HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-26 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org July 26, 2012
I131 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
JULY 31 WORK SESSION - 5:00 PM
FOLLOWING SPECIAL FORMAL AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from City Manager: Allowing the keeping of "backyard" chickens in Iowa City
residential neighborhoods
IN Memo from Asst. City Atty. and City Clerk: Board & Commission Survey Results
IP5 Pending Work Session Topics
IP6 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show
Memorandum from Recycling Coordinator: Rummage in the Ramp [Distributed at 7/31
Council Meeting]
Email from City Manager: Invitation from Citizens for a Green Iowa City [Distributed at 7/31
Council Meeting]
Initiative proposal from Aleksey Gurtovoy and Martha Hampel; Traffic Enforcement Cameras
[Distributed at 7/31 Council Meeting]
Memorandum from City Attorney: Initiative Proceedings Traffic Camera update [Distributed
at 7/31 Council Meeting]
MISCELLANEOUS
IP7 Memo from Planning and Community Development Director, Transportation Services Director,
and Transportation Planner: Riverfront Crossings Multiuse Parking Facility
IP8 Information from Asst. to the City Manager: Bench Dedication for Caroline Found
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org July 26,301 2
IN Council Tentativ Meeting Schedule
ULY 31 WORK SESSION - 5:00 PM
FOLLOWING )SPECIAL FORMAL AND EXECUTIVE SE ION
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from City Manager: Ilowing the keeping of "backyard" chickens in Iowa City
residential neighborhoods
IN Memo from Asst. City Atty. anXCClerk: Board & Commis 'on Survey Results
IP5 Pending Work Session Topic
IP6 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Sh
MISCELLANEOUS
IP7 Memo from Planning and Community Dev opme Director, Transportation Services Director,
and Transportation Planner: Ri=ger: rossings ultiuse Parking Facility
IP8 Information from Asst. to the Bench edication for Caroline Found
���fT—
r
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
U, *" � � July 26, 2012
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Subject to change
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
5:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
7:OO13M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
7:OOPM
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
7:OOPM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
7:OOPM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
7:OO13M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
7:OOPM
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
®'-lei
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(319)356 -5000
(319)356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Special Formal / Executive Session 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted
City Council Work Session Agenda
July 31, 2012
Following 5:00 PM Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
• Council Appointments [Agenda #17]
• Questions from Council re Planning & Zoning Items
• Questions from Council re Agenda Items
• Potential Urban / Backyard Chicken Ordinance [IP #3 ]
• Proposed Changes in East Side Loop Bus Route
• Proposed Changes to the sidewalk cafe ordinance (including use of parking
spaces [Agenda #8 ]
• Consolidation or structural changes to City Board and Commissions (not
required by State Law) [IP #4]
• Information Packet Discussion [July 12, 19, 26]
• Council Time
• Pending Work Session Topics [IP #5]
• Meeting Schedule /Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations [IP #6]
r
�`:.� CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 24, 2012
To: City Council
From: Tom Markus, City Manager
Re: Allowing the keeping of "backyard" chickens in Iowa City residential neighborhoods
An interest has been expressed by a large number of residents (petition provided to Iowa City
Council on 07/10/12) that Iowa City allow the keeping of a limited number of chickens in residential
areas. Currently, the Iowa City Zoning Code prohibits the raising of farm animals (including chickens)
in any residential area. The zoning code would need to be amended to allow the keeping of
"backyard" chickens in Iowa City.
BACKGROUND
The keeping of backyard chickens has become an increasingly popular trend in recent years.
Numerous urban communities across the country have successfully adopted regulations allowing
backyard chickens while controlling for such concerns as noise, odor, rodents, and disease.
In 2010, the City of Cedar Rapids amended their municipal code to add regulations allowing
backyard chickens in residential areas (see attached regulations).
According to the Animal Control Director in Cedar Rapids (responsible for the enforcement of the
backyard chicken ordinance) the City has encountered few issues. For the past two years, roughly
56 permits have been issued for the population of about 125,000. The City has averaged
approximately 2 -3 complaints a month (usually concerning smell, noise, or not keeping the property
maintained) and, upon response from Animal Control, about half of these complaints have been
found to be warranted. They have impounded four chickens due to owner not receiving a permit,
found a citizen with 41 chickens with no permit, and impounded 10 -12 stray chickens.
Cedar Rapids' advice was to adopt clearly stated regulations and to consider inspections for
compliance prior to issuing a permit. Animal Control in Cedar Rapids only inspects on a complaint
basis, but they indicated that initial inspections would likely have taken care of the majority of their
enforcement issues.
RECOMMENDATION
There is no doubt that some violations are likely to occur, therefore, it is essential that effective
standards for keeping backyard chickens be adopted to ensure accountability, avoid nuisances, and
to protect a neighbor's right to the enjoyment of their property. Based on the experiences in Cedar
Rapids and other communities throughout the country, staff believes that backyard chickens can be
appropriately regulated in Iowa City. However, it is important to keep in mind that neighborhood
covenants or other private property restrictions may still prohibit the keeping of backyard chickens,
even if the zoning code is amended to permit the activity.
If the City Council wishes to consider allowing backyard chickens in Iowa City residential
neighborhoods, then the Iowa City Zoning Code will need to be amended and referred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration and recommendation to the City Council.
