Congressional Research Service) . ' (The city of Fairbanks has been removed from the Sanctuary Cities list due to the city councils passage of a resolution supporting a formal recognition of its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. The city of Fairbanks had previously been listed due its designation as a sanctuary city by the Congressional Research Service. OJJPAC thanks the City of Fairbanks for taking positive steps to clarify its compliance with federal law. Fairbanks enforcement statistics will be monitored for compliance as. Arizona Chandler, AZ (Added 5!30/07, Congressional Research Service Report, 2006 ) Mesa, AZ (Added 10-18-09, Sources: Judcial Watch; East Valley Tribune article,1-4-2006)` • Phoenix, AZ • Tucson, AZ (Added 11-12-07, Source: 11-11-07 story by Brady McCombs, Arizona Daily Star. See note below.) California Bell Gardens, CA City of Industry, CA . City of Commerce, CA Cypress, CA Davis CA Downey, CA • Fresno, CA (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) Lakewood, CA Los Angeles, CA (Congressional Research Service) Long Beach, CA . Lynwood, CA Maywood, CA Montebello, CA National City, CA Norwalk, CA Oakland, CA (Added 8-27-07. Source: 4/2av07 story by KCBS 740 AM. Link here.) Paramount, CA • Pico Rivera, CA Richmond, CA (Added 11-5-09. Sources: Mayor Gayle McLaugNin's campaign website from 2004, 2006) So. Gate, CA . San Bernardino, Ca. (Added 6/7/07, reader submitted / 915/08 Listing disputed by the city administration* See addl.notes) . San Diego, CA (Congressional Research Service) . Santa Cruz, CA (Added 5130/07, documented by KSBW news} San Francisco, CA (Congressional Research Service) San Jose, CA (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) 8/19/2010 Page 3 of 7 Santa Maria, CA Sonoma County, CA Vemon, CA Watsonville, CA Wilmington, CA Co{orado {11-1 B-08 Submitted researdi from local activist/ Listing disputed by the city administration) (Congressional Research Service) (Added 530/07, documented by KSBWnews) Aurora, CO Commerce City, CO Denver, CO Durango, CO Federal Heights, CO Fort Collins, CO Lafayette, CO Thornton, CO Westminster, CO (Source: Congressional Research Service) (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) (Added 6/3/D7, documented by reader) Connecticut Hartford, CT (Added 5/4110. Source: [Ordinance passed in 2008], NEWS 21 Blog, by Amy Crawford, Hartford, CT) New Haven, CT (Added 6/4/07. Source: N News 8: City round/ votes 25-1 to issue ID cards to illegal aliens Florida DeLeon Springs, FL Deftona, FL Jupiter, FL (Added 413-09. Previously on watch list.) Lake Worth, FL (Added 413-09.) Miami, FL Georgia Dalton, GA (Added 5!30107. 6/18/07 Listing disputed by the City of Dalton GA. CitV's written policy requested Illinois Chicago, IL (Congressional Research Service) . Cicero, IL (6!13/07 Congressional Research Service) Evanston, IL (6113/07 Congressional Research Service) Kansas Wichita (Source: Police department policy exposed after the death of Lola Jayne, KSN TV-3, 12-19-08 Louisiana New Orleans, LA (Source: Police department announced poky of "don't ask, don't tell" by Police superintendent Warren Riley, WWL-TV; 9-9-09) Massachusetts . Cambridge, Mass. (Source: Boston Globe. First passed resolution in 1985) ry p cy ) Chelsea, Mass. (Added: 8-14-07 Source: Chelsea government websitewith text of sanctua oli . Orleans, Mass. (6113(07 Congressional Research Service) . Springfield (Disputed) Maine Portland (Added 5131/07 Note: Maine resident reported that Portland city council passed sanctuary legislation State of Maine (Added 5x31/07 Note: Governor of Maine inflated de facto protections for illegals by Executive Order in 2004) Maryland Baltimore, MD (Congressional Research Service) Gaithersburg, MD Mt. Rainier, MD (Added 1-20-06, Source: The Washington D.C. Examiner, 1-19-06) 8/19/2010 Page 4 of 7 Montgomery County, MD (Added 11-3-09, Source: Frederick County sheriff worried about MontCo gangs, The Washington D.C. Examiner, 11-2-09) Takoma Park, MD (Reported that City ordinance passed some 20 years ago; Congressional Research Service) Michigan . Ann Arbor, MI (6/13107 Congressional Research Service) Detroit, MI (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) Minnesota Minneapolis, MN (Congressional Research Service) St. Paul, MN Worthington, MN (Added 6-30-07 Note: This is where a Sv/~ft plant was raided by ICE in December, 2006) Nevada Reno (Added 5-31-07; 2-18-08 Disputed by city; OJJPAC has requested a copy of city policies. Copy of policies never received as of 6/24110) New Jersey Camden, NJ (Added in 2007; latest source: Camden, Immigrant Haven?, By Lauren Feeney, City Paper, 7-16-OS) Fort Lee, NJ Hightstowm, NJ (Added 5.30-07) Jersey City, NJ Newark, W (Added 6-3-07) North Bergen, NJ . Trenton, NJ Union City, NJ West New York, NJ New Mezico . Albuquerque, NM (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 8-14-07 KOB-TV 4 Eyewitness News report) Aztec, NM (Added 5-8-1 D, Identified by CRS in 2006 report to Congress) Rio Ariba County, NM (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) Santa