HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-24 Ordinance-%
� 6c
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. W in trt`reet, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
(REZ11- 00018)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 20,336 SQUARE FEET OF LAND
LOCATED AT 821 E. JEFFERSON STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO HIGH
DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -44). (REZ11- 00018)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Prime Ventures Construction, Inc., has requested a rezoning of property
located at 821 E. Jefferson Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) to High Density Multi - Family Residential
(RM -44); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains policies and a land use plan map to
guide development within the older centrally located neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, has been amended to indicate that high
density multi - family residential development is appropriate on this property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore recommends denial of the
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after reviewing the public record and holding a public hearing and meeting
jointly with the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved a change to the Central District Plan Map
designating the subject property as appropriate for high density multi - family development and subsequently
has determined that RM -44 Zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and plan map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Commercial Office (CO -1) to High Density Multi- family Residential (RM -44):
A PORTION OF BLOCK 4, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY ACCORDING TO THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER, THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: LOT 3 AND THE WEST 55 FEET OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 4 IN IOWA
CITY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF.
SECTION ll. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 12012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
cc,
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356,?51
(REZ11- 00018) �,
ORDINANCE NO. -�
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 20,336 SQUARE FEET OF LAND
LOCATED AT 821 E. JEFFERSON STREET FROM COMM CIAL OFFICE (G ) TO HIGH
DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -44). (REZ11 -00 18)
WHEREAS, the applicant, P me Ventures Construction, Inc., ha requested a rezoning �f property
located at 821 E. Jefferson Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) to igh Density Multi - Family Residential
(RM -44); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Ian, Central District Plan, con ins policies and a land use plan map to
guide development within the older ce rally located neighborhood and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive PI Central District Pla has been amended to indicate that high
density multi - family residential developme is appropriate on t s property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission as the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it does not comply with the mprehens' a Plan and therefore recommends denial of the
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after reviewing tN
jointly with the Planning and Zoning Commission I
designating the subject property as appropriate for
has determined that RM-44 Zoning is consistent w�
iblic record and holding a public hearing and meeting
approved a change to the Central District Plan Map
h density multi - family development and subsequently
r Comprehensive Plan goals and plan map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED Y THE ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property des ribed below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Commercial Office (CO -1) to igh Density Mul family Residential (RM -44):
A PORTION OF BLOCK 4, O GINAL TOWN OF WA CITY ACCORDING TO THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECOR ER, THE BOUNDARI S OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: LOT 3 AND HE WEST 55 FEET O LOT 2, IN BLOCK 4 IN IOWA
CITY, IOWA, ACCORDING O THE PLAT THEREOF.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. T e building official is hereby author ed and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, to a, to conform to this amendment on the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as a proved by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFIC ION AND RECORDING. Upon passage a approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authori d and directed to certify a copy of this ordina e, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's exp nse, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this _ day of 12012.
%0
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
7
Prepared by Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
(REZ11- 00019)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 1920 Prairie du Chien Road
FROM Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) TO Rural Residential (RR -1). (REZ11- 00019)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge, have requested a rezoning of property
located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road (including the property located at 1880 Prairie du Chien Road) from
Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential(RR -1); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property is appropriate as Public /Private Open
Space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoninc
designation of Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential (RR -1):
PARCEL ONE
1920 Prairie Du Chien Road, Iowa City, Iowa, legally described as:
LOT SEVEN (7) IN YODER SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 408, PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 7
ALL THAT PART THEREOF CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF IOWA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, AS SHOWN
BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS RECORDED IN BOOK 254, PAGE 79, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RECORDER OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, AND
BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT PURPORTING TO BE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION
34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M.; THENCE S 89 °01'E, 12.25 FEET; THENCE
NO-33'W, 337.15 FEET; THENCE N87 °32'W 648.7 FEET; THENCE S 4 °41'E, 102.98 FEET; THENCE S
78 °23'W, 45 FEET; THENCE 87 °24'E, 436.75 FEET; S 1 °41'W, 268.84 FEET; THENCE S 89 °01'E, 246.38
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING AND COMPRISING AN AREA OF 2.812 ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE X SE % OF SECTION 34, TWP. 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE
5T" P.M., JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE WEST 669.0 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION, THENCE NORTHERLY 54.7 FEET ALONG A 573.0 FT. RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY AND
TANGENTTO THE FOLLOWING COURSE, THENCE N 8 °24 %'W 114.3 FT., THENCE EAST 51.4 FEET ALONG
GRANTEE'S SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, THENCE S 5 °03'E 103.0 FEET, THENCE S 76 °34 %'W 45.0 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, AGREEMENTS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2006008 BEING PART OF LOT 7 IN YODER SUBDIVISION AND PART OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS THE WOODBURN PARCEL IN SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 IN THE SE % OF
Ordinance No
Page 2
SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING PART OF THE SW % OF SECTION 35 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6
WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE S 89 °52'38 "W, 246.31 FEET; THENCE N
00 °41'30 "E, 268.87 FEET; THENCE S 86 °22'17 "W, 436.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 07 °40'48 "W, 60.15 FEET; THENCE N
86'22'17"E 337.52 FEET; THENCE N 06 °06'43 "W, 135.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF INTERSTATE 80; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S 69 °40'13 "E, 86.54 FEET; THENCE S
87-56'12"E, 99.64 FEET; THENCE S 88 °26'25 "E, 182.71 FEET; THENCE S 02 °42'55 "E, 80.84 FEET; THENCE
01 °41'11 "E, 336.71 FEET; THENCE S 89 °40'37 "W, 12.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID
PARCEL CONTAINS 3.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
PARCEL TWO
AUDITOR'S PARCEL # 2006008 BEING PART OF LOT 7 IN YODER SUBDIVISION AND PART OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS THE WOODBURN TRACT IN SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 IN THE SE 1/4 OF
SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE
6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE S 89 °52'38" W, 246.31 FEET; THENCE N
00 °41'30" E, 268.87 FEET; THENCE S 86 °22'17" W, 436.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 07 °40'48" W, 60.15 FEET; THENCE
N 86 °22'17" E, 337.52 FEET; THENCE N 06 06 43 W, 135.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF INTERSTATE 80; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S 69 °40'13" E,
86.54 FEET; THENCE S
87-56'12" E, 99.64 FEET; THENCE S 88 °26'25" E, 182.71 FEET; THENCE S 02 °42'55" E, 80.84 FEET;
THENCE S 01 °41'11" E, 336.71 FEET; THENCE S 89'40'37" W, 12.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by 1 / /
`f�<fD-O-.J
City Attorney's Office %( L
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 1/10/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Payne.
Second Consideration 1/24/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: .Payne.
Date published
Rezoning
REZ11 -00019
Consider an ordinance rezoning 4.3 acres of land
located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road from Low
Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) Zone to
Rural Residential (RR1) Zone.
- aa-24-1'-
11
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,"
CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS," SECTION 1, ENTITLED "PARKING
PROHIBITED IN SPECIFIED PLACES," TO PROHIBIT PARKING ADJACENT TO A CURB
EXTENSION.