Prior to sending proposed regulations to the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff intends to reach
out to the organizers of the petition group and seek their input on any proposed regulations. After
such meeting, staff will forward a proposed zoning code amendment to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
t
,�,.® CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4
47 2*" MEMORANDUM
Date: July 25, 2012
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Sue Dulek, Asst. City Attorne
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 0-1
Re: Board & Commission Survey Results
Introduction: Council directed staff to solicit input from current members of City Boards &
Commissions that are not mandated by State Code.
History /Background: For the past three years the matter of reviewing the function of City
Boards and Commission and exploring the possibility of consolidation has appeared on your
pending work session lists. At the goal setting session held November 29 two issues were
identified:
1. Commissions - How many and which ones can be consolidated. Makeup of
commissions.
2. Stronger links between what boards and commission are doing and what we want to
accomplish annually.
Information was prepared and included in your packets of January 5 and 19, and discussion
occurred at the work session on January 24. At that time staff was directed to conduct a survey
of the 8 Boards and Commissions not required by State Code regarding shortening the length of
term, reducing membership, handling duties by a different Board /Commission, and
demographics of its members.
Discussion of Solution: A survey of the 8 Boards and Commissions was conducted, and
responses received from 7 of the 8. The results are included in this information packet. In 1994
the City Code was amended to delete individual Board /Commission chapters and direction
given to incorporate provisions into by -laws regarding residency, open meetings, and open
records. Staff is aware of only one resolution re membership, #85 -354, which establishes a
policy regarding spouses and relatives of City Council Members, and limits members to serving
on one Board /Commission at the same time. It is important to note at this time the majority of
our vacancies occur in State mandated Boards and Commissions. Based on Council direction,
staff will provide further information.
Financial Impact: As noted earlier, depending on Council direction there could be cost savings
in distribution of materials, both printing and /or mailing costs. However, with distribution of
electronic packets that becomes less of an issue. Additional savings could be achieved in staff
time dedicated, and comp time provided.
Recommendation: No recommendations are included at this time pending further direction
from Council.
Attachment: Res. 85 -354
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - Not Required by State Law
7 -23 -2012
Anneals. Board of
# of Members: 5
# of current vacancies: 0
# of Members responding to survey: 2
Length of Term: 5 years
Housing & Community Development Commission
# of Members: 9
# of current vacancies: 1
# of Members responding to survey: 7
Length of Term: 3 years
Parks & Recreation Commission
# of Members: 9
# of current vacancies: 0
# of Members responding to survey: 5
Length of Term: 4 years
Police Citizens Review Board
# of Members: 5
# of current vacancies: 1
# of Members responding to survey: 5
Length of Term: 4 years
Public Art Advisory Committee
# of Members: 7 (Council appoints 5 and 2 are City staff members)
# of current vacancies: 0
# of Members responding to survey: 2
Length of Term: 3 years
Senior Center Commission
# of Members: 7 (Council appoints 6 and Commission appoints 1)
# of current vacancies: 0
# of Members responding to survey: 0
Length of Term: 3 years
Telecommunications Commission
# of Members: 5
# of current vacancies: 0
# of Members responding to survey: 5
Length of Term: 3 years
Youth Advisory Commission
# of Members: 7
# of current vacancies: 2
# of Members responding to survey: 2
Length of Term: 2 years
s: Boards /nonrequiredboards- 2012survey. doc
RESOLUTION NO. ..85 -3S4
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY THAT SPOUSES AND RELATIVES OF CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS, PERSONS ALREADY SERVING AS BOARD OR COMMISSION
MEMBERS, AND MEMBERS OF COMPARABLE COUNTY BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS
SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY BOARDS OR COMMIS-
SIONS.
WHEREAS, the various City Boards and Commissions have been established to
provide advice and assistance to the City, and to perform certain statutorily
assigned tasks in some instances; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the members of each Board or Commission be
independent of the City Council, of other Boards and Commissions, and of
other local governmental units, and that the members of said Boards and
Commissions exercise free and unbiased judgment in addressing the issues and
tasks before them; and .
WHEREAS, this City Council has determined that it would be appropriate and in
the best interests of the City of Iowa City to formally establish and adopt a
policy regarding eligibility for appointment to City Boards and Commissions
so as to assure the necessary independence of said bodies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE, AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
That it is hereby established, as a formal policy of the City Council of Iowa
City, that the following persons shall not be eligible for appointment to
Boards and Commissions of the City of Iowa City.
1. The spouse, child, mother, father, mother -in -law, father -in -law, brother,
sister, brother -in -law, sister -in -law, step- father, step- mother, step-
child aunt or uncle of a City Councilmember while such member holds
office;
2. A current member of a City Board or Commission., unless dual or joint
memberships are provided for in the resolution, ordinance, or statute
which creates the Board or Commission to which appointment is being made;
and
3. A current member of- a comparable County Board or Commission, unless dual
or joint memberships are provided for in. the resolution, ordinance, or
statute which creates the Board or Commission to which appointment is
being made.
2
It was moved by - -Strait ------- and seconded by Dickson..... the Resolution
be adopted- upon roll call there were:
AYES:
X
X
X
X
x_
Passed and approved thi
s
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
NAYS: ABSENT:
AMBRI SCO
BAKER
DICKSON
ERDAHL
MCDONALD
STRAIT
. ZUBER
17thday of December...; 1985.
