Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-24 Bd Comm minutes--a 24-12 4b(1) MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 14, 2011 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin, Will Jennings MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Eckstein STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hanick, Judith Pasco, Michael Lensing, Mark Pries, Carolyn Gross, Crissy Canganelli, Clark Spencer, John Thomas RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Grenis, Sheerin, and Plagge, Jennings were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 17 & SEPTEMBER_ 14, 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings moved to approve the minutes for August 17, 2011. Grenis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein excused). Jennings moved to approve the minutes for September 14, 2011. Plagge seconded. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 2 of 9 A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein excused). OTHER: A request submitted by Steve Streb to extend the term of a special exception (EXC11- 00007) to allow a wet -batch concrete manufacturing plant in the General Industrial (1 -1) zone on Independence Road, north of 4201h Street and south of Liberty Drive. Walz stated that the applicant was not present at the meeting. The issue is that there has been a filing on the case and the applicant is asking that until the litigation is settled that he can have that time plus some additional time to secure financing and to get the plant ordered. Sheerin opened public hearing. Sheerin closed public hearing. Plagge stated that this seems like a reasonable request. Jennings noted that there were a couple of typos that needed to be corrected. Jennings moved to extend the term of the special exception EXC11 -00007 for 12 months. Grenis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein excused). VARIANCE: VAR11- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a variance from the minimum lot area requirement for a duplex use in the RNS -12 zone located at 331 N Gilbert Street. Jennings read a statement recusing himself for VAR11- 00001: "1 recuse myself from all discussion, deliberation, decisions, votes and any other parliamentary procedures concerning VAR11- 00011. I recuse myself from these matters before the Board of Adjustment regarding this variance request on the grounds that my primary residence is within 300 feet of the property in question; that I have had prior relationship with the property owner by donating time and professional services for fundraising on multiple occasions and done so at the direct invitation of the applicant, Kevin Hanick. The deliberations, discussion, and decisions of the BOA in this matter should not be liable to question or grounds for appeal due to appearance of any possible conflict of interest. I do not consider this recusal precedent in regards to any and all future applications for exceptions or variances soley upon the grounds of 300 foot proximity to my primary residence. Walz submitted correspondence from a neighboring property owner, Dr. John Kammeyer, 404 East Bloomington. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Walz explained the difference between a variance and a special exception. A variance considers the burden placed upon a property by the zoning and whether the property can achieve a reasonable rate of return if forced to comply with the zoning requirements. Walz stated that her comments would focus on whether the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent with the zoning chapter and the Comprehensive Plan. Walz stated that the RNS -12 zone was set up to address issues in certain single family zones in the older neighborhoods near downtown and campus. Over time as the University grew there was more demand for rental units near campus and single - family homes started to be converted into duplex and multi - family uses. This caused issues with the alleys becoming run down, parking issues, and aesthetic issues. The City rezoned to RNS -12 neighborhoods that still had a single - family character in terms of lot size and housing style. That zone allows uses that were in compliance with the previous RM -12 to have their rights grandfathered in as compliant. Under both zones, RM -12 and RNS -12, a duplex use requires a 6,000 square feet of lot area. Walz stated that the applicant provided an aerial analysis that discussed properties within 300 feet. The applicant stated for such a large house on a small lot made it was unreasonable to be converted into a single - family use. Staff looked at the lots within the RNS -12 zone that were within 300 square feet that were less than the 6,000 square feet and how the lots were being used. Walz pointed out on a map the lots that were being used for more than one unit, the properties that do not have a rental permit, and the single - family units that have rental permits. Of the 21 lots that are nonconforming with regard to lot size, 11 function as single - family units that meet the current occupancy standard. In staff's view it is not unreasonable to for the property to be used for single - family and there are houses that are functioning that way with a large house being on a small lot. Walz stated that the applicant indicated that the Shelter House building is in need of substantial renovation. The property served as a shelter for over 25 years and allowed up to 29 roomers. The property is not otherwise unique and it is not untypical to have large houses on small lots in the Northside Neighborhood. Staff's view is that hardship is of the owners own making. Walz reminded the Board that the variance is not about whether the property should remain a shelter or duplex; it is whether the zoning so restricts the property that it cannot be reasonably used as single - family. On this property staff has to think if it is reasonable to expect a single - family rental or owner occupied use on a 4,000 square foot lot in a house that is a little over 2,000 square feet. Staff feels that the zoning analysis indicates that it is not unreasonable. The condition of the house is of the owners own making. Staff believes that granting the variance would be counter to the general purpose to the RNS -12 zone and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that granting special rights to one property based on characteristics shared by others would undermine the intent of the RNS -12 zone. This then may lead to other special requests for special treatment. Staff is recommending denial. Grenis asked if there was a historic district in the vicinity. Walz stated that there was and pointed it out on the map. She stated that it would only affect the exterior changes. Walz confirmed that the property is located within the historic district. Plagge asked when the RNS -12 zone was put in place. Walz stated it was in the early 1990's. Plagge asked when the Shelter House tried to build a new facility. Holecek stated that it was in 2004. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Sheerin asked if it was staff's position that it does not practically destroy the value of the property. Walz stated that any diminishment in the value of the property is based on the condition of the house rather than the zoning of the property. There has been interest on the structure but the renovations that are needed are quite substantial. Grenis asked that if the size of the house in relation to the other houses is average or slightly above. Walz stated that quite a few of the houses are in the 1700 to 2000 square foot range. She thought that it was probably in the upper end of the size range but that there are other large houses in the area. Grenis asked why this house wasn't included in the UniverCity program. Walz stated that the UniverCity program did consider the house and it would have required too much renovation for the asking price. Sheerin asked if the applicant would like to speak. Kevin Hanick, 88 Hickory Heights Lane, Iowa City, IA stated that he is the applicant and the real- estate broker for the property. He corrected the report stating that the house went up for sale on January 7, 2011 and the original listing price was $200,000. Hanick stated that they have reduced the price to $169,000. There has been one offer that went to City staff in the request of the same thing in allowing more than three unrelated persons to live on the property. Since that discussion with the staff the offer has been dropped. Hanick stated that before the property was a shelter it