WHEREAS, curb extensions, also known as bump -outs, bulb -outs or neckdowns, extend the sidewalk or
curb line out into the parking lane;
WHEREAS, curb extensions improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance,
improving the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that
pedestrians are in the street;
WHEREAS, because the City Code allows commercial vehicles to park in the traffic lane if there is not an
open parking space within 150 feet, commercial vehicles can park adjacent to a curb extension as long as
they are 15 feet from the intersection;
WHEREAS, commercial vehicles parking adjacent to a curb extension raises safety issues especially with
taxis after dark; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interest to prohibit parking adjacent to curb extensions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 1 entitled "Definitions, Administration and
Enforcement of Traffic Provisions," Section 1, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended by adding the
following new definition:
Curb extension: Sidewalk segments that extend into the roadway at an intersection or mid -block
crossing. A traffic calming measure also known as bump -outs, bulb -outs or neckdowns.
2. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4 entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 1,
entitled "Parking Prohibited in Specific Places," Subsection A is hereby amended by adding a new
paragraph 21:
Adjacent to a curb extension even if it is a commercial vehicle and there is no parking space, loading
zone or other space available within one hundred fifty feet (150') of any building where pick up or
delivery is to be made.
SECTION ll. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
First Consideration 1/24/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion
City of Iowa City -a�T-Tr"
MEMORANDUM ==
Date: January 18, 2012
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Asst. to the City Manager
From: Sam Hargadine, Police Chief
John Yapp, Transportation Planner? IY"
Re: Questions regarding red light running cameras
This memorandum is to address the questions we have received from members of the City
Council at the January 10 City Council meeting, and subsequent to that meeting.
1. What is the intent of the red light running camera ordinance? The intent of red light
camera enforcement is to increase compliance with traffic laws at signalized intersections, in
order to increase predictability and safety, and reduce collisions, injuries and property
damage. Officer and emergency response time would also be correspondingly reduced.
The intent of the specific ordinance is to enable the City to have the ability to contract with a
provider of red light running camera technology. Such a contract would need to be reviewed
and approved by Council prior to implementation.
2. Why is there a time lag between the time the vehicle runs the red light and when the
citation is received? The time lag is due to the quality - control period with the vendor, and
with the local Police. Each potential violation is reviewed several times by the vendor to
determine if it is a valid red light running violation. The violations are then forwarded to the
City, and is reviewed by a local officer to determine if it is a valid red light running violation,
or if there were extenuating circumstances. Legally turning right -on -red, for example, would
not be a violation. The City authorizes all fine notices, which are sent by the vendor. The
review period typically takes between 1 and 3 weeks
3. Why does the owner of the vehicle receive the citation, and not the driver? Automated
red light running violations work in a similar way to parking tickets i.e. the owner of the
vehicle is cited, regardless of who is the driver. The camera itself is focused on the vehicle
license plate, and not on the driver or passenger in the vehicle.
4. If there are extenuating circumstances which would cause someone to run a red light,
would they receive a violation? There are circumstances where a motorist has a valid
reason for running a red light, such as a funeral procession, or moving out of the way of an
emergency vehicle. These exemptions are identified in the proposed ordinance. Whether a
citation is issued is ultimately up to officer discretion, as with any traffic law violation.
Potential violations are all reviewed by trained personnel (both with the vendor and with
local Police) before a violation is issued.
If a violation is issued, the owner of the vehicle receives photographic evidence of the red
light running incident. The owner also receives a link and password to a website, where
they can view a 10 -15 second video clip of the incident. If the vehicle owner wishes to
contest the violation, we are proposing an administrative appeal process, where the vehicle
owner can sit down with the officer and review the evidence, and have the ability to offer an
explanation for any extenuating circumstances. Violations may also then be appealed to
Court, as with other traffic citations.
5. What does the available evidence tell us about how much relevant intersection
moving violations decrease when static enforcement cameras are used? In 2007, the
Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University published a
study (http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/rlr-phase2.pdf) of the effectiveness of red light
running (RLR) cameras in Davenport and Council Bluffs. The research found "total crashes
decreased overall at intersections (in Council Bluffs) with camera - enforced approaches by
44% from before to after cameras were installed." A more dramatic result was found when
only RLR - related crashes were evaluated. RLR crashes decreased by 90% after installation
of the cameras at intersections." In Davenport, "the expected average number of crashes
per quarter for total crashes decreased by 20% from the before to after period for
intersections with camera enforcement..."
6. Do intersection traffic cameras only capture the rear of potentially offending
vehicles? Yes. There are a small number of vehicles (farm vehicles) which are not required
to have rear license plates.
7. From a traffic engineering standpoint how might varying the duration of yellow time
effect vehicle's probability of running the red light? The length of yellow lights varies by
intersection from 3.0 to 4.5 seconds, and is based on a nationally recognized formula
developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The yellow change interval
takes into consideration the speed limit and a few constants such as driver perception -
reaction time and deceleration rates. It is important that the yellow phase be consistent and
predictable nation -wide for consistent motorist expectations. Iowa City also uses a 2 -3
second all -red clearance phase after the yellow phase, in order to allow intersections to
`clear' before the next green phase begins.
In a sample of observations in 2011, we observed an average of 0.6% of vehicles continuing
to run red lights at signalized intersections. This translates into several hundred vehicles
per day per intersection.
8. How long does an intersection sensor "delay" the actuation of the perpendicular
streets green light when a vehicle is determined that it will likely run through the red
light? The delay is based on an algorithm that is predicated on several "dilemma zone"
factors, most importantly the speed of the violating vehicle and distance from stop line. In
general, the all -red clearance phase triggered by a red light running vehicle would not
exceed an additional five seconds of all -red.
9. What legal precedents can inform us regarding the legality of image -only civil
violations? The Iowa Supreme Court overruled a lower court ruling that an ordinance
providing for automated enforcement of speed and signal violations is inconsistent with state
law. The court held that the conflict is not irreconcilable and cited a companion case, City of
Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (2008), holding that automated enforcement is not
preempted by state law. [Rhoden and Canfield v. City of Davenport, Iowa Supreme Court,
No. 52 / 07 -0172, August 29, 2008.] A link to case documentation is:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar case? case = 6835030211656027997 &hl =en &as sdt =2 &as
vis =1 &oi= scholarr.
10. What would it cost the have an officer dedicated to red light running violations? The
total cost of a first year officer (including salary, benefits, training and uniform) is
approximately $77,500 per year. Depending on how intensive intersection monitoring is
performed, multiple officers would be needed. 24/7 monitoring of intersections would
require five additional officers (due to three shifts and time -off).
Marian Karr
From:
Chris Huston <psmc @hotmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:05 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
comment
Iowa City City Council,
I am 100 % against the red light cameras. I specifically stay away from city's that have them and refuse to shop at the
cities. Such as Cedar Rapids. I occasionally have to go to Iowa City to the hospital there but will find another Mall instead
of yours.
Chris Huston
Dubuque Iowa
"It's not the hours you put in...It's how you turn in the hours/"
"The best way to appreciate your job, is to imagine yourself with out it!"
Marian Karr
From:
Matthew J. Hayek <mhayek @hhbmlaw.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:55 AM
To:
Larry Baker; Richard Dobyns; James Throgmorton
Cc:
Council
Subject:
RE: thoughts on the traffic camera issue
Hello Larry,
Thanks for the communication. I am sending this to the general council email to ensure it reaches everyone. It
will become a public document.
Matt Hayek
Matthew J. Hayek
Hayek, Brown, Moreland & Smith, L.L.P.
