Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-02-24 Info Packet
~~~~~ -•ti.as._ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET February 24, 2011 FEBRUARY 28 WORK SESSION IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Agenda packet from the Iowa City Assessor Dennis Baldridge: FY2012 Budget IP3 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Proposed Sanctuary City Policy IP4 Memorandum from the Airport Operations Specialist: Airport Debt Status/Remaining Airport Commerce Park lots IP5 Memorandum from Councilor Regenia Bailey and Councilor Mike Wright: Questions from the County Board ~f Supervisors re: JECSA IP6 Memorandum from the City Clerk: July & August Meeting Schedule IP7 Summary of Pending Work Session Items MISCELLANEOUS IP8 Staff response to Tom Hunter: Hexavalent Chromium (chromium 6) in Drinking Water IP9 Memorandum from the Flood Recovery Specialist: Taft Speedway Levee IP10 Email from Paula Swygard: UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership IP11 Staff response to Mikaela Buhr: Recycling IP12 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development and the Director of Public Works: Update: Flood-related activities IP13 Newsletter: Grant Wood Neighborhood Association -February 2011 DRAFT MINUTES IP14 Human Rights Commission: February 15, 2011 IP15 Economic Development Committee: February 15, 2011 ^r #; = ~~~ '' """'•~ City Council Meeting Schedule and cI~TY of IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas www.ICgOV.Org REVISED February 25, 2011 • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p City Conference Board -Separate Agenda Posted (IP#2] Regular Work Session ^ Agenda Items ^ Sanctuary City (IP3] (4f(4)] ^ Joint Meeting with Airport Commission: Funding of Hangars (IP#4] ^ Curbside Recycling • Facilities Naming Policy (Agenda #11] ^ Update/Discussion: Chicago to Iowa City High Speed Rail Funding ^ County Proposals: Joint Emergency Communications Center (IP5] ^ Information Packet Discussion (Feb 17 & 24] • Council Time ^ Budget Priorities ^ Summary of Pending Work Session Issues (IP7] ^ Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations ^ Discussion of Meeting Schedules (IP6] • TUESDAY, MARCH 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE • MONDAY, MARCH 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, APRIL 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, APRIL 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, APRIL 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, APRIL 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, MAY 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, MAY 3 Emma J. Harvat Hall i _r ~ -~~ UL-L4-1 1 ~„"' ,~,~ IP1 City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas February 24, Zo„ www.icgov.org • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p City Conference Board -Separate Agenda Posted (IP#2] r Work Session ^ Agenda Items ^ Sanctuary City (IP3] (4f(4)J • Joint Meeting with Airport Commission: ^ rbside Recycling ^ Fa 'lities Naming Policy (Agenda #11J • Cou Proposals: Joint Emergency Coi • Inform ion Packet Discussion (Feb 17 & of Hangars (IP#4 ] nications Center (IP5] • Council 'me • Budget Pri rities • Summary o ending Work Session I ues (IP7] • Upcoming Co munity Events/Coun it Invitations ^ Discussion of eeting Schedules (I 6] • TUESDAY, MARCH 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Mee 'ng TENTATIVE M T NG SCHEDULE SUBJECT CHANGE • MONDAY, MARCH 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council eting • MONDAY, APRIL 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Sessi n • TUESDAY, APRIL 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Form Council Meeting • MONDAY, APRIL 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular ork Session • TUESDAY, APRIL 1 ~~ Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Reg lar Formal Council Meeting \ • MONDAY, MAY 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p egular Work Session • TUESDA ,MAY 3 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting ~ ~ 1 _~:.®~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and -.. ••- February 24,2011 CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas .n.ww_icaov.Ora • MONDAY, MAY 16 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, MAY 17 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • WEDNESDAY, MAY 18 4:OOp Joint Meeting • MONDAY, MAY 30 Memorial Day -City Offices Closed • MONDAY, JUNE 6 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY,JUNE7 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, JUNE 20 6:30p Regular Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hau Emma J. Harvat Hall Coralville Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall • TUESDAY, JUNE 21 7:00 Re ular Formal Council Meetin OI~I~1C1~ U1= "I~l I1~, IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IP2 DENNIS [3ALDR1DGii ASSCSSOR [3RAD COMER DEPU"f Y MAR"I'iN E~URKLG D1iPU"I Y February 23, 2011 Dear Conference Board Member: The meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's FY 2012 budget is scheduled for Monday, February 28. 201 I at 6:30 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed for your review before the meeting are: I . The Agenda. 2. A copy of the January 31, 2011 minutes. 3. A copy of the FY12 Itemized Budget. If you have any questions about the budget please feel free to phone me at the office at 356-6066 or at my home at 688-2661. Sincerely, h~1 %wx~J Dennis Baldridge Iowa City Assessor 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE S'1REE"[' • IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 TELEPHONE 319-356-6060 February 23, 2011 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Iowa City Conference Board will meet at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, February 28, 2010 at the Iowa City Civic Center. The purpose of this meeting is to hold a public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's proposed budget for FY 2012. AGENDA: 1. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson. 2. Roll call by taxing body. 3. Act on minutes of January 31, 2011 Conference Board meeting. 4. Public Hearing on budget. 5. Adopt budget. g. Appoint Examining Board member 7. Other business. g. Adjournment. Dennis J. Baldridge Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD MINUTES January 31, 201 1 Iowa City Conference Board: January 31, 201 1, at C:38 P.M, in the Council Chambci°s at the Iowa City City Hall, Mayor Matt Ilayek presiding. Iowa City Council Members Present: Bailey, Champion, Dickens, Hayek, Mims, and Wright. Johnson County Supervisors Present: Harney, Rettig and Sullivan. Iowa City School Board Members Present: Cilek and Cooper. Others Present: Baldridge, Comer, Markus, Helling, Dilkes, and Karr. Digital Recording: January 31, 2011 Chair Matt Hayek called the meeting to order and Clerk Dennis Baldridge called roll and stated that a quorum was present. The City (Champion) moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Boas•d meeting. March 1, 2010, the County (Harney) seconded and the motion carried 3%0. Iowa City Assessor Dennis Baldridge presented his C~Y ' l 2 Assessment l:xpensc 1' and and Special Appraisers Fund budgets. The increases arc $11.060 fora 2.8 percent cost- of-living increase in salaries, $23,130 for the remaining half of the salary for a new employee, $500 for an increase in longevity, $16,740 for an extra pay period, $5,500 for merit/step increases, $4,390 for an increase in FICA, $9,370 for an increase in IPERS, $15,600 for an increase in health insurance, $600 for an increase in Board of Review salaries, $2,200 for an increase in auto expenses, $400 for an increase in life insurance, and $2,000 for in increase in schools and conferences. The increases are offset by a $4,800 decrease in postage, an alternate year expense, $3,500 decrease in printing, also an alternate year expense, $2,500 for a decrease in aerial photography which was shifted to the Special Appraisers Fund to take advantage of carry-over funds, and a decrease of $2,000 in appraisal services. After a discussion about the concerns of the Conference Board over adding acost-of- living increase and a merit increase and increasing the amount for longevity, it was moved by the County (Sullivan) to approve the budget for publication with a reduction to a 2.25% cost-of-living increase but without the merit increase and without an increase in Board of Review salaries. 1'he motion was seconded by the City (Bailey) and passed 3/0. The County (Rettig) moved to set the public hearing for February 28, 2011 at 6:30 Y.M. at the Iowa City City Hall, the City (Wright) seconded and the motion carried 3/0. The vacancy on the Iowa City Assessor's Examining Board will be appointed by the School District at the February 28`x' Conference Board meeting. There being no other business, it was moved by the City (Bailey) and seconded by the County (Sullivan) to adjourn at 7:10 P.M. Dennis Baldridge Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board ITEMIZED BUDGET -ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES FY 2011 FY 2012 INCREASE SALARIES Current Year Proposed CITY ASSESSOR 89,500 91,510 102.25% FIRST DEPUTY 76,070 77,780 102.25% SECOND DEPUTY 71,600 73,210 102.25% REAL ESTATE CLERK 49,050 50,150 102.24% CLERK/APPRAISER 42,890 43,860 102.26% CLERK/ACCOUNTING 43,900 44,890 102.26% APPRAISER 22,500 46,010 204.49% LONGEVITY 2,850 3,350 117.54% STEP/MERIT $0 0 SUBTOTAL $398,360 $430,760 108.13% EXTRA PAY PERIOD ADJUSTMENT $0 $16,440 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYER SHARE: FICA 32,350 36,080 111.53% EMPLOYER SHARE: IPERS 29,390 38,060 129.50% HEALTH INSURANCE 93,400 109,000 116.70% SUBTOTAL 155,140 183,610 118.35% TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST $553,500 $630,340 113.88% OTHER EXPENDITURES LEAVE CONTINGENCY $10,000 $10,000 100.00% BOARDS BOARD OF REVIEW 14,400 14,400 100.00% BOARD OF REVIEW EXPENSES 200 200 100.00% CONFERENCE BOARD 0 0 EXAMINING BOARD 30 30 100.00% SUBTOTAL $14,630 $14,630 100.00% OFFICE EXPENSES MILEAGE & AUTO 2,300 4,500 195.65% OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,500 3,500 100.00% POSTAGE 6,000 1,200 20.00% TELEPHONE 1,300 1,300 100.00% PUBLICATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 700 700 100.00% PRINTING 4,000 500 12.50% INSURANCE 3,800 4,200 110.53% EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 3,400 3,400 100.00% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 200 200 100.00% UNEMPLOYMENT 2,000 2,000 100.00% DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 15,000 15,000 100.00% SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 20,000 20,000 100.00% BONDS & WORKER'S COMPENSATION 1,500 1,500 100.00% AUTO REPLACEMENT 0 0 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT 2,500 2,500 100.00% SUBTOTAL $66,200 $60,500 91.39% PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES 10,000 12,000 120.00% DUES 2,000 2,000 100.00% SUBTOTAL $12,000 $14,000 116.67% TECHNICAL SERVICES LEGAL FEES & EXPERT WITNESSES 52,000 52,000 100.00% AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 2,500 0 0.00% APPRAISAL SERVICE 3,000 1,000 33.33% SUBTOTAL $57,500 $53,000 92.17% TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES $160,330 $152,130 94.89% TOTAL ASSMT EXPENSE FUND BUDGET $713,830 $782,470 109.62% UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $92,045 $101,684 TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $621,785 $680,786 109.49% ITEMIZED BUDGET -SPECIAL EXPENDITURE MAPPING & AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY CAR REPLACEMENT RE-APPRAISAL FUND APPRAISAL SERVICE COMPUTER REPLACEMENT TOTAL BUDGET UNENCUMBERED BALANCE TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION ISERS F FY 2011 FY 2012 7,666 10,300 12,171 3,000 0 0 14,452 7,878 0 0 $34,289 $21,178 $25,559 $18,570 $ 8,730 $2,608 GRAND TOTAL TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $ 630,515 $ 683,394 ~ MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND 2,822,753,768 X .00027 $762,143 IPERS & FICA FUNDS $75,500 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION & TORT LIABILITY $4,000 MAXIMUM SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND 2,822,753,768 X .000405 $1 143 215 MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHOUT STATE APPROVAL $1,984,858 MAXIMUM EMERGENCY FUND 2,822,753,768 X .00027 (requires State Appeal Board approval) MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR FY 2009 $762,143 $2,747,001 PRIOR YEARS LEVIES AND RATES ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND TOTAL LEVY FY AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE 1995-96 303,281 0.20446 30,000 0.02023 0.22469 1996-97 319,513 0.2045 17,000 0.01088 0.21538 1997-98 318,270 0.19946 52,834 0.03311 0.23257 1998-99 318,699 0.19269 184,357 0.11146 0.30415 1999-00 341,910 0.19784 352, 508 0.20398 0.40182 2000-01 359,341 0.19823 180,293 0.09946 0.29769 2001-02 396,829 0.20636 6,442 0.00335 0.20971 2002-03 403,136 0.20694 4,426 0.00227 0.20921 2003-04 412,379 0.20818 10,051 0.00507 0.21325 2004-05 470,398 0.22926 15,728 0.00767 0.23693 2005-06 472,050 0.22525 25,995 0.01240 0.23765 2006-07 529,702 0.23164 0 0 0.23164 2007-08 603,916 0.25868 4,792 0.00205 0.26073 2008-09 611,955 0.24917 1, 540 0.00063 0.24980 2009-10 600,013 0.23848 0 0 0.23848 2010-11 621,785 0.23147 8,730 0.00325 0.23472 2011-12 680,786 0.24538 2,608 0.00094 0.24632 r ~,'-~®~,~ C[TY OF [OWA C[TY IP3 ~~~~ RANOU~ ~~~o DATE: 2/24/2011 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ELEANOR M. DILKES, CITY ATTORNEY~(~ RE: PROPOSED SANCTUARY CITY POLICY I. QUESTION PRESENTED: What, if any, are the legal impediments to the adoption of a sanctuary city policy? II. CONCLUSION: For ease of discussion, I will use the language of one commentator who has stated that sanctuary city policies generally fall into one or more of the following categories: 1) Don't tell; 2) Don't ask; and 3) Don't enforce' . My conclusions as to each of these are as follows: 1. DON'T TELL (not providing federal authorities with information about immigration status): This feature is vulnerable to successful challenge under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution because it likely conflicts with federal law which does not permit the City to prohibit its employees from providing information to federal immigration authorities about an individual's immigration status. 2. DON'T ASK (limiting inquiries about immigration status): The City may adopt a policy limiting inquiries about a person's immigration status unless immigration status is necessary to determine eligibility for benefits (e.g., Section 8 housing vouchers). In the area of law enforcement, however, the implementation of such a policy would be problematic in light of the United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) program entitled "Secure Communities." 3. DON'T ENFORCE (limiting arrests and detentions for violation of immigration laws): The City may adopt a policy that it will not actively assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. In the area of law enforcement, however, the implementation of such a policy would be problematic in light of the United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) program entitled "Secure Communities." SECURE COMMUNITIES: "Secure Communities" is an ICE Program under which the fingerprints of persons arrested and booked in local jails are checked not just against the Department of Justice's FBI criminal history data but also against the Department of Homeland Security's immigration records. The State of Iowa has entered in to a Memorandum of Agreement with ICE. Three counties in Iowa are already on-line, Polk, Pottawatamie, and Hardin. Iowa law requires that with the exception of simple misdemeanors and certain motor vehicle offenses fingerprints of all persons taken into custody must be forwarded to the Iowa Department of Public Safety. Iowa Code § 690.2 (2009). A jurisdiction that fails to comply with this requirement will be denied access to criminal history record information. Iowa Code §§ Kittrie, Federalism, Deportation, and Crime Victims Afraid to Call the Police, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 1449 (July 2006). 