was used as multi - family. The house was a heavily as a shelter. There has been a new Shelter House created in Iowa City and the question is now what to do with the old shelter property. Hanick stated that they have put in a legitimate open marketing effort for a year. Due to the limitation of the use there have not been any results in finding a buyer. Hanick discussed the pros of the house and stated that most of the work that does need to be done is cosmetic. Hanick stated that out of the 40 properties in the area there are only 4 that are single - family homes. The proposed duplex use will not change the look of the property. There is adequate off - street parking available. The house has a front and back stairwell so the converting would be a simple matter. This area is a heavy student area being that it is so close to campus. Hanick pointed out that this property is not a conversion from a single - family house and hasn't been a single - family use for about 50 years. Sheerin asked about the Shelter House possibly moving back to the property. Hanick stated it is because they need to do something with the property. He stated that the property would be an addition to the new Shelter House. Sheerin asked if the Shelter House considered doing any of the cosmetic renovations to the house. Hanick stated that there was talk but not really because there is unknown what it would be used for in the future. Grenis asked if Hanick believed that the majority of people that look at the place decide to not buy it because they cannot use it for more than a three - person household. Hanick confirmed that was correct. Grenis asked if any of the potential buyers were talking about tearing down the house and using the property for something else. Hanick stated he has never heard that. Plagge asked if during the years of litigation regarding the new Shelter House whether the subject property had depreciated and if repairs or improvements had been put off in expectation of the new building. Hanick stated that he didn't know on that. There could have been up to 40 people living in the house for a night and over years of that the house has been used. He stated that it would be nice to have someone come in a buy it and make it into a duplex that can Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 5 of 9 be used. Sheerin asked if it was Hanick's opinion that if the variance was not granted it would destroy the value of the property. Hanick stated that he was not sure what the bottom is and they are currently at $40,000 below the assessed value. Grenis asked what the assessed value of the land itself is. Hanick stated that the total assessment is $200,430, of that the land value is $60,000 and the dwelling $140,430. Grenis asked if there have been any appraisals done on the property. Hanick stated that there has not been any done. Walz stated that there was a statement made about their only being 4 conforming single - family uses in the area. She clarified that that statement was incorrect in the zoning analysis there are items that are in peach and orange that are conforming. Walz clarified that a single - family use is one dwelling unit. There are a number of single - family uses in the neighborhood and this would include rentals and owner - occupied properties so long as the property is used as one dwelling unit. Sheerin opened the public hearing. Michael Lensing, 411 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he was involved with the Shelter House. He stated that the City has a great opportunity to take this house and make it an amazing single - family property. Lensing stated that it would be good for the UniverCity program. The house could be purchased by young professionals. There was discussion on whether there could be a restriction so the property could only be owner - occupied not rented and whether it could be rented to non - students. Holecek clarified that there could not be a restriction on who could rent the property. Mark Pries, 1128 Danbigh, Iowa City, IA, stated that he was the pastor at Zion Lutheran Church and that the Church owned two rental properties. Pries stated that he is on the Shelter House board. He stated that it was a puzzle as to what to do with the house. He stated he was hoping that the Board could come up with an answer. Carolyn Gross, lives outside Iowa City, stated that they used to own a home two blocks from the Shelter House. She reminded everyone that before dorms were built students lived all over town. Gross feels that making it a duplex would not be taking it out of the historic realm as some buildings in these areas were built as duplexes. Chrissy Canganelli stated that the use of this property as a shelter was not for the owner's benefit but it was for the community and the City, so the situation was not "of the owner's own making." If the variance is denied there are no other options other than leaving the property vacant. There is a need for additional shelter space, including a wet shelter. Grenis asked whether the right to use the property as a shelter would go away based on the 12- month vacancy. Chrissy Canganelli stated that they have in writing from City staff stating that they would be able to use the property after the year expiration as a shelter. Holecek stated that she was unaware of what Canganelli had in writing but that there is a larger analysis to determine whether and when a use has been abandoned. Judith Pasco, 317 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she lives within the block of the property. She stated she is against the application. Pasco talked about the character of the Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 6 of 9 neighborhood. She stated that she has no problem with students living around her house. The Northside Neighborhood has been a good area for the Shelter House. Pasco stated that the housing market has been bad lately and so houses sit on the market. She told how her house was a rooming house when they purchased it and they voluntarily changed the zoning to be a single - family house so that in the future it would stay as it is. Clair Sponsler, 413 N Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she lived one block north of the Shelter House. She feels that there is a market for that house. She stated that there is a need to maintain the stability of the neighborhood and that it is very important along the borders of the neighborhood. She stated she speaks against granting the variance. John Thomas, 509 Brown Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he was against the application. He agrees with the statement that staff believes granting special rights to one property based on characteristics that are shared by other properties in the neighborhood and would undermine the intent of the RNS -12 zone and may lead to further requests for special treatment. This variance would be a step in the wrong direction. Lensing responded to some of the commenters. He stated that a duplex is permitted within the zone and is harmonious with RNS -12 except for the lot size. Walz referred to the analysis and stated that on the adjacent corners the houses are single - family uses. She wanted to clarify the statement that the situation is of the owners own making doesn't mean that the owners of the property were somehow negligent or otherwise poor property managers. The house served a good use as a Shelter for many years and the City did indeed approve the Shelter House and was involved by supporting its funding. However, the use was an intense use for such the structure and over time took a toll on the house and that has diminished the rate of return that can be earned in selling the property. Nonetheless, the house should revert to a use that is allowed in the zone. Sheerin closed public hearing. Plagge stated that he is a resident of Northside Neighborhood. The City has financially supported the Shelter House. This is not a private property owner trying to convert the property back to a nonconforming use. The property was affiliated with the City and it was for a good cause and that needed to be taken into consideration. Grenis stated that this is a complex issue, it is unique in that the shelter use was a help to the community. However, he noted that the RNS -12 zone was developed to target these types of neighborhoods. Sheerin stated that this case is very difficult. This is an unusual property because of the way it was used and how it benefitted the entire community. Sheerin stated that nothing that she has heard in the testimony