120 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -3924
319.337.9606 telephone
319.338.7376 facsimile
Email: mhayekkhhbmlaw.com
Website: www.hhbmlaw.com
From: Larry Baker [mailto:flamingo @avalon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:58 PM
To: Richard Dobyns; James Throgmorton; Matthew J. Hayek
Subject: thoughts on the traffic camera issue
Hi Jim, Matt, and Rick,
I am writing to the three of you because you are the only council- members for whom I have a direct email
address. I assume you will share this with the others.
I was unable to be at Tuesday's Council meeting for the discussion of traffic cameras, but I did see the last hour
on television. My comments here might raise an issue about something that was covered and clarified in the
portion I did not see. Feel free to correct any misperception of mine that might result from not having seen the
earlier portion.
I know that I am arguing for the minority (and losing) position, as expressed in your 4 -3 vote, but there is still
an issue I would like to see discussed in the future.
First, the lost cause. Jim made an important point in his comments. I share his pre- disposition to oppose any sort
of electronic surveillance in general. The argument that "If you are not breaking the law, you have nothing to
worry about" misunderstands a fundamental cornerstone of a free society: the right to be, for lack of a better
term... unsupervised. Yes, we are already "seen" by cameras all the time, in businesses and even public spaces.
Yes, our car speeds are already monitored electronically (albeit connected to a human hand). All in the name of
security. My great fear is not necessarily this first step. It is the inevitable destination. Technology will
eventually make it cheap and seemingly unobtrusive to have cameras and listening devices almost everywhere.
Michelle referred to a Big Brother atmosphere. The term is almost a cliche now. But she was right. Perhaps a
benign Big Brother, or a "for the public good" Big Brother, even a Law and Order Big Brother ... but
nonetheless a supervisory and intrusive violation of privacy.
The Police Chief was clear: these cameras should alter behavior. That is the goal. Running a red light is bad
behavior. Cameras will change that, you were told. I suspect that the ability of cameras to permanently alter that
bad behavior is vastly over - stated. But there is no doubt as to the ability of cameras to punish bad behavior.
There is probably as much evidence to suggest that constant surveillance will alter all public behavior. Harder to
measure, and a greater concern to me, is the inevitable alteration in the psychology of those under surveillance,
even the law- biding.
But, I admit defeat here. Philosophic quandaries rarely determine or guide Council decisions. Your job is much
more mundane, more proverbial nuts and bolts. We have a problem; how do we solve it?
But, do you even agree about the problem? Jim commented that he felt that the Council might be trying to find a
problem to justify the solution. I agree. Do people run red lights? Sure. Do they speed? Sure. Do they jaywalk?
Sure. And the authorities have an obligation, for public safety, to punish those who do. But is there a "problem"
that only the cameras can solve? Will the cameras stop people from running red lights? Yes and no. Will that
violation eventually disappear if people know that cameras are watching? Do you believe that, seriously? Or,
are the cameras intended to prevent a future problem. Not the violation itself, but the consequences of the
violation in the form of accidents or injuries.
Here is where I was most disappointed in a comment by the Chief, something to the effect (my apology if I have
substantially changed his meaning) that even though the numbers might not be very dramatic now and few
people have been seriously hurt, it is only a matter of time until somebody does get seriously hurt or killed, and
that accident, by inference, would not have happened if cameras had been installed and behavior altered. That
failing to use this new technology now will lead to a future fatality, and you, the Council last night, will have
been responsible.
Put the issue in its most basic form: Why are these cameras necessary? If this technology were not available,
would the Chief be coming to you with a "crisis" of red light running, and would he be asking for more officers
and /or equipment to stop it? But his statement last night has subtly shifted blame for any future accident or
fatality at an intersection on to your shoulders. If you do not install the cameras now, (a fictional quote) "Well,
you were warned. That person would still be alive if you had acted as I recommended." The Council was
effectively put in a no -win position last night. All other possible factors in the future will be irrelevant. That
accident would not have happened then if you had installed cameras now.
Let me assure you that I understand, and empathize with, your role on the Council. You have to take seriously
your obligation to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of this community. You do not have the funds to
provide a cop on every corner. (Even if you did, of course, it would be a bad idea.) So, if your goal is to reduce
violations at dangerous corners, perhaps traffic cameras are a worthy experiment. From your discussion last
night, you seemed to indicate that any such installation was not necessarily permanent. But, a preliminary small
scale experiment might seem reasonable.
I still absolutely maintain, however, that if such cameras were revenue neutral you would not have spent several
hours of your life discussing them last night. If a company came to you and said that they could guarantee a
reduction in red light running, and thus increase safety, but they wanted to keep 100% of the fines levied ... you
would have shown them the door.
With all due respect, this is about the money. And therein lies the future.
As soon as you start generating a stream of money that requires no capital investment or city personnel, no
supervision by the city ...free money, justified in the name of public safety ... those cameras will become
permanent and probably expanded in scope. Even if violations go down, and the revenue goes down, you will
expand the coverage. Even if violations remain fairly constant, data can still be massaged to justify more
cameras
And thus an understandable public skepticism about your decision will be confirmed.
A majority of the Council chose to begin the process of the camera installation. Yes, contracts have to be
written, details processed, privacy concerns addressed. But you have already chosen the path in the woods that
you want to follow.
Let me close with one last concern that I did not hear addressed in the meeting last night. What do you do with
the money that is generated by the cameras? That decision will certainly affect how the public skeptics (such as
myself) evaluate your decision.
Obviously, you cannot depend on it for a continuing line item in your budget. You cannot depend on a fixed
amount each year. You can estimate, but you cannot extrapolate too far into the future. Will you use it as extra
money for a department, or to replace prior shortfalls? As you all know, every department can "justify" a bigger
budget than it currently gets. Perhaps the Police Chief has already talked to you about how the money would
seem to logically belong to his department, since it was generated under the guise of public safety. And the
Public Works Department certainly has a list of smaller projects related to traffic that need to be done. My
personal favorite would be to use the extra revenue in Public Transit to support the bus system.
See how tempting that money is? Even a skeptic like me can justify spending it for a public service. Forget
where it came from, as long as our motives are pure. The ends always justify the means. And, once you
establish a funding source for any specific city program, that program itself becomes the justification for the
funding source. We can't eliminate the camera revenue because our (... .... ) depends on it.
Let me suggest something less addictive. Make it your official policy that any revenue generated by such
cameras must be put in the Reserve Fund to accumulate, and when a sizeable amount (half a million dollars ?) is
reached then that amount should be used to pay down bond debt or reduce property taxes. In other words, assure
the public that the revenue generated will not be used on new expenditures but instead will be used to reduce the
cost of government. Thus, if those cameras have a financial rationale, it is to reduce spending, not increase it.
Fair enough?
Thanks very much for your consideration. And a very personal thanks from me to all of you for your
willingness to serve on the Council. Like the woman said last night, you all deserve a raise.
ME
Marian Karr
From:
Tom Carsner <carsner @mchsi.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 16, 2012 5:44 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Say NO to the Red Light Program
To the Council:
I agree with and second the comments of Larry Baker as stated in his Press - Citizen opinion January 15.
http• / /www press- citizen com /article/ 20120115 /OPINIONO2/ 301150003 /Maintaining- the - public -s- right -to-
be-unsupervised -
My suggestion is to buy the technology that prevents cars from entering the intersection when another car is
in the intersection —and leave the money on the table. As Baker and others have said: If there was no
revenue involved in this proposal, it wouldn't be considered. This proposal IS about the money. We can do
without this type of money. I urge the council to defeat this proposal.