690.1 and .5. Iowa law also requires that fingerprints of juveniles taken into custody be forwarded to the Department of Public Safety. Iowa Code §232.148(2). Once Johnson County goes on-line as a secure community, fingerprints of all persons charged with a crime other than a simple misdemeanor will automatically be checked against the ICE database. Given this automatic sharing of data, the City will necessarily assist in the investigation of immigration status any time a person is arrested and the City's ability to give the assurances requested by the Human Rights Commission is limited. III. DISCUSSION: The Human Rights Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt a "sanctuary city ordinance." In making this recommendation the Commission provided Council with a sample ordinance, a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit A. The "Be it Ordained" clause reads as follows: 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 citizenship or federal residence or any federally issued immigration status of any person unless such inquiry or investigation is required by the Iowa State Statute, federal regulations or court decision. I have reviewed the minutes of the Human Rights Commission. The above resolution was referred to as a "basic working ordinance" or "sample ordinance." The Commission did not delve into the details of the ordinance and assumed that these details would be worked out in the event Council supported the concept of a sanctuary city. If Council chooses to make Iowa City a sanctuary city, there are a number of details in the proposed resolution that will need to be addressed. At this juncture, however, I have assumed it will be most helpful to address the major components of sanctuary policies, explain my conclusions about the legality of those components, and provide information about this complicated issue so that Council can make an informed decision. Short History of Sanctuary Policies By most accounts, the first sanctuary policy in a major city was an order from the Police Chief of Los Angeles in 1979 based on the concern that undocumented persons were not reporting crimes and not aiding investigations for fear of being deported. Kittrie, Federalism, Deportation, and Crime Victims Afraid to Call the Police, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 1449, 1469 (July 2006). What began as a policy based on police concerns grew in the 1980s to include social and political concerns about deporting individuals who had been denied asylum to worn torn areas of Central America. With that said, the primary impetus communities have cited for adopting a sanctuary policy is law enforcement needs.2 Id. at 1475-1476. Although sanctuary policies take many forms (e.g., ordinances, resolutions, executive orders, and police general orders), one legal commentator has stated that they fall into three general categories: don't ask, don't tell, and don't enforce. z The recitals in the proposed resolution do not specifically reference the police department but apply to all employees. [S]anctuary policies generally specify that the jurisdiction's law enforcement officers shall do one or more of the following: (1) limit inquiries about a person's immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than mere status as an unauthorized alien ("don't ask"); (2) limit arrests or detentions for violation of immigration laws ("don't enforce"); and (3) limit provision to federal authorities of immigration status information ("don't tell"). Id. at 1455. Some policies contain only one such provision while others have varying combinations. Supremacy Clause and Federal Law "The supremacy clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005). Therefore, the constitutional issue is whether the proposed resolution conflicts with federal law. There are two federal statutes that may preempt the proposed resolution, both of which were passed in 1996 in response to sanctuary policies. The first is found in the Immigration Reform Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. §1373, which provides in pertinent part: (a) In General. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [n/k/a Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. (b) Additional Authority of Government Entities. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. Legislative history sheds insight on this law: The Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee accompanying the Senate Bill explained that the "acquisition, maintenance, and exchange of immigration-related information by State and local agencies is consistent with, and potentially of considerable assistance to, the Federal regulation of immigration and the achieving of the purposes and objectives of the Immigration and Nationality Act." City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 32-33 (2"d Cir. 1999) (citing S. Rep. No. 104- 249 at 19-20 (1996)). 3 The second federal law is 8 U.S.C. §1644; which provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service [n/k/a ICE] information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. Again, legislative history is helpful: The Conference Report [of the House and Senate members] accompanying the bill explained: "The conferees intend to give State and local officials the authority to communicate with the INS regarding the presence, whereabouts, or activities of illegal aliens.... The conferees believe that immigration law enforcement is as high a priority as other aspects of Federal law enforcement, and that illegal aliens do not have the right to remain in the United States undetected and unapprehended." City of New York, 179 F.3d at 32 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-725 at 383 (1996)). Immediately following the passage of these two laws, the City of New York filed a lawsuit against the United States government challenging the constitutionality of both statutes. Id. at 33. Prior to the enactment of these two statutes, the Mayor of New York City had issued an executive order stating: "No City officer or employee shall transmit information respecting any alien to federal immigration authorities" except if required by law, by permission, or suspected to be engaging in criminal behavior. !d. at 31-32. However, under the policy even if an employee suspected the person of engaging in a criminal act, the employee was first to contact a specified superior, not the federal government. Id. at 32 n. 1. New York City argued that the two federal. laws violated the Tenth Amendment that provides "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution., nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Essentially, New York City's argument was that Congress cannot force the local government to cooperate. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found both provisions to be constitutional and not ~~ violative of the Tenth Amendment. These sections do not directly compel states or localities to require or prohibit anything. Rather, they prohibit state and local governmental entities or officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 35. "The effect of those Sections here is to nullify an Order that singles out and forbids voluntary cooperation with federal immigration officials." Id. at 37. Since the Second Circuit issued its decision in 1999, there have been no federal cases applying these two statutes to a sanctuary policy. The U.S. government has not sued any focal government alleging its sanctuary policy is unconstitutional. History of San Francisco's Sanctuary Ordinance Before addressing the Secure Communities program in more detail, it is helpful to understand the legal issues that have arisen in the City of San Francisco, between its implementation of a sanctuary ordinance in 1989 and its recent status as a Secure Community. What follows is a long excerpt from a law review article that summarizes what has occurred in San Francisco over the last few years. By way of background, the City of San. Francisco and the County of San Francisco have a unified government with amayor-council form of government. The city council is called the Board of Supervisors. 4 In its original form, the [San Francisco] ordinance applied to all noncitizens. The city (of San Francisco] subsequently narrowed the ordinance in 1992 when it amended it to remove informational protections for criminals and criminal suspects. Pursuant to the amendments, the ordinance does not prohibit local officials and officers from providing information to other government employees and entities about (1) suspected violators of the Immigration and Nationality Act's (INA) civil provisions who have been booked for alleged felony commission, and (2) suspected violators of the tNA's civil provisions who are prior felony convicts currently in county jail. In the middle of 2008, however, the sanctuary policy underwent a change after a number of critical events. Chief of these was the tragic killings of Anthony Bologna and two of his sons by an alleged undocumented immigrant, Edwin Ramos. Their deaths shocked the city not only for the execution-style killing but also because they revealed an unknown exception to the city's policy. Ramos had previously been under the custody of city officials when he was a minor but he was not turned over to federal authorities. The non-disclosure of his status to immigration officials exposed the city policy of not reporting the immigration status of undocumented youths, including those who had committed crimes, to the federal government. Indeed, news reports uncovered that the city not only hid the immigration information of undocumented youths from immigration authorities but also placed them in group-housing, which enabled them to walk away from custody. The city had also repatriated some to their home countries to help them avoid removal proceedings. In light of those revelations, Mayor Newsom pledged a "top-to- bottom" review of the city's refuge policies. As part of that review, he changed the policy and directed local police officers to also report alleged criminal juveniles (under suspicion of violating the INA's civil provisions) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. At least sixty-seven undocumented immigrant minors were allegedly reported to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and removed from the U.S. since the mayoral policy change. In November 2009, disagreeing with the mayor's executive change that required disclosure of juveniles' immigration information to federal officials upon detention, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to reinstitute the differentiated policy for juveniles. Although the Supervisors version allowed reporting after a felony conviction, it reverted to the prior policy of prohibiting reporting individuals to ICE after arrest and charging, but before conviction. As he promised, Mayor Newsom vetoed the policy, stating that "I believe in the sanctuary ordinance and I wanted to promote it within the diverse communities that are impacted, but we never promoted it, never believed it was a way to shield criminal behavior." The intra-municipal drama continued with the Supervisors overriding the mayor's veto. Not to be outdone, Mayor Newsom directed city law enforcement to ignore the ordinance, arguing that the city cannot act in violation of federal law. His decision had immediate effects, as through January 2010, a few adolescent undocumented immigrants suspected of criminal activity were reported to federal authorities and are currently in removal proceedings. Meanwhile, since the override of the mayor's veto, the city attorney of San Francisco has been corresponding with federal enforcement officials, attempting 5 to clarify the federal government's position on the Supervisors' policy. In an initial exchange of letters between the city attorney and the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, the federal prosecutor explained that he considered compliance with the City's new information-dissemination policies to be violations of federal criminal and immigration laws. Subsequently, in March 2010, the city attorney wrote to the deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting that the DOJ counsel the U.S. Attorney's Office not to criminally prosecute city officials or employees who abide by the City's new policy. As discussed in greater detail infra, San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance implicates 8 U.S. C. §1373. It also raises legal questions under other federal and state law. The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, for instance, threatened that city officials who complied with the city law may be federally prosecutable for "harboring" youths who are unlawfully present for immigration law purposes. In particular, the U.S. Attorney's Office is looking into whether the transportation of undocumented youths and provision of group homes to them constituted unlawful harboring under the anti-harboring provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).... As the foregoing illustrated, what started off as a symbolic "City of Refuge" statement has turned into an ordinance that lies at the center of political and legal debates about the extent to which states and local governments such as San Francisco may enact laws that affect the federal government's exclusive authority over the regulation and enforcement of immigration law. Gulasekaram and Villazor, Sanctuary Policies & Immigration Federalism: A Dialectic Analysis, 55 Wayne L. Rev. 1683, 1687-1691 (Winter 2009) (footnotes omitted). On June 1, 2010, the San Francisco County jail began participating in the Secure Communities program. San Francisco Officially a Sanctuary City, at http://www. nbcbayarea. com/news/local-beat/San-Francisco-Officially-a-Sanctuary-City- 95351144.html. The San Francisco Sheriff was quoted as saying "essentially, this guts San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance in terms of criminal justice." R. Gordon, U. S. Ruling Challenges S.F.'s Sanctuary Policy, at http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-05-06/news/20887836_1_sanctuary- city-policy-immigration-hennessey. Civil Liability Issues The family of the murder victim discussed in the law review article above sued the City of San Francisco because the city had released the juvenile without contacting federal immigration officials. The suit was dismissed in 2010 because a city is generally not liable for failing to protect person from crimes. The precise issue of whether a municipality in Iowa is liable to a crime victim for failing to detain a person known to be an undocumented person has not been decided. Under the "public duty doctrine" enunciated by the Iowa Supreme Court in Kolbe v. State of Iowa, 625 N.W.2d 721, 725 (Iowa 2001), however, liability is unlikely. See also, Hildebrand v. Cox, 369 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 1985); Ewoldt v. City of Iowa City, 438 N.W.2d 843 (Iowa App. 1989); and Fitzpatrick v. State, 439 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 1989). 