makes her believe that it will destroy the value of the property. It is the job of the Board of Adjustment to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan is followed and this application doesn't seem to follow it. Sheerin stated that it is important to think about what will happen if the house doesn't sell and the impact to the neighborhood if it is to be used as a shelter again. Plagge move to approve VAR11 -00001 application for a variance of minimum lot size Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 7 of 9 requirement for duplex use in the RNS -12 zone located at 331 North Gilbert Street. Grenis seconded. Plagge stated that in his view it would not being contrary to the public interest and the proposed variance will not threaten the neighborhood integrity nor will it have a substantial adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. He believes the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning chapter. It will not contravene with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Sheerin asked that the members provide findings of fact. She stated her own findings that the proposed variance will in fact threaten the neighborhoods integrity and will substantially have an adverse effect on the user values of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance, because this could set the stage for similar requests from other properties that could have a higher value if allowed rights to a duplex or to a multi - family use. The proposed variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning chapter and will contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as amended because it would set the stage for similar requests of the property. The goals of the Central District Plan include objectives focusing on achieving a healthy balance of rental and owner occupied housing in the districts of the older neighborhood. Sheerin stated her finding that allowing this variance would be in contravention to the plan. She did not agree that the property in question could not yield a reasonable return, because any diminishment in value of the property is tied to the condition of the house which is in need of substantial renovation and not its RNS -12 zoning. The legal standard is that not granting the variance would practically destroy the value of the property. Sheerin stated that she has not heard any testimony supporting the conclusion that not granting this variance would practically destroy the value of the property. The house could be sold for a reasonable value. The owner's situation is not unique or particular to the property in question and the situation is shared with other land owners in the area. Twenty -one properties have lot areas of less than 6,000 square feet and of these ten properties contain more than one dwelling unit; eleven are single unit properties with maximum unrelated occupancy of three persons. Having zoning of this property as a single - family dwelling owner occupied or rental would not be unusual in the neighborhood as more than half the lots less than 6,000 square feet comply with the zoning code in this regard. The hardship is of the land owner or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor and title because even though the use was of a benefit to the community the reality is that having 29 roomers in the property over the course of 25 years has likely altered or degraded the house to such an extent that its sale price as a single - family property has been substantially reduced. Grenis concurred with Sheerin's findings. Plagge stated that in regards to whether the variance is contrary to public interest, he believed the variance would move the neighborhood towards significant compliance and that the situation is not similar to other properties within the area and the duplex would not be harmful in any way shape or form. With the neighborhood integrity he stated that conformity would be furthered by occupancy dropping by approximately 20 persons. With regard to unnecessary hardship, the conversion of the house from a 29 person rooming house and dropping it down to a three person residency would significantly destroy the property value. The owner's situation is unique to the property, and it existed with the City's participation. He did not believe there were similar Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 8 of 9 situations in the area and thus it would not perpetuate further requests for variances. The hardship is not the land owners or applicant's own making or that it is of a predecessor in title. The City contributed to the situation and the law suit has created undue delay on the sale and the renovation of the house. Because it was serving the public good in serving the homeless that it is more of a societal problem than that the City should be part of solving the situation. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 1 -2 (Sheerin, Grenis against). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Grenis moved to adjourn. Plagge seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote (Jennings recused, Eckstein excused). w M �U U) W p � W V LL Q N Op pZ W Q � m Q E O O -00 N O :3Z " U p� X uj � � O N � fQ - Q Z O d Q II II Z II II W II X O O Z i W Y oxxxx C'4 r 1 xxxXX M oxoxx X X X X X co M T- XXXXX v O1 m X X X X X N x x x i x N LiJ ItCOLO NC•M Lx .— 0 r- 0 r- 0 r- 0 0 N N N N N W o0000 �- c 'c CU Cl) N ol O O L L1Ul c m (n m (� c d W U 2 U N E O O �_ cu L Z mao�QU E O O -00 N O :3Z " U p� X uj � � O N � fQ - Q Z O d Q II II Z II II W II X O O Z i W Y MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION December 20, 2011 Lobby Conference Room APPROVED 4MMOb(2i1i� Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., Dianne Day, David B. Brown, Diane Finnerty, Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb, Howard Cowen, Martha Lubaroff. Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Wangui Gathua. Stefanie Bowers. Andrew Alemao. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Day called the meeting to order at 18:01. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Andrew Alemao: This is more of a civil liberties issue than a human rights issue, but um we're actually going to show up at the City Council meeting and use the public there. But ah Gerard Mitchell actually advised me that like this meeting would be going on at six, so this would probably be a more sympathetic crowd to address this issue. Bowers: Before you get started can everyone who is going to speak give their name and last name. Alemao: I'm Andrew Alemao and I'm an Iowa City resident. I just wanted to address the issue of pot in Iowa City. I probably look like someone probably that this would effect and it does. Like maybe it affects some of you too, but since ah you're not students and you're upstanding figures in this town that you're not as worried about. But tomorrow I have to go to jail for 30 days for something that I did that was related to very small quantities amounts of marijuana. I've just been tired of getting hassled by the police in this town over a plant that was legal when this country was founded. In fact was absolutely mandated that if you own so much land in the 18`h century, in the 13 colonies you were supposed to grow hemp. If I'm not mistaken I believe the constitution was actually written on hemp paper and I know that like the City Council can't you know reverse laws or whatever, but I do know that they have the power to influence police priorities. In places where they have done that already like San Francisco and Philadelphia they have saved their court system quite a bit of money every month by not prosecuting people. Instead people who get caught with marijuana get like the equivalent of a speeding ticket essentially. It happened to a friend of mine recently in Ohio who was in a band and they were touring and he got pulled over and thought he was going to get arrested and go to jail, and the tour would have to be like called off. Instead he was allowed to just pay a fine and show up to court the next day. This is great and he had no idea Ohio was like that you know. We can still keep doing what we've been doing, and ah so like he was thrilled. You know he was still; he paid $150 or $175 or whatever the fine was. It might have been more than that. He couldn't have been happier that that's how they handled it there. I think the fact that we spend a lot of money incarcerating non - violent people such as myself and other people who've been caught engaging in this sort of criminal activity. It just goes to