Thomas Carsner
1627 College Court Place
Iowa City, Iowa
Marian Karr
From: TodayLA09 @aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:24 PM
To: Council
Subject: Red Light Camers
Just so everyone knows you do not have to pay these tickets. California, Arizona, Colorado and several other
states have tried these cameras only to find out that they don't work. For instance in Los Angeles they were just
de- installed after drivers found out that the tickets do not go against their driving records, only collection
accounts are the only recourse. Iowa City is going against federal law that states "no city can collect revenues
using a third party to do so" Finally, A legal traffic ticket is one that a police officer witnessed and signs the
citation at the time of the offense, not after the fact. IC should have researched more before deciding on the
cameras, if they didn't work in several other states, how do they think the cameras will work in IC?
Gary Clement
Los Angeles
Marian Karr
From:
Jim Throgmorton
Sent:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:35 AM
To:
Council
Cc:
Tom Markus
Subject:
work session re: RL cameras?
Fellow councilors,
I think we should schedule a special work session on the red light camera question, and that we should hold that special
session prior to voting on second consideration of the resolution.
There are several reasons for making this recommendation, and I would be happy to articulate them in an appropriate
context.
Being a new kid on the block, however, I am not quite sure what the appropriate (transparent) context is.
There is no need to reply to this email; however, I would appreciate it if you would consider the recommendation.
Jim Throgmorton
Marian Karr
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:22 AM
To: Council; Sam Hargadine; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Marian Karr
Subject: FW: red light camera PDF
Info submitted thru James Throgmorton.
From: James Throgmorton [mailto:jthrogmo @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:30 AM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: Fw: red light camera PDF
Hi Tom.
I received this email from a resident concerning RL cameras. It contains some info that you and the City
Council would want to know about.
Jim
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Sue T <suemusette @hotmail.com>
To: jthrogmo @yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:43 AM
Subject: RE: red light camera PDF
Jim,
Thanks for sending the staff memo. As soon as I started reading it, I was reminded of something my dad (an
engineer) used to say: It is important to define the problem you are trying to solve.
From the memo, it is not clear what problem we are trying to solve. The first paragraph suggests that the goal of
the memo is to define opportunities for using red light technology. That is not a problem (that's a sales pitch).
Electronic monitoring is intrusive, so it is very important to know what problem is being addressed. If the
problem is not defined, it is impossible to say if installing this system will be a good move. I am left having to
guess what the problem is.
1. Does Iowa City need the revenue? That could be a good reason, but there is little financial information in the
memo. If money is the issue, let's be up front about it, and provide some projections of numbers of citations,
income for the city, etc. Of course, if the cameras are very effective in reducing red light running, there won't be
much income. So perhaps this is not the reason. Or perhaps the income will come from speeding tickets? It is
not clear from the memo.
2. Are we trying to reduce fatalities? There are no fatalities mentioned in Table I, so that's not it.
3. Are we trying to reduce major injuries? That would be very good. According to the numbers (Table I) there
were six major injuries at the ten intersections in ten years (2001- 2010). Of all crashes, 17% involved red light
running. So if the cameras were 100% effective in eliminating red light running, they would prevent 17% of 6
injuries, or 1 injured person in ten years. But they aren't 100% effective; the memo says that total crashes in
Davenport and Council Bluffs were reduced roughly 30 %, so we would be saving on average one injured
person every 30 years. Clearly, this is not the reason for the cameras.
4. Are we trying to reduce property damage? My other reading indicates that red light cameras consistently
increase rear end collisions. That is not mentioned in the memo, and damage from these collisions is not
factored in. Some examples of increased collisions are in the references below.
The memo seems one - sided, and it omits some useful and interesting findings from other towns:
Loma Linda, CA had positive results after they ditched their cameras and changed yellow -light times.
http•/ /articles latimes com/ 2011 /sep /19 /local /la -me- yellow - lights- 20110919
A Texas study found that red light running was reduced 40% by increasing the yellow duration by one second.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp
The following examples (with links) are from http://www.motorists.orci/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
Los Angeles I KCAL TV
A local TV station fact - checked the city's claims that their ticket cameras reduced accidents and found that the
opposite was true. At 20 of the 32 intersections studied, accidents increased and several intersections tripled
their accident rate.
Washington D.C. I Washington Post
This report showed an overall increase in accidents at red -light camera intersections of 107 percent.
Portland Oregon I KATU News
KATU News reviewed city statistics and found a 140 percent increase in rear -end crashes at the intersections
where red light cameras were installed.
Fort Collins Colorado I The Coloradoan
Ft. Collins, Colorado has experienced an 83 percent increase in the number of accidents since red light cameras
were installed.
Oceanside California I North County Times
This report showed a 800 percent increase in rear -end accidents.
Philadelphia Pennsylvania I Philadelphia Weekly
This article showed an increase of 10 to 21 percent in accidents in intersections with red -light cameras.
Corpus Christi Texas I TheNewspaper.com
Data released by the city showed that the total number of accidents in Corpus Christi increased 14 percent, from
310 incidents to 353, at nine locations where automated ticketing machines were stationed. Contrary to the
claim that red light cameras reduce the severity of collisions, the number of accidents involving injuries
increased 28 percent from 140 to 179. Rear end collisions also increased by nearly a third from 160 to 208.
Winnipeg Ontario I Winnipeg Sun
The average number of collisions at Winnipeg's 12 original red -light camera intersections has jumped 18%
since the devices were installed in 2003, according to Manitoba Public Insurance data obtained by the Winnipeg
Sun. Despite claims by politicians and police brass that intersection cameras are making our streets safer by
reducing collisions, the MPI data shows after six years of use, crashes at the intersections are actually going up,
not down.
In summary, the city needs to be up front about the problem they are trying to solve. I can't tell what the
problem is from the memo. And I am not convinced that cameras will solve anything.
Also, the city needs to consider non - punitive approaches, such as longer yellow times. Taking a punitive
approach to law enforcement can further damage the relationship between police and citizens. It is concerning
that the police seem eager to move in this direction. We all want to be good drivers, and this system all about
ticketing people more efficiently. The police should be on our side, not against us.
This email may be freely shared. Thanks again for sharing the memo.
best wishes,
Sue Travis
405 S Summit St
Iowa City
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:44:07 -0800
From: jthrogmogyahoo.com
Subject: Re: red light camera PDF
To: suemusettekhotmail.com
Hi Sue.
A copy of the staff memo is attached. I'd benefit from hearing your interpretation.
Jim
From: Sue T <suemusette @hotmail.com>
To: jthrogmo @yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:16 AM
Subject: red light camera PDF
Hi Jim,
Could you send me the PDF of the staff s memo about the red light cameras? I am interested in seeing any
relevant data, as that can be more informative than hopes and expectations. Thank you.
best wishes,
Sue Travis
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From:
Tom Markus
Sent:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 2:19 PM
To:
'James Throgmorton'
Cc:
Marian Karr
Subject:
RE: red light camera PDF
Will do! Marian please share with the council.
From: James Throgmorton [mailto:jthrogmo @ yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:08 PM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: Fw: red light camera PDF
Hi Tom.
