HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-07 Info Packet=IiA
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
February 7, 2013
IP2 Copy of letter to Asst. to the City Manager from the Iowa City Downtown District: Endorsing
Parking Proposal
IP3 Copy of memo to Public Works Director from Recycling Coordinator: 2012 Recycling
Updates
IN Memo from Planning and Community Development Director: Ad hoc committee on
commercial zoning
IP5 Memo from Planning & Community Development Department: Outline of next steps for the
redevelopment of College St. / Gilbert St.
IP6 Material from the City Manager: Para - Transit Services (SEATS information provided at
the February 5, 2013 City Council Work Session)
IP7 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Minutes — December 5
IP8 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Minutes — January 2
DRAFT MINUTES
IP9 Human Rights Commission: January 15
IP10 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 17
IP11 Police Citizens Review Board: February 6
L-uI 155
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule I
*� February 7, 2013
CITY Of IOWA CITY
Subject to change
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
R
��r,`s. 1����+,!',
t�a�Ii
"I';", IU�x-r
�Fi1Ih�- ,rNUI
._
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
6 ���,� f ��'i (i�(i�a4�Lii �'�� ' �i 'i
-' (E'' iF =) i tiN�rn ,
, .,d �. rw, Eyll
(UII,�INIIn��l�a Iu 1it��m �yl ,.t'a§
4 ..
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
5:00 PM
City Conference Board Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
R 1 11 a
L,
411l!13010 � III P
fii
NlIl ,. I'.`'lt
��j�i ;���a�lX�mii�7i
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
w
i
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
r.
DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Geoff,
IP2
■ NNn 11
We are pleased to inform you that on January 23, 2013, the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD)
Board of Directors unanimously endorsed the parking proposal that you, Chris O'Brien, and
other staff have worked with us on so diligently. As you are aware, addressing parking
challenges Downtown is one of the ICDD's top priorities. We feel that this parking proposal is a
solid step in the right direction and most businesses are very enthused about the idea of one
hour of free parking in the three parking garages in the Downtown core. As the City takes it's
next steps towards implementation of this proposal, the ICDD will remain invested in working
with you on the final details of where meters will be placed, the kind of technology used, and the
future of the "Shop -n- Park" program.
A unanimous vote does not come easily. We are very appreciative of the time you and your
staff took to present information to our board, the public, as well as one -on -one meetings with
concerned Board members and individuals. We thank you for working with us to ensure that the
ICDD remains accessible and convenient for our customers and visitors to the area.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bird, AICP
Executive Director
Iowa City Downtown District
Karen Kubby
ICDD Board President
Owner, Beadology
Iowa City Downtown District 14'/ S. Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 319 - 354 -0863
F. CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P3
. ,�
m_l MEMORANDUM
Date: January 28, 2013
To: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works
From: Jen Jordan, Recycling Coordinator
Re: 2012 Recycling Update
In 2012, efforts were made on many fronts to improve recycling services in Iowa City. While
staff provides education and outreach on all programs, the areas of focus in 2012 were:
1. Outreach and education
2. Increasing the amount of material collected for recycling through both the curbside program
and drop -off sites.
3. Open the East Side Recycling Center for public use.
4. Expand recycling programs to include carpet and carpet pad recycling at the landfill and
provide a trailer at East Side for aseptic containers, plastic bags and books.
5. Increase organics from local grocery stores and restaurants.
6. Complete the multi - family recycling pilot program and best management practices manual.
Each area is described in more detail below
1. In 2012, landfill staff provided 27 tours at the landfill and East Side Recycling Center. Staff
organized or attended 49 events and in total talked with more than 3,100 people. Staff
talked to another 3,100 people through Rummage in the Ramp.
2. The curbside recycling program is available to single family homes through four -plex
apartment complexes in Iowa City. In April 2011, the program changed from a six -sort
system to a dual stream system, reducing the required sorting and making it easier for
residents to use. Efforts to reach 15,000 customers proved to be a challenge, but outreach
will be ongoing. The curbside numbers have increased since the improvement occurred.
The monthly tonnages have increased about 5% or about 6 tons per month since April
2011.
Curbside Recycling, 2011 -2012
200.0
150.0
100.0 ■ 2011
50.0 ❑ 2012
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
The drop -off program continues to see steady use since a large increase in 2008, when staff
focused outreach and advertising efforts on the this program with the help of grant funding
from the Department of Natural Resources. The program is open to all Johnson County
residents and businesses; locations include (in order of tonnage collected): North Dodge Hy-
February 6, 2013
Page 2
Vee, East Side Recycling Center, Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center, Hy -Vee Drug
Town and the Eastdale Plaza.
3. The East Side Recycling Center opened on Earth Day in April 2012. Since then, the Landfill
and our partners, including the Friends of Historic Preservation's Salvage Barn and the Iowa
Valley Habitat for Humanity's ReStore, have hosted multiple events there, including
quarterly hazardous waste events, a rain barrel and compost bin sale, educational
presentations, webinars, panel discussions and educational films. Staff will continue to look
for opportunities to utilize the site. The education center has been utilized an average of
three to four times per week for City meetings, public events and paid private events since it
opened.
4. New recycling programs include a carpet recycling program at the landfill that began as a
pilot with Heritage Environmental Services in late July. After a three month trial period, it
was determined by both parties to continue the service. Approximately two to three tons of
carpet is being recycled per month.
Staff worked with City Carton Recycling to expand accepted materials at the East Side
Recycling Center. In early December, a City Carton trailer was placed there to accept
plastic bags, aseptic containers and books. Staff anticipates strong use of the new program
in 2013.
5. Staff continues to work with the Iowa Waste Exchange, local waste haulers, grocery stores,
restaurants and schools to divert compostable food and organics from the landfill. The
program was initiated in 2007 through a pilot with the University of Iowa. Other entities that
are now diverting food waste through this program are New Pioneer Co -op (both locations),
Bluebird Diner and Regina Catholic Schools. Annual tonnages are shown below.
6. In early 2012 the landfill undertook a recycling pilot program for multi - family housing. The
pilot was partially funded by the landfill, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' Solid
Waste Alternative Program and the five participating multi - family locations. The intent is to
increase the number of households in which recycling is available. By all measures, the
program was a success.
The first tangible result is a best management practices guide. The guide will be widely
shared in the community and includes recommendations about implementing recycling
programs in multi - family apartments and condominiums. The guide is available at
Tons of organics diverted from landfill
180
-- -
160
- - - --
140
- - -- - - - - --
120
100
80
60
40
E
20
t_m_-
0
M
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
6. In early 2012 the landfill undertook a recycling pilot program for multi - family housing. The
pilot was partially funded by the landfill, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' Solid
Waste Alternative Program and the five participating multi - family locations. The intent is to
increase the number of households in which recycling is available. By all measures, the
program was a success.
The first tangible result is a best management practices guide. The guide will be widely
shared in the community and includes recommendations about implementing recycling
programs in multi - family apartments and condominiums. The guide is available at
February 6, 2013
Page 3
www.icgov.org /recyclepilot and printed copied are available upon request to the recycling
coordinator.
Highlights from the pilot, which covered five complexes ranging in size from a twelve -plex
apartment to a 96 mixed -unit condominium and covered a total of 190 units, include:
• The average recycling rate was 39% by volume.
• All five locations have continued recycling at their own expense after the pilot ended.
• Several local solid waste haulers are able to offer recycling to multi - family households.
• The average cost for recycling services was $2.57 per unit per month.
• Sixty percent of pilot participants responding to surveys stated they are willing to pay for
recycling.