AYOR
.. . .._ - ..ors: - cl-- �"�►+' -�y
Name of the Board or Would a What is the ideal Could your W.uldy.0 Ideally how many Isthe Board or Commission Ifso, which one? The current policy allows a citizen to The current policy requires persons Currentlythe City advertises vacancies in the Other comments:
Commission you currently shortened length of a term? Board or serve ifyour membersshould you currently serve on needed serve on only one City Board & sewing on City Boards and Commission to Press-Citizen, the City welbsite, the City Hall
serve on: term attract Commission Board or your Board have? or could the duties be coupled Commission. Should this policy be be residents of Iowa City (with limited bulletin board and on the Council agenda from
more people? operatewith Commission with another existing Board or changed to permit a citizen to serve exception). Should the policy be changed the time they are announced until appointed.
fewer had fewer Commission? on multiple City Boards or to allow people living outside of Iowa City Do you have other suggestions for advertising
members? members? Commission? to be considered? the vacancies?
Board of Appeals yes 3 years no yes Current numbers is Yes it's needed, and I don't no yes Public Library bulletin board, Senior Center, Re: residency requirement, people who live out oftown should be considered ifthey have
good. think it could easily be coupled Farmers Market, in busses, neighborhood some solid connection with Iowa City, e.g. own a business in IC or work in Iowa City.
with another board. centers.
Board of Appeals no 3 yrs yes yes 5 possibly housing and yes no perhaps advertise with loca I businesses? For softening "conflict of interest" rules wou Id increase the pool of available
community example, if a plumber is needed for the board of "potential" board members
development appeals - advertise ata local plumbingsupply
busines
Nameofthe Board or Would a What is the ideal Could your W.uldy.0 Ideally how many Isthe Board or Commission Ifso, which one? The current policy allows a citizen to The current policy requires persons Currentlythe City advertises vacancies in the Other comments:
Commission you currently shortened length of a term? Board or serve ifyour membersshould you currently serve on needed serve on only one City Board & sewing on City Boards and Commission to Press-Citizen, the City welbsite, the City Hall
serve on: term attract Commission Board or your Board have? or could the duties be coupled Commission. Should this policy be be residents of Iowa City (with limited bulletin board and on the Council agenda from
more people? operatewith Commission with another existing Board or changed to permit a citizen to serve exception). Should the policy be changed the time they are announced until appointed.
fewer had fewer Commission? on multiple City Boards or to allow people living outside of Iowa City Do you have other suggestions for advertising
members? members? Commission? to be considered? the vacancies?
Housing and Community no 3 Years seems no yes 7 There is no way the duties of no no Kiosks downtown. Public acess TV. I am unfamiliar with other boards but the HCDC is extremely effective in its duties and is
Development proper the HCDC could be coupled very busy taking its current responsibilities seriously and should not/cannot take on more
with another board and HCDC responsibility.
is already busy
Housing and Community no For HCDCthere is a yes yes I think the current Needed no no No
Development steep learning number isfine.
curve. The longer
term gave me a
chance to learn
and use what I
learned.
Housing and Community no 3years no NULL Enough for a No no no Library, senior center kiosk, other public I did not know such volunteer opportunities existed until I had a talk with a city staffer
Development quorum and to get buildings
the work done
I I I
Housing and Community no 3 year, with a no no 9 1 believe it is needed no no none
Development optional 3 one year
extensions
Housing and Community no I think 2 or 3 years yes yes Same as current or No. Work doesn't really not combined, but no no Little Village?
Development isgood. Ashorter 2 or 3 fewer; odd overlap other commissions' communications
period means less number. work, although some with Planning and
time to gain communication might be good Zoning, Commission
needed on Homeless; also,
background and city council's
experience. economic
development sub-
committee.
Housing and Community no Four years yes yes I don't have an I'm not sure about that, but its Maybe ifthe mission no no No It may be helpful to allow service on more than one board /commission if one of them is
Development ideal number, but I always possible I suppose. of Planning and an ad hoc commission and one ofthem is a standing commission.
think either 9 or 7 Zoning was
would work expanded HCDC and
PZ could be
combined.
Housing and Community yes Two years yes NULL 5 Needed NULL no Community Groups, Churches, Synagogues,
Development I I I Mosques, Facelbook
Name ofthe Board or Would a What is the ideal Could your W.uldy.0 Ideally how many Isthe Board or Commission Ifso, which one? The current policy allows a citizen to The current policy requires persons Currentlythe City advertises vacancies in the Other comments:
Commission you currently shortened length of a term? Board or serve ifyour membersshould you currently serve on needed serve on only one City Board & sewing on City Boards and Commission to Press-Citizen, the City welbsite, the City Hall
serve on: term attract Commission Board or your Board have? or could the duties be coupled Commission. Should this policy be be residents of Iowa City (with limited bulletin board and on the Council agenda from
more people? operatewith Commission with another existing Board or changed to permit a citizen to serve exception). Should the policy be changed the time they are announced until appointed.
fewer had fewer Commission? on multiple City Boards or to allow people living outside of Iowa City Do you have other suggestions for advertising
members? members? Commission? to be considered? the vacancies?
Parks & Rec yes three years no yes Nine is a good Parks and Rec is a unique yes no I know many of our members have been
number for this commission; I don't see a recruited from existing members.
commission readily apparent partnership.