Thanks for chatting with me last night.
Pursuant to a request from the sender, I'm forwarding to you an email from an IC resident concerning red light
cameras. She asks that it be shared with other city council members.
Jim
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Sue T <suemusette @hotmail.com>
To: jthrogmo @yahoo.com
Cc: connie_ champion @iowa - city.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: red light camera PDF
Jim,
I found a very good article about red light cameras. It seems well- researched and balanced.
http://autos.aol.com/article/red-liciht-camera-accidents/
The article says that the data aren't clear that red light cameras reduce accidents. Some studies say they do, other
say they don't, and some say they increase accidents. Most studies say that more studies are needed. For the
effect on rear end collisions, the data are clearer:
"Although there are no easy answers, when it comes to argument against red light cameras, the
preponderance of evidence is much clearer. While cameras are often credited for reducing broadside accidents,
and sometime reducing accidents between cross traffic and those making a right turn on red, they are almost
universally credited for increasing rear -end accidents. You have to rummage through a lot of paperwork to
find studies, like the one from Iowa State, that claim reductions in rear -end crashes at monitored intersections."
So the red light cameras may actually increase accidents. I haven't read about the effects of officer -held or
speeding cameras. Maybe these are safer.
The entire article is worth reading by all City Council members, including those who think the data indicate that
cameras will provide some benefit. Could you please forward this to the City Manager. I am also cc'ing to
Connie Champion's old email address.
The only clear benefit is cash, and if that is what the City is looking for, fine, but let's be up front about it.
Personally, I'm not sure the cash worth the increase in rear -end collisions.
Feel free to share this email, and let me know if I should send it to others.
best wishes,
Sue Travis
405 S Summit St
Iowa City
I+ �1-1)-,
Marian Karr
From: Williams, Nancy L <nancy- williams @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Council
Subject: Traffic cameras
I urge the City Council to endorse Item 12 on the docket for January 24th, TO ALLOW FOR RED
LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
The date strongly support that this will make our community safer. As a grandmother
with young grandchildren in Iowa City, I am alarmed by the danger of drivers running red lights. I
can't tell you the number of times I have seen drivers completely blowing a red light on Hwy 1 at the
intersection with Sunset Blvd. These offences occur at high speed and are potentially deadly! Please
amend the Iowa City ordinance in order to allow the City to place cameras at designated intersections
where people run red lights many times each day.
Thank you.
Nancy Williams
1929 Hafor Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
4�(-D.,
Marian Karr
From: Weller, Paul A <paul- weller @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:33 PM
To: Council
Subject: Traffic ordinance
Dear council members,
I would like to voice my support for the proposed amendment to the traffic ordinance which would allow the City to
place cameras at certain designated intersections. The experience in Cedar Rapids has been very positive, with
significant reductions in serious accidents since the installation of cameras. These results are consistent with those of a
federal study, Safety Evaluation of Red -Light Cameras, which found "modest aggregate crash cost benefit of red -light
camera systems. „ The study noted that the measured effects ignored the likely impact of spillover effects to non-
monitored intersections, which would lead to an underestimate of the total benefits of RLCs. In light of this evidence,
there is a persuasive case for installing RLCs in Iowa City.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Weller
Paul Weller
John F. Murray Professor of Finance Emeritus
Tippie College of Business
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
U.S.A.
Phone: (319) 665 -8283
Fax: (319) 335 -3690
-1� �-J'_
Marian Karr
From: Garry Bleckwenn <bleckwenn @live.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Council
Subject: traffic camera -- what has changed?
This correspondence will become
arry bkmkwenn
M hop# titre addgOtggs your corm, Thank you for vA*nq the +GRYS Web
WW
Lisa
P4*TWrbWfa4vte Assent
to the C41 MOMOW
pig) 350 -WIO
a public record.
Marian Karr
From: Sarah Richardson <smr @barkerapartments.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:04 PM
To: Council
Subject: I support installation of Traffic Cameras at critical intersections in Iowa City
Dear Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your service to our city. We appreciate your dedication and thoughtful work on our behalf.
I support the proposed amendment to the city traffic ordinance which would permit the installation of cameras
at critical
intersections in Iowa City to record and penalize drivers who violate the law by running red lights and /or
driving in excess of the speed limit.
I understand that there will be a second reading of the ordinance as item 12 in the agenda of tomorrow's City
Council meeting.
I encourage you to support this amendment to the traffic ordinance in order to protect drivers and pedestrians
alike from dangerous drivers.
Thank you very much,
Sarah Richardson
519 South Summit Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
phone:(319) 631 -0557
-4 �-.),
Marian Karr
From: Carol Potter <pottercarol @rocketmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:13 AM
To: Council
Subject: Comment on Item 12 (traffic cameras) on Tonight's Agenda
To: Iowa City Council Members
From: Carol Potter
Date: January 23, 2012
RE: Your Vote on Traffic Cameras
I drive daily between Manville Heights, UIHC and Coralville and walk
regularly in downtown Iowa City. I write now to urge you to APPROVE
placement of traffic cameras at certain high -risk intersections. To
illustrate the need for this, I offer just two examples where cameras
could reduce accidents:
a) At stoplight where Rocky Shore Drive intersects the "strip," a sign
warns "NO right turns on red." Yet,repeatedly,drivers ahead of my car
barely tap their brakes before turning right. I've seen several "near -
misses" occur when two lanes of left - turning cars coming down the hill on
Hawkins Drive almost connected with cars turning right against red from
Rocky Shore. Or, when my car is first at that intersection and light is
red, drivers behind me honk (in winter) or yell /gesture (in summer) for
me to make a right turn against the light.
b) Walking around downtown Iowa City, despite signs to yield to
pedestrians who have the light and are in a crosswalk, I've been "nudged"
by drivers impatient to turn against the light. If only a camera could
have recorded this intimidating behavior!
To conclude: surely traffic cameras would "catch" drivers who defy posted
signs and thus pose unnecessary risk to other drivers and pedestrians.
Fines imposed might make them more observant - -or, at least, less
impatient. For these reasons, I urge you to vote YES. Thank you for
listening!
Sincerely,
Carol Potter
pottercarol @rocketmail.com
1
Marian Karr
From: Nancy Sprince <nancy- sprince @mchsi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:48 PM
To: Council
Subject: red light cameras
Dear City Council members, I am writing in support of the red light cameras at intersections that are known to have
violators. My neighbors and I have witnessed many examples of egregious violations at these intersections that could
have resulted in terrible crashes. Although I do not know of any scientific studies that have been done to assess whether
these cameras prevent crashes, I believe it would be prudent to institute this measure and I urge you to vote in favor..