• The cost per household for printed education and outreach was about $2 (this does not
include staff time of about one hour per week over six months).
• None of the pilot participants had issues with Fire Code or Zoning Code requirements.
• Contamination levels were lower than expected.
Efforts in 2013 will be focused on:
Improving multi - family recycling. Staff will be sharing the results of the pilot project and
working with landlords, apartment and condominium owners, tenants and condo
associations to implement recycling programs.
2. Educational outreach at East Side Recycling Center with the help of the East Central Iowa
Council of Governments and Solid Waste Alternative Program funding. Efforts will be similar
to ECO Iowa City programming in 2009 -2010 in which the landfill successfully partnered with
the Iowa City Public Library and reached over 11,000 people.
3. Reduce amount of organic material being landfilled. Staff will continue to work with the Iowa
Waste Exchange, local waste haulers, grocery stores, restaurants and schools to provide
information and support in order to start organics separation programs at these locations. In
addition, local student groups are focused on organic waste diversion and staff will work with
those groups as appropriate.
Financial Impact:
Most recycling programs in the City pay for themselves; exceptions include electronic waste at
the landfill, composting operations and the drop -off recycling program. Currently these
programs are subsidized by landfill tipping fees. Reducing the amount of material that goes into
the landfill will eventually reduce landfill income so efforts are being made to move all recycling
programs towards being self - sustainable.
Recommendation:
Landfill and recycling staff will continue to:
• promote programs and services to increase diversion rates
• seek out sustainable opportunities for waste diversion from the landfill and
• move all recycling programs toward being financially self - sustainable.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 2013
To: City Manager
From: Jeff Davidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Re: Ad hoc committee on commercial zoning
3
IN
MEN�10
Last fall you appointed a committee to work with City staff to examine the zoning regulations in
several of the City's commercial zoning districts due to concerns expressed by the business
community. The members of the ad hoc committee are:
• Casey Cook, Cook Appraisal Services
• Jeff Edberg, Lepic - Kroeger Realtors
• Ann Freerks, Chairperson, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
• Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services
• Peggy Slaughter, Midwest America Commercial Realty
• Joe Younker, Bradley and Riley Law Office
The task given to the ad hoc committee was to discuss issues and identify potential solutions
regarding Iowa City's commercial zoning designations. In particular, concerns were expressed
that the distinctions established in the zoning code between the Community Commercial (CC -2)
Zone and the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone have created confusion and resulted in
repeated requests to rezone properties back and forth between these two designations. City
staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have also expressed some frustration with
repeated requests to rezone the same property from one commercial zoning district to another.
This has been particularly acute along the Highway 1 west corridor because of the changes in
the character of that corridor over the last 30 years. Properties which were once appropriately
zoned CI -1, may now be more appropriate for the CC -2 zoning classification.
We were also asked to identify if there were any issues with the other non - central business
district commercial zones including Commercial Office (CO -1), Highway Commercial (CH -1),
and Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1).
The ad hoc committee met three times during the fall of 2012. Information was provided by City
staff inventorying where the CC -2, CI -1, CO -1, and CH -1 zones are currently located in Iowa
City, a description of the purpose of each of these zones as stated in the zoning code, and a
comparison of land uses allowed in the CI -1 zone and the CC -2 zone. It was an interesting
discussion as committee members expressed their points of view in terms of the purpose of and
variety of commercial uses allowed in each of these commercial zones. The discussion focused
primarily on the similarities and the differences in the land uses allowed in each of these zones
and whether or not it was beneficial to maintain these distinctions or whether changes should be
made. Based on this discussion, the committee came to the following general conclusions:
• The committee agreed that one of the main issues is that property that has prime retail
frontage on a high - traffic arterial street should probably be zoned CC -2 rather than CI -1
and that a number of properties, particularly along Highway 1 West should be rezoned to
CC -2;
January 31, 2013
Page 2
• Conversely, property that does not have suitable visibility, access and traffic count is
probably more suited to back office functions, uses that have outdoor storage needs,
and quasi - industrial functions and, therefore, should be zoned CI -1;
• A majority also agreed that opening up the possibility of additional uses in the CI -1 Zone,
such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail would not have a
significant negative effect on CI -1 zoned properties;
• The committee acknowledged, however, that allowing this broader range of uses in the
CI -1 Zone would put the onus on the buyer of a property to consider the possibility that a
business might locate next door that has outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other
aspects of the business which may result in noise, dust, odors, or areas that are not as
aesthetically pleasing due to the quasi - industrial intent of that zone.
The ad hoc committee wrapped up its deliberations in November, and has produced the
attached summary of recommended actions. The committee decided the primary focus should
be on the CC -2 and CI -1 zones. There were not significant issues identified with the CO -1 and
CH -1 zones. There was one member of the ad hoc committee who felt the Neighborhood
Commercial Zone also deserved some consideration of possible refinements, but the committee
agreed that this would best be left for another discussion.
The attached summary of recommended actions includes possible legislative changes for
broadening the land uses allowed in the Intensive Commercial Zone. It is our intention to
present these recommendations for changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration. Consideration of changes to the zoning code would be a legislative process that
would allow public input at meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council.
You will note recommendation #3 would not involve a change to the zoning code, but is a
suggestion that the committee thought was worth pursuing. Over the next one -year period, City
staff will examine commercially zoned properties along Highway 1 West and surrounding the
Highway 1 /Highway 218 interchange and evaluate whether properties are appropriately zoned
based on the stated purposes in the Zoning Code and the characteristics noted above. If a
parcel is determined to be inappropriately zoned, the City will send a letter offering the property
owner a City- initiated (no fee) rezoning to the appropriate commercial zoning classification.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the six committee members for their dedication of
time and effort to the ad hoc committee's activities. It is hoped that this model of public - private
cooperation can be used for future projects. I would also like to thank Associate Planner Karen
Howard for assisting me with staffing the committee's activities.
Let me know if you have any questions.
cc: Casey Cook, Cook Appraisal Services
Jeff Edberg, Lepic - Kroeger Realtors
Ann Freerks, Chairperson, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services
Peggy Slaughter, Midwest America Commercial Realty
Joe Younker, Bradley and Riley Law Office
Karen Howard, Associate Planner
January 31, 2013
Page 3
Commercial Zoning Committee — Summary of Recommended Actions
1) Uses allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone should not be expanded to allow
the following uses which are currently only allowed in the Commercial Intensive (CI -1) zone:
• Adult businesses (Vote: 5 -0)
• Intensive animal related uses (dog kennels, stables) (Vote: 5 -0)
• Industrial service uses (welding shops, contractor yards, truck repair, oil distributors,
carpet cleaning, etc.) (Vote: 5 -0)
• Concrete batch mix plants (Vote: 5 -0)
• Self- storage units (Vote: 5 -0)
• Warehouse & freight storage (Vote: 5 -0)
• Detention facilities (Vote: 5 -0)
2) Uses allowed in the CI -1 zone should be expanded to allow the following uses which are
currently only allowed in the CC -2 zone, with the same standards and provisions called out
in the CC -2 zone:
• Restaurants and bars (Vote: 5 -0)
• Medical and dental offices (Vote: 5 -0)
• Personal services (banks, salons, laundromats) (Vote: 5 -0)
• Hotels and motels (Vote: 3 -2)
• Religious & private group assembly (Vote: 5 -0)
• All sales oriented retail (currently limited to certain uses) (Vote: 3 -2)
3) The City has criteria which are used for evaluating the appropriateness of CC -2 and CI -1
zoning. Over the next 1 year period the City will examine CC -2 and CI -1 zoned parcels along
Highway 1 West and the surrounding Highway 1/ Highway 218 interchange. If a parcel is
determined to be inappropriately zoned given based on the evaluation criteria, the City will
send a letter offering the property owner a City- initiated (no fee) rezoning to the
appropriate zoning classification (Vote: 5 -0)
02-07-13
r IP5
CITY OF IOWA CITY
. ,
..ww% AMLA_ MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 2013
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: John Yapp, Dept. of Planning and Community Development 7 -,4,v r—
Re: Outline of next steps for the redevelopment of College St / Gilbert St
Introduction
At its January 8, 2013 formal meeting, the City Council selected 'The Chauncey' development team, Steve
Rohrbach and Marc Moen, as the preferred developer of the northeast corner of College St / Gilbert. This
selection was the culmination of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, including presentations of finalist
development concepts to the City Council, and numerous opportunities for public comment. This memo
outlines the next steps in the process as we work toward commencement of construction.