Parks & Recreation yes 2-3 years no yes 8-10 Yes, it is needed. No, I don't no no Social media outlets-- Facelbook page, twitter. I think it would be okay to allow people living outside city limit, "but still have an IC
think it would do well to Other newspaper— Daily Iowan. Public library address" to be board members. For example, those who live north of town who are
combine with a different bulletin board. Grocery store boards. considered county, not city, but still have an IC address.
board/commission. I
Parks & Recreation no 4 yea rs yes yes 9 "what we have Needed.Too many no no I am a realtor and our local board posts I appreciated the Board & Commission training session conducted by Jeff Schott.
now" for diversity responsibilitiesto be combined vacanciesto encourage civic involvement
with another Board or
Commission
Parks & Recreation no 4 yea rs yes yes 7 no no yes no This boa rd functions very well due to cooperation between staff a nd boa rd members..
Parks & Recreation no 3 yrs, maybe 4 no yes 8-10 needed as is, lots of no no public radio announcements for wider audience I don't think Parks and Recs should be coupled or merged with any other commission. But
responsibilities as it is it would be good to have occasional joint meetings with Planning and Zoning since many
issues concerning land acquisition/land use overlap.
Name of the Board or Would a What is the ideal Could your W.uldy.0 Ideally how many Isthe Board or Commission Ifso, which one? The current policy allows a citizen to The current policy requires persons Currentlythe City advertises vacancies in the Other comments:
Commission you currently shortened length of a term? Board or serve ifyour membersshould you currently serve on needed serve on only one City Board & sewing on City Boards and Commission to Press-Citizen, the City welbsite, the City Hall
serve on: term attract Commission Board or your Board have? or could the duties be coupled Commission. Should this policy be be residents of Iowa City (with limited bulletin board and on the Council agenda from
more people? operatewith Commission with another existing Board or changed to permit a citizen to serve exception). Should the policy be changed the time they are announced until appointed.
fewer had fewer Commission? on multiple City Boards or to allow people living outside of Iowa City Do you have other suggestions for advertising
members? members? Commission? to be considered? the vacancies?
Police Citizens Review Board no 3 years no yes 5 The Board I currently serve on N/A yes no No, those advertisement avenues are more than
is needed. adequate.
Police Citizens Review Board no 2 - 4 years yes yes The board could I feel that the board is not yes no Within the Community panels such as
operatte with needed. Neighborhood Associations
three members
Police Citizens Review Board no 3 Years no yes 5 It probrably could be coupled Ad Hoc Commission yes yes FaceBook and Twitter I think that people who live in Johnson County should not be excluded from sewing on the
with the new Ad Hoc Board Boards. These are people who are taxpayers in Johnson County and they should be able to
Commission Board get involved aswell!
Police Citizens Review Board yes 2-3 years no yes Five Needed, yes; coupled with yes no Gazette, informational stories in media, contact
another board, no. major businesses in Iowa City promote in
newsletters.
Police Citizens Review Board no two yea rs no yes 5 Needed no no Postings at Library
Name of the Board or Would a What is the ideal Could your Woulcyou Ideally how many Isthe Board or Commission Ifso, which one? The current policy allows a citizen to The current policy requires persons Currentlythe City advertises vacancies in the Other comments:
Commission you currently shortened length of a term? Board or serve ifyour membersshould you currently serve on needed serve on only one City Board & sewing on City Boards and Commission to Press-Citizen, the City welbsite, the City Hall
serve on: term attract Commission Board or your Board have? or could the duties be coupled Commission. Should this policy be be residents of Iowa City (with limited bulletin board and on the Council agenda from
more people? operatewith Commission with another existing Board or changed to permit a citizen to serve exception). Should the policy be changed the time they are announced until appointed.
fewer hadfewer Commission? on multiple City Boards or to allow people living outside of Iowa City Do you have other suggestions for advertising
I members? members? Commission? to be considered? the vacancies?
IP5
1 r 1
=0 �®50
A �4w= 344,36, M
CON
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
July 25, 2012
August 21, 2012
1. Landfill update
2. Presentation on use of municipal waste for ethanol production (Fiberight Company)
3. Continue the discussion on the sale or dispersion of public housing units
Pending Topics to be Scheduled
1. Discussion pertaining to noise concerns voiced by residents of Ecumenical Towers
2. Discuss potential procedures and /or policies related to requests for habitable private
spaces constructed over public right -of -way
#A = i
�,. *-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 20, 2012
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ot�-
Re: KXIC Radio Show
KXIC offers a City show at 9:00 AM every Wednesday morning. In the past Council has
volunteered for dates, and staff filled in as necessary. Please take a look at your calendars and
come prepared to help fill in the schedule at your work session on July 31:
August 1 - Throgmorton
August 8
August 15
August 22
August 29
September 5
September 11
September 19 - Dobyns
Future commitments:
November 21- Rick Dobyns
U:radioshowasking.doc
IP6
�r
®..T4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 30, 2012
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Jen Jordan, Recycling Coordinator
Marcia Bollinger, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Jeremy Endsley, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Intern
Re: Rummage in the Ramp
Introduction
Rummage in the Ramp 2012 will be held in the lower level of Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp from
Friday, July 27 through Saturday, August 4. This was the sixth year for the event, which was introduced
in 2007 as an effort to keep reusable household items out of the Iowa City Landfill and redistribute them
to households who could reuse them. The event is always scheduled in late July /early August, when
annual lease turnovers occur. The event is organized by Landfill and Neighborhood Services staff and
run by volunteers from local non - profit groups. This year, we have 33 participating organizations. The
funds we raise through the sales are split among the groups.