Best regards,
Nancy Sprince
229 Magowan Ave
Iowa City, IA 52246
-3
s
Prepared by: Kristopher Ackerson, Asst. Transportation Planner, and Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5247, and 319 - 356 -5030 respectively
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ", CHAPTER 1,
"DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS ",
SECTION 1, "DEFINITIONS "; AND AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC ", TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 11, AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, TO
ALLOW FOR RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article III,
Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of the Code of Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is located in a high- density traffic area and regularly
experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control
devices, exposing its citizens to the dangers of personal injury and property damage; and
WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the violation of State statues concerning traffic signals,
specifically the failure of motorists to stop at red lights and obey 'no turn on red signs;' and
WHEREAS, apprehending motorists who fail to obey traffic control devices through law
enforcement observance, chase, and citation is difficult, dangerous, and expensive and requires
the City to commit additional personnel that would not be necessary with the use of automated
traffic infraction detectors with image capture technologies (i.e., red -light cameras); and
WHEREAS, local governments in different parts of the State of Iowa and nation have
demonstrated that the combination of traffic infraction detectors with traditional traffic law
enforcement methods enhances vehicular and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, automated traffic enforcement laws are authorized both by Iowa home rule and the
Iowa Supreme Court, in City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008), all of
which recognize the rights of municipalities to utilize traffic infraction detectors to regulate
municipal traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City finds that implementation of the enforcement program set forth
in this ordinance will promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens
consistent with the authority of and limitations on the City pursuant to case law, the Constitution
of the State of Iowa, and the Code of Iowa.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 1, "Definitions, Administration and Enforcement of
Traffic Provisions ", Section 1, "Definitions" is amended by adding the following defined terms:
AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CITATION: A notice of fine generated in connection with the
automated traffic enforcement system.
Page 1 of 4
2. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTOR: The company or entity, if
any, with which the City of Iowa City contracts equipment and /or services in connection
with the Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
3. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM: An electronic system consisting of
a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in
conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to
automatically produce photographs, video or digital images of each vehicle violating a
standard traffic control device or speed restriction.
4. VEHICLE OWNER: The person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of
Transportation, or registered with any other state vehicle registration office, as the
registered owner of a vehicle.
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 11, "Automated Traffic Enforcement" is added as
follows:
1. General. The City of Iowa City, in accordance with its police powers, may deploy, erect
or cause to have erected an automated traffic enforcement system for making video images of
vehicles that fail to obey red light traffic signals at intersections designated by the city manager,
or a designee. The systems may be managed by the private contractor that owns and operates
the requisite equipment with supervisory control vested in the city's police department. Video
images shall be provided to the police department by the contractor for review. The police
department will determine which vehicle owners are in violation of the city's traffic control
ordinances and are to receive a notice of violation for the offense.
2. Vehicle Owner's Civil Liability for Certain Traffic Offenses.
A. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine if such a vehicle crosses a marked
stop line or the intersection plane at a system location when the traffic signal for that
vehicle's direction is emitting a steady red light or arrow.
B. The violation may be exempted from liability as outlined below in section 5 of this
chapter, and other defenses may be considered in connection with the appeal process.
C. In no event will an Automated Traffic Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa
Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of
being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record.
3. Notice of Violation; Fine.
A. Notice of the violation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each violation
recorded by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System or traffic control signal
monitoring device. The Automated Traffic Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice
within 30 days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall
include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and
readily discernable, and registration number; the violation charged; the time; the date;
and the location of the alleged violation; the applicable fine and monetary penalty which
shall be assessed for late payment; information as to the availability of an administrative
hearing in which the notice may be contested on its merits; and that the basis of the
notice is a photographic record obtained by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
Page 2 of 4
B. Any violation of section 2 of this chapter shall result in a civil fine issued to the
Vehicle Owner in an amount set by City Council by resolution, payable to the City of
Iowa City.
4. Contesting an Automated Traffic Citation. A Vehicle Owner who has been issued an
Automated Traffic Citation may contest the citation as follows:
A. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request for an administrative
hearing to be held at the Iowa City Police Department before an administrative appeals
board (the "Board ") consisting of one or more impartial fact finders. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days of the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle
Owner. After a hearing, the Board may either uphold or dismiss the Automated Traffic
Citation and shall mail its written decision within 10 days after the hearing to the address
provided on the request for hearing. If the citation is upheld, then the Board shall include
in its written decision a date by which the fine must be paid, and on or before that date
the Vehicle Owner shall either pay the fine or submit a request for a judicial hearing
pursuant to section 4(B) of this chapter.
B. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request that in lieu of the
Automated Traffic Citation, a municipal infraction citation be issued and filed with the
Small Claims Division of the Iowa District Court in Johnson County. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the
Vehicle Owner. Such a request will result in a court order requiring the Vehicle Owner to
file an answer and appearance with the Clerk of Court, as well as setting the matter for
trial before a judge or magistrate. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the
municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this chapter.
5. Exceptions to Owner Liability. There shall be no liability pursuant to this chapter if:
A. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the
violation in question pursuant to Title 9 of the Iowa City Code or Iowa Code Chapter 321
(2011) as amended; or
B. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state
registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen,
provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle
Owner at the time of the alleged violation; or
C. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle; or
D. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question
was lawfully participating in a funeral procession; or
E. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question
reasonably entered the intersection in order to yield the right -of -way to an emergency
vehicle.
Page 3 of 4
6. Failure to Timely Pay or Appeal. If the recipient of an Automated Traffic Citation does
not either pay the fine by the due date stated in the citation or appeal the citation as provided
herein, late fees may be assessed, as approved by City Council through resolution, and /or a
municipal infraction citation may be filed by the Iowa City Police Department and a fine may be
sought in accordance with Iowa City Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Section 2(B), Violations, Penalties
and Alternative Relief, rather than section 3 above. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of
the municipal infraction, State mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this section.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as
a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
or
City Attorney's Office
Page 4 of 4
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 1/10/2012
Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Dickens. NAYS: Payne, Champion,
Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 1/24/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Dickens. NAYS: Payne, Champion,
Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Date published
t ,
Prepared by: Marian Karr, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5041
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, 2012, AKA "CITY CODE."
WHEREAS, Section 380.8 of the Code of Iowa, 2011, requires that at least once every five
years a city shall adopt a code of ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006 the City Council adopted the City Code of Iowa City, Iowa;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City adds new ordinances and amendments upon passage by
supplementation to the City Code itself; and,
WHEREAS, if a proposed code of ordinances contains only existing ordinances which have
been edited and compiled without substantive changes, the council may adopt such code
without notice of public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, it is now appropriate to adopt a code of compiled and existing ordinances
under the statute, without any substantive changes proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. From and after the date of passage of this Ordinance, the City Code of the
City of Iowa City, Iowa, prepared by Sterling Codifiers, Inc., containing compilation of all
ordinances of a general nature together with the changes made to said ordinances, under the
direction of the governing body of the City, shall be accepted in all courts without question as
the Official Code and Law of the City as enacted by the City Council, and shall hereafter be
referred to as "The City Code ".
SECTION II. It is hereby adopted, as a method of perpetual codification, the loose -leaf type
of binding together with the continuous supplement service, provided by Sterling Codifiers, Inc.,
whereby each newly adopted ordinance of a general and permanent nature amending, altering,
adding or deleting provisions of the official City Code is identified by the proper catchline and is
inserted in the proper place in each of the official copies, a copy of which shall be maintained in
the office of the City Clerk, certified as to correctness and available for inspection at any and all
times that said office is regularly open.
SECTION III. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to change or amend,
by additions or deletions, any part or portion of the City Code, or to insert or delete pages or
portions thereof, or to alter or tamper with the City Code in any manner to cause the law of the
City to be misrepresented.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION IV. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, are, to the extent of
such conflict, hereby repealed.
SECTION V. A code of ordinances, containing only the current and existing ordinances
edited and compiled without change in substance, shall be and hereby is adopted as the City
Code, 2012.