6 Criminal Liability for Harboring As stated in the law review article above, an issue raised in San Francisco is whether municipal officials, by adhering to a sanctuary policy, can be held criminally liable for "harboring" someone they know to be undocumented. Under federal law, it is a crime to "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceal[], harbor[], or shield[] from detection, or attempt[] to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation." 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). The City Attorney for San Francisco wrote to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California seeking clarification that no one would be prosecuted if the employee followed the new San Francisco sanctuary ordinance that restricted the ability of local law enforcement to report juveniles in custody after being booked for the alleged commission of a felony. (Letter from Herrera to Russoniello of Nov. 10, 2009, at 1). The U.S. Attorney wrote back: [I]t probably will come as no surprise to you that I have no authority, discretionary or otherwise, to grant amnesty from federal prosecution to anyone who follows the protocol set out in the referenced ordinance. (Letter from Russoniello to Herrera of Dec. 3, 2009, at 1). The City of San Francisco hired outside counsel to advise the police department because the City Attorney wanted officers to have independent advice about potential criminal liability in enforcing the ordinance. (Memorandum from City Attorney Herrera to Mayor Newsom of Aug. 18, 2009, at 3). While the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District has not indicted any city employee for "harboring", a subsequent letter from the City Attorney to the Attorney General seeking relief from the position of the United States Attorney for the Northern District was rejected by the Department of Justice. (Letter from Roberson to Herrera of Apr. 30, 2010, at 1). These letters and the memorandum are available at the web site of the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=272. The question is what action or inaction by a City employee could constitute "harboring." Iowa is within the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled that a conviction for harboring does not require secrecy or concealment. U. S. v. Rushing, 313 F.3d 428, 434 (8~' Cir. 2002). Given that active concealment is not required to prove "harboring.," the possibility exists that a member of the Police Department could be charged with a federal crime if the officer knew the person was undocumented and provided a service, such as a ride to a shelter or a hospital. I note, however, that some commentators opine that the federal government may not have the political will to pursue charges. Kittrie, Federalism, Deportation, and Crime Victims Afraid to Call the Police, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 1449, 1496 (July 2006); Gulasekaram and Villazor, Sanctuary Policies & Immigration Federalism: A Dialectical Analysis, 55 Wayne L. Rev. 1683, 1694-1695 (Winter 2009). Secure Communities The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has developed Secure Communities, a data sharing program between local law enforcement and ICE that began under President Bush and continues under President Obama. The program grew out of a measure in an appropriations bill that provided funding to the Homeland Security Department to "improve and modernize efforts to identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and who may be deportable...." Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2051. Homeland Security's goal is for Secure Communities to be operational throughout the country by 2013. According to its website, Homeland Security refers to Secure Communities as a "strategy" to share information and to identify people who are undocumented. I have attached a description of Secure Communities from the Dept. of Homeland Security's website as Exhibit 7 B and a copy of the Immigration Policy Center's fact sheet on the Secure Communities program as Exhibit C. This is how it works: Presently, when a person is fingerprinted at a jail, the fingerprint data is sent electronically to IAFIS, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. IAFIS is a national fingerprint and criminal history system operated by the FBI that is used by local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. IAFIS then interfaces with the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) data base. NCIC, also operated by the FBI, is a computerized index of criminal justice information, such as warrants, criminal record history, and missing persons. If the person has a criminal record or outstanding warrant, that information is sent electronically back to the local jail. When a jail is online with Secure Communities, IAFIS will also interface with ICE data bases. This is done by a "flip of a switch" according to Richard Moore, an ICE staff member in Cedar Rapids; no new software is needed at the jails. With the Secure Communities program, if a fingerprint is a "hit" on an ICE data base, ICE is automatically notified that the person is, for example, in the Johnson County Jail. According to ICE, it will evaluate how it responds based on the threat posed by the person. There currently is a MOA between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Iowa Department of Public Safety, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. Iowa has a state law which requires local officials to take the fingerprints of all persons taken into custody for any crime with the exception of simple misdemeanors or certain serious misdemeanors under Chapters 321 or 321A (motor vehicles), and to forward those fingerprints to the Department of Public Safety. Iowa Code § 690.2. A jurisdiction that fails to comply with this requirement is denied access to criminal history record information. Iowa Code §§690.1 and .5. The Iowa Code also requires fingerprints to be taken of juveniles taken into custody for crimes other than simple misdemeanors and forwarded to the Department of Public Safety. Iowa Code § 232.148(d). Thus, once Johnson County goes on-line as a Secure Community, fingerprints of atl persons being charged with a crime other than a simple misdemeanor will automatically be cross checked against the ICE database. In addition, local officials are required by federal regulation to honor detainers under 8 C.F.R. §287.7, which states that "[u]pon determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department." My staff has had a conversation with Richard Moore of ICE in Cedar Rapids. Mr. Moore indicated that he was planning a briefing in early 2011 to discuss Secure Communities and he anticipated inviting the Linn County Sheriff, Johnson County Sheriff, Benton County Sheriff, Cedar Rapids Police Department, Iowa City Police Department, and other local departments in these three counties to explain the Secure Communities program to them. On January 25, 2011, Hardin County joined Pottawattamie and Polk County in going online with the Secure Communities program as reported in a news release from the Department of Homeland Security, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E. Sanctuary cities throughout the country have raised concerns about the impact of secure communities on community-police relations, the high number of those deported under the program with no conviction record and the evidence of crime victims being swept up in its dragnet." Press Release, Center for Constitutional Rights (Feb. 16, 2011). 15,000 pages of ICE documents were recently released in litigation seeking documents relating to the voluntariness of Secure Communities and advocates continue to call for a moratorium on the implementation of Secure Communities in light of these new documents. Id. 8 There has been a considerable amount of confusion about whether a local jurisdiction may opt-out of Secure Communities. If such an opt out is available, however, it is likely a decision made at the state level rather than the city level. As in Iowa, state laws often require local law enforcement to forward fingerprints to the state. Therefore, if a state agrees to participate in Secure Communities, local governments in that state no longer have discretion to decide which individuals who have contact with law enforcement that results in fingerprinting will be brought to the attention of ICE. Any discretion is with the state, as it is the entity that has the agreement with the federal government. A good example of this tension is Arlington County, Virginia. Attached as Exhibit F is a copy of a Memorandum dated November 5, 2010 from the County Manager for Arlington County summarizing the status of the Secure Communities program in her county. The Council should consider the impact of Secure Communities in crafting any sanctuary city policy to avoid providing persons with assurance that cannot be given in light of Secure Communities. I have attached for your information, as Exhibit G, a copy of a recent article from the Chicago Tribune that highlights these issues. Non-Law Enforcement Programs City staff currently inquires into the immigration status of individuals applying for certain programs. For example, only a few categories of non-citizens are eligible for Section 8 housing choice vouchers and public housing. 42 U.S.C. §1436a. Also, only "qualified aliens" may receive CDBG assistance directly, such as down payment assistance or the single-family new construction program. 8 U.S.C. §§1612 and 1641. Another example of staff having to inquire into the immigration status is for the flood buyouts. Because one must be a U.S. citizen or national of the United States to receive pre-flood value in the buyout, a person in the U.S. legally with a student visa would only receive post-flood value (before rehabilitation). 44 CFR 80.13(a)(6). We will discuss the topic of sanctuary cities at your work session on Monday, February 28. If you have questions in the meantime please contact me or Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek. Attachments cc: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager Dale E. Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Stephanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator Human Rights Commission Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney 9 ©(HIBfT ~> r`I Sanctuary City Ordinance WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City is a home rule unit of government pursu.an-t to Art~lce III, 1. Section 38.A of the Iowa Constitution ;anal the City of Iowa City may exercise any power 2_ WHEREAS, Pursuant to its home ~ ~ Pgo er~ent and a$airs, including the autoority to and perform any function relating « ower and erform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve exercise any p P the rights, privileges, and property of the city or of its residents, and so preserve and improve the pease, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents" ;and 3 WHEREAS, To this end, the City of Iowa City pursuant to Title II of the City Code is dedicated to providing its residents with equal access to the services, opportunities, and protection it provides or administers ;and the rovision of services, opportunities, and protection on 4 WHEREAS, Conditioning P about such status in the course of said citizenship or immigra-tion status or inquiring rovision duectly contravenes in intent and spirit the city's commitment to ensuring egtt~ P 5. 7_ 8. access; and WI~REAS, Local governments are increasingly p1essured to become involved in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws by conditioning services and opportunities on, or inquiring about, immigrant status ;and ` ation laws has historically been a federal WI~REAS, The enforcement of civil immigr ~ tion and Naturalization government responsibility-a'power first vested in the Immlgra Service and then in the Department of Homeland Security ;and is we will maintain.," and it is only at the City of WHEREAS, "our liberties we prize-and nigh Iowa City discretion that it uses its resources to enforce mandates that belong to federal government alone; and. local governments that are not specifically equipped or trained to ~1HEREAS, Encouraging to result in implement.i~,igration and anti-terrorist measures to do so is likely these measures inconsistencies:and decentralizationtpat undernnme instead of strengthening 9. 10. 1 1. WI~EREA5, For the past 150 years the City. of Iowa City has been hope and home to immigrants from throughout the globe ;and ;and WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City joins many cities that have o$icial policies prohibiting encies from inquiring about immigration status and unilaterally enforcing their municipal ag immigration law provisions; and local enforcement of immigration laws gives rise p~Tl-AREAS, Requiring or even promoting to an increased threat of immigrant and minority profiling and harassment ;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, Be 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 invesfigate or assist in the investigation of the national citizenship €~r federal residence ar 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 8/17/10 Secure Communities Page 1 of ',;tA.r4` ~ .:EXHIBIT `~ 0 0 Secure Communities ___ Through the Secure Communities strategy, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) improves public safety every day by transforming the way I. criminal aliens are identified and removed from the United States. This strategy leverages an existing information sharing capability between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to quickly and accurately identify aliens who are arrested for a crime and booked into local law enforcement custody. With this capability, [he fingerprints of everyone arested and booked aze not only checked against FBI criminal history records, but they are also checked against DHS irmigration records. If fingerprints match DHS records, ICE determines if immigration enforcement action is required, considering the immigration status ofthe alien,' [he severity of the crime and the alien's criminal history. Secure Communities also helps [CE maximtize and prioritize its resources to ensure that the right Civil Rights and Civil Liberties people, processes and infrastructure are in place to accommodate the increased ICE is cornmitted to protecting civil rights and number of criminal aliens being identified and removed. civil liberties, and is serious about responding ~ Secure Communities modernizes the identification and removal processes by: to complaints or allegations of racial profiling as a result of Secure Communities. Individuals • Using fingerprint-based biometric identification and organizations should report allegations of racial profiling, due process violations or other technology, violations of civil rights or civil liberties • Prioritizing resources toward the greatest threats, and related to the use of this capability. All • Sharing information between law enforcement partners.: complaints should be filed with the DI IS Office of Civil Rights and ('ivil Liberties. Recent News Mission Background _. Biometric Information Sharing As part of the Secure Communities strategy, ICE uses a federal biometric information sharing capability to quickly and accurately identify convicted criminal aliens in law enforcement custody. Traditionally, fingerprint records taken by local law enforcement during booking are checked against the Department of Justice's (DOJ) criminal history records. With this enhanced information sharing capability, these fingerprint records are then automatically checked against the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) immigration records, providing valuable information to accurately identify aliens in custody. When fingerprint submissions match immigration records, local ICE officers are notified and promptly determine 'rf immigration enforcement action is required. ICE prioritizes enforcement, focusing first on removing criminal aliens convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, rape, kidnapping, major drug offenses and threats to national security. ICE is working with law enforcement partners to activate the capability in jurisdictions across the nation. ICE is already using this capability in hundreds of jurisdictions across the nation and plans nationwide use by 2013. ICE has already used this tool to identify thousands of convicted criminal aliens in local communities and remove them from the United States. Leadership Contact http://www.ice.gov/about/offices/enforcement-removal-operations/secure-communities/ 12/2/201 I Secure Communities: A Fact Sheet ~ ImnTigration Policy Center Page 1 of ". ~- „_ _-. Select ~ PHUGRAMS: ~ ~ ~ ~"~; IMMIGRATION POLICY ~, = CENTER ~ EXHIBIT ..