Fe, NM (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) New York Albany, NY (Added 7-22-09 Source: Counca adopts donf ask policy, Times Union report byJordan Carleo- Evangelist) Bay Shore, NY Brentwood, NY Central Islip, NY Farmingville, NY New York City, NY Riverhead, NY Shiny/Mastic, NY Spring Vaney Village, NY (Added 7-25-07) Uniondale, NY Westbury, NY North Carolina Carrboro, NC (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illega! aliens by Pafrick Wnn, The News & Observer] Chapel Hill, NC (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns difkr on illegal afrens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer] . Charlotte, NC Chatham County, NC (Added 1-1409 Source: Chatham rejects immigration program, The News & Observer] Durham, NC (6!13/07 Congressional Research Service) Raleigh Winston-Salem Ohio Columbus, OH (715/07 Source: 5/10!07 Columbus Dispatch article stating illegal aliens in misdemeanorcases are not reported to ICE) Dayton, OH (Added 1-11-10 Source: Dayton Daily News story by Lucas Sullivan. Police chief prohibits officers from asking about immigration status. . Lima, OH (Added 10-28-08 Note: City administration opposes Courrty Sheriffs efforts to remove illegal aliens.) . Oberlin, OH (Added 1-25-09. Source: City Resolution adopted January 20, 2009) . Painesville, OH (7-19-07 Source: 7-18-07 Cleveland Scene article) Oklahoma . Oklahoma City (de facto) 8/19/2010 Page 5 of 7 Tulsa (6-3-07 Note: Tulsa city council is discussing changirx3 its sanctuary policy. 8-15-10 Update: See note below. ) Oregon State of Oregon ' (5-9-07 Congressional Researfi Service) `(See note below) . Ashland, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service) Gaston, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Researd~ Service) Marion County, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service) Portland, OR Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA` (7-15-10 Source: Mayor Nut~r's, November, 2009 Executive order. Policy Concerning Access of Immigrants to City Services .) ' Texas . Austin, TX Baytown, TX Brownsville, TX Channelview, TX Denton, TX Dallas, TX EI Cenizo, TX Ft.Worth, TX Houston, TX . Katy, lX Laredo, TX Mcallen, TX Port Arthur, TX Utah Provo, UT Salt Lake City, UT Virginia . Alexandria, VA' Fairfax County, VA Virginia Beach, VA Vermont (Congressional Research Service) (6-13-07 Local reader observation) (6-13-07 Local reader observation) (6-13-07 Congressional Research Service) (Congressional Research Service) (Congressional Research Serkrice) (6-13-07 Readedresident observation) (Added 10-6-08, Source: City Reso~tion No. 2246 adopted 10-9-07) (Added 6/3/07) Burlington, VT (Added ~r14-09 Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring) Middlebury, VT (Added 5-14-09 Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring) Washington King Co. Council, WA (Added as a de facto sanctuary on 6-28-09 Source: The Seattle Times; and on 11-9-09 Ordinance assed Seattle, WA (Added 5/3Q'07; Congressional Research Service) Wisconsin Madison, WI (Gongressional Research Service) Update: In June, 2010, the city council passed a resolution reaffirming its policy. Wyoming . Jackson Hde, WY Washington, D.C. (Update: The Washington D. C. cty council has voted to prohibit its police department from participating in the Secure Communities program in July, 2010 according to an AP story by Ivan Moreno dated 7-26- 10.) Cities under review Diamond Bar, CA (6!26107 Disputed by city. Currently being researched to verify.) Boulder, CO DesMoines, IA (Added 11-28-D7 Source: Proposal seeks banning immigration raids in D.M., by Nigel Duara, DesMoines-Register 8! 19/2010 Page 6 of 7 Bridgeton, NJ (Added Cr3-D7) [7-27-07 Disputed by a reputed farm worker advocate, see note below.) Peekskill, NY [Disputed, being researched) San Antonio, TX [Note: The Sanctuary status of San Antonio is disputed, being researched.] Watch List Cities Note: This is a new list started 8-14-07 and was updated on 10-22-08. • Joliet, IL (Source: Resident alleges police have don't ask don't tell policy, courts ignore immigration status) • Lexington, KY (Source: 11-12-07 Submitted by local resident who claims it is a sanctuary city) • Worcester, MASS (Source: 8-14-07 Worcester Telegram) • Lakewood, NJ (Source:9-10-08 Local residents) • Clark County OH (Source: 1-27-08 Springfield-News-Sun) • Middletown, OH (Source: 1-30-08 Middletown News-Journal) • Springfield, OH (Source: 1-27-08 Springfield-News-Sun) • Clark County, OH (Source: 9-29-08 Springfield-News-Sun Editorial (Sheriff Kelly not interested in removing illegal aliens) • Gallatin, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader) • Shelbyville, TN (Source: News articles submitted by Shelbyville resident) • Portland, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader) • Hendersonville, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader) • Whitehouse, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader) Sanctuary Cities USA: Additional Notes Mesa, Arzona Mesa Arizona has been added as a sanctuary city list because of its reported "don't ask don't tell policy" and criticism by the local sheriffi that the city is not enforcing the law. The sheriff has arrested illegal aliens working in city buildings (as contract workers for a private cleaning company), reportedly after the city police department refused to investigate complaints of illegal hires by a whistleblower. Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia's Mayor signed an Executive Order in November 2009 that provided additional protections to illegal aliens in the city. However, the City of Philadelphia does have an existing Preliminary Arraignment Reporting System (PARS) agreement with ICE. Mayor Nutter objects to the PARS computer technology agreement which isnow up for renewal. The Mayor apparently believes that the access of data by ICE will result in increased immigration violation investigations and deportations. Here is an article by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Tucson, Arizona Tucson Arzona has been added to the sanctuary city list because the Tucson police have instituted a new policy vhich prevents their officers from calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement to schools and churdies. Tulsa, Oklahoma Tulsa city councibr Jim Mautino was quoted in a Tulsa World artide by P.J. Lassek, that he believes Tulsa is a sanctuary dty and that the Police don't verify legal presense during traffic stops. Mautino wants to crack down on ilbgal aliens and introduce an ordinance mandatir~ the use of E-Verify because the resolution that was passed carrot be enforced. State of Oregon According to a CRS report (October, 2005), Oregon passed a law in 1987 that prohibits local and state law enforcement from using state resources for locating and capturing illegal aliens. Law enforcement was permitted [but not required] to "exchange information" with federal immigration agents if an illegal alien was arrested for a crime. San Bernardino, CA. San Bernardino was added to the list on June 6th of 2007 as a result of a readers submission. On September 5th 2008, the city administration contacted me to dispute its listing. OJJPAC has asked the city's law department to forward copes of the city's poicies regarding its processes when illegal aliens are encountered in its dty. Bridgeton, NJ 7-27-07 Disputed by a reputed farm worker advocate who sent me this email: "I just wanted b point out an inaccuracy on your website's listing of sanctuary cities. You have Bridgeton, NJ listed as a sanctuary city, and indeed it is most definitely not. I work with CATA -The Farm workers' Support committee (www.cata-farmworkers.org) and we have an organized group of membership in this town. One of our goals is working towards making ~idgeton an sanctuary city, but the local government is quite unfiendly towards the immigrant population, and the mayor has even hinted at wanting b implement a Hazleton type of ordinance (luckily, given yesterday's legal decision, that won't be happening)." Columbus, OH The Columbus Dispatch [Ohio] wrote: 'The pdice didn't contact immigration authorities concerning those who were determined to be undocumented, Booth said. Authorities say that's typical when it comes to misdemeanor charges." [Columbus, Ohio] Painesville, OH Cleveland Scene (7-18-07) quotes the Painesville Police Chief Gary Smith: ""He [Police Chief Gary Smith] has no qualms abort laying out his indifference in plain English: "We don't care what your [immigration) status is."'~" Oklahoma City, OK sil9izo]o Page 7 of 7 One reader wrote about Oklahoma City: Oklahoma City is a sanctuary city de facto. Police officers have been told not to stop any Hisparic for minor traffic violations, because they have a good chance of being illegal and it is a waste of time. The City has not been enforang City Code if the recipient of the code violation doesn't speak English. And is not attempting to enforce the single-family dwelling laws. State of Maine Governor John E. Baldacci issued executive order 13 FY 04/05 which was issued on April 9, 2004. The order is entitled "An Order Concerning Access to State Services by All Ertitled Maine Residerrts." The order prohibits state workers from inquiring about the immigration status of anyone applying for services. Alexandria VA Resolution No. 2246, adopted October 9, 2007 states in part: "...the City and its various agencies will neither make inquirers about nor report on the citizenship of those who seek the protection of its laws or the use of its services." Evidently in Alexandria, illegal alien are safe from Immigration and Customs Enforcement until they commit a "serious" crime. So what crimes qn illegals commit with impunity from the federal government? Theft? Rape? Drug dealing? Gang activity? OJJPAC's belief is that the City's Resolution conflict's with its responsibility underfederal law. Research Resources (incomplete listing) Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress CRS Report for Congress, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Loral Law Enforcement, Updated August 14, 2006 8/19/2010