In addition to waste reduction, goals of the project include:
• Improving neighborhood relations between single - family homeowners and renters
• Utilizing the sales events to provide a way for low- income families, who may not be able to afford
new items, to purchase furniture and household goods
• Creating a fundraiser for local environmental groups and human service agencies
• Reducing the workload of City refuse workers and private waste haulers
History
Below are some statistics from the five years the event has been held.
Annual Comparisons
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
numbers of donors
250
320
564
648
664
number of shoppers
800
1124
2062
2124
2114
tons sold & diverted from landfill
20
19
24
25.8
23.5
tons to landfill
1.5
2
1.135
2.4
4.1
tons recycled Goodwill, books, scrap metal
1.1
0.5
0.25
0.9
1.0
number of volunteers
70
105
155
215
270
income
$4,090
$8,957
$13,540
$15,202
$17,930
donations included in income
$250
$210
$225
$229
$244
volunteer agency rou s
10
12
22
28
30
ncome er shift
$410
$698
$575
$515
$480
s onsors
0
3
8
12
8
sponsorship cash
0
0
$650
$800
$0
Discussion of Solutions
Ultimately, we feel that this event continues to be a huge success and expect that it will continue to be
a popular, win -win event for the City, non - profits and the public. Each year we receive great press
about the event and have capitalized on that to help encourage the public to reduce, reuse, and
recycle, not only during Rummage in the Ramp, but year- round.
Financial Impact
In 2011, the event brought in revenue of about $18,000. The City spends an average of $800 each
year on advertising, which we attempt to cover this with sponsorships. In addition, City staff spends
about 275 hours in labor for planning and implementing the event at the cost of around $7,000.
About $400 is spent on disposal costs of items that do not sell; this money is recouped from the sale
revenue before the proceeds are split among the non - profits.
Recommendation
Rummage in the Ramp is a successful event that has strong community support. Each year small
changes are made to continue to improve the event, often based on input from other City staff,
volunteers and the public. Staff recommends continuing to work with the community to improve and
expand this event.
For more information, please see the website at www.icgov.org /rummageintheramp, or contact Jen
Jordan at the Landfill (iennifer- iordan aiowa- citv.org or 887 -6160) or Marcia Bollinger at Neighborhood
Services ( marcia- bollingeraiowa- citv.org or 356 - 5237).
Marian Karr
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:17 AM
To: Marian Karr
Cc: Eleanor M. Dilkes
Subject: FW: EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT / CURRENT LOCAL NEWS / FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: Rebecca Rosenbaum [mailto:anyroad65 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:11 AM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: Fw: EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT / CURRENT LOCAL NEWS / FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TO: ALL MEDIA, IN ANY FORM
FROM: C -GIC
CITIZENS FOR A GREEN IOWA CITY
any1oad65gyahoo.com
319- 337 -5187
JULY 31 ST 2012
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
A NEW AREA GROUP, C -GIC ( CITIZENS FOR A GREEN IOWA CITY) CALLS TODAY
FOR A "SPONTANEOUS GATHERING" AT 7 PM ( TUESDAY JULY 31 ST)
IN FRONT OF THE OLD WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING ON THE PEDESTRIAN MALL.
WHICH IS SLATED FOR DEMOLITION AND WHICH WILL BE THE SITE OF A LUXURY
APARTMENT TOWER BUILT BY AREA DEVELOPER M. MOEN., OR WHAT THE GROUP
CALLS " A 14 STORY ERECTION FOR THE 1%".
THE GROUP AND THOSE WHO AGREE WITH ITS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STANCE
( WITH MORE REGARD FOR " THE 99 %" AND THE ENVIRONMENT) PLANS TO
"SPONTANEOUSLY GATHER" AND THEN TOUR PART OF DOWNTOWN IOWA CITY,
NOTING THE HISTORY OF WHAT EXISTED BEFORE CURRENT BUILDINGS, AND TO
COMMENT ON THE TODAY'S SITUATION.
AFTER THEIR SHORT TOUR (SO LIMITED BECAUSE OF WEATHER, AND HEALTH
CONCERNS OF SOME PARTICIPANTS) THE GROUP WILL MOVE (AT ABOUT 8 PM)
TO THE BACK YARD OF IOWA CITY'S SOON- TO -BE- FORMER SYNAGOGUE, AND
"HEAR AND SEE THE CRY OF RALSTON CREEK IN THIS SUMMER OF DROUGHT AND
LEARN HOW THE BELOVED THE GREN SPACE ... IS TO HUMANS CATS DOGS AND
BIRDS...." AS WELL AS TO WATCH THE MOON RISE.
THE GROUP INTENDS TO SHARE THOUGHTS, TO MEDITATE, TO SET FOOT IN THE
CREEK, WHETHER IT IS DRY OR WET, AND TO PARTICIPATE IN SOME "GENTLE
DRUMMING ".
THEY STATE THAT IF PUBLIC FUNDS CAN AID THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOEN'S
SECOND LUXURY TOWER, FUNDS COULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE CREATION OF A
"QUIET MEDITATIVE... PARK DEDICATED TO INTERFATITH INTERCULTUREAL AND
INTERSPECIES ... UNDERSTANDING" AS WELL AS A "MARKER THAT ON THIS SITE
FOR HALF A CENTURY A SYNAGOG STOOD."