Discussion
1. Development Agreement: The next step in the process is to negotiate a development agreement with the
preferred developer. This agreement will formalize the physical and financial parameters of the proposed
project, using the submitted development concept as a starting point. The agreement will include:
a. Identification of minimum and maximum parameters of the design of the facility (mass, scale, design
elements)
b. Identification of the mix of uses in the facility
c. A general schedule for completion of design plans, constructions plans, conveyance of the property,
and other significant milestones
d. Identification of tax increment financing levels for the project, based on a financial gap analysis
conducted by the City.
e. Walk -away options for both the City and the developer if milestones are not met
As per normal procedure, the development agreement will be negotiated by staff, and reviewed by the City
Council Economic Development Committee before being forwarded to the full City Council for
consideration. We anticipate this process will take several months. Due to scheduling conflicts with key
participants, we have not yet started the development agreement process.
2. Rezoning of property: After consideration of the development agreement, the next legislative step in the
process is to rezone the property to a zone appropriate for the proposed development. This process will
include a review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and subsequent City
Council action. The properties proposed for development include both City -owned property currently
zoned P, Public; and MidAmerican Energy property currently zoned CB -5, Central Business Support. The
CB -10 Zone currently extends to the western half of Gilbert St, adjacent to this property. The RFP
contemplated CB -10 zoning for this property, and acknowledged the need for the legislative rezoning
process once a preferred developer was selected. All three finalist development proposals considered by
the City Council would require CB -10, Central Business District zoning.
The College St / Gilbert St property is in the downtown district of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan land use map identifies the property as Public / Semi - Public, as it is owned by the
City (the MidAmerican Energy parcel is zoned CB -5). A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be needed
to reflect commercial development of the property, and be used as a basis for the subsequent rezoning
action. This would be the case for all proposed developments on the property. The Planning and Zoning
February 7, 2013
Page 2
Commission is currently reviewing a revised Comprehensive Plan document, within which commercial
zoning for this property can be reflected.
The Comprehensive Plan narrative does not address this property specifically, but states: The logic of
promoting higher density residential development in the Downtown Planning District rests in the concept
that people who live in and near downtown will walk to work (or classes in the case of University of Iowa
students), will patronize downtown businesses, will add to after -hours vitality, and create a sense of safety
in the downtown. Higher density development in the downtown also reduces pressure on the less dense
older neighborhoods surrounding downtown. In general, the Comprehensive Plan is supportive of efficient,
higher density development in and near existing commercial nodes. The Riverfront Crossings / Downtown
Plan is supportive of taller buildings on corner lots not part of a historic district. The recently- adopted Iowa
City Strategic Plan is supportive of economic development opportunities in downtown and near - downtown
areas, and the College St I Gilbert St property has been a part of Strategic Plan updates to the City
Council.
While the process to rezone the property may begin concurrent with the consideration of the development
agreement, staff recommends considering the development agreement first. Discussions during the
development agreement may identify rezoning conditions which would be prudent to incorporate into a
rezoning of the property.
3. Final Design, and Conveyance of Property: If the development agreement is approved by both the City and
developer and the property is rezoned, the developer will begin preparation of final design and construction
plans for the project consistent with the timeframe identified in the development agreement. At a point
when the City is confident in the ability for the project to be completed, the City will consider conveying the
property to the developer consistent with the terms in the development agreement. This will require City
Council action.
Shadow effect
There has been public and media attention given to the fact that a building on the College St / Gilbert St
property will result in a shadow being cast, with specific concern about the shadow effect on Trinity Church to
the east across Gilbert St. As part of the RFP process, the three finalist developers were each asked to
prepare a shadow study showing the shadow of their building at different times of day, during the summer and
winter solstice. This information was included in the City Council information packet for their January 8, 2013
meeting. The shadow studies show that the primary shadow effect on Trinity Church is to the east - facing
windows in the summer months in the early morning hours before 9:00 AM (during the winter the sun is lower
in the sky, but further to the south, causing more of a northerly shadow). The Trinity Church south - facing
windows appear to be shaded by the Church eaves until approximately 8:30 AM on the summer solstice, after
which they are in sun. For a building to not shade the Church it would have to be no more than approximately
4 Y2 stories in height at the Gilbert St frontage. This is true for all three final development concepts.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends proceeding with negotiation of the development agreement with Steve Rohrbach and Marc
Moen, the developers of The Chauncey, as schedules permit. We anticipate needing 2 -3 months to negotiate
the development agreement, bring it to the Economic Development Committee for review, and forward it to the
City Council. If progress is not being made in producing a mutually - agreeable development agreement, we will
discuss the option of terminating negotiations and approaching the second - most - preferred developer
(Chauncey Gardens) to determine their continued interest in the project.
Let me know at 356 -5252 or John- YappCc_lowa- city.org if you have any questions.
Cc: Jeff Davidson Geoff Fruin
Wendy Ford Sara Hektoen
Bob Miklo
S:\J000G \College Gilbert RFP \outline of next steps, post selection of developer.doc
I
FTA Requirements
As a recipient of Federal operating assistance from the
FTA for fixed route transit service we are mandated to
provide complimentary para- transit service. It must:
Provide service that mirrors hours of operation of fixed
route service
Provide curb to curb service
Charge a fare that no more than doubles fixed route fares
Iowa City Service — Provided by Johnson County SEATS
Required
Hours of operation
• Mon. —Fri. 5:45am — 11: 1Opm
Saturday: 5:45am — 7:40pm
• Curb to Curb Service
• Fares no more than double fixed
route fares
• In FYI we increased our fixed
route fare to $1.00. Last increase
was in 1997.