Passed and approved this day of 12011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App�rovedd
City Attorney's Office
d erk/ord /citycode.doc
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 1/10/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens,
Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 1/24/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens,
Dobyns. NAYS:. Ndne. ABSENT: None.
Date published
l�
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4462
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON -BAR AND
ENTERTAINMENT VENUE EXCEPTIONS.
WHEREAS, the Partnership for Alcohol Safety (PAS) has made a series of proposals to the City for
amending the City's Under 21 ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the PAS proposals are largely geared toward leveling the playing field for bars and non -
bars with liquor licenses and exception certificates; and
WHEREAS, the PAS recommendations come with the a significant amount of support from the bar
community; and
WHEREAS, after the passage of time under the Under 21 ordinance the City has seen the need to
make some minor amendments to improve the ordinance in furtherance of Council intent; and
WHEREAS, mandating that several criteria and standards be set by Council via resolution will allow
for greater Council flexibility speed with which to respond to problems as they develop; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR
PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety
and replacing it with the following language:
A. However, the provisions of subsection A of this section shall not apply when: (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6-
2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003)
1. The person under the legal age is an employee of the license or permit holder, or performing
a contracted service for the license or permit holder on the premises, and is on the premises
during his or her scheduled work hours.
2. The person under the legal age is accompanied by a parent, guardian, spouse or domestic
partner registered as such under section 2 -6 -3 of this code who is the legal age or older.
(Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010, eff. 6 -1 -2010)
3. The licensee or permittee applies for and qualifies for an exception certificate from the Chief
of Police, or his or her designee, as follows:
a. A licensee or permittee whose primary business purpose is not the sale of alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer may qualify for an exception by filing with the City Clerk a
verified statement from an accountant which establishes that on average over a calendar
year more than fifty percent (50 %) of the licensee's or permittee's gross sales on the
premises are from the sale of goods or services other than alcoholic beverages, wine or
beer. Income from fees charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as
cover charges, as well as drink mixes, or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in
chapter 123 of the state code are to be counted as alcohol sales. Any purchases
required to gain entry shall be considered cover charges. Ticket sales for any event
performed on stage in a theater in which the entire audience area is consistent with
traditional theater seating shall be counted as non - alcohol sales. The statement shall
Ordinance No. 12 -4462
Page 2
recite the actual percentage of non - alcohol sales, as defined herein, and be based on
records made in the regular course of the licensee's or permittee's business. In order to
qualify for an exception certificate, applicants must possess a trailing twelve (12) month
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) ratio below the allowable limit, as
defined and set by City Council by resolution.
b. In addition to the aforementioned statement, proof of qualification for the exception may
include the business records on which the statement is based, profit and loss
statements, state and federal tax records, applications for dramshop insurance and
audits performed to determine dramshop insurance premiums, and receipts from
vendors for goods purchased, which records shall be made available to the Chief of
Police or designee for review upon request. The Chief of Police or designee may require
an audit of the establishment by an auditor selected by the Chief of Police or designee,
which audit will be performed at the expense of the applicant. In that event, the applicant
must submit a deposit to the City in an amount set by City Council via resolution for the
payment of the audit. At the conclusion of the audit, any additional costs over the
deposit amount must be paid by the applicant before an application will be considered
further. Any surplus funds from the deposit will be promptly returned to the applicant.
Failure to submit the deposit or pay costs of the audit will result in a denial of the
application. The factors the Chief of Police or designee will consider in determining
whether to require an audit will be established by resolution of the City Council, but the
final decision to require an audit will be that of the Chief of Police or designee.
c. If the Chief of Police or designee determines that the licensee has satisfied the above
requirements an exception certificate shall be issued.
d. An exception certificate shall be effective for the duration of the alcoholic liquor control
license, wine or beer permit.
e. A new licensee or permittee, as opposed to one applying for a renewal of an existing
license or permit, whose primary business purpose is not the sale of alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer may obtain a temporary six (6) month exception certificate if the
licensee's or permittee's business plan anticipates sales as required by subsection B3 of
this section and the licensee or permittee submits an affidavit which details the nature of
the new establishment and the anticipated percentage of sales of food and nonalcoholic
beverages. At the end of the six (6) month period the licensee or permittee may obtain
an exception certificate for the remainder of the duration of the license or permit in
accordance with subsections 133a through 63c of this section if sales during the six (6)
month period support an exception, and the licensee or permittee has met the PAULA
ratio requirement referenced in 63a. No more than one (1) temporary exception
certificate may be granted for any location within a three (3) year period. Applicants who
sign an affidavit pursuant to this subparagraph but fail to secure renewal of the exception
certificate following the six (6) month certificate for the subject location may not be
awarded an exception certificate for any other new location within three (3) years of the
granting of the subject six (6) month certificate.
To be effective in excepting the licensee or permittee from the prohibition in subsection A
of this section, the exception certificate issued by the Chief of Police or designee must be
posted at every entrance to the licensed or permitted establishment in view of patrons of
the licensed or permitted establishments. In addition, the licensee or permittee must
provide staff of sufficient number and capability to monitor all patrons to prevent
underage possession of alcohol. (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003)
g. Revocation: Exception certificates may be revoked by the Chief of Police, or designee,
for good cause. Licensees or permittees may appeal a revocation to the City Manager or
designee by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the
mailing, by first class mail, of the revocation decision. Appeals will ordinarily be heard no
Ordinance No. 12 -4462
Page 3
later than fourteen (14) days, and in no event later than thirty (30) days, following the
filing of an appeal in the office of the City Clerk. In the event of a revocation, the licensee
may continue to operate with their exception certificate until the ten (10) day appeal
period has passed, or in the event of an appeal to the City Manager or designee, until
after the City Manager or designee has issued his or her ruling on appeal. In the event
the City Manager or designee affirms the revocation, the establishment's exception
certificate will expire seven (7) days from the mailing, by first class mail, of the appeal
decision. Good cause for revocation includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the licensee, permittee, or any
employees or agents thereof, sold, gave, or delivered alcohol to any patron under the
legal drinking age more than once within any five (5) year period; or
(2) Where at the end of any month the venue's trailing twelve (12) month PAULA ratio,
as determined solely by the Chief of Police, rises above the maximum allowed
PAULA ratio, as established by City Council by resolution; or
(3) Where the establishment has failed to cooperate fully with the police department; or
(4) Where continued operation under the exception certificate would be detrimental to
the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the city.
(5) Revocations shall last twelve (12) months. Following the period of revocation, the
applicant may re -apply for an exception certificate.