BECAUSE OF THE NEWNESS OF THE GROUP AND THE SPONTANEOUS NATURE OF THE
GATHERING THE GROUP DID NOT SEND OUT ANNOUNCEMENTS UNTIL THE DAY
BEFORE THE EVENT, COMMUNICATING THROUGH E MAIL AND " OLD FASHIONED
POSTERS" AND INVITING "THE MEDIA" TO COVER THE ACTIVITIES, BUT NOT
ALLOWING SUFFICIENT NOTICE FOR MUCH ADVANCE PUBLICITY.
THE C -GIC STATES THAT TODAY'S EVENTS ARE FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
AND ARE PLANNED TO COINCIDE NOT ONLY WITH THE TWO URBAN CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS BUT ALSO WITH THE SECOND FULL MOON OF JULY. A SECOND FULL
MOON IN A MONTH IS KNOWN AS A "BLUE MOON" AND THE GROUP STATES THAT
THERE IS A "ONCE IN A BLUE MOON" CHANCE THAT THEIR OPINIONS WILL BE
HEARD.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT anyroad652yahoo.com or call 319 - 337 -5187
postscript:
When an observer noted that one of the C -GIC's organizers seemed to be
the same person who was arrested and charged with arson the Sunday
before last, Ms. Rosenbaum stated: " I am not an arsonist. I am not a
son of anything. let alone an arse. I am a daughter of the earth."
She also stated that she was not guilty, and that she had no further
comment on last week's charge because of pending litigation.
In addition, she complained about media attention last week, stating
that she had spent most of her life as an activist and an "amateur
social worker" and that it must have been a "slow news day" for
worldwide media to pick up what she called " an unfortunate accident ".
She added that she had helped many people locally and elsewhere, and
that she had "held women's hands" at an area abortion clinic; and that
she had "served hundreds of meals to hundreds and hundreds of people"
via Iowa City's Free Lunch Program. She added despairingly that she
did not think that global media would be interested in her many good
works.
Date: July 27, 2012
To: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
From: Aleksey, Gurtovoy, Martha Hampel
Re: AN ORDINANCE ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER OF TITLE 9 OF THE CITY CODE
OF IOWA CITY TO RESTRICT THE USE OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS AND
DRONES, AUTOMATIC LICENSE -PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER KINDS
OF TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.
As per our meeting on July 6, 2012, we sought independent legal advice on the validity of the
initiative we are filing today. An independent legal entity's analysis of the City Charter was that
... the framers of the Charter intended that affirmative proposals ( "initiatives ") should
be allowed to proceed at any time, but purely negative proposals ( "referendums ")
should be time limited in order to give measures a chance to work in the absence of a
proposed alternative.
We, the petitioners, believe this is both straightforward and proper interpretation of the City
Charter, and that it unambiguously supports the initiative effort in question.
Cc: City Council
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney
AFFIDAVIT TO COMMENCE INITIATIVE AR- REfETZSM] i-PROCEEDINGS
STATE OF IOWA
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
The undersigned petitioner(s) hereby propose(s) to commence Initlati've or rergrenaurt
proceedings pursuant to Article VII of the Charter of Iowa City. ,
1. Each of the undersigned Is a voter who is registered to vote In Iowa city.
2. The undersigned will supervise the circulation of the initiative or referendum
petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form with the City Clerk of
Iowa City.
3. The name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of the petitioners) is (are) as .
follows (print or type):
4.
5.
,<I LE MY W RT -ovoV
11'sya E COURT ST
IOWA 01 T �Y. 1A SZ��rS
(84S) g36 -0565
ctgmfodou Coyne +2 -Comim.Cov,
All relevant notices relating to the Initiative or referendum proposal shall be
addressed as follows:
A LEKSIN WWOVOY
g3s), C CWRT Sr
OWA CtT! .Tq 5��'�5
(Name of recipient)
Street Address or Post Office Sox
City, State, Zip Code
The ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered Is attached hereto as an
exhibit and by this referendum made a part hereof.
Witness my (our) hand(s) this J;7 day of -'j-u. 20- /O .
Al
V�rf%ia. �lfio� c?(
Subscribed and,sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on this ?:Z day of,�"E& -
�jeK�e. O
/aL , by /ri��- farted., and 11� �� �✓at�, to me known
to be the person(s) who executed the foregoing Affidavit, and who (or each of whom)
acknowledged that he /she executed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed.
7/hJ ,>�J -►�
Notaly Public
My commission expires 9 a3 20 )c3-
.. 1 I J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ENACTING ANEW CHAPTER OF TITLE 9 OF THE CITY CODE dl=i WA+CI1'Y'EO
RESTRICT THE USE OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS AND DRONES, AUTOMATIC
LICENSE -PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER KINDS OF TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEMS.
WHEREAS, surveillance technology, and in particular traffic surveillance technology, is increasingly
being pushed by technology vendors and device manufacturers to municipalities across the country
under the banner of increased public safety; and
WHEREAS, municipalities, enticed with a promise of a new revenue stream that could yield millions
of dollars a year, are often too happy to accept the public safety claims at face value and proceed with
the deployment of traffic surveillance systems despite widespread privacy, safety, effectiveness, and
legitimacy concerns among the citizens; and
WHEREAS, as illustrated by recently adopted ordinance 12 -4466, the city of Iowa City is not immune
to these dynamics, and is likely to continue to be influenced by them; and
WHEREAS, due to their potential to generate enormous revenue, traffic surveillance systems pose a
clear conflict of interest for the city; once these systems are installed, there is a tremendous financial
temptation to set posted speed limits lower than the recognized safest level (85th percentile speed),
and a similar temptation to set the yellow intervals on traffic lights shorter than is correct for the actual
85th percentile speeds of approaching traffic, which is clearly in conflict with the stated goal of
increased public safety; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration is actively working on integration of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, in the domestic airspace, and numerous UAV
technology vendors are rushing into the opening domestic market, it's only a matter of time before
UAV -based traffic surveillance devices are sold to municipalities under the same banner of increased
public safety; and
WHEREAS, traffic surveillance systems are purely punitive in nature, and it has been shown time and
time again that increased public safety can rarely be achieved through strictly punitive measures;
specifically, as far as traffic safety is concerned, preponderance of independent studies has shown the
claims of increased safety brought on by deployment of traffic enforcement cameras and other types
of traffic surveillance devices to be predominantly unsupported by the evidence at large, while
constructive, non- punitive measures such as driver feedback signs, yellow light timing, an all -red
clearance interval, and other simple intersection and signal improvements were demonstrated to have
a much more significant and lasting effect on reducing the corresponding traffic violations; and
WHEREAS, all punitive measures carry associated societal costs and risks, and In case of traffic
surveillance systems these costs and risks significantly outweigh questionable public safety benefits; at
their core, traffic surveillance systems amount to a punitive, unforgiving, total law enforcement regime
that infringes on the society's core values, violates citizen's constitutional rights, and is counter to this
country's founding principles:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
• Traffic surveillance systems contribute to a "big brother" culture of constant surveillance and
omnipotent government, bringing us one step closer to the "total surveillance society "; the
younger generations of Americans who will grow up with traffic surveillance as a norm will be
less likely to protest expansion of government surveillance into other areas of their lives, with
constant individual surveillance as the ultimate culmination of that process; and
• Traffic surveillance systems, and especially traffic surveillance systems equipped with
automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) technology, are prone to the so- called "mission
creep ", when the data collected by these systems is used for purposes unrelated to
enforcement of traffic rules; any agency or person with access to data collected by these
systems can track the movement of vehicles for any purpose, and, as demonstrated by the
current situation in the UK, it's usually only a matter of time before this capability is seized upon,
again, under the banner of increased public safety; and
• The vast majority of traffic citations issued from traffic surveillance systems are for minor,
technical violations of traffic rules that don't threaten public safety; as such, these systems
effectively turn "to serve and protect" into "to harass and punish ", implementing a total law
enforcement regime (on roads only, for now) that would be welcomed by any totalitarian state;
and
• Automated traffic citations effectively amount to highly regressive taxation; while a police
officer may use discretion to avoid taking half the weekly paycheck of a poor, working man or
woman for a minor traffic infraction, a camera never will; and
• Most importantly, automated traffic citations violate both a citizen's constitutional protection
against having-to incriminate oneself and a citizen's constitutional right to due process by
impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the recipient of citation; and
WHEREAS, Iowa City is a transient college community that is called home by a new set of students
every year, and is visited by thousands of parents and hundreds of thousands of sports fans; it's also
home to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a nationally renowned hospital receiving more
than half a million patient visits per year; punitive, unforgiving enforcement of minor, technical
violations of traffic rules might bring the city some revenue, but it will undoubtedly be seen by city
visitors for what it is, and will ultimately do Irreparable damage to the City itself, the University, the
hospital, and to the businesses trying to succeed in downtown — especially considering that a large
portion of students are likely to operate vehicles registered to a parent, who will unfairly be the
recipient of any traffic citation; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City to restrict use and deployment of
traffic surveillance systems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION i, AMENDMENT. A new chapter of Title 9, entitled "Limitations On The Use Of Traffic
Surveillance Systems ", is adopted as follows:
__
1: GENERAL: The city of Iowa City, including its various boards, agencies, and 400artrnents, shall
not:
A. Use any traffic surveillance system or device for the enforcement of a..c'ualiflecl traffi c.law
Ordinance No.
Page 3
violation, unless a peace officer is present at the scene, witnesses the event, and personally
issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation.
B. Store, archive, transmit, share, publish, grant access to, sell, index, cross - reference, or
otherwise aggregate, distribute, analyze, or process any data obtained through use of a
traffic surveillance system or device, unless the data directly pertains to a qualified traffic
law violation for which a ticket was issued by a peace officer who was present at the scene
and witnessed the event.
2: DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter:
A. "Qualified traffic law violation" means a violation of any of the following: (1) any state or local
law relating to compliance with a traffic control signal or a railroad crossing sign or signal; or (2) any
state or local law limiting the speed of a motor vehicle.
B. "Ticket" means any traffic ticket, citation, summons, or other notice of liability, whether civil,
criminal, or administrative, issued In response to an alleged qualified traffic law violation detected
or recorded bya traffic surveillance system or device.
C. "Traffic surveillance system or device" means a device or a network of devices, including, but
not limited to, any unmanned aerial vehicle(s), that uses any electronic, photographic, video, digital
or computer system to produce any photograph, microphotograph, videotape, digital video, or any
other recorded image or digital record of a vehicle and /or its operator and/or its occupants that can
be used to establish identity or ownership of the said vehicle and /or identity of its operator and /or
identity of its occupants.
D. "Unmanned aerial vehicle ", commonly known as a "drone ", means an aerial vehicle that does
not carry a human operator, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or
recoverable, and is equipped with one or more on -board sensors for registering, observing or
recording persons, objects or events.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole
or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
.:5
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 31, 2012
To: City Council
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Affidavit to Commence Initiative Proceedings re: an Ordinance Enacting a new
Chapter of Title 9 of the City Code of Iowa City to Restrict the Use of Traffic
Enforcement Cameras and Drones, automatic license -plate recognition systems,
and other kinds of traffic surveillance systems.
The above - referenced affidavit was filed with the City Clerk on July 27, 2012, along with a
memo to me from the Petitioners. Copies have been provided to you by the City Clerk.
As you will recall, it was my opinion that the previous affidavit filed by the Petitioners on
June 22, 2012 was untimely because it sought to commence a "referendum" rather than
an "initiative ". The current filing raises the same questions and others (as it addresses all
"traffic surveillance systems "), which I am in the process of analyzing. In the meantime,
however, I want to clarify that even assuming this is a valid "initiative" and a petition with
the requisite signatures was found to be sufficient, the timelines in the Charter would not
allow the initiative to be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot. Section
7.05(6)(1) of the Charter requires that the petition with signatures be filed at least 110
days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to
the commissioner of elections. This year that deadline is September 2, 2012. Neither the
most recent filing nor the earlier filing on June 22, 2012 would have allowed for the
satisfaction of this requirement. In addition, there is no right to a special election for an
initiative as there is with a referendum. Therefore, the earliest such an initiative could be
on the ballot would be the regular city election in November of 2013.
Please give me a call if you have questions.
Cc: Petitioners
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 24, 2012
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Jeff Davidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Chris O'Brien, Director of Transportation Services
John Yapp, Transportation Planner
Re: Riverfront Crossings Multiuse Parking Facility
Introduction:
You will recall that in April we selected Frew Nations as our preferred developer for the
Riverfront Crossings Multiuse Parking Facility project at the intersection of the Court Street and
Linn Street in Riverfront Crossings. For the past two months, we have been engaged in
negotiations with the preferred developer regarding the specific scope and scale of the project.
A number of factors have led us to a point where we now believe the project should be delayed
and re- evaluated after a period of approximately one year.
History:
There are three factors which have led us to reassess the time schedule for construction of our
next major parking facility. They include:
1. Reassessment of existing parking demand. A year ago we had a waiting list for monthly
permits in the City's downtown parking system of approximately 200. A concerted effort by the
Transportation Services Department has resulted in the permit waiting list being eliminated for
most facilities. There is now capacity of approximately 200 monthly parking permits which are
immediately available in the City's downtown parking system. MPOJC will be updating
downtown parking demand this fall.
2. Delay in projects that will create future parking demand. The construction of our next
500 -600 space downtown parking facility is largely predicated on accommodating future parking
demand. This is critical for the continued growth of the downtown and Riverfront Crossings
areas. There are several significant development projects which will contribute to future
downtown / Riverfront Crossings parking demand, which have been delayed from our initial
projections. These include Hieronymus Square, the Voxman /Clapp Music School, the proposed
Justice Center, the College Street/Gilbert Street corner (old bus station), and a large student
housing project on Prentiss Street. We believe the status of all of these projects will be
significantly cleared up 12 months from now.
3. Riverfront Crossings Multiuse Parking Facility, residential /commercial building
concept. As stated previously, we have been engaged in negotiations with our preferred
developer regarding the scope and scale of the multiuse parking facility project. Although we
have made progress, we have been unable to reach a mutually satisfactory project concept.
The project as it is has evolved includes both workforce housing elements and student housing
elements. This may be a reasonable way to proceed, but the presence of student housing will
cause us to reassess the use of public financial assistance through TIF. We continue to believe
there is the potential for a largely non - student workforce housing project on the site.
IP7
July 24, 2012
Page 2
Discussion of Solution:
The decision to delay construction of the parking facility for 12 months renders moot the
residential /commercial portion of the proposed multiuse project. The preferred developer has
indicated they would only go forward with the project if they were able to construct both the
parking and residential /commercial parts of the project. Delaying 12 months before proceeding
will allow us to more formally develop the project concept and solicit new proposals with a
second RFP.
Recommendation:
We are excited about the pending development projects in Riverfront Crossings, and believe
these projects will be more fully developed toward implementation in 12 months. Let us know at
your July 31 work session if you have any comments or questions, otherwise, we will proceed
with a 12 month delay as indicated. We will take action to demolish the old Parish Hall building
on the site, which will leave us ready to go when we make the decision to move forward. The
Transportation Services Department will clean up the site and establish a more permanent
surface parking lot for the interim period before the redevelopment project proceeds.
cc: City Attorney
! * II 1138
•�_ D e� � cat i o n F�����
:
ow
-.ILA__._
ME
In Partnership With The University Of Iowa Community
Credit Union Season Of The Bench, Formosa Will Be
Sponsoring A Bench In Aemory Of Caroline Found
Please JOIN US for the community painting of the bench:
=1C ` ILL I X1111
Reception In Hotel Vetro
M Lobby From 6pm -8pm
* Bench Is Located Outside Formosa Restaurant 221 East College St Plaza Towers