show that we're not being fiscally responsible or socially responsible as we could be in this town that we consider to be progressive, or at least as progressive as a town in Iowa. I would like if anyone here has more direct connections with the City Council, if somehow this could be put on the agenda. I won't be able to show up for another 30 days or so, but I would definitely be interested in attending a meeting where this is discussed and I ah, if there's anything that anyone else would like to say or ask about it. I'd appreciate that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Day: I guess I have a question maybe for you, is the Police Review Board an avenue here or does that not work that way. Bowers: You can give them a call. I don't have the number on me, but if you look either on line or in the phone book and look up the City Clerk. They are the staff of the Police Citizen's Review Board and I would talk to them about your rights and you can further decide whether you want to follow that up with an actual complaint. Alemao: I'm not accusing any specific officer of misconduct, it's just. Day: But just possibly policy or whatever. I mean I'm not sure. I'm just saying that that's a board that is closer to the Police Department. Alemao: I do feel like um students and especially like younger minorities at least that I've met in county jail. They feel like they're being victimized and that they're you know basically guilty of nothing more than life style crime. I do think that um based on my experience spending various amounts of time in the County Jail throughout the four, five years I've lived in this town now, that like it does seem like higher rates of minorities are in the County Jail. Walking around downtown Iowa City I don't see like a third of the people being like darker than me you know what I mean? In the County Jail they are you know like that mismatch I'm also concerned about, whether they're there for drugs or something else. I don't know. I don't believe that they're you know committing more crime. I think that there's something else at play here. I needed an audience to address this before I went down to the bed and breakfast on Capital Street tomorrow so thank you. Bowers: This isn't on the agenda, so really there shouldn't be a dialogue. That's not on the agenda so it's just public comment. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE November 15, 2011 MEETING: Bowers pointed out that Commissioner Goeb was incorrectly referenced in the minutes by her former last name and therefore the minutes would need to be amended. Commissioner Olmstead moved to approve the amended minutes. Commissioner Lubaroff seconded. The motion passed 6 -0. (Townsend, Finnerty not present for vote) 2012 CHOICE EVENT Bowers updated Commissioners on the keynote speaker, date and location for the Choice Event 2012. Commissioner Olmstead moved to support with a $200 donation. Commissioner Day seconded. The motion failed 2 -6. (Townsend, Brown, Cowen, Finnerty, Goeb, Lubaroff in the negative) YOUTH AWARDS ADULT HONOREE Commissioner Brown reported that he spoke to Henri Harper, an incoming Commissioner for 2012, about assisting with this Award. Commissioners Olmstead and Goeb also will serve on the subcommittee. IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE Day: I read the minutes I believe or whatever that, but anyway they didn't really talk about the immigration stuff at the last one did they? I mean the City Council didn't take any further action, is that correct? Bowers: That's correct. My understanding as far as the ones that were agreed upon at the work session, there has subsequently been another staff memo sent out, which should be in your packet, that is asking Directors to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 3 of 9 gather information about what resources they have available concerning being a more welcoming Division /Department to people who may not originally be from this country, or who may not speak English as a first language. So that is the scope to my knowledge of what has went out to staff. If there is more I am not aware of it. Goeb: But they haven't really said yeah or nay so much to each. They've kind of just glossed over the little bit haven't they? Bowers: That I can't answer, but what I can tell you is I'm guessing once those, that information comes back from those Directors there would be another memo completed with that information that is sent to the City Council. I would assume that it would then be put on a work session for them to discuss, but whether that would include everything I don't know. It would probably be limited to that specific memo that was sent out. Townsend: One concern that I have was you know a meeting, the City Council meeting. I walked away with that feeling that they were saying that the Human Rights Commission would be handling a lot of things in the future, and I guess my concern about that is I think we, did a very nice job of handling things what are recommendations, and I'm just wondering what more can we do? What kind of power do we have? You know what I'm saying, like what more can we do like actually putting it out and implementing it. Is that what you're talking about or? Yeah in terms of a role for us ah everything is just pretty vague, sort of like anything that comes along you know we can handle it, but I'm feeling that if we handled things and make recommendations, we don't go anyplace. So I mean I was hoping we would come out of that meeting with us getting more from our recommendations than we got. What we got from our recommendations then I'm just feeling like is there much more we can do. Goeb: One thing that occurred to me after that was that since everything was still kind of just Jell -O. I mean it was just not anything specific. I was wondering with how many new Council Members? Three? Whether you know since they haven't decided anything you want to go back in and hit it again. I mean I don't know exactly what, how those three Council Members might look at it, but maybe it's just enough, and with the election behind them or whatever to try to get a little more teeth into it and say okay obviously the old Council wasn't too thrilled about the recommendations as a whole, and we'd like to make another pitch to the new Council and see if there was any movement in how they as a body thought about it. Just an idea. Day: I think I took away maybe a little different perspective, in that obviously they put a lot of it back on the Human Rights Commission. However they did not, the only two things or maybe three that they really rejected was the ordinance, the proclamation, and any kind of further work with the Police Department or education. I mean that's in general. The other they either said oh that's nice, oh you can do that. I'm saying okay. So I mean it's not what we wanted and the City Council is not taking in my opinion ah a leadership role at this point. Maybe timing with elections is part of it. I have a few parting ideas because I don't think it was a total waste of time. I think that some things have to be spoken several times and repeated frequently. One, so I have a couple of recommendations myself since this is my last meeting. One is that we try to take up again the education part of our job, which is having forums on and I would suggest maybe immigration rights or immigrant rights from a human rights standpoint, which can encompass a lot of different areas. Again information, make a special effort to get Council members there, to have different parts of the community there that can express what the reality is in different areas of the City that I think some of the Council members or Councilors may or may not be aware of. So um and how immigration or "undocumented immigrants" how do they actually impact Iowa City in a positive way and a negative way, and concentrate on the how that situation impacts Iowa City specifically. So I think if we deal with it more specifics instead of broad concepts that we can achieve more. Another thing is they did agree to have this Immigrant Review Committee, and I think that is the main stay as far as keeping any actions going, is not necessarily I mean I don't think the Human Rights Commission can spend all their time on this. But I think a broader base with one or two Commissioners, a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 4 of 9 large representation from the Hispanic community or maybe other people in the area that want to come in where that can again be a vehicle, a sounding board, and