Provided
Hours of operation
• Mon. —Fri. 5:45am — 11: 1Opm
Saturday: 5:45am — 7:40pm
Sunday: 8:00am — 2:00pm
• Door to Door Service
• Para - transit fare= $2.00 (10% of
rides)
Half fare = $1.00 (90% of rides)
Options for Providing Service
Contract with Johnson County SEATS
• Operate Service In -House
• Contract with Another Government Agency
o Request Proposals from Public and Private providers
Iowa City — FY12
Revenue hours of service for Iowa City 2707
Cost per revenue hour across system $56.45
Total rides for Iowa City 95,116
Cost per ride for Iowa City $16.42
Jol
Coralvil
11%
$1,800,000.00
$1,600,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
Annual Rides
Cost to provide Service
Iowa City Coralville Johnson County
Revenue Hours
Johnson County
16%
Coralville I
16%
Iowa City
68%
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
Iowa City Coralville Johnson County
Cost per ride
*Johnson County rides and hours include rural, Pathways, TMS & University Heights
Cost per Revenue Hour — FY11
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Waterloo
Ames
• Iowa City(SEATS)
Bettendorf
Cambus
$70.58
$61.85
$61.35
$56.26
$52.43
$48.40 (No benefits)
$19.40 (Student Drivers)
County Participation to Iowa City Service*
FY2013(estimated)
$463,661.05
• FY2012
$461,319.17
• FY2011
$307,319.17
• FY2010
$233,449.10
• FY2009
$228,743.20
• FY2008
$233,305.28
• FY2007
$133,030.36
• FY2006
$109,860.66
• FY2005
$68,992.98
• FY2004
$33,742.15
• FY2003
$57,816.90
• FY2002
$278,762.36
$500,000.00
$450,000.00
$400,000.00
$350,000.00
$300,000.00
$250,000.00
$200,000.00
$150,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,000.00
$0.00
County Participation
y��eh
J,10
*Funds provided through General Tax Levy, etc. for expenses above and beyond
contracted amount
Some factors that led to increased costs
• No Iowa City fixed route increases from 1997 — 2012
• Fixed route fare = $.75
• SEATS fare = $1.50
• Average cost per ride > $16.00
• Iowa City offering a half fare for users
• 90% of trips receive a $15.00 ride for $.75
• Increased fuel costs
• Up 45% over past three years
• Increased maintenance costs as fleet aged
• Higher than expected growth in users
County Participation — FY12
Funds from General Levy for Para -
transit Services
Total:
Iowa City:
Coralville:
Johnson County *:
$856,931
$461,319
$137,955
$257,657
* Includes Rural, Pathways, TMS and
University Heights
General Levy Funds by Community
Jurisdiction
Iowa City
Coralville
% ofTaxable
Valuations
• •,
13.80%
Proportion of
County
Expenditures
,
$118,271
North Liberty
9.21%
$78,942
Solon
1.26%
$10,779
U Heights
0.95%
$8,165
Tiffin
0.95%
$8,106
Hills
0.58%
$4,998
Lone Tree
0.48%
$4,132
Swisher
0.39%
$3,323
Shueyville
0.30%
$2,585
Oxford
0.19%
$1,612
West Branch
0.07%
$589
Unincorporated
22.03%
$188,758
Ir 100.00%
$856,931.21
Timeline
- Received initial proposal from Johnson County
• September 25, 2012
• 55% increase in City costs, 0% County participation
• No negotiations until after November election
• Frequent and Ongoing dialogues with Coralville and SEATS Directors
• Submitted Counter Proposal
• January 8, 2013
• Proposed 22% increase in City contract, 21% decrease in County
participation
• Received Final Offer from Johnson County
• January 10, 2013
• $100,000 County participation in Year 1, $50,000 in Year 2, $0 Year 3+
• Developing models to fit within FY14 budget proposal
Current Proposal from Johnson County
• All entities should pay their fair share
• $1,417,900forFY14
• 31,000 estimated revenue hours at $54.55 per hour plus $27,000 rent
• $200,000 in estimated revenues
• $100,000 County participation in FY14, $50,000 in FY15. $0 in FY16
• Pros for this model
• Easy to budget
• Cons for this model
• Estimates for revenue hours, cost per hour and revenues
• Decreasing use of Iowa City tax funds to support service, $0 in year three.
• With no other changes, the transit budget for the next three years would look as follows:
Year Expenses Revenues Net
FY2014 $6,819,057 $6,626,613 ($192,444)
FY2015 $6,724,711 $6,682,560 ($ 42,151)
FY2016 $6,873,246 $6,740,298 ($132,948)
This would lower our reserves by an estimated $367,543 over a three year period.
Options for Lowering Operational Costs
Eliminate Half Fare $120,000
Bring Maintenance In -House $108,000
• Eliminate Sunday Service $ 68,000
• Charge Premium Fare for Sunday Service * $ 10,000
• Increase Fixed Route Fare $.25 $ 48,500
• Curb to Curb vs. Door to Door Service
*Does not apply if Sunday Service is eliminated
Minimum flat rate
• Set low, flat rate monthly payments then true up at end of year to cover any
under payment
• i.e. If estimated revenue hours are 29,000, pay for 27,000 spread over 12 months
and settle balance at end of year.
• Pros
• Lowers chances of overpayment
• Allows for changes to take effect
• Both parties have some protection
• No need to utilize County tax funds
• Cons
• Requires estimates for cost per hour and annual revenue hours of service
• May require end of year balloon payment to true up
Pay as You Go
• City will receive periodic invoices for services provided
• i.e. At the end of Ql, Iowa City utilized 7,000 revenue hours of service at a cost
of $250,000 after revenues are backed out. We get an invoice for $250,000.
• Pros
• Consistent with City philosophy
• All entities pay for what they use
• City will not overpay due to over estimates
• No need to utilize County tax funds
• No balloon payment at end of year to true up
• Cons
• Slightly more difficult to budget for
Recommendation
• Multi -year agreement with Johnson County
• Pay as you go model
• Eliminate half fare
- Bring maintenance in -house
• Eliminate Sunday service or charge premium fare
• Curb to curb service
• Increase fixed route fare in FYI
err
Estimated cost for service
$ 966,950.00 $ 1,024,950.00 $ 1,014,450.00 $ 1,072,450.00 $ 1,064,450.00 $ 1,122,450.00
*$1.2 million for FY14 results in a balanced budget
"Red columns denote premium fare on Sundays over elimination of Sunday service
FY14
FY14
FY15
FY15
FY16
FY16
Operating Cost
$
1,581,950.00
$
1,581,950.00
$
1,581,950.00
$
1,581,950.00
$ 1,581,950.00
$ 1,581,950.00
Rent
$
27,000.00
$
27,000.00
$
27,000.00
$
27,000.00
$ 27,000.00
$ 27,000.00
County Contribution
$
(100,000.00)
$
(100,000.00)
$
(50,000.00)
$
(50,000.00)
$ -
$
Fares
$
(200,000.00)
$
(200,000.00)
$
(200,000.00)
$
(200,000.00)
$ (200,000.00)
$ (200,000.00)
Eliminate half fares
$
(120,000.00)
$
(120,000.00)
$
(120,000.00)
$
(120,000.00)
$ (120,000.00)
$ (120,000.00)
Bring maintenance in-
house
$
(108,000.00)
$
(108,000.00)
$
(108,000.00)
$
(108,000.00)
$ (108,000.00)
$ (108,000.00)
Fund local match
$
(46,000.00)
$
(46,000.00)
Eliminate Sunday Service
$
(68,000.00)
$
(68,000.00)
$ (68,000.00)
Premium fare for Sunday
$
(10,000.00)
$
(10,000.00)
$ (10,000.00)
Increase fixed route fare
$
(48,500.00)
$
(48,500.00)
$ (48,500.00)
$ (48,500.00)
$ 966,950.00 $ 1,024,950.00 $ 1,014,450.00 $ 1,072,450.00 $ 1,064,450.00 $ 1,122,450.00
*$1.2 million for FY14 results in a balanced budget
"Red columns denote premium fare on Sundays over elimination of Sunday service
Questions /Discussion
Do you have any additional questions?
How would you like us to proceed?