~~ ._ -- AMERICAN It~lbIIGKATION COONC]L o 0 c~ z w ~~ u~ ~~ ip Secure Ce~mmunities: A F~c~ Sheet "" ~ " " ~ ` I- I~ Updated 11/04/10 -While the implementation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the state/local partnership agreements known as the 287(g) program has been a source of great controversy, it is far from the only tool your email address SIGWUP ICE uses to engage state and local law enforcement in immigration control. Most notably, the Secure Communities Program, which launched in March 2008, has been held out. as a simplified model for state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This fact sheet lays out the basics of Secure Communities program, how it works, key [ M M 1(' I2A'I`I(?N BY S'hA'1'h: areas of concern and recommendations on how to improve the program. What is Secure Communities? Secure Gommunities is a DHS program designed to identify immigrants in U.S. jails who are deportable under a immigration law. Under Secure Communities, partiapating jails submit arrestees' fingerprints not only to criminal ~ •r~ e databases, but to immigration databases as well; allowing ICE access to information on individuals held in jails. Unlike =; other ICE-local partnerships, Secure Communities gives ICE a technological, not physical, presence in prisons and jails. ^~' ~ No Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with local law-enforcement agencies are required, and no local law-enforcement ~ agents are deputized to enforce immigration laws through Secure Communities. As of October 2010, Secure Communities is available in 686 jurisdictions in 33 states. ICE plans to have a Secure Communities presence iri every state by 2011, and plans to implement Secure Communities in each of the 3,100 state and local jails across the country by 2013. (a1MMFGRA7`fUN NIG~1"S How does Secure Communities work? When an individual is booked into a jail, his or her fingerprints are checked against the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT), and the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), in tracyvs: As DREAM Pr=t tits Cmgess, addition to the other databases that are generally checked following an arrest. This fingerprint check allows state and stab? lawmaker push SBlL77t) #R7 local law enforcement and ICE automatically and immediately to search the databases for an individual's criminal and dnti-#immigration style tills httlr.;`,~' bitly... immigration history. httn:l hitJy,`ed~ld~ If there is a database "hit," meaning that the arrested person is matched to a record indicating an immigration violation, `' """t'" "'-'' ICE and the local law-enforcement authorities are automatically notified. ICE then evaluates each case to determine the New a[tims b7 take for the individual's immigration status and take appropriate enforcement action. In most cases, ICE will issue a detainer against #I'1RFM1tirt htttr. J ,''ht.ly,/ ~rTFtr the jailed individual. A detainer is a request from ICE to the arresting agency to notify ICE before it releases the #immigtalion #rlga #immyorrdi ~a ~Er~•,z „a; noncitizen so that ICE has the opportunity to decide whether the individual should be transferred to federal custody rather than released. 7 new tweet ICE reported that as of September 30, 2010, 4 204 862 finraerprint submissions resulted in 343,829 database The 6d Show (~WeG ottd) MSNBC on Wednesday re: The ~Dr[?amAr ! matches. As a result of Secure Communities, ICE had removed 64,072 persons. wJ ~RepGutierrez hftfr ~;thitlyjgll7utx What are the concerns about Secure Communities? #unmir~ra@rut #p2 Identification and prioritization. ICE claims to base action on an individual hit on the following priority order -'' t` - ^ Level 1 offenders: aliens convicted of "aggravated felonies," as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year, commonly referred to as "felonies." Join the conversation ^ Level 2 offenders: aliens convicted of any felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than one year, commonly referred to as "misdemeanors," and ^ Level 3 offenders: aliens convicted of crimes punishable by less than one year. ICE has stated that Secure Communities is focused on dangerous "Level 1" criminals, but there is concern about ~ FaCeb00k ~;; TW fitter whether or not such prioritization is taking place. In Fiscal Year 2010 there were more than 248,000 database hits, compared to 95,000 in FY2009. Fifteen percent of all database matches identified immigrants charged or convicted of a y~ StUmbl2UpOn ,yp YouTube Level 1 offense, and 85%were charged or convicted of a Level 2 or 3 offense. Obstacles to community policing. Unlike the 287(g) program, Secure Communities does not require an MOA between ICE and the local jail, sheriff, or police department.. Nonetheless, there are still concerns about local police being seen as immigration agents. If ICE maintains apresence-even a technological presence-in a local jail, the public will likely associate the local law-enforcement agency with immigration enforcement. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/j ust-facts/secure-communities-fact-sheet 12~2~201' Secure Communities: A Fact Sheet ~ Immigration Policy Center Unnecessary or Prolonged Detention. The existence of a Secure Community detainer may limit an individual's ability to access a lawyer, fight criminal charges, or get out of jail on bail. Profiling and pretextuat arrests. While Secure Communities is a technological identification program through which all persons arrested are fingerprinted and checked against the various databases, there is a concern that police officers working in areas that have Secure Communities in their local jails may have an incentive, or at least the ability, to make arrests based on race or ethnicity, or to make pretextual arcests of persons they suspect to be in violation of immigration laws, in order to have them run through immigration databases once they are jailed. Lack of complaint mechanisms. Given the wide range of concerns about Secure Communities, k is essential that there be a complaint or redress procedure for individuals who believe they have been erroneously identified by DHS databases or who believe a DHS detainer has been issued in ercor. Currently there is no Gear complaint procedure for persons who believe they have been victims of an error. Lack of Oversight and Transparency. Various reports have found that ICE has an uneven track record in terms of supervising its local partnerships. As with other programs, there are concerns about the level of oversight and transparency associated with Secure Communities. Lack of Data. Much more data about Secure Communities and the individuals it identfes is necessary. Without accurate data, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how Secure Communities is being implemented or how effective it is. Published On: Thu, Nov 04, 2010 ~ Download File ©Copyright 2010 • American Immigration Council • All Rights Reserved ~ Contact Us Page 2 of Programs ~ Photo Credits http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/secure-communities-fact-sheet 12/2/201 I EXH{BIT m MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT Aad IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY L PURPOSE The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to set forth the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE} and the State Identification Bureau (SIB) regarding implementation of the Secure Communities (SC) initiative related to biometric interoperability. SC is a comprehensive ICE initiative that focuses on the identification and removal of aliens who are convicted of a serious criminal offense and are subject to removal, including the utilization of advanced biometric and communications technology to share information among law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to identify, detain and remove fmm the United States aliens who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense and are subject to removal. II. AUTHORITY Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions regarding identification, detention, arrest and removal of aliens (8 USC §1226(c); 8 USC §1226(d); 8 USC §1226(e); 8 USC § 1227(a) (2); and 8 USC § 1228); the 1NA provision regarding liaison activities with internal security officers and data exchange (8 USC §1105); and FY 2008 DHS Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2365 (2007)). iII. THE GOALS OF SECURE COMMUNITIES ICE is committed to improving community safety by transforming the manner in which the federal goverunent cooperates with state and local LEAs to identify, detain and remove aliens convicted of a serious criminal offense. ICE utilizes advanced technology to improve information sharing among LEAs and wi11 apply arisk-based methodology to focus resources. To accomplish this goal, ICE leverages business and technical agreements between the DHS United States Visitor and Immigrant Staius Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program's Automated 13iometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). The combined biometric and communications technology is known as IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability. For the purpose of SC, the SIB and the state and local LEAs will continue to operate pursuant to the FBI CJIS Division's established policies and agreements. This MOA does not affect a state's existing relationship with the FBI CJIS Division. Rather, the MOA builds on and enhances that relationship. Neither the SIB nor any state or local LEA that is subject to this MOA will be responsible for determining an individual's immigration status or whether a particular conviction renders an individual removable pursuant to the INA. A. The SC initiative focuses on three objectives: i. Identify aliens in federal, state and local custody charged with or convicted of a serious criminal offense who are subject to removal and those aliens who have prior convictions for serious criminal offenses and are subject to removal who are currently at large; ii. Prioritize enforcement actions to ensure apprehension and removal of aliens convicted of serious criminal offenses; and, iii. Transform criminal alien enforcement processes and systems to achieve lasting results. B. ICE will employ arisk-based approach to identify aliens charged with or convicted of a serious criminal offense and incarcerated in jails and prisons throughout the United States who are eligible for removal based on the severity of their offenses. The risk basis for determining the threat to community safety relies on a three-level hierarchy of aggravated felonies and other serious offenses. Appendix A contains a description of the state and federal criminal offenses that comprise Levels 1, 2 and 3. i. This approach will build on the ICE Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which is currently in use in all federal and state prisons. ii. The SC risk-based approach classifies aliens convicted of a criminal offense into three levels, starting with those who present the greatest threat: Level 1: Individuals who have been convicted of major drug offenses, national security crimes, and violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and kidnapping; Leve12: Individuals who have been convicted of minor drug and property offenses such as burglary, larceny, fraud and money laundering; and 2 Level 3: Individuals who have been convicted of other offenses. iii. ICE is committed to identifying aliens convicted of serious criminal offenses who aze subject to removal in all three category levels, with a priority assigned on the basis of risk to individuals convicted of Level 1 offenses. ICE continues to exercise discretion through its field offices in taking enforcement action in cases of aliens convicted of Level 2 and 3 offenses as each situation demands. At no time shall this MOA be construed to limit the discretion of ICE in managing detention resources. C. To facilitate the goals of SC, ICE is partnering with DHS components, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS}, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the US-VISIT Program. ICE federal interagency partners include the Department of State, Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Prisons, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Executive Office of United States Attorneys, U.S. Marshals Service and FBI CJIS Division. Appendix B contains acronyms and abbreviations frequently used in the SC initiative. IV. STATE IDENTIFICATION BUREAU (SIB) RESPONSIBILITIES A. The SiB responsibility under this MOA begins when the LEA submits a Criminal Answer Required (CAR) request, as appropriate according to '' CJIS procedure, to SIB of the state in which the individual is being booked. SIB will then electronically send the fingerprints to the FBI CJIS Division. Receipt of the CAR will initiate a search of both IAFIS and US- VISIT IDENT. However, National Fingerprint File (NFF} states send fingerprints to the FBI CJIS Division only at the time of the initial arrest. Second or subsequent criminal bookings in the NFF states result in a Criminal Frint Ident (CPI) file maintenance message to the FBI CJIS Division. In the case of a subsequent arrest for a National Fingerprint File (NFF) state, SIB will forward a CPI file maintenance message instead of a CAR to FBI CJIS Division. There is no change in IAFIS processing. B. If there is a match in IDENT, and the SIB has the technical capabilities to receive the response message, CJIS transmits the search results in a joint IDENT Data Response (1DR) and Immigration Alien Response (]AR) to the SIB. The SIB will in tum relay that response to the local LEA. If the SIB does not have the technical capability to receive or relay the response message, CJIS, at the request of the SIB, will not send the SIB a match message. A "no match IDR" will be generated when a match is not found in IDENT and routed in the same manner as an IDR and IAR. V. ICE RESPONSIBILITIES ICE will prioritize the processing of aliens convicted of Level 1 offenses. ICE will detain and seek to remove Level 1 offenders after the completion of the individual's sentence. For those aliens who have prior Level 1 convictions that are discovered during the booking process, ICE will initiate steps to take such individuals into custody for removal based on their prior Level l conviction{s) as well as current charges, once the charges have been adjudicated. A. Once fingerprint