4. The person under the legal age is on the premises during a time that the licensee or
permittee has, in accordance with a written notice and plan given in advance to and
approved by the Chief of Police or designee, suspended dispensing alcoholic beverages on
the licensed premises. Said plan must provide a method by which alcoholic beverages will
be out of sight and reach of patrons. If the plan is approved, the Chief of Police or designee
shall issue a certificate approving the event, which certificate shall be posted at every
entrance to the licensed establishment in view of patrons of the licensed or permitted
establishment. It shall be the strict duty of a licensee or permittee permitting such persons
under the legal age onto the licensed premises pursuant to such a plan, and the agents and
employees of the licensee or permittee, to prevent persons under the legal age from
consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages on said premises. (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003,
eff. 8 -1 -2003; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010, eff. 6 -1 -2010)
5. The person under the legal age is a patron of an "authorized entity" which has entered into
an agreement with the city for use of an "authorized site" in a city park, pursuant to
subsection 4 -5 -31D of this chapter. (Ord. 04 -4123, 4 -20 -2004; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010,
eff. 6 -1 -2010)
6. The person under the legal age is on the alcohol free portion of the premises during a time
that the licensee or permittee has, in accordance with a written notice and plan given in
advance to and approved by the Chief of Police or designee, divided the premises into
alcohol free and alcohol permitted sections. Said plan must provide a method by which
alcoholic beverages will be out of sight and reach of underage patrons. If the plan is
approved, the Chief of Police or designee shall issue a certificate approving the event, which
certificate shall be posted at every entrance to the licensed establishment in view of patrons
of the licensed or permitted establishment. It shall be the strict duty of a licensee or permittee
permitting such persons under the legal age onto the licensed premises pursuant to such a
plan, and the agents and employees of the licensee or permittee, to prevent persons under
the legal age from consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages on said premises. In
addition, the following requirements must be met:
Ordinance No. 12 -4462
Page 4
a. The physical setup and separation of the alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of
the establishment must earn prior approval by the director of housing and inspection
services, or designee, for matters of safety and code compliance, including, but not
limited to, occupancy, bathrooms and exits.
b. Both the alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of the establishment shall include
city code compliant bathrooms.
c. The director of housing and inspection services may, but is not required to, allow those
establishments with a PAULA ratio under that set by City Council by resolution during the
trailing twelve (12) months prior to the event application, to permit patrons of both the
alcohol free and alcohol permitted spaces to share the same bathrooms, as long as the
establishment strictly enforces a rule prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the bathrooms.
For purposes of this section, the PAULA ratio shall be based on the twelve (12) PAULA
reports immediately preceding the licensee's event application, all as calculated by the
Chief of Police, or designee.
d. The alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of the establishment must be separated
by one hour construction walls and doors, as approved by the director of housing and
inspection services, or designee, or comparable barriers, as approved by the Chief of
Police, or designee.
e. It shall be the strict duty of the licensee to exclude those under legal age from the alcohol
permitted area, and to exclude all alcoholic beverages from the alcohol free area.
f. All patrons of legal age must be marked with a wristband indicating they are of age. All
patrons under legal age must be marked indicating they are under legal age. (Ord. 10-
4411, 10 -26 -2010)
7. The licensee or permittee applies for, qualifies for, and is granted an entertainment venue
exception certificate:
a. Requirements: In order for an entertainment venue exception certificate to be issued by
the Chief of Police, or designee, the establishment must demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of the Chief of Police, or designee, that all the following requirements have been met:
(1) The venue has hosted and will continue to host shows on at least one hundred fifty
(150) calendar days each year; and
(2) The venue has a permanently installed (not risers) and dedicated performance stage
of at least eight feet by six feet (8'x 6') in dimension, which shall never be used for
any purpose other than by performers during shows; and
(3) The venue must distribute at least fifty percent (50 %) of any fees charged to gain
entry to or remain on the premises, including, but not limited to, cover charges and
ticket sales, from the period of opening until closing, to the show performer(s) within
forty eight (48) hours of the completion of the show; and
(4) The venue subscribes to at least one industry tracking service, such as Pollstar Pro,
or comparable alternative; and
(5) The venue has a PAULA ratio, as determined solely by the Chief of Police or
designee, of no greater than that allowed by City Council, as established by
resolution; and
(6) The venue has permanently installed professional light and sound; and
Ordinance No.
Page 5
12 -4462
(7) The venue marks all patrons of legal drinking age with a wristband, and marks all
patrons under legal drinking age with either a wristband of a different color from the
legal age patrons, or permanent marker on the hand; and
(8) The venue provides staff of sufficient number and capability to monitor all patrons at
all shows; and
(9) The venue provides to the Chief of Police, or designee, a report of all upcoming show
dates at least seven (7) days prior to any show; and
(10) The venue provides to the Chief of Police, or designee, reports detailing all
dates on which a show took place, including the name of the performer(s) for each
show, which reports shall be due no later than the ninetieth, one hundred eightieth,
two hundred seventieth, and three hundred sixtieth day following issuance of the
entertainment venue exception certificate; and
(11) The venue employs at least one salaried employee responsible for booking
shows by performers, and promptly provides both the employee name and most
recent salary paystub upon request from the city; and
(12) The venue employs only TIPS certified bartenders and servers on any show
date; and
(13) The venue allows city inspection, at any time and for any reason, of the
venue, professional sound and lighting equipment, and show and performer financial
records, including, but not limited to, show settlement sheets.
b. Duration: Entertainment venue exception certificates shall be valid for one year, or until
expiration of the premises liquor license, whichever is sooner.
c. New Businesses: New businesses may be granted an entertainment venue exception
certificate by satisfying all requirements of subsection 137a of this section, save
subsections B7a(1) and B7a(5) of this section. For establishments previously operating
under the same or substantially similar ownership and /or management, the PAULA ratio
restrictions of subsection 67a(5) of this section apply, and will be utilized in assessing
the establishment's application. For establishments not previously meeting the minimum
show day requirements of subsection B7a(1) of this section, a credible business plan
must be accompanied by a notarized affidavit by the establishment owner (or largest
shareholder) attesting that the establishment will meet all requirements of subsection
B7a of this section.
d. Revocation: Entertainment venue exception certificates may be revoked by the Chief of
Police, or designee, for good cause. Venues may appeal a revocation to the City
Manager or designee by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10)
days of the mailing, by first class mail, of the revocation decision. Appeals will ordinarily
be heard no later than fourteen (14) days, and in no event later than thirty (30) days,
following the filing of an appeal in the office of the City Clerk. In the event of a revocation,
the venue may continue to operate as an entertainment venue until the ten (10) day
appeal period has passed, or in the event of an appeal to the City Manager, or designee,
until after the City Manager, or designee, has issued his or her ruling on appeal. In the
event the City Manager affirms the revocation, the venue's entertainment venue
exception privileges will cease seven (7) days from the mailing, by first class mail, of the
appeal decision. Good cause for revocation includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the licensee, permittee, or any
employees or agents thereof, sold, gave, or delivered alcohol to any patron under the
legal drinking age more than once within any five (5) year period; or
Ordinance No. 12 -4462
Page 6
(2) Where at the end of any month the venue's trailing twelve (12) month PAULA ratio,
as determined solely by the Chief of Police, rises above the maximum allowed
PAULA ratio set by City Council, as established by resolution; or
(3) Where. the venue has failed to cooperate fully with the police department; or
(4) Where the venue has failed to maintain compliance with all requirements of
subsection B7a of this section; or
(5) Where continued operation under the entertainment venue exception certificate
would be detrimental to the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the city.
(6) Revocations shall last twelve (12) months. Following the period of revocation, the
applicant may re -apply for an exception certificate.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective May 1st, 2012.
2012
Passed and approved this 24t day of january 261-1-
MAYOR
ATTEST: Q�ftat� 7YL�_
CITY 6,6ERK —�
Ap roved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 12 -4462
Page 7
It was moved by Champion and seconded by Dickens that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
x
Champion
g
Dickens
X
Dobyns
X
'Hayek
X
Mims
X
Payne
X
Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/6/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey, Champion, Dickens, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 1/10/2012
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 2/2/2012