IP7
MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING
COMMITTEE:
DECEMBER 5, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report from Alternatives and Treatments Subcommittee ..................... ..............................1
Report from Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee ..................... ..............................2
Report from Facilities Subcommittee .................................................... ..............................3
Report from Funding /Grants Subcommittee .......................................... ..............................4
Additional Comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee members ..............4
CJCCRequests ........................................................................... ..............................5
SetNext Meeting Date .......................................................................... .............................10
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee for February 6, 2013 will Start at 5:30 p.m .... 10
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the
Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 4:34 p.m. Members present
were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, and Rod Sullivan; Absent: Janelle Rettig and Sally
Stutsman.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: Department of
Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, MECCA Director Ron Berg, Iowa City City Council
Member Connie Champion, UI Student Representative Drew Lakin, Iowa City Public
Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Iowa
Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, Defender's Managing Attorney
Peter Persaud, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Judge Douglas Russell; Absent: Citizen
Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton and Consultation of Religious
Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston.
Staff present: Sheriffs Major Steve Dolezal, Lieutenant Kevin Bell, Executive
Assistant Andy Johnson and Deputy Auditor Nancy Tomkovicz.
REPORT FROM ALTERNATIVES AND TREATMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE
County Attorney Janet Lyness said the Alternatives and Treatments Subcommittee
(Treatments Subcommittee) has reviewed programs that have already been implemented,
including the substance abuse evaluations, jail alternatives, the very successful program
with the Public Defender's Office, Jail Alternatives, County Attorney's Office, and
Sheriff's Office to review everybody in jail in an effort to reduce the average inmate
population. This program has really decreased the average number of inmates
incarcerated. The Treatments Subcommittee talked about things that can still be done.
For example, Mid - Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) Director Ron Berg
discussed the number of detoxification beds still available and what can be done to make
sure law enforcement officials are aware that the beds are available so that when dealing
with someone who is intoxicated, they might choose that as opposed to arresting them for
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 2
public intoxication. It has to be someone able to walk into MECCA and is not being a
problem, however the most recent people arrested for public intoxication would not be
appropriate for this option.
Lyness said Aleksey Gurtovoy, from the group votenonewjail.org, attended the
Treatments Subcommittee meeting and voiced the following concerns: the priorities and
the failure of the policing in Iowa City and the University of Iowa (UI) Police, the failure
of the war on drugs and how the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) needs
to put more pressure on local law enforcement and the Iowa Legislature to push the
legalization of marijuana at the State level. Lyness reported that their proposal suggested
the change should be about the overall prevention of people going to jail, rather than
increasing the space for jail. They also suggested the County pay for electronic
monitoring. Currently, there are very few pre -trial release interviews occurring because
of cuts at the Department of Correctional Services. The question was if the County could
pay for the interviewer, so that more interviews could take place which could decrease
the length of time people are detained. She said Gurtovoy suggested that the County
should be funding alternatives and not just more jail beds.
Lyness said the Treatments Subcommittee discussed disproportionate minority
contact, which is a big issue with votenonewjail.org and is something the Treatments
Subcommittee will continue working on. In addition, the votenonewjail.org feels more
advocacies for mental health and substance abuse treatment at the State level should be
made available.
Lyness said the Treatments Subcommittee will meet again to discuss the
disproportionate minority contact, in particular, and about more training with law
enforcement, especially in the areas of detoxification. The Treatments Subcommittee had
discussed how it previously considered whether Johnson County can have a facility for
only people who are very intoxicated. However, there are problems with the statute.
Jail Alternatives Coordinator Jessica Peckover said the Treatments Subcommittee had
conversations about what various County offices are doing for jail diversion, in terms of
law enforcement training. The County needs to educate people on the variety of
alternative strategies currently underway that are not necessarily official programs, but
are being done to impact arrest patterns and treatment alternatives. Lyness added that the
County has not done a very good job of letting people know what efforts have been taken
to try to decrease the jail population, both formally and informally.
REPORT FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION /OUTREACH SUBCOMMITTEE
Bar Association Representative James McCarragher said the Public
Information/Outreach Subcommittee met, but did not take any formal action. The
Outreach Subcommittee discussed topics of concern and how to integrate those in the
ongoing campaign.
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 3
REPORT FROM FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Harney said the Facilities Subcommittee had similar discussions about the issues of
disproportionate minority contact, drugs, and legalizing marijuana. The group also raised
questions of why people are in the justice system, and why these people are not being
diverted. There were two votenonewjail.org representatives present who felt the justice
center facility should be separate from the jail. The Facilities Subcommittee position is
that separating the two is not desirable and would lend to inefficiencies.
Judge Doug Russell said it was a very frustrating meeting because the opponents of
the proposed justice center did not have any data to back their views. The Criminal
Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) has met for a decade and conducted in -depth
discussions about: whether the proposed justice center should combine the Jail and the
Courthouse, weather the justice center should be located downtown or in another
location, the bond issue, the size of the bond issue, and what dollar amounts were
appropriate. Russell's opinion is there has been considerable effort by many reasonable
people with different views. The space needs and costs have been carefully and seriously
considered. All of the consultants have taken their tasks seriously. The CJCC put forth a
reasonable proposal to meet current needs and expansion needs 50 to 70 years into the
future. Russell said the opposing views seemed not to be based on data, but to be driven
by political views and preferences and he said he does not know how to answer those
complaints that a combined jail and courthouse is a totalitarian concept, or the suggestion
that it is inappropriate to the urban fabric to have a jail in the downtown, or the
suggestion that the work of the CJCC, its consultants, and citizen participants is
inappropriate groupthink.
Russell said the result of the meeting was to make sure the opponents were made
aware of all the CJCC and CJCC subcommittees meetings so the vocal opponents could
attend and make their views known. He recommended the Board of Supervisors invite
invite vocal opponents, such as UI Professor Jeffrey Cox or Iowa City City Council
Member James Throgmorton, to join the CJCC. He said he wants everyone in one place
so all the concerns can be addressed. To the extent that the concerns have validity and
are backed by data they should be considered and perhaps incorporated. However, if the
concerns are simply political preferences, are not backed by data, or do not contain
correct historical facts, those should be exposed and addressed. He said it was a
frustrating, yet civil and productive meeting.
Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen concurred with Russell. She said it
was beneficial to hear the opposing viewpoints, which she felt were more personal
agenda items. She said she wished the opponents would have stepped forward prior to
the vote, so there could have been some education and explanations. Most of the CJCC
members have worked within the system for 20 plus years and have put together
meaningful information. CJCC members are working hard to provide alternatives in the
community. She argued that basing decisions on the perspectives and views on one law
enforcement agency is a sad state of affairs. The County direly needs a justice center.
She is hoping that the two groups can, at some point, meet on common ground and
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 4
understanding about how to move forward from here and have meaningful dialogue
based on facts.
Vote No on New Jail representative Martha Hampel said the name of the political
action committee is Vote No on New Jail. She said the PAC would provide the data
Russell requested after they gather some information from County Sheriff Lonny
Pulkrabek.
REPORT FROM FUNDING /GRANTS SUBCOMMITTEE
Sullivan said Rettig sent him an email about this matter. There was some question
regarding an amount of money the County would invest in the project. The
Funding/Grants Subcommittee has been looking into opportunities for a larger investment
from the County Reserves. Sullivan said that possibility exists, but Rettig will have to
give more details on that. Originally, the Board agreed to invest $1.3 million from the
County Reserves. However, it appears that a contribution from County Reserves could
be close to double the amount.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Sullivan said though the bond referendum failed, Johnson County still needs to
address the Jail and space needs issues. The question is what to do now. The Board may
present another bond referendum and so he asked County Attorney Janet Lyness to
comment on that possibility.