infonnation is received by IAFIS, it will be cross- checked against the DHS US-VISIT IDENT system. B. Upon receipt of an Immigration Alien Query (IAQ) from the FBI CJIS Division that there has been a match with the subject's fingerprint in IDENT, ICE Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) will conduct an immigration status determination. C. When an alien is identified as having prior Level 1 convictions and is subject to removal or is currently charged with a Level 1 offense and is subject to removal, ICE will take the alien into custody after completion of the individual's sentence or when released from local custody and will institute removal proceedings, as necessary. D. iCE will rely on establishing in the field a "24/7" IDENT/IAFIS Intemperability response capability and may utilize video teleconferencing (VTC) to streamline the process of identifying and removing aliens convicted of a serious criminal offense. VI. PERIOD OP AGREEMENT This MOA shall be effective upon signing by both parties and will remain in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the Section {below): MODIFICATIONS AND TERMINATION. VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties agree that, should any disagreements arise as a result of this MOA, the first attempt at resolution shall occur at the program office level with the area(s) of disagreement reduced to writing and submitted to the appropriate program office point of contact (POC). If a resolution cannot be reached at this level, the disagreement will be raised to the agency level in accordance with component procedures. VIiI. MODIFICATIONS AND.TERMINATIQN This MOA may be modified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties. This MOA will remain in effect from the date of signing until it is terminated by either party. Either party, upon 30 days written notice to the other party, may terminate the MOA at any time. A termination notice shall be delivered personally or by certif ed or registered mail and termination shall take effect 30 days after receipt of such notice. Eicher party, upon written or oral notice to the other parry, may temporarily suspend activities under this MOA when resource constraints or competing priorities necessitate. Notice of termination or suspension by ICE shall be given to the SIB POC. Notice of termination or suspension by the SIB shall be given to the ICE POC. The temporary suspension of activities will take effect immediately upon receipt of such notice. Use of IDENT/IAFIS for the purposes of racial and/or ethnic profiling or other activity in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is not permitted and may result in the suspension of the local jurisdiction engaged in the improper activity. ICE reserves the right to take appropriate remedial action if necessary. IX. COSTS AND EXPENDITURES Parties to this MOA are responsible for their own costs associated with carrying out activities under this MOA. Nothing in this MOA is intended to imply that either Congress or state or local legislatures will appropriate funding for activities under this MOA. X. RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES SIB may, at its discretion, communicate the substance of this MOA to !aw enforcement professional organizations expressing an interest in the law enforcement activities to be engaged in under this MOA. It is ICE practice to provide a copy of this MOA to requesting media outlets only after both parties have signed the MOA. Local LEAs are authorized to do the same. However, the release of statistical information regarding the SC initiative will be coordinated with the 1CE Public Affairs Office POC identified in Appendix D. SIB hereby agrees, to the extent authorized by law, to coordinate with 1CE regarding information to be released to the media regarding actions taken under this MOA. The POCs for ICE and the SIB for this purpose are identified in Appendix C. XI. SUMMARY OF ICE AND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES This MOA does not, nor is it intended to, nor shall be construed to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person in any matter, civil or criminal. ray si~nii~s? this MOA, each party represents it is fiilf~= aullacsrized to enter into this i`~i0:~ and accepts the terms, responsibilities, olifigaiions and limitations of this '114A. i__ MzrcA.R (~"` Aetin~ L~eeutive Director, Secure Comtnu.rtities. lrnmi~raton and Customs Enforcement Date: ~ .._JT^4~~ _....._ ~% C:u~~ I~deycr ~.l)In n11SSI C}T1 L1' Io~~=a Department of 1?ublic Safety APPENDIX A Secure Communities Levels and Offense Categories by NCXC Code Level 1 Crimes CIC Code Level 2 Crimes CIC Code Level 3 Crimes CIC Code National Security* (01 OI-0199, 1602, 52045299} Arson (2001-2099} Military (0201, 2099) Homicide (0901-0999) Burglary {2201-2299) Immigration (0301-0399) Kidnapping (1001-1099) Larceny (2301-2399) Extortion (2102-2199) Sexual Assault (1101-1199) Stolen Vehicles (2401-2411, 2499) Damage Property (2901-2943) Robbery (1201-1299) Forgery {2501-2599) Family Offenses (3801, 3804- 3899} Aggravated Assault (1301-1399) Fraud (2601-2699) Gambling (3901-3999) Threats (1601) Embezzlement (2701-2799) Commercialized Sex Offenses (4001-4099) Extortion -Threat to )njure Person (2101) Stolen Property (2801-2899) Liquor (4101-4199) Sex Offenses (3601-3699) Damage Property w/Explosive (2904-2906) Obstructing the Police (4802- 4849) Cruelty Toward Child, Wife (3802, 3803) Traffic Offenses (5402-5499} Bribery (5101-5199) Resisting an OfEcer (4801) Smuggling (5801-5899) Heaith and Safety (5501-5599) Weapon (5201-5203) Money Laundering (6300) Civi! Rights (5699) Hit and Run (5401) Property Crimes (7199} Invasion of Privacy (5701-5799) Drugs (Sentence > 1 year) Drugs (Sentence < 1 year) Elections Laws (5999) Conservation (ti201-6299) Public Order Crimes (7399) *National Security violations include the NCIC coded offenses of Sabotage, Sedition, Espionage and Treason (0101-0199); Terrorist Threats (1602); and Weapons, Arson/Incendiary Devices and Bombing offenses (5204-5299). APPENDIX B Acronyms and Abbreviations CAP Criminal Alien Program CAR Criminal Answer Required CJIS Criminal Justice fnformatian Services CPI Criminal Print Identification DHS Department of Homeland Security DOJ Department of Justice DRO Detention and Removal Operations FAQ Frequently Asked Questions FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System IAQ Immigration Alien Query IAR Immigration Alien Response ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement IDENT US-VISIT Automated Biometric Identification System IDR IDENT Data Response LEA Law Enforcement Agency LESC Law Enforcement Support Center MOA Memorandum of Agreement OI Office of Investigations ORI Originating Agency Identifier POC Point of Contact SC Secure Communities SIB State Identification Bureau SOP Standard Operating Procedures US-VISIT United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology APPENDIX C Points of Contact The ICE and SIB points of contact for purposes of implementation of this MOA are: For the SIB: Special Agent in Charge Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation 215E 7th Street Des Moin 50319 515 725 For ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO): Scott Baniecke Field Office Director Detention and Removal Operations 2901 Metro Drive Bloomington, MN 55425 {952) 853- For ICE Office of Investigations (OI): Claude Arnold Special Agent in Charge Office of Investigations 2901 Metro Drive Bloomington, MN 55425 (952) 853 9 APPENDIX D Public Information Points of Contact Pursuant to Section X. of this MOA, RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES, the signatories will coordinate with the ICE Public Affairs Office regarding release of any information about Secure Communities and/or IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability and agree to coordinate appropriate release of subsequent information to the media regarding actions taken under this MOA. The points of contact far coordinating such activities are: For the SIB: Courtney Greene Bureau Chief Public Information Bureau 215E 7th Street Des Moines, IA 50319 (515)725-61$7 Greene dps.state.ia.us For ICE: Tim Counts 2901 Metro Drive Bloomington, MN 55425 (952)853-2602 tim counts~a.dhs.gov ]0 Hardin County, Iowa, next to benefit from ICE strategy to use biometrics to identify and remove al... Page 1 of ,. trAt r~If '. .~'~`7 -~A ,_, '~~[i t4t News Room ~> Recent Releases News Releases JANUARY ?5, 7.0 i I FOSTVI;.LE, IA Hardin County, Iowa, next to benefit from ICE strategy to use biometrics to identify and remove aliens convicted of a crime POSTVILLE, Iowa - On Tuesday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began using a federal information-shaving capability in Hardin Coumty that helps federal immigration officials use biometrics to identity aliens, both lawfully and unlawfully present in the United Stales, who are booked into local law enforcement's custody for a crime. This capability is part of Secure Communities-ICE'S comprehensive strategy to improve and modemize the identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime from the United States. This capability is part of Secure Communities - ICE's comprehensive strategy to improve and modemize the identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime from the United States. Prior to the activation of Secure Communities, fingerprint-based biometric records taken of individuals charged with a crime and booked into local custody were checked for criminal history information against the Departttent of Justice's (DOJ) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Now, through enhanced information sharing between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), biometrics submitted through the state to the FBI will be automatically checked against both [he FBI criminal history records in IAFIS and the biometrics based immigration records in DHS's Automated Biometric Identification System ([DENT). If fingerprints match those of someone in DHS' biometric system, the new automated process notifies ICE. ICE evaluates each case to determine the individual's immigration status and takes appropriate enforcement action. This includes aliens who are in lawful status and those who are present without lawful authority. Once identified though 5ngerprint matching, ICE will respond with a priority placed on aliens convicted of the most serious crimes Srs[-such as those with convictions for major drug offenses, mtrrder, repe and kidnapping. "The Secure Communities strategy provides ICE with an effective tool to identify criminal aliens in local custody," said Secure Communities Assistant Director David Venturella. "Enhancing public safety is at the core of [CE's mission. Our goal is to use biometric information sharing to remove criminal aliens, preventing them from being released back into the community, with little or no additional burden on ow law enforcement partners." With the expansion of the biometric information sharing capability to Hardin County, ICE is using this capability in three Iowa jurisdictions, including Polk and Pottawattamie counties. Across the country, ICE is using this capability in 998 jurisdictions in 37 states. By 2013, ICE plans to be able to respond nationwide to all fingerprint matches generated through IDENT/IAFIS interoperability. "We are extremely pleased to have been chosen to receive this enhanced technology and to continue working together with Federal Immigrations Officials to identify and remove criminal aliens from our communities," said Hardin County SheritT Tim Smith. Since ICE began using this enhanced information sharing capability in October 2008, immigration officers have removed from the United States more than 59,300 aliens convicted of a crime. ICE does not regard aliens charged with, but not yet convicted of crimes, as "criminal aliens." Instead, a "criminal alien" is an alien convicted of a crime. [n accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, [CE continues to take action on aliens subject to removal as resources permit. The IDENT system is maintained by DHS's US-VISIT program and IAFIS is maintained by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS). "US VISIT is proud to support ICE, helping provide decision makers with comprehensive, reliable information when and where they need it," said US-VISIT Director Robert Mocny. "By enhancing the interoperability of DHS's and the FBI's biometric systems, we are able to give federal, state and local decision makers information that helps them better protect our communities and our nation." "Under this plan, ICE will be utilizing FBI system enhancements that allow improved information sharing at the state and local law enforcement level based on positive identification of incarcerated criminal aliens," said Daniel D. Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's CJ[S Division. "Additionally, ICE and the FBI are working together to take advantage of the strong relationships already forged between the FBI and state and local law enforcement necessary to assist ICE in achieving its goals." For more information about how ICE is using biometrics to identify aliens convicted of a crime, visit www~.ice.lemisecmre_connnuuitics You may also visit us on Faxbook and FouTube twitter °' F~CHIBIT $q 0. http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1101/110125postville.htm 2/18/201 EXHIBR ~. 