that Committee can become I think the kind of work horse to continue some of this. Not necessarily just the Commission and they did agree to that, that that would be a good way to assess if there is a problem. So I guess I would like to see progress on that, just take them at their word and start forming that, like as soon as you can within a month, or at least get a skeleton crew going to being working on that. Maybe check with the CRC, the different religious communities, different that new immigration group to get a good representation of the way I see this is training residents of Iowa City that are not White Protestant individuals, to take more leadership positions. So I can see where there is a lot to be done with that, with that Review Committee. The other thing is I looked all over for that memo from the City Manager where he is saying to the Departments to start taking a survey of, as far as the signage. The way I interpreted was the signage that's available and also what kinds of ID are asked for. Those are very two specific things that I think can have a big impact on the community, and I think its within our purview to ask the City Manager that if we came up with a group of three or four or five Latinos or others who felt there were other languages that needed to be represented, that they work with the Directors of all the different agencies. That they are allowed to go in and say hmm you know, let's work together. I think we need a sign. I don't know what that means or I, where does the signage need to be and what does the signage have to be? Where is it located? I mean we all know English so how can we determine what signage needs to be there. For what forms of ID? So that we get a core group that follows through with the City, and that also gets, to me it gets a broader base of people comfortable with working with the City, which is not there at this point. The final thing I think we could do is that this Review Committee could possibly start hosting a couple of meetings with two or three or four, well two or three under the quorum of the Councilors, just private coffee visitation kinds of things to inform them on a more informal basis instead of a work session or a Council Meeting on what different attitudes are towards the population. All those things can be done I think with a much broader base than the Commission. So ah those are things I took from it, that I think are specific things that can be done in a, something you can put in your hand and handle as opposed to trying to get a new ordinance or a philosophical thing, which would be great. But maybe you get some of this done and then maybe the other will work its way in. So those are my comments. I don't know if you want to take any action on this. Olmstead: I think that ah if we put the Review Committee into place that shows the spirit of what the Council was asking for, and that gives us a little bit better leverage to go back to them at a future date for other things. So I would ah like to see us start discussing putting an Immigration Review Committee together and Dianne I'm going to put you on the spot. I know you're going off, but I'm wondering if you'd consider being a temporary chair of that Committee if we were to get it going. Day: It could be an option, but I think and I think if my idea of that Committee Review Board or whatever they want to be called, is I would like to see that be the leadership be from the especially the immigrant community to a certain extent and not necessarily a Commissioner from the Human Rights Commission or me or anybody. But to get it started maybe a couple of months or something if I could help that would be fine, unless one of the Commissioners wants to. Brown: Do we have that power to do that, to create that kind of Board? Bowers: It's just a subcommittee, so it's not a creation really. Goeb: We didn't need their permission before to do that I don't believe so. Day: But they specifically stated in there that they didn't see any problem with that, and that the purpose of that, the scope of it, was to determine if there was any problem in the City. I mean they said that. Am I correct on that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Cowen: So with this subcommittee would be review or underneath our jurisdiction so they have to come to us to talk and tell us what's happening? Is that right? Bowers: My understanding of a subcommittee is kind of similar to the subcommittees on the Commission currently so they would yes have to come back to the bigger Commission and then it would have to go from there. Cowen: So a subcommittee can consist of non - Commissioners? Bowers: That's correct. Finnerty: The one thing I took away, several things, but one thing that I'm very excited about is it seems like there's increased activism in town to put pressure on the Council to take some action. In some ways as a Commissioner I just want to get out of the way of that and support more grassroots efforts and kind of like a formal subcommittee. On the other hand they, that's . I kind of feel the same way and I'm not sure what additional actions we can take as a Commission, but there are at least two groups that are coming up that will be more grassroots activism that I've very excited about. So more strategizing campaign because that's what I've heard from Committee Members is the Commission did its job and the community could have and should have put moderate pressure on the Council to understand that it's not just our recommendations of the Commission and connected to the community recommendations . I think that's an exciting thing. I think there are some people in the community that are angry and renewed energy to do some things, which is really great. Day: So are you saying more than leave it up to them and the Human Rights Commission take a lesser or drop? Finnerty: I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm kind of with Orville a little bit about; I'm not sure what else we can do. think creating the Committee is one thing that it's an interesting model for us to talk about and how we could do it so there's a natural linkage. So I think that's one of the possibilities I understand that that might be really great. Which the subcommittee and I also think, you know I'd be interested in revisiting whether we take back municipal ordinance next time around or take back a resolution of the different event. I don't think they are dead issues the ones they didn't have Day: I don't either, but the things that they agreed on to me personally are that there are a lot of things that City Council is responsible for, and if there's not continued pressure, it could be a year from. Things take precedence and I think our role is from that standpoint to follow through and those are ways I suggested that we could follow through on the things that they agreed on. Goeb: I would agree. I think at least we need to follow through on a subcommittee thing because I think we've pushed this and we don't want to just fold the tent you know and walk away. If we as a Commission are serious about this in terms of it being a big issue, it seems to be a big you know, it will be a big continuing issue, but I think the key is getting much more support from the folks that are affected directly by this. I mean we can't keep talking for people and not have them come behind us and support us. Day: I know, but I think that's what it is. Goeb: Yeah and I think the subcommittee could do that, but I don't you know, I just am not familiar enough to know if there are three or four people that will stand up and do that and be part of a subcommittee and really be able to communicate with us, and thus with the Council in terms of identifying specific things and continuing to apply pressure and bringing up issues. I think the Council and I kind of feel the same way, I'm not sure that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 6 of 9 we provided enough, well obviously we didn't provide enough you know specific evidence of things happening or testimony. You know enough weight behind it to move them to make, to think oh yeah these are our constituents that are unhappy about this, and it's not just the Commission that are in their own bubble or however they might think it is. So I would think it would, I would prefer to pursue it in some form as opposed to just saying okay we've done what we can do and let the community do it. I just think we have an obligation. We said we'd take it up and I don't think it's, I don't think we should drop it now. Finnerty: If we did I think it'd be creative ways of doing it to link to the emergent that are happening. Goeb: Yeah we could eventually get out of it, but I don't think now is the time to do it. Day: Well we have the connection there, so it's a partnership between the Human Rights Commission, the subcommittee that whole new group which are all different agencies. It's labor, it's the CRC, it's the school system and people from the University that all are attending this meeting and we need to stay in contact with them, get this harnessed into funneling through to say to the City Council I think the message is you agreed to a couple of things. We need to look at signs. We need to look at language. We need to look at identification and say let's help you get this done. If we bring people in or say when just gentle nudges just to keep it clear. That's up to you as far as Human Rights Commission. Those are just my proposals, what my feelings are. Townsend: I was thinking in terms of future efforts we might do like if we have another subcommittee it might prove advantageous if that before we present to the City Council, that we meet with the attorney or whoever takes cares of the codes and the law, and see what we're going to recommend and check to see if there is already anything in place for that. If there is something, you know if there's nothing in place then we go. If there is something in place then we look at it and see, you know should we take that and make recommendations as to how it might be improved, or if we feel that that's not functional then we make a recommendation that's given the aspects that we feel will get the best results. A second thing that kind of bugs me doing this whole process that I think we need to look at for future efforts is that, and I've said this before. I think our churches have more contact. Our churches, our social workers have more contact with the population than we're trying to you know get services improved for you know. They know exactly what's going on. We're up there talking about what's happening that's impacting them, but like somebody said earlier that's us talking. I mean we really maybe need to get more actual input you know in terms of what is really negatively impacting these groups. So and maybe we can get them, but if they don't do it then we need to have the ministers or somebody who can get up and speak and not feel that they're going to be at risk of speaking out, but I feel uncomfortable you know out here waving the wand and the flag and it's just us. Finnerty: The point I would make I think are recommendations were tied to the CRC, which is that group and to kind of immigrant communities that all know of. The part for me that I think is one of the most difficult things is there was never an opportunity for Council to hear public dialogue on this. The way it was addressed is it was a closed joint working session where we were representing at the table because we were the only ones that could speak at that , and then that happened and then they had their working session where we couldn't speak and neither could the public. Then it went on the consent agenda at the Council Meeting, so at every step public dialogue was closed out. Had there been a Council Meeting for example where these issues were debated, I absolutely believe we could have gotten community voices there to speak and to speak eloquently and to speak passionately. That was deemed by the Councilors to speak eloquently about the experiences and the need for such things, and there was never that opportunity by the process they chose. There was never that opportunity. Day: Could the Commission host an educational informational meeting addressing that and very publicly ask the Councilors to attend? You're still working right within their framework. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Townsend: But I think also it's like you know we had an invitation to sit in on the work session where only we could have dialogue, but then you know at the Council Meetings when there is an open session I think where you can get up and speak. Finnerty: Only on items not on the agenda, so like the one that where they were dealing with on the there was a place for public comment for items not on the agenda. So that was a possibility so it would have to be at a separate meeting I guess, the next one to bring it back up. I mean I think it was a pretty interesting process. Townsend: I just feel that it needs to be out there. If the Council Meetings are set up in such a way that public can't get the dialogue, there needs to be _. You know maybe the ministers and other groups need to go to the press or something like that, but I feel more comfortable if somebody other than us you know were pushing it. We have a very unique and very limited role, and I don't think that's ever going to be, give us enough distance to get our point across and the point is going make a difference. It's got to be some other components tied into it. Goeb: We're speaking of it at least third hand. I mean we're telling the Council its, what immigrants have told the churches, which they've told us and such, and I know it's always tough you know to stick your neck out and it shouldn't be tough for the Ministers and the Social Workers and such. I mean because it's their job or it wouldn't be as tough, but I think it's also time for immigrants to come forward too and give direct testimony to it because again we can talk and it's disconnected. I think the Committee might be a way to do that, to get at least some a group together and build up some confidence to do that. Olmstead: I was going to say basically what you said. I would see the Review Committee as being an avenue which leadership can be asked and the community to come forth and serve and report the ideas back to us. Finnerty: I think for me and maybe we just let it sit at this meeting and see what happens with the Councilors coming in, is if there's a way to develop that is not a committee structure, kind of like this kind of a model of sit around the table and meet at a certain time, but make it as a linkage to some of the emergent groups. That would be really powerful and have that connection like a communication channel versus a um, cause I think there is some emerging leadership. It may not look like sitting around the table and having a conversation. It may look like something a bit different, that um it would be great for us to kind of keep our eyes in touch with them. Goeb: Can you share the immerging groups? Who are the immerging groups? Finnerty: The one Dianne was talking about. There is an immigration roundtable group that's being talked about. Day: We've had two meetings. They are scheduled every third Monday, I think. Finnerty: It's a partnership between the faith community, labor. Day: University people, public schools. Goeb: And it's called the Immigration Roundtable? Is that what it is, or does it have a name? Finnerty: I think the two people are Sally Hartman who stepped up from the society, and then also Robin Clark from the Iowa Labor Center so far. I didn't go to the last meeting. Day: They pretty much led it as well, but it was pretty strong _ last time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Finnerty: Then there are some new community organizing models in town that are making connections as well. Organizing in immigrant and Latino communities' Goeb: You two have been attending these or hearing about them? Olmstead: I went to that first one. Day:The other thing I think that group could utilize maybe is more information on those models because there is a structure right there. I mean I don't know that much about it, but it could be a structure for like that group. Finnerty: The national models or something? Day: Yes that we had in our recommendations for the Committee or community based so. Day: Any other action on this tonight then? Finnerty: I would say that I appreciate you going all out. All the leadership you've been pulling from the area for a long time on these issues, and the connections particularly the CRC, the Sanctuary City Committee, just that the time. I don't know how much time you've put into this, but also commitment and so all the recommendations written out I hope you know we'll remember where you are. None of this would have happened without you. FACES OF IOWA CITY Bowers reported the flier is completed and a press release is forthcoming with a tentative date of January 2012. JUVENILE JUSTICE Commissioner Finnerty and Commissioner Townsend will meet again to continue to plan this upcoming program which will have 3 parts. In coming Commissioner Harper will also assist. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS UPDATE Commissioner Olmstead notified that a conference for faculty on human rights is underway that will focus on how faculty can incorporate human rights into curriculum. STAFF REPORTS Bowers reported there are currently 18 complaints on file in the office. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Townsend moved to adjourn. Commissioner Olmstead seconded. The motion passed 8 -0 at 18:56. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Human Rights Commission December 20, 2011 Page 9 of 9 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 (Meetina Date) NAME TER M EXP. 1/18 2/15 3/15 4/12 5/17 6/21 7/19 8/16 9/20 10/18 11/15 12/20 Dianne Day 1/1112 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 O/E O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X O/E O/E Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 O/E O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X Howard Cowen 1/1/13 X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X X Constance Goeb 1/1/13 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X Harry Olmstead (8 -1 -2010) 1/1/13 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X Diane Finnerty 1/1/14 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X David B. Brown 1/1/14 X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X i KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting /No Quorum R = Resigned - = Not a Member This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL /APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — November 16, 2011 Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. Melissa Jensen, Peter Jochimsen, Royceann Porter (5:32), Joseph Treloar None Staff Kellie Tuttle and Catherine Pugh (5:36) None Captain Rick Wyss of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #11 -01 4b(3) CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Jochimsen and seconded by Jensen to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 10/25/11 • ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) — October, 2011 Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — The Board agreed to table discussion until the December meeting. Board Packet Distribution — Tuttle stated that some of the members were having trouble opening and printing the electronic version of the packet. She will attempt to send the packet electronically a different way and the Board will discuss again in December. NEW BUSINESS King announced that applications were being taken for the 15th Annual Citizen's Police Academy. The Board's budget will cover the cost for any member that would like to participate. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. November 16, 2011 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION REGULAR SESSION Motion by Jochimsen and seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 5:36 P.M. (Porter left executive session due to a conflict of interest — 5:38 P.M.) Returned to open session at 8:02 P.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jochimsen to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #11 -01 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • December 13, 2011, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • January 10, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • February 14, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • March 13, 2012, 5:30 PM. Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Jochimsen. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M. zz��b a, ara a Y y d d o� b l n n Iyl �l U N W w cn N A O O >C X X yC A N O� Y y d d o� b l n n Iyl �l U POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 November 16, 2011 To: City Council ca '71 Complainant J City Manager -=t Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police --� Officer(s) involved in complaint [" From: Police Citizen's Review Board iv Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #11 -0 1 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #11 -01 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief s Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on June 24, 2011. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on September 20, 2011. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on September 27, 2011, October 12, 2011, October 25, 2011 and November 16, 2011. At the September 27th meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8- 8- 7(13)(1)(b), Interview /meet with complainant and 8- 8- 7(B)(1)(c), Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. At the October 12th meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(e), Performance by Board of its own additional investigation. BOARD'S PROCEDURES (Continued) At the October 12'�' meeting the Board granted a request by Chief Hargadine to present a power point presentation of his investigation findings. The Board invited the Complainant to appear before the Board if she desired and to contact the Chief to review his findings. At the October 25th meeting the Complainant appeared before the Board. The Complainant was asked if she had reviewed the Chief's investigation and she stated yes she had. The Complainant was asked for any additional information that she felt needed to be added to the investigation. It was determined by the Board that further follow -up investigation may be needed, and it would be undertaken by the Board itself. FINDINGS OF FACT On March 26, 2011, the Complainant held a birthday party for her daughter at the Saddlebrook Clubhouse on Heinz Road in Iowa City. Juveniles from Cedar Rapids came to the party of which several were reported members from "Hardbodies ", "All About Money" and "Money of Anything" gangs. Some of the juveniles from Iowa City were members of the "Broadway Goons" gang. It is well known that there is a violent history between the gangs from Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. In her written complaint the Complainant acknowledged that problems began to mount at the party and that she had to turn up the lights and turn down the music at least three different times and threatened to end the party. Complainant appeared to minimize these problems in her statement referring to the juveniles as "singing in harmony ". After about 45 minutes a large fight broke out resulting in one juvenile being injured. A total of nine 911 calls were received by the Johnson County Emergency Communication Center. (JECC) The first call was received by the JECC at 23:05:41. The Complainant in her statement indicated that she called three separate times. The Complainant's first call at 23:07:27, (JECC times are used throughout the findings by the Board) stated that there was a large fight, someone was hurt and "they have guns." Many of the responding officers searched the area looking for suspects with guns. No weapons were found and no arrests were made that night. The Complainant had direct contact with four officers. Of the four officers near the Complainant, only one officer's (Officer A) audio unit appeared to malfunction, however their conversation was recorded by Officer B. The Complainant was charged with Disorderly House and a warrant was obtained through a Judge. The Complainant filed a complaint with the PCRB alleging improper actions and false reports by Officers A, B, and C, relating to the disturbance and fight at The Saddlebrook Clubhouse and the follow -up investigation by Officer D. C Y C v .•v _" pf L V �J ALLEGATION #1 Officers did not respond in a timely manner after her 911 calls for assistance. Complainant asserts that officers arrived almost 20 minutes after the shift change of 11:00pm. The first call to JECC was noted at 23:05:41 and not dispatched until 23:09.22 and first officer was logged arriving at 23:12:42. The Board notes the lag time between 23:05:41 and 23:09.22 is a concern, however this is not under the control of the Iowa City Police. Once the officers were dispatched it was only approximately 3.20 until arrival Even from 23:05:41 it was less than the 20 minutes alleged. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #2 No audio /video from in -car camer as from responding officers. Video and audio was available from most officers. One officer who had contact with the complainant had audio problems, but another officer in the vicinity was able to record for the both of them. Some officers who responded were in unmarked vehicles and did not have the capability to record video or audio. The Complainant was unfortunately led to believe, by her attorney, that there were no in -car recorders being operated by officers that night. The attorney representing the City advised the Complainant's attorney that he could request copies of recordings from the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #3 Officers made untrue statements in the submitted written reports. The three officers who had contact with the Complainant that evening wrote reports. All three reports matched the audio portions of their contacts. The Complainant felt statements were made in retaliation for stating she was going to call the Chief that night. Further written statements made by officers that the Complainant felt were inaccura ty�e, will be addressed individually later. _ NOT SUSTAINED N ALLEGATION #4 Improper conduct/treatment by responding officers during interaction with her. After reviewing audio tapes and talking with the officers involved the Board found the Chiefs findings were reasonable. During contact with the Complainant one officer had to ask the Complainant to let him finish with his comments and that he was not going to talk over hen This was not presented in an offensive tone or attitude. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #5 The Complainant stated that Officer C was untruthful in telling her that three guns had been recovered. Although not recorded, Officer C denied ever telling Complainant that guns had been recovered. He believes there must have been some miscommunication when they discussed the presence of guns during the incident. During the initial 911 call from the Complainant, she stated guns were involved NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #6 Officer C made false statements in his report. The report stated the Complainant used profanity when referring to the Cedar Rapids juveniles and was more interested in cleaning up the mess in the clubhouse than speaking with officers. When reviewing the video and audio portions of the initial units arriving at the scene, the Complainant is observed running to the police vehicle pointing the vehicles leaving and using profanity. Comments written by Officer C in his report of the Complainant being more concerned with the cleaning of the clubhouse and her overall demeanor were based upon his observations and his opinion based upon her behavior. NOT SUSTAINED 1-- ena oan ' c9'AVi 'ts a y ALLEGATION #7 Officer C inquired of her personal information while a possible suspect was seated in the back of the patrol car and overheard the conversation. When asked about logging personal information about the Complainant while inside the car with the juvenile in the back seat, Officer C conceded that he could have handled it differently. The Board understands the Complainant's discomfort, however there is no violation of police policy or regulation. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #8 Not being told by Officer C that she was going to be charged with Disorderly House and questioned why a warrant was issued for her arrest. Officer C reported that it was not until a few days later when he completed his investigation that he believed a charge was appropriate for Disorderly House. He applied for an arrest warrant which was reviewed and signed by a District Court Judge after determining probable cause existed. There is no policy violation in obtaining an arrest warrant. Officer C stated there was no malicious intent on his part in obtaining the warrant. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #9 Officer C called A &M Management apprising them of the damage and telling them that he was going to charge the Complainant for the damages. Officer C's report also involved documenting the damage at the Saddlebrook Clubhouse. It is customary for the owner or management to be contacted regarding damages. Officer C advised that he did not tell A &M Management that he was planning to criminally charge the Complainantfor the damage. NOT SUSTAINED rs ALLEGATION #10 Officer A had made false statements in his report. Report indicated that Complainant had yelled at him and that he made the statement that he was not going to speak with her if she continued to yell. The Complainant asserts this remark was in response to her asking for his name and badge number to report him to the police chief. Officer A advised that during his interview with the Complainant she became upset when she believed officers let a female involved in the fight leave the area. The Complainant interrupted him and he asked her to wait until he was done talking; that he was not going to play the game of talking over hey. The audio does portray the Complainant's voice elevated and her statements and tone accusatory. Officer A's voice remains calm. Officer A's impression was the Complainant was yelling at him. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #11 Officer B made false statements in his report that the Complainant made remarks and comments about the police being worthless. Complainant denies making this statement and asserts the officer did this to get back at her since she was calling the chief of police for how she was treated. Officer B's recollections of the comments made by the Complainant were similar to "what good are you, you're good for nothing, and you took too long to get here." Officer B clarified that his use of "worthless" in his report was meant to be a summarization of the Complainant's comments. He advised his only response to the Complainant was "that maybe you should not be out here fighting." It was this comment that Officer B believed prompted the complaint. Officer B denied this was a personal attack or that he used inappropriate language when he spoke with the Complainant. His statement to the Complainant appeared to be neutral qgd non- inflammatory. NOT SUSTAINED -- i C-) is ALLEGATION 412 = �, Officer D called the Complainant's employer with the intent of getting her fired. :O Officer D advised he was initially contacted by the Human Resources Vice President of Four Oaks. Officer D advised his first conversation was on 3- 30 -11. During the ICPD investigation it was confirmed that she had contacted Officer D first. The Complainant initially brought up the matter to Four Oaks on 3- 28 -I1. The Human Resources VP confirmed that Officer D did nothing to compromise the Complainant's employment NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #13 Officer D contacted A &M Management in an effort to get them to file charges and informed them that charges were already pending against her. Officer D advised he first spoke with the officer manager at Saddlebrook on 3- 31 -11. He was told that damage was done to a table, piano bench and piano estimated at $350.00. Officer D advised that when he met with her that the Complainant had already been charged with disorderly house. Officer D advised that there would be no other criminal charges that would be appropriate in this case. The manager was first contacted by Officer C via the after -hours line. She further reported that Officer C said nothing negative about the Complainant, nor did he attempt to influence any complaint of criminal charges against hey. She advised she has been contacted in the past after hours by police officer of other issues. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION #14 Officer D interviewed and questioned juveniles at the schools about alcohol and guns without parent consent, a violation of school board policy. In reviewing the policy it is apparent that it was followed by Officer D and school officials. The police department did not receive any complaints from school officials or parents. Police Citizen's Review Board followed -up with the Iowa City School Superintendent who was very emphatic that Iowa City Community School District policy was not violated. In follow up the City High School Principal said the police did not violate the policy. The officer asked to speak with the students and the school gave permission. The Principal said the staff did discuss what happened afterwards, and he felt the school had an opportunity to improve how situations like this were handled in the future. The school understood the students who were interviewed were not under investigation or in trouble and the students were being helpful in providing information. There is no violation of state law or policies, procedures and general orders of the Iowa City Police Department in regards to Officer D's follow -up at the schools. NOT SUSTAINED NO C °'3 ` scams ! r, — E' n'�j t�J