Lyness said if a bond issue fails to gain the 60% required, it cannot go back on the
ballot for six months. May 7, 2013 will be the earliest there can be another vote on the
bond issues for the proposed justice center. At this time, there is also the question of
whether a special election could be held to appoint Stutsman's replacement at the same
time. Iowa Code requires that a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors be filled within 40
days. The committee to fill the vacancy on the Board of Supervisors has 40 days to make
a decision to appoint someone or to call for an election. And, if the decision is to
appoint, a petition for an election would have to be filed within 14 days, and then the
election would have to occur at the earliest practicable date.
Lyness said if the Committee chooses to instead hold an election to fill the Board
vacancy, the election has to be held at the earliest practicable date. Assuming Stutsman
is going to resign around the beginning of January, then May 7, 2013 is beyond what
Lyness believes would be the earliest practicable date. She believes the intent of the
legislature is to have an election earlier than 90 days after a resignation. She conferred
with the Secretary of State's office, who confirmed it would need to occur within 90 days
unless there is an extreme issue. Lyness said assuming Stutsman resigns in early January
2013, the County could not wait until May 7, 2013 to hold the special election to fill the
vacancy for Stutsman's replacement. Lyness' interpretation of Iowa Code is that it would
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 5
not be possible to have a special election to fill the vacancy at the same time as a special
election for the justice center bond issue.
Sullivan said the CJCC is discussing combining these special elections because the
cost of a special election is around $75,000 and it would be prudent to try to save money.
Lyness said Iowa Code prohibits an election to fill a Board vacancy or for a bond
referendum to occur at the same time as a school election. In February 2013, there is a
bond referendum for the schools and so that date cannot be used. Sullivan said nothing
can be combined with a school election.
Sullivan said the school district has announced a February 2013 election, and it looks
like an election to fill the Board vacancy will be early March 2013. The question is
whether to have another election in May 2013. Other available dates for a special
election are the first Tuesday in August, 2013 and the November 2013 General Election.
Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion asked if City Council elections
can be combined with a bond referendum. Sullivan said yes, Cities and Counties can
combine, but School Districts cannot combine with any other election. Champion said it
seems logical to put the justice center bond referendum on the November ballot. She said
the extra time would allow them time to educate the electorate and correct public
misinformation. However, part of the problem is that people may not really want to be
educated on the topic. The Daily Iowan, and other newspapers, continue to recycle
misinformation. Champion said the group should seriously consider combining with the
City election next November.
Iowa City Carpenters Union Business Representative Shane Merrick asked about
what the alternative delivery methods are regarding construction. He believes the people
who are against the justice center proposal will always be against it. Construction costs
increase annually. He suggested paying for some of project costs by utilizing the money
being spent on transporting prisoners to other counties. He asked if the County could
look at design -build leaseback as an alternative to the bond referendum, or if the idea is
to continue to spend more and more money. Sullivan said this issue came up early on
during the planning process. The initial thought was the CJCC wanted to ask for the
bond referendum. He said Merrick's suggestion probably needs to be readdressed. The
design -build leaseback approach was used to build the Marriott Coralville Hotel and
Conference Center. In fact, the Health and Human Services Building was partially built
using this strategy. It can be done in a couple of different ways, such as reverse
referendum or through a private company. In the second option, the private company
would build the building and then sell it back for a set price each year.
QCC Requests
Sullivan said decisions need to be made and he solicited feedback about which items
are priority for the January 2013 meeting agenda. These would be decisions on big
picture things, like when and what needs to happen, so the CJCC can design the work
plan.
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 6
Harney requested Neumann Monson Architects Principal Dwight Dobberstein
prepare a report regarding changes the architects would make to the design in response to
public comments. Public concerns were with too much glass and the flat roof. Harney
said that Dobberstein said the roof is not a flat roof, it just appears so in the artistic
renderings.
Dobberstein said Neumann Monson Architects staff met with the Facilities
Subcommittee. Staff has prepared some revised perspective views, but has not presented
the renderings to the Facilities Subcommittee yet. Sullivan asked Dobberstein to pass the
visual around for CJCC members to view.
Dobberstein said he had discussions about complaints that the site the architects
drafted their rendering on was the wrong site entirely. Neumann Monson Architects
cannot change the site they were given to work with. With that premise, the architects
reduced the glass on the upper two floors. He said he brought an image of what that
might look like in order to get feedback from the CJCC. Afterwards, Neumann Monson
Architects staff can make changes. He showed a revised rendering. The base was made
more solid and rugged, and more solid limestone was added on the two ends of the upper
level. There is a public lobby space that should be more open, but they added a
colonnade of limestone to make it more solid. The entrance to the justice center is
located behind the Courthouse, so there will be more glass in that location to direct the
public and to provide an open entrance.
Dobberstein said on the back side, which is not rendered on the image, the idea would
continue, so there would be more solid panels and punched openings for office windows.
After the architects met with the Facilities Subcommittee and received feedback, he
thought this would be more in line with what people thought would be appropriate.
According to the cost consultants replacing the glass with limestone would save around
$50,000. Sullivan asked if the changes are in response to aesthetics, rather than cost.
Dobberstein said yes. Harney asked if the roof is still flat, because it looks flat.
Dobberstein said the roof was never flat; it has a little slope and two roof drains. That
view of the top has not been shown yet.
Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen asked who will occupy the first and
second floor of the justice center, which are now covered by limestone. Dobberstein
clarified that the courts and court support would be located on the fourth and fifth floors.
The middle of the building, which extends to the Courthouse, would house the
courtrooms. Judges' and the court reporters' offices would be located on the back side.
Below those floors, there will be two floors of jail. Below that would be the Sheriff's
Office. Allen asked if the stone, as opposed to glass, would violate any Code
requirements for natural lighting. Dobberstein said no.
Iowa City resident Maria Houser Conzemius suggested that a peaked roof would
match the Courthouse better. The color of the Courthouse shingles could be matched
better. Dobberstein said a pitched roof created a lot of extra volume, which would be
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 7
costly and not serve any purpose. Conzemius said her opinion is it would work and look
better. Otherwise, she would prefer a detached facility.
Neuzil said Dobberstein should probably display renderings of other roof designs
prepared by his firm. Russell said the architect should be trusted when he says the roof is
not flat and that there is slope in the roof. Dobberstein said Neumann Monson Architects
does not build flat roofs anymore; they all have pitch. However, it is difficult to build a
steep pitch on large buildings because that creates large and useless attic space. The most
economical roof is a membrane roof, which will be used on the justice center building.
The industry has perfected this style. He said he does not have anything against a pitched
a roof, and while he prefers it, those costs are prohibitive.
Neuzil asked if this design would still accommodate future expansion. Dobberstein
said yes, the plan was always to expand to the south. The entire fagade can be repeated
towards the south and the design will tie together. Limestone is locally produced in
Anamosa, Iowa. Whenever the facility will be added on to, it will be easy to match
limestone to limestone.
Former University of Iowa Campus Planner Larry Wilson said he would like the
architects to address the issue of how many jail cells are needed. The CJCC has
acknowledged a certain number to meet current and future demand. He asked if there is
some way of building however many jail cells are needed now and then adding cells as
needed. He asked if this can be done either by shelling out rooms or by any other
architectural technique. This way, if all of the 243 jail cells do not really need to be built
now, then the County does not need to build all of them now. Dobberstein replied that
the architects provided those options previously. The answer is yes, the designer could
shell part or all of each of the jail pods. The maximum number of beds in each pod is
100. There is a combination of cell blocks, so that inmates can be divided up as the
Sheriff sees fit to manage the population. Men and women cannot be mixed, and sick
people cannot be mixed with healthy people.
Dobberstein added that it will be more expensive to finish a shelled pod in the future,
because the shell creates a confined area. There are variations on levels of shelling. The
idea is to get the shell built and then finish it off in the future as needed, which would be
less disruptive than adding on to an existing building. It is difficult to cut jail cells out
and not cut the rest of the building down. The jail is only 40% of this total program. If a
piece is cut out of the middle, there are still courtrooms above and the Sheriff's Office
below that would then have to be cut out as well. Drawings can be modified only after a
conclusion is reached on the number of jail cells to complete and to shell.
Champion asked what the jail population is on a normal day. Pulkrabek said that it is
currently around 140 people. Lyness said today it is around 160.
Wilson said if the CJCC chooses to shell out jail space and later does not need that
space for jail cells, it would have to have an alternative useful purpose. Dobberstein said
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 8
the architects have tried to keep the layout and organization flexible so it could be
repurposed for other use.
Champion asked if the reported jail population of 160 people include the inmates
housed in other facilities. Pulkrabek said yes, the current Jail can only hold 90 people.
Sullivan asked if there were specific things that could be discussed at the January
2013 CJCC meeting, with the idea of making recommendations to the Board on those
specific things. He asked if anyone would like to recommend specific changes, a date for
an election, or if the CJCC members still want to continue with the justice center project.
Champion said the CJCC needs to make those decisions. The question is whether to
continue on with the same project or change it. She said these questions need to be
answered before moving forward. The CJCC had better be prepared to discuss this at the
next meeting.
Hampel said the actual name of the facility, the justice center, is insulting because the
votenojail.org members do not believe there is much justice served in Johnson County.
She said the public was deceived with the ballot language that included the words "justice
center ". She thinks it would be more honest to incorporate the words jail and courthouse
into the name of the facility. She asked it that has been discussed since the last meeting
of the Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee (Information Subcommittee.) Sullivan
said no, not yet, because this is the first meeting since that subcommittee meeting.
McCarragher said the Information Subcommittee has considered the name and
concluded that "justice center" incorporated the courts and court related activities.
Despite what others think, he believes justice is done in the Courthouse, and the name
was not meant to be deceiving in any way, and it is not deceiving in any way. He said it
was chosen because justice is a part of what the County attempts to do inside the
Courthouse. Justice is done while bringing people from the Jail to the Courthouse, as
well. The CJCC agreed on a common name that would pull together all of the functions.
McCarragher said he is offended by Hample's statement that justice is not done in
Johnson County. He has been part of the justice system for a long time and contends that
examples of poor decisions and mistakes can be found anywhere; that is part of the
system. An example can be made of an arrest that maybe should not have been made.
An example can be made of a case that an attorney wanted to win but did not. There are
times when an attorney does not think she or he is going to win, but does win. The jurors
and judges do their job. There are isolated incidences where things go wrong. At the
same time, he is open to ideas as was indicated to everyone present at the Information
Subcommittee meeting. Everyone is open to the topics discussed during the campaign.
Russell said the naming of the justice center was not a political statement by the
Board. He is not concerned with the name, but wants the public to have this service.
CJCC members visited one combined facility in Story County and it was named the Story
County Justice Center. The name was derived from that example, not a political
decision. Sullivan said the CJCC members wanted to emphasize that it was not just a jail.
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 9
The space needs of the Courthouse was not as well known as the needs for additional jail
beds. Russell said it was designed to emphasize both facilities and not just a new jail.
Sullivan said everything was decided in open meetings and with no secret plotting. The
CJCC made these decisions earnestly. Russell said some may feel justice is done in
Johnson County and some may not. That is a political discussion for the Board of
Supervisors.
Champion said justice is being done in Johnson County, though it may not always be
perfect. The justice center would promote justice in the county. She contended that
transporting prisoners to other counties, far from the court, their lawyers, and their
families, creates injustice and prolongs their time in prison.
Hampel said many people who voted for the justice center probably would not have
done so if they knew it was a jail. Champion said she believes voters knew the jail was
part of the project. Allen said this is an educated electorate and people knew what they
were voting for. Hampel restated that jail and courthouse combination would be a better
name for the proposed facility. Sullivan said people will have to agree to disagree.
Robert George said about 60% to 70% of the people he talked to were surprised that
there was a jail involved with this project.
UI Student Representative Drew Lakin said the absolute opposite. He spoke with
many students who thought it was only a jail and were unaware of the jail diversion
programs and the courtrooms. Students would probably have been more inclined to vote
for the justice center if they knew it included more than a jail. Both sides can agree that
more educational efforts should be made.
Allen said a future CJCC meeting could be dedicated to educating the public on the
Jail Alternatives Program.
McCarragher said it would be a good idea to talk about what the CJCC would like to
see in a facility that will be presented to the public. They should decide on a plan sooner,
in order to have time to present that to the public. Sullivan clarified that at the next CJCC
meeting, they should discuss what changes, if any, should be made to the plan.
Peckover said the CJCC has heard the concerns of votenojail.org, but should still seek
out other people's concerns. It is unlikely that the members of votenojail.org would vote
yes under any circumstance. There are other people who might change their vote to yes
if the plan were changed, and they should also address those people.
Sullivan said the best way to do that is through polling, but that is expensive. As a
result, the CJCC has to work with anecdotal evidence. However, people who attended
the meetings have brought a wide variety of viewpoints. The CJCC will do its best to
incorporate that. Peckover said taking the time to synthesize this anecdotal information
should be incorporated into the next agenda.
Informal Minutes: December 5, 2012/ page 10
Russell said he invites alternative suggestions for numbers of jail cells, including
reasoning. He said Cox has suggested 160. The only current options are based on
political preference. If people brought forward additional data and reasoning for a
different number, that could be considered and utilized by the designers.
Terry Dahms said it will be very challenging to hold another election on this project
2013. There is a school bond referendum in February 2013, a possible special election
for the Board vacancy in March 2013, a City of Iowa City City Council primary in
September 2013, another election in November 2013, and another school board election
after that. He is not sure of the public tolerance for so many elections. Additionally,
educational efforts by the CJCC will not be effective if they do not address the core
issues with the plan. He agreed there is a dilemma between perceived political
motivations and conclusions supported by data. He thinks voters are reacting to
unfavorable conditions in the nation's criminal justice system with which they are
dissatisfied. Until things change globally, it will be difficult for the CJCC to convince
the public. He suggested separating the Jail issue from the Courthouse issue, and that the
CJCC go back to the drawing board and consider all these issues.
Conzemius said they should not call it a justice center. She said calling it a
courthouse annex and a jail would be more honest. They should also consider aesthetics.
She understands Pulkrabek's concerns regarding security and the desire to have everyone
use a single entrance. Calling it a justice center is presumptuous and rubs her the wrong
way.
Sullivan asked the CJCC members to return to the next meeting with a list of things
that each would like to change on the current design and proposal.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE
Sullivan said the next meeting is scheduled for January 2, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the
Health and Human Services Building Conference Room 203B and 203C.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR FEBRUARY 6,
2013 WILL START AT 5:30 P.M.
Sullivan said the CJCC meeting in February will convene at 5:30 p.m., one hour later
than usual, in the Health and Human Services Building Conference Room 203B and
203C.
Adjourned at 5:38 p.m.
Attest: Travis Weipert, Auditor
Recorded By Nancy Tomkovicz
IP8
MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING
COMMITTEE:
JANUARY 2, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Announcements and Introductions ..................................................................... ..............................1
Planning and Funding for Addressing Space and Security Issues at the Jail and Courthouse .........2
Report from Funding/Grants Subcommittee ..................................................... .............................10
Commentsfrom the Public ................................................................................ .............................10
Other.................................................................................................................. .............................12
SetNext Meeting Date ...................................................................................... .............................12
Chairperson Rettig called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the
Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 4:33 p.m. Members present
were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, and Rod Sullivan. Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee Members present were: Department of Corrections
Supervisor Jerri Allen, MECCA Director Ron Berg, Iowa City City Council Member
Connie Champion, Citizen Representative Bob Elliott, County Attorney Janet Lyness,
Defender's Managing Attorney Peter Persaud, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Judge
Doug Russell, and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy
Whiston. Bar Association Representative James McCarragher arrived at 4:50 p.m.
Absent were: Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden. Staff
present: Executive Assistant Andy Johnson and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary
Cynthia Courter.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INTRODUCTIONS
Rettig announced the Board Chair rotates annually and Sullivan's term ended
December 31, 2012 and now Rettig is Chair and Neuzil is Vice Chair. Stutsman resigned
her position as Supervisor effective at 8:30 a.m. today to assume her newly elected
position as State Legislator. Rettig announced that Auditor Travis Weipert, and reelected
Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and Supervisors Harney, Neuzil, and Sullivan, were sworn in
this morning by Judge Douglas Russell.
Meeting attendees introduced themselves per the above CJCC Members present
paragraph.
Audience members introduced themselves as follows: Reverend Bob Welsh,
Auditor's Office Clerk John Deeth, Auditor Travis Weipert, Samuels Group Member
Brian Carlson Brian Carlson, Bob Thompson, Mike Carberry, Terry Dahms, Neumann -
Monson Architects Principal Architect Dwight Dobberstein, Captain Dave Wagner, The
Gazette Reporter Greg Hennigan, Maria Conzemius, Major Steve Dolezal, Iowa City
Policy Chief Sam Hargadine, Iowa City Press - Citizen reporter Lee Hermiston, Jail
Alternatives Program Consultant Jessica Peckover, Farm Bureau Member Jim Dane, and
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson.
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 2
PLANNING AND FUNDING FOR ADDRESSING SPACE AND SECURITY
ISSUES AT THE JAIL AND COURTHOUSE
Rettig said the Board has been trying to come up with solutions for the County's
space needs problems. She said Executive Assistant Andy Johnson has passed out a
document which is a working draft of the consensus of the Board. She said the Board
wanted to bring the draft to Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) members
and the public, to invite comments and feedback.
Rettig said years ago, a bond referendum to build just anew jail was defeated. In the
interim, the CJCC contracted consultants to draft a plan for a combined jail and
courthouse project which was estimated around $70 million. That plan would have lasted
between 20 to 25 years. In November 2012, the Board asked voters to vote on another
plan that would last the County between 10 and 15 years, and it had the ability to
accommodate future expansion as the population increases. That plan also would have
included future courtroom expansion and the ability to construct another building 25
years down the road that would likely be located on the vacated Harrison Street and
beyond. The plan received a little over 56% of the public votes in the November 2012
election. Afterwards, the Board attempted to identify an alternative plan that would
handle the space problems and the lack of space to conduct the Jail Alternatives Program
at the Jail and the Courthouse. This draft is the Board's working plan on the necessary
space to meet the projected needs of the community when the justice center would open.
The draft plan also takes into consideration the structural elements for future expansion.
Rettig said the November 2012 plan included 243 jail beds. The new working draft
proposes to not complete the two dormitories. Dormitories in the jail were designed in
the original plan to have 24 beds for men and 24 beds for women. Neither of those
dormitories would be built in the new plan, reducing the jail bed capacity to 195 beds
with no dormitories for a cost savings of $300,000. The Board spent quite a bit of time
discussing reducing the number of actual cells, but that is not financially wise.
Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said the number of inmates has risen to over 200 several
times, but the numbers are down right now. The number of inmates has continued to
decline, which is a positive. Part of the purpose of the draft plan is to address the input
from the jail opponents. His goal was to keep the jail around 200 beds, to accommodate
projected population growth. Pulkrabek said Professor John Neff has provided data
showing that following current trends, the jail population could grow to as high as 260 or
270. Pulkrabek said he is comfortable with space for 195 inmates if the justice center
opened today.
County Attorney Janet Lyness asked Pulkrabek to explain the concept of
classification to the public. It will show why a jail needs more than 160 beds, even if
there are only 160 inmates. Pulkrabek said classification is based on several criteria
which include the actual crimes that are committed: victimless crimes, crimes in which
there are victims, serious property crimes, murder, rape, sexual assault, and domestic
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 3
assault. More serious offenders require a higher level of supervision and care. In the
current Jail, they only have secure cell blocks and less secure cell blocks, and staff is not
able to consider the evaluate how each inmate should be classified.
Lyness said if there are 160 inmates, then up to 195 beds need to be available because
jail staff cannot predict how many people would be incarcerated overnight for public
intoxication on a given weekend and how many need to be separated from sentenced
inmates. Pulkrabek said inmates who stay overnight have to be kept separate from the
general population until court is over. The Jail is required to keep sentenced people
separated from those who are pre -trial, awaiting trial, or on bond. Females are currently
the fastest growing Jail population and with the current Jail design, it is nearly impossible
to keep sentenced females away from females there on bond. A jail needs the additional
room for the inflow and outflow of overnighters. The Jail adjusts for this currently by
transporting inmates out of County to free up enough jail beds.
Rettig said people may not understand what is required by law to keep males and
females sight and sound separated. The daily Jail census is around 170 inmates.
However, it does not mean the County only needs jail space for 170, because there may
be 22 females who cannot be bunked with men, but also have to be sight and sound
separated. Previously, Pulkrabek had told the Board that a project much under 200 jail
beds will serve no purpose. Pulkrabek confirmed that statement. He said the day
construction is finished on the justice center he would still have to transport inmates out
of the county. Lyness added that even with a population of 180 inmates, the jail cannot
put three women in a cell block that houses men.
Rettig said in November 2012, the Board came forward with a proposed justice center
design that included six brand new courtrooms and three courtrooms being reutilized in
the current Courthouse. The projection was the nine courtrooms would have serviced the
demand for 10 to 15 years in the future. Through a bit of negotiation with the County
Attorney's Office staff, the working draft proposes four new courtrooms with the needed
technology, and four new courtrooms that would be shelled out. The shelled out spaces
would accommodate expansion, as the population or court dictated the need. The shelled
out spaces would create a savings of $1.275 million. The Board had considered shelling
out the entire fifth floor of the justice center building, but Lyness had some concerns and
reservations on the concept. The shelling of the entire fifth floor would have created a
potential savings of around $600,000 and would allow for future growth. A good
example is the Health and Human Services Building (HHS Building), which was built
with two finished floors and a third floor shelled for future growth.
Lyness said the new justice center design provides inmates with a direct and secure
access to courtrooms. Elevators lead directly from the jail to two courtrooms on the
fourth floor and two courtrooms on the fifth floor. The design also includes holding cells
outside of the courtrooms, a place to meet with attorneys before entering the courtroom.
Currently, inmates, staff, and the public must share entrances, hallways, and elevators
and attorneys and jurors are very concerned about this.
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 4
Lyness added that five courtrooms in the current Courthouse would be reutilized,
with four in the new justice center. Eventually, the remaining shelled out courtrooms
would be built out, as needed. She said it is not ideal to reutilize courtrooms in the old
Courthouse, but it is one way to reduce the bond proposal.
Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion asked if not all courtrooms are
taken up with criminal cases. Lyness said no, for example, there are small claims cases
heard daily. Champion asked if the four new courtrooms could handle the criminal
caseload. Lyness said four courtrooms