0 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER ~ ARLINGTON 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 302, Arlington, VA 22201 V IRGiN IA ~u 703.228.3120 Fax 703.228.3218 TTY 703.228.4611 www.ariingtonva.us Memorandum To: County Board Members D November 5, 2010 From: Barbara M. Donnellan, County Manag Subject: Secure Communities Meeting with ICE Today, along with Police Chief Doug Scott and Sheriff Beth Arthur, I met with representatives from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding the Secure Communities program. In addition to the information I received today, ICE has agreed to provide a written response to my Oct. 7 letter to them, which I will make available publicly when I receive it. Per your direction, I requested clarification from ICE on the ability of local communities to withdraw from participation in Secure Communities. ICE stated clearly -and with finality -that local activated communities do not have the option of withholding information from the program, although communities can opt not to learn the results of immigration queries. ICE stated that Secure Communities is a federal information-sharing program -which links two federal fingerprint databases. The program does not require state and local law enforcement to partner with ICE in enforcing federal law. State and local law enforcement do not have any role in enforcing immigration law. We Teamed from ICE that communities have two options. First option: All jurisdictions have the option of not receiving the results of ICE's database inquiries. (This option is what ICE officials were referring to as the "opt-out" for localities, and they acknowledged the confusion these statements have created.) Opting out of receiving the result of federal database inquiries would result in Arlington law enforcement not receiving information that could be crucial to effective law enforcement, information such as the arrestee's identity, known aliases, and criminal history. Therefore, we are choosing to receive the information. Second option: Under Secure Communities, if activated jurisdictions choose to prevent their fingerprint submissions from being shared with ICE, they also elect to not share them with the FBI and its national criminal database. In Virginia, this is not possible. Under long-standing state law, all localities are required to collect fingerprints and submit them to the Virginia State Police - to be checked against both the state criminal database as well as the FBI's national criminal database. Therefore, Arlington has no ability to prevent our fingerprint submissions from being checked against the criminal database, and subsequently, ICE's immigration database. The County has never and will not consider this because utilizing the national criminal database is a public safety necessity to help us identify dangerous criminals. Memorandum Page 2 of 2 Our discussion today did not focus on federal immigration policy ... rather, we focused on how the implementation of Secure Communities is affecting our highly diverse community. Seven months into its implementation in Arlington, the program is impacting the way we interact with our immigrant community, which represents one-quarter of Arlington's residents. While Arlington understands and supports ICE in its mission to enforce our nation's immigration laws, we are concerned that Secure Communities may foster fear and mistrust of local law enforcement officers. The implementation of Secure Communities -and the lack of clarity from ICE regarding the details of the program -has impaired effective communication and cooperation with our residents. Open communication is vital to successful community policing and fulfillment of our public safety mission. Arlington County is not alone in expressing these concerns. ICE agreed to continue the dialogue with us and we look forward to working them to develop solutions that will enable federal authorities and local public safety officers to fulfill their respective missions without forsaking either. If Arlington determines it would be helpful, ICE also agreed to participate with our community in a public meeting in the future. We will continue to share information with the community, including updating our Secure Communities web pane and Frequentl~Asked Questions. Finally, I want to clearly state that while Arlington will continue to comply with all federal and state laws related to immigration, no resident or visitor should fear interacting with Arlington County law enforcement officers. Their mission is to provide for the safety and security of all people, and everyone's cooperation and support are vital if we are to continue to be one of the safest, most welcoming and inclusive communities in the country. Report criticizes immigration enforcement -Chicago Tribune Page 1 of Access Blocked -Content Alert The URL: http•//dl openx org/afr.DhD? was blocked ~ ~ ~ Aancf.E cou.ecnoNs You are here: ChicagoTribune.com > Collections > Law Enforcement Ads by Google Cedar Rapids Coupons 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off Cedar Rapids's best! www. Groupon.com/Cedar- Rapids San Diego Deportation Law Attorney with Experience in Immigration Court. (619) 235-2525. vrvw+. macs raeg law. corn US Immigration Services US Citizenship, Green card, Visas Prepare applications online. wwva.l mrnigratianDirect.com Let's Fix California Help Us Create Smarter Government. Together We Can Find Solutions! www.cafwd.arg immigration answers Chicago law firm 100s of cases done 20+ yrs experience in immigration www. immigrationanswers.com Report criticizes immigration enforcement Advocacy group report challenges federal program designed to target hardened criminals January 13, 2011 ~ By Antonio Olivo, Tribune reporter More than three-quarters of the roughly 630 illegal immigrants in Illinois turned over to federal authorities under a program targeting hardened criminals had no prior criminal convictions, according to a report set to be released Friday. Nationwide, 27 percent of those arrested under the federal "Secure Communities" program had no prior criminal records, according to an analysis of federal data from 2008 to last July 31 by the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights. The findings, which were disputed Thursday by federal immigration authorities, add to a drumbeat of criticism by immigrant advocates frustrated by a lack of action in Congress even as deportations escalate -nearly 54,000 illegal immigrants have been kicked out of the country since October. Ads by Google If Your Rate is Over 596, Reffnanoe Immediately! Mortgage Rates Low As ~'~"'~% 'T'ire Fkasiderrt rrray qet rid of w ,/,r~ .,. rannieMtaKSndFr~eddleMsc /' IfYou owe kss dran 729x on your moK9.9e,'Y°U Prob•dY ~ automaticaltyquali[y, Refinance Imm+ediatdy ro lock in todays Low Rarer! Check Your Nt+w Payrnerrt ;>o,3~a• a~~ c.~. Advertisemer Access Blocked -Content Alert The URL: httD'//dl openx ora/afr Dhq? was blocked . The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it matches a blocked cate4orv. The name of the Find more stories about On Thursday, Chicago's City Council passed a resolution calling on the federal government to stop deporting people in "mixed- • Law Enforcement StatUS" families, meaning some members have legal U.S. status. Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the coalition, said the Secure Communities program represents a "dragnet" approach to FEATURED ARTICLES immigration enforcement and has diminished the trust between immigrants and local law enforcement. Social Security care plan "The way it's being implemented, I guarantee you that not one undocumented person will stick around after a traffic accident, aims to curb fraud not one undocumented person will be willing to be a witness against a criminal, and all undocumented people will avoid all May 27, 2005 contact with the law enforcement whether they're a witness or a victim of a crime," Hoyt said. Can marcnes sway A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles deportations, defended the program and said Congress? Thursday that more recent data indicates that about 44 percent of those handed over to the feds through the Secure April 11, 2006 Communities program lack a criminal record. To serve, protect, perhaps Nationally, the spokeswoman put the figure at 37 percent, which is actually higher than the coalition's findings. deport January 15, 2007 Launched in 2008, the Secure Communities program is aimed at finding illegal immigrants with criminal records by running the fingerprints of inmates arrested in other crimes through federal databases. Hailed by the Obama administration as a way to weed out bad elements among the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, the voluntary program has been adopted by local law enforcement agencies in 35 states so far and has led to the removal of nearly 51,000 people. In Illinois, the program exists in 26 counties, including Lake, DuPage, Will, Kane and McHenry. Ads by Google AAA Official Site Emergency Roadside Assistance 24 Hours a Day, 365 Days a Year. www.AAA.com D(HIBIT ~.: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-13/news/ct-met-immigration-arrests-report-20110113_1... 2/22/201 -~,~~ CITY C)F I4WA CITY IP4 ,~®,,-~ A ~ D ~ M E~QR Date: February 24, 2011 To: Airport Commission, City Council, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director From: Michael Tharp, Airport Operations Specialist Re: Airport Debt Status /Remaining Airport Commerce Park lots In relation to the upcoming joint meeting between the City Council and the Airport Commission this information is to help guide the conversation and the positions of the Airport Commission. The Airport currently has debt service for 4 previously completed projects: Loan Start Start Amount Loan Payoff Current Monthly Balance" Pa ments Hangar Building 2002 $311,618.52 2/2035 $264,814.26 $1,430.00 K Hangar Building I 1998 $372,076.47 2/2043 $287,925.85 $1,330.00 Hangar Building 2000 $723,439.83 2/2034 $541,007.43 $3,000.00 F FBO Han ar Hangar H 2010 $433,763.00 6/2030 $425,833.37 $2,423.92 Ex ansion Totals $1,519,580.91 $8,183.92 _~ "Current balance at reoruary ~c, ZU-I "i Dasea on wan i CNayi i ~C~ ~~ a~i icuuioa ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a~ ~~~ ~~r41 •~ ~ ~~~ ~• Loans for Hangar Building F, I, and K were refinanced in 2003 and extended to allow for then existing Airport income to pay the debt service for the loans. Current plans include the Corporate Hangar "L" project which would increase the Airport debt by $300,000. This would have a projected monthly repayment of $1,897.95 over a 20 year period. These funds are in the FY2011-FY2015 CIP Plan which Council will vote on during the March 1, 2011 meeting. The projected monthly income of this project is $3600 per month. There are 11 lots remaining in Airport Commerce Park which have a total asking value of $2,705,000. Copy to: City Clerk ~;,_,®~ CITY O F IOWA. CITY IP5 ~ ~l~l~~~ R1-~ N E~C~ ~~ Date: February 23, 2011 To: City Council From: Councilor Regenia Bailey Councilor Mike Wright Re: Questions from the County Board of Supervisors re: JECSA The Board of Supervisors has made several recommendations regarding the Joint Emergency Communication Services Association (JECSA) policy administration and operation and has requested that Council consider these recommendations as set forth in a letter received on December 21, 2010 (copy attached). As your representatives on the JECSA Policy Board, we sought input from staff and we have given careful consideration to each recommendation. We believe that with the recent naming of a new director and after only about a half year of being in full operation, there is not a demonstrated need to pursue the recommended changes at the present time. We do appreciate the Board's thoughtful recommendations and should continue to encourage and consider suggestions from any of the participating entities in the JECSA. Some of the Supervisors' suggestions may well be addressed as policy matters by the JECSA Board in the future, including those that directly relate to operations and that the Director may bring to the policy board for consideration. It is our recommendation that Council respond to the Board of Supervisors as discussed above, with the understanding that we, as your representatives on the policy board, will act in accordance with Council's expressed wishes. This matter is scheduled for discussion at the Council work session on February 28. cc. City Manager Johnson County Board of Supervisors UL-L4-7 7 ~,!r-` ITY OF t4WA CITY~IP6~ ~~~....®~~ C ~~~~~,~~~ N D ~ M E~ORA Date: February 23, 2011 To: Mayor & City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~~~, Re: July & August Meeting Schedule After discussion at your February 14 work session the following tentative schedule was set for July & August. However, a number of you wished to check your personal calendars and revisit the schedule at your February 28 work session prior to distribution: July 5 -Tuesday Combined special work session, TBA and regular formal, 7:00 PM July 18 -Monday Regular Work Session, 6:30 PM July 19 -Tuesday Regular formal, 7:00 PM August 1, Monday Regular work session, 6:30 PM August 2, Tuesday Regular formal, 7:00 PM August 15, Monday Regular work session, 6:30 PM August 16, Tuesday Regular formal, 7:00 PM Please check your calendars and let me know if you want any changes made to the July and August schedule. IP7 SUMMARY OF PENDING WORK SESSION ISSUES 2/24/ 11 Traffic Enforcement Cameras (MARCH 21) Facilities Master Plan (MARCH 21) Amusement Machines -Alcoholic Beverage as a Prize (MARCH 21) Downtown Planning (APRIL) New Animal Shelter (APRIL) Farmers' Market (APRIL) Review Function of Boards/Commissions: Explore Possible Consolidations Flood Response & Mitigation Update (PERIODIC) March 21 - 22 Apri14 - 5 April 18 -19 May2-3 May 16 - 17 item ~~ 4g(7)on 1/25/11 agenda City of Iowa City ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Matt Hayek and City Councilors FROM: Ed Moreno DATE: February 23, 2011 RE: Tom Hunter Correspondence - Hexavalent Chromium (chromium 6) in Drinking Water In a letter dated 1/17/11, Mr. Tom Hunter wrote about his concerns regarding an article in the Chicago Tribune about chromium-6 in Chicago's drinking water. He stated concerns about the Iowa City water supply due to potential discharges from the University of Iowa. Recently the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified drinking water purveyors of a review of the drinking water standards due to health concerns with chromium-6. The current drinking water standard for total chromium was established in 1991 at 0.1 parts per million (ppm). Chromium-6 is a component of total chromium along with chromium 3. Iowa City's drinking water test results have always been below the detection level, < 0.01 ppm, for total chromium. In addition, our raw water sources are upstream of the University of Iowa campus and we seldom draw directly from the Iowa River. However, because the EPA has recommended for water purveyors to perform additional water testing for chromium-6, we are in the process of performing water testing on samples from our raw, finished and distribution system. The lab testing will be at a lower detection level and test procedure than total chromium. At this time we do not anticipate any issues with chromium-6 and we will continue to monitor EPA guidance and drinking water standard revisions. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to tet me know. CC: Rick Fosse ay r~o µv~~~ ~~o ( u 1 ^\ `JV ~~~~y I~~P U~ 1~~ VJ o-~~ ~~~, ~ ~~ 2 0 / i L v ~~ z ~~, n ~+ n~ a+ ,~' n e® ~~ N ~ a w e~uro~~,`~, o +.vo., sa2 ~1 b N O L A z Z ~~-~-~ ~° o.R,.~ ae~ t~`~~ }eRpy wy~ Y ~.`~"; a~'c,Q¢ G co^~ ~~~~ 0 . .. n . ~~ ~~ u ~ ~O ' ~~~~--~ ~, -~-C~~.~ Gtr/~ ~l n~ ~ ~-,,~,T~ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~~.:.®~ ~III~ A ~~1~~ ~~~ CITY O F IOWA C I T Y IP9 MEMORANDUM Date: February 22, 2011 To: City Council From: David P ~rdy, FI d Recovery Specialist ~.~~~vz Re: Taft Speedway Lev The national HUD Disaster Recovery Office has asked us to gather additional information regarding the effects of the Taft Speedway Levee on residents living along Taft Speedway. The request came as a result of letters sent from several residents to Senator Grassley's office asking that the grant award be rescinded. The National HUD office did not rescind the grant award, but did require we gather additional information about the effects of the levee. The Iowa Department of Economic Development has agreed to fund the study. We will be issuing an RFP for the study in the next few weeks. At the end of the study a report will be released and a public meeting will be held to discuss the results. Staff will keep you informed about the progress of the study and schedule a time to meet with Council to discuss the results. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 356-5489 or david-purdy(c~iowa- city.orq. Copy to: Tom Markus, City Manager Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator Ron Knoche, City Engineer IP10 Marian Karr From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:30 PM To: Steve Long; Sarah Walz; George Hollins; Sally Mason; Cathrine Fountain Cc: Council; Marcia Bollinger Subject: UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership - a thank you Dear UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Committee: I am writing to thank you for investing in homes along Douglass Court as part of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership, and to share my enthusiasm for the changes I see already happening because of this investment. I am a long-time resident of Douglass Street, and have watched with concern as my neighborhood, particularly the Douglass Court section, deteriorated during the last ten years. The number of rental properties vs owner-occupied homes seems to have increased. Many of the homes have become the victims of mismanagement, absentee landlords, increasing states of disrepair, and a high turn over in occupants. Properties have not been kept up by tenants or landlords, litter and trash has become more visible, and there has been an increase in non-neighborly behaviors ranging from noise complaints, juvenile complaints, and petty thefts to occasional drug activity, all prompting extra police patrols. This trend has taken a toll on the area. Last fall, as the UniverCity program investment began to take shape in the neighborhood, the first signs of renewal became visible. Abeyond-repair home was demolished and several of the UniverCity homes began their transformation. Thanks to the leadership of Marcia Bollinger, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, volunteer students from the University of Iowa working along side Miller-Orchard neighbors cleared these homes of years of weeds and unwieldy overgrowth, and the lawns reflected the transformation happening inside the homes. This renewal created a little spark in the neighborhood before winter set in. Much-needed repair was completed on one rental home by its owner, and several inspired neighbors spruced up their properties. During a walk last week through the neighborhood, I met a new neighbor who has purchased a home at the west end of Douglass Court which has been refurbished under the UniverCity program. She is anxiously waiting for a thaw so that a fence can be installed on the property and she can finally move in. At the east end of Douglass Court, 310 has recently been purchased and is now owner-occupied. Several of the other homes in the UniverCity program are in various states of revitalization, and I am hopeful that they, too, will sell and add more stability to the area. There is still much work to be done in the Douglass Street / Douglass Court area. There is a home that has been vacant for five years, and its continued deterioration is an eyesore. There are still absentee landlords, properties that are mismanaged by rental agencies, and a few people who are not good neighbors. But as more homes in the UniverCity program are completed and sold, I have faith that further balance and stability will come to the area. For the first time in a good number of years, I have hope that our neighborhood is on the verge of turning around and becoming the neighborhood it can be - a positive and affordable place for home owners, families, students, renters and all those who prefer to live close to the University and downtown Iowa City. And so, in closing, I would like to once again thank you for bringing the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership to Douglass Court and, in turn, to the greater Miller-Orchard neighborhood. i Sincerely, Paula Swygard item ~~ 5e(10) from the February 15 agenda uc-c4-ii IP11 Marian Karr From: Kathryn Johansen Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:31 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: recycling From: Rick Fosse Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:14 PM To: Kathryn Johansen Cc: Jennifer Jordan Subject: FW: recycling Kathi Here is a response to an a-mail to the City Council to include in the info packet. Thanks, Rick From: Jennifer Jordan Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:17 PM To: 'sweepergrl@aol.com' Cc: Rick Fosse Subject: RE: recycling Hello Ms. Buhr, Thanks for your email. I apologize for the delay in my response. This is a timely set of questions from you as the City is now working on improving recycling services in two ways. 1. We are working on mandating recycling for new apartments. Right now we serve single family homes up to four-plex apartments. Currently, the only way for apartments larger than 4-plexes to have recycling is to hire a private company to provide recycling, similar to how trash is picked up. It is actually against City ordinance for the City to pick up trash or recycling from apartments larger than 4-plex at this point. We are, however, working on amending the code to require all new apartments to provide recycling services for their tenants. This has been an on-going conversation among City staff and I will be talking with City Council about this at their work session on February 28. This will only address newly-built apartments, though, so that leads to the other part of our efforts. 2. City staff is developing a pilot project in which we would work with local apartment owners/managers and solid waste haulers to provide recycling services to apartments. The pilot would likely start out relatively small-probably a dozen apartments around town-so we could see what type of recycling program would work best for different types and sizes of apartments. When the pilot is complete; we will be able to offer information. to apartment owners about how much people are willing to recycle and how much they are willing to pay for it (right now, citizens who have curbside recycling pay $4.10 per month). This will lead the way for more apartment owners and managers to provide recycling services. At some point, this may lead the City to make a new law requiring all apartments to provide recycling. I hope this information helps; please feel free to contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jennifer Jordan Recycling Coordinator Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center 3900 Hebl Avenue SW Iowa City, IA 52246 319-887-6160 Jennifer-iordan a(~.iowa-city.orq wwvv.icgov.org/environment From: sweepergrl@aol.com [mailto:sweepergrl@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:43 PM To: Council Subject: recycling Dear City Council, My name is Mikaela Buhr and I am a 6th grader at Horn Elementary. I am a Junior Girl Scouts and I am working on improving my environment. I realized that one of the most important things I could do is recycling. My family has always recycled but when we moved here we were shocked to see that you didn't have a recycling system for apartments and townhouses. Most townhouses and apartments don't have enough space to store recyclables, so not much gets recycled. This has been true even in our family because we have recycled less. This made me wonder if my neighbors were having the same problem. conducted a survey with my neighbors. I asked four questions: Do you recycle? Would you recycle more if there was a collection bin in our parking lot? Would you be willing to separate your recyclables? Would you be willing to carry a personal recycling box to the driveway for pickup? The results said that people would like to have recycling choices in my apartment complex. Most people said they currently recycled, but every single person said they would recycle more if they had the chance. Every person said they would recycle if there was a collection bin in our parking lot, even if it meant sorting the recyclables first. Every person except one said they would be willing to carry a personal recycling bin to the parking lot or drive way. , Most people I interviewed said they came from communities where the recycling was much easier for people in apartments and townhouses. Almost half of the people said they had personal recycling bins at their previous apartments that they would sort and carry to the curb weekly. Many of the people said how disappointed they were to learn that Iowa City didn't have anything like that. - Itwould help the city if they would make recycling easier for people in apartments, townhouses and even dorms. It would reduce a lot of trash, so there wouldn't be as much in the landfill. It will improve our environment and make Iowa City a more beautiful place. It will also make people more willing to move into an apartment in Iowa City, instead of North Liberty, where they do recycling for apartments and townhouses. It is also a good thing to teach kids so they know to recycle when they grow up. I think that Iowa City should add recycling for apartments and townhouses. The neighbors I interviewed agree with me. Please consider my suggestion about recycling. It will help save our city and our planet. Sincerely, Mikaela Buhr ~~®~ "`''-',~1`~~ ,~®,~~ C I T Y O F IOWA C I T Y IP12 MEMORANDUM Date: February 23, 2011 To: City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works Re: Update: Flood-related activities ^ Information was provided to our Senate and Congressional offices in Washington on our active federal flood recovery and mitigation grants so that they can deal with issues regarding the possible rescission of funds. A total of 69 residential properties have been acquired through disaster recovery buyout grants. Of the 69 properties, 32 of the properties have been acquired through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), 31 with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and six with Community Disaster Grant (CDG) funds. A total of 52 properties have been demolished in the Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway neighborhoods. ^ An amendment to the CDBG buyout program was submitted to the Iowa Department of Economic Development in order to add four properties on Normandy Drive. The amendment will increase the number of properties eligible for a buyout with CDBG funds from 58 to 62. ^ Staff is finishing environmental reviews for the Single Family New Construction Round 3 Program. Acquisition assistance to purchase newly constructed homes will be provided to 31 homeowners, whose income is at or below 100% of area median income. Staff will begin accepting homeowner applications in March. • Applications for Federal Jumpstart funds for repair, rental rehabilitation, down payment assistance and interim mortgage assistance are still being accepted and funds are available. To date, $869,500 in Federal Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 18 households. ^ Design work is continuing for the Wastewater Treatment and Riley Lift Station projects. Staff is still waiting for the grant agreements for the three levee projects but can begin some steps including starting the appraisal process to purchase the remaining land for the West Side Levee. A separate memo updating the status of the Taft Speedway Levee is included in the council packet. ^ On February 15th, staff participated in a Flood Recovery Coordination meeting with the University of Iowa, the City of Coralville, and Mid-American Energy. Each entity reviewed their flood recovery projects and discussed how they could best be coordinated. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division • The demolition of buyout properties continues. This includes preparing, contracting and inspecting the asbestos abatement and structure removals. • Met with FEMA in regards to the Animal Shelter demolition. • University of Iowa conducted the Phase 1 Archaeological Survey at the proposed location for the Animal Shelter. Recommendation has been made for a Phase 1 Intensive to be completed. Dubuque Street Elevation and Park Road Bridge Reconstruction Project • Draft version of the Purpose and Need has been forwarded for City Staff review. • HNTB has continued with the traffic analysis and coordination with MPOJC. • HNTB began working with existing flood data to determine rough elevations for the roadway. • HNTB completed their Stakeholder Interviews and will be providing documentation for Staff review by 2/21 /11. • Staff review of presentation and documents for the first Public meeting to be held March 3 at Parkview Church. • Continued coordination with Iowa DOT for Purpose and Need documents • Held rescheduled TAC meeting on February 17 due to the snow storm on the original date of February 2. • City Staff attended a Joint Flood Recovery Meeting with Coralville and the University to discuss projects being planned or under construction. • Continued coordination with the University of Iowa with the Mayflower Flood Mitigation and the Hancher Relocation projects. • HNTB has launched the home page of the project website, located at www. iowacitYaateway.orq • City Staff is continuing to meet with concerned property owners adjacent to the project. Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation Project • Consultant met with City staff Feb 14 to review sewer Rapid Creek and sewer master plan studies. • Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant was adopted by the City Council on February 15tH • The Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant was submitted to IDNR on February 16. • Feb 14 was the end of the 30 day public and agency comment period on Anti- Degradation Analysis. • The Anti-Degradation Analysis was submitted to IDNR on Feb 16. • Consultant coordinated with IDNR on revised Waste Load Allocation (WLA) modeling. • Consultant is developing a list of items from planning effort for delivery to the City. • Consultant and City Staff will meet with IDNR on Feb 24 to introduce project to James Oppelt, IDNR's new project manager. Rocky Shore Drive Pump Station and Floodgates Project • The project kick-off meeting was held with the engineering consultant on February 23, 2011. February 23, 2011 Page 3 Iowa River Flood Modeling • Revisions based on the City's review comments are being made to the report. West Side Levee • Met with MMS Consultants to review final plans. • Met with City Attorney to discuss property acquisition. Water Division River Crossings The University of Iowa has completed the environmental/archeological study and review for the river crossing sites located at the old plant and Hwy 6. The report recommends that a Phase I field visit be performed a by an architectural historian prior to proposed construction activities. The Phase I investigation will be performed this spring. An update was requested by FEMA regarding the status of the project by March 11, 2011. Peninsula Source Protection • Flood mitigation work is nearing completion. Mitigation work is complete on CW-4. Work on CW-3 is expected to be completed within the next two weeks. • The completion of this project that was scheduled for the end of January has been extended to the middle of March 2011. Water Works Prairie Park Source Protection Howard R Green Co. met with Public Works staff to review 60% design documents for flood mitigation projects at CW-1, CW-2, and the SPPS facilities. Some scope changes are anticipated that were discovered through the design process. Iowa Homeland Security and FEMA have requested submittal of revisions to the scope and budget for their approval. The expected completion of the projects is September 2011. ~aflYiT ?i.'~ ~ ~~ ri< fr1 ~ atC;Yl IP13 ood Newsletter • February 2011 Grant Wood • ~ ~: - r c Duna Lei-Sutlers Neighborhood Association ~ -~ r i_ ~ _ ,_ - The affordable housing is the main reason my husband and I moved into CrnntWoridNzighhnrhond. g the Grant Wood neighborhood in aoo3. At first we didn't know how long we Co-Chairs Cindy Roberts would live here at our first house. But the longer we stayed, the more we fell in Cindy-roberrs@uioava.edu love with this neighborhood. open position It is convenient, not far away from anything, and there's always the Lakeside Secretary bus route that I can depend on. As our family grows with the addition of our open position daughter, born in soo9, I can't believe I even enjoy this neighborhood more 'ltieasurer than I had in the past. a minute away from the two parks. "faking a walk live on Lakeside Drive W open position , e at the playground become our favorite activities in the in l il d h Event Coordinators itions g an ay p e tra on t The community garden is amust-see during our daily walk, too. arm weather open pos . w My daughter enjoys seeing the tomatoes and squashes grow bigger and bigger Newsletter Editor Nick Bergus every time she passes by. nbergus@g,nail.com With skate night anti the new addition of the splash pad, it gives us so much to do and I believe it's the way a young family can grow with this neighbor- Website Editor Diana Lei-Butters hood. chi-lei@uiowa.edu Neighbors are first-person introductions to people inz~olved in the Grant Wood Neigh- Community Garden boyhood. Would you like to introduce yourself? Contact newsletter editor Nick Bergus Coordinator at nbergus@gmail.com. Alicia Trimble adiciamaimble@yahoo corn Communication • Look~=tg for a GWNA Logo Coordinator Cindy Roberts Cindy-roberrsC uiawa.edu GWNA stands for Grant Wood Neighborhood Association, but what we are missing is a logo that could represent us through the eyes of our neighbors. Iowa City Neighborhood Services Coordinator Maybe a logo competition in the neighborhood would be a fun way to kick off Marcia Bollinger this idea? marcia-Bollinger@iou~a-city.org One of the goals of the association is to reach out to more families and Thanks to Shelly]aspers and neighbors. We hope a contest like this will help the association get closer to Li-Hsien Lin for helping us this goal and let more people get to know us. We're calling for more ideas to label and mail the newsletter. bring this alive; if you are interested in logo design or want to be involved in Care to fill an opening? this project, please contact Cindy or Diana. Contact Cindy Roberts at As always, time is not an issue in volunteering, don't be hesitate even you Cindy-robcrts~"uiow•a.edu. don't have much time. We always appreciate new ideas and any little help al- Between Newsletters ways be a big hand! For information and announcementbztween issues of the almost-monthly newsletter, visit our website at grantwoodnzighborhood. The City's PIN Grant Program org. dd d b to e e a If you want to Over the past several years, the Grant lX~ood Neighborhood Association has Blend you name andteamail t' applied for and received a number of grants through the Program for Improv- address to Cindy Roberts, ing Neighborhood, or PIN, grant program. Cindy-robzrts@uiowa.edu. Most recently, grants have funded the purchase of the roller skates used in Mission the Grant Wood Elementary gym, staffing to enable Friday Night Free Skating The GWNA exists to improve the overall quality workshops and events at the school including the Pet Care Fair, Safety there o{life in the Grant Wood , Day, Knitting Workshops and many others. neighborhood. Applications for the PIN grants are due in the middle of March and plans are The association achievzs made to apply for continued staffing for the roller skating parties, continued its mission by building workshops and events, and continued Family Dinners available through the relationships by bring its families together Grant Wood PTO. There are very few limitations in what is eligible for funding. The maximum through social events as wel~ as educational grant amount is $g,ooo and funds would be available July z, tort. If you have opportunitizs, enhancing safety and security, making any ideas on additional grant requests, please contact Cindy Roberts at Cindy- improvements, and using our public parks and facilities to robots@ulOwa.edu or 339-6034. promote volunteer activism. No February Meeting There is no Grant Wood Neighborhood Associa- tion meeting scheduled for February. The next meeting is planned for March. 3rd Annual Safety Day Mark your calendars for Saturday, April 30, for the 3rd Annual Grant Wood Safety Day. More details will be provided in upcoming newsletters. Neighborhood Art Committee Neighbor Steve Rackis has offered to chair a com- mitteethat will continue discussions regarding a potential Neighborhood Art project in our neigh- borhood. Meetings will start soon with Jill Harper, neighbor and City High art teacher to develop a project that can be completed this summer. If you would like to participate on the committee or have some ideas, please contact Steve Rackis at steve- rackis@iowa-city.org or 887-6065. Snow-covered Storm Drains May Cause Flooding With warmer, we can expect significant snow melt- ing. Many of the storm drains located on the edge of Iowa City's streets are still covered with snow and ice. This can cause street flooding as there is nowhere for the water to drain as the snow melts. Iowa City Streets Department staff are ~~orking to remove the snow and ice accumulation. If you live on a local street without much traffic you can help your neighborhood by locating and clearing these storm drain intakes. If you have a drain in your back or side yard that is covered with snow clearing these intakes can also reduce flooding in these areas. If your street is flooding and you need assistance please caI1356-5276. Open Gym at Wood Grant Wood Elementary gym is now open and free on Monday and Wednesday nights from 6-9 p.m. for open gym. Anyone younger than 6th grade must be accompanied by an adult. Everyone is welcome! Challenge an Officer Twice a week, between 3:rg and Sag p.m. at Mercer Aquatic Center and Scanlon Gym, an Iowa City Po- lice Officer will compete with junior high students in various game room activities including, billiards, ping pong, and foosball. The Community Founda- tion of Johnson County is funding the program. Occasionally the competition will be held in the gymnasium. If a student is able to beat the officer, the student will win a pop. Dates include Feb. s~, 23, and i8, and March z, 7, and g. Family Friendly Meals Class Saturday, March a6, from 5 to 7 p.m., Kym Wroble, dietitian at the Waterfront Hy Vee, will be leading a class in how to cook family-friendly meals. Paticipation is limited to io, so please con- tact Cind by March r8 to reserve your place. The GWNA will cover registation fees. Childcare can- not be provided for this event. Coming Soon: Grant Wood Marketplace Many of the Iowa City Farmers' Market vendors have asked the city to provide an opportunity for a year-round market in Iowa City. The Grant Wood Marketplace is hoping to meet that need! Three "markets" are being planned in the next couple months to gauge the interest and success of the idea. They will be held in the Grant Wood El- ementarygym and arc scheduled for the Saturdays of March z6, April 9 and April ~3, most likely from z to 5 p.m. Vendors currently participating in the down- town farmers' market will be invited to participate and then an open invitation will be extended to the general public. Products sold at the marketplace must be produced in Iowa and preferably be hand made. Complete details should be available by February za, zou. Please contact Marcia Bollinger, neighborhood services coordinator if you have questions or need additional information. •seaae,ey;ay~a.~ pue poo~~u v~rJ ayl u? s,uap?saa ~~e o>>uas wag sey ~a»a{s.mau siyi sauyapmrJ aapa{smanr pooyxoc?y5?a~? panoxdde ay,,aau, Isnw saaua~smau yPnoy,{e',ua7uoa ay>>o .4~{enb aye ion a~c{?suodsai loo s? ~n9 ial7a~smau aye s~?em pue s,und 6~?~ emo{ 3o.Cn~ aye {o saa?nias pooyaoyy8?a{y~o aay3O oy~ vonenosse pooyaoyy8?au mo,i,ty paonpond s? ~a»a~smau Pooyaoc?y8?au mod SSI'O~ aiIIISa~ EMOi `~C]i~ EMOi QIb'd ar~£~SO~i S(1 plepueas pazaosaad 0f'ZZS ~ ~al~ EMOI anuand eiu.to311e0 r£zz uoixepossd pootltogtl~iaN pooh lue.tr.~ MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION February 15, 2011 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY IP14 Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., David Brown, Dianne Day, Diane Finnerty, Howard Cowen, Connie Goeb, Harry Olmstead. Members Absent: Martha Lubaroff, Wangui Gathua. Staff Present: Others Present Stefanie Bowers. Gregg Hennigan. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): No. CALL TO ORDER Day called the meeting to order at 18:06. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE January 18, 2011 MEETING: Goeb, moved to approve. Townsend seconded. The motion passed 7-0. DELVING INTO DIVERSITY Bowers reported that the program has been delayed and that it will be held in the future with more information forthcoming. DIVERSITY DAY Townsend, Brown and Finnerty will host the table from 12:00 pm - 2:30 pm and Goeb will serve as a representative from 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm. LISTENING PROJECT Olmstead discussed this project which he participated with in Alabama after Hurricane Katrina. The project uses empathetic listening skills. Commissioners would need to become trained in the project. The project has been used to create change and also as a reference. The training consists of one session that lasts for 6 hours. Townsend mentioned that this project should be discussed with the Mayor and other City Administrators if the Commission decides to implement. Finnerty would like more information on the content of the project, the cost for the training and more specific details concerning the training. Bowers will follow up and report at the March meeting. SPEAKER'S BUREAU Day and Goeb reminded other Commissioners that they are always looking for additional speakers. Townsend recommended Dr. Christine Grant. Finnerty mentioned changing the name of the program so that the title has a more community approach. Brown asked about audio recording the speakers. Possible titles: Community Conversations, Community Speaker's Bureau, Community Voices, or Community Stories. FILM SERIES Commissioners will discuss this at the March meeting. Day & Bowers will check with other organizations to see if there is any additional funding. Bowers encouraged members to look at the brag book for past films the Commission has shown. Possible places to show a film are: Mercer, Robert A. Lee, Senior Center, Iowa City Public Library or a hotel. Human Rights Commission February 15, 2011 Page 2 YOUTH AWARDS Bowers has sent a request to the Mayor to see whether he is available for the Youth Awards this year. Bowers will send out notice of the awards starting March 1st. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES Finnerty mentioned that perhaps the Commission should divide by topics/areas of interest. Bowers thought race and disability may be good options. Townsend and Brown joined the subcommittee of Lubaroff and Olmstead. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Day thinks that it would be good for Commissioners to wear their Commission pins when at other functions, events and meetings. Olmstead displayed and discussed the Martin Luther King, Jr. Proclamation presented to the City Council in January. STAFF REPORTS Bowers let Commissioners know that Townsend's email address is with a `q' and not a `g'. Updated housing discrimination pamphlets are available as well as magnets. Olmstead will serve as the Commission representative on the Center for Human Rights Executive Board. ADJOURNMENT Olmstead moved to adjourn. Brown seconded. The motion passed 7-0 at 19:21 Human Rights Commission February 15, 2011 Page 3 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 (Meeting Date) NAME TER M EXP. 1118 2/15 3/15 4/19 5/17 6/21 7/19 8/16 9/20 10/18 11/15 1220 Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 O/E O/E Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 O/E O/E Howard Cowen 1/1/13 X X Constance Goeb 1/1/13 X X Harry Olmstead (8-1-2010) 1/1/13 O/E X Orville Townsend, S r. 1/1/14 X X Diane Finnerty 1/1/14 X X David B. Brown 1/1/14 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting/No Quorum R =Resigned - = Not a Member draft MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 15, 2011 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Regenia Bailey, Susan Mims Members Absent: Matt Hayek Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Jeff Davidson Others Present: Gigi Wood RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mims moved to recommend to City Council the Administrative Authority for Disbursement of Economic Development Opportunity Funds, as discussed. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried 2-0. Hayek absent. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bailey at 8:03 A.M. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 21, 2010, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING: Mims moved to accept the December 21, 2010, meeting minutes as presented. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried 2-0. Hayek absent. IP15 CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR DISBURSEMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUNDS: Ford spoke to Members regarding this recommendation. She noted that granting administrative authority to the City Manager to disburse funds from the economic development opportunity fund would aid the City in being responsive to the business community. Ford said the following stipulations would apply if the Council approves the authority. One, there would be a $50,000 limit, which is in keeping with the current consultant agreement limits set for the City Manager. Two, the use of the funds would be directly in compliance with the Economic Development policies and strategies of the City; and three, any the use of of the funds would be reported at the next scheduled meeting of the Economic Development Committee, and again in the annual report. Mims stated that she believes this makes sense, and Bailey agreed that it would allow staff be more responsive to the business community. Davidson noted that Members can Economic Development Committee Meeting February 15, 2011 add to this recommendation, or pare it back, if they desire. Members agreed that they would support this recommendation to Council. Mims moved to recommend to City Council the Administrative Authority for Disbursement of Economic Development Opportunity Funds, as discussed. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried 2-0. Hayek absent. STAFF TIME: Ford noted an article about Iowa City economic development efforts that was recently published in the Sunday Gazette's Business 380. She also brought reviewing the strategic policies and plans, and note that sometime in 2011, members would have that on their agenda. Typically, the committee reviews, revises and recommends an updated Strategies and Policies document to Council these about every two years, the last time being January of 2009. Davidson shared that there was a good turnout for the Riverfront Crossings presentation recently. This led to some brief discussion about the interest in this area and the University's plans for the School of Music, as well as other projects that will be moving ahead in this area. Davidson also stated that they have begun the preliminary work on the new parking facility project. He shared some of the details of this, adding that around July 1 S` they should be ready for Council's approval of the preliminary design. Davidson shared that the interest in Towncrest has been growing. Ford agreed, stating that five or six businesses have contacted the City with great interest. Ford added one more point, stating that there is a presentation in town on Wednesday called, "The Hidden Economies of College Towns," that should be interesting. The presentation is at 5:00 PM Wednesday at the Old Capitol Center. COMMITTEE TIME: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mims moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 A.M. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried 2-0. Economic Development Committee Meeting February 15, 2011 Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 TERM N NAME EXP. Regenia 01/02/1 X Baile 1 Matt 01/02/1 O/ Ha ek 1 E Susan 01/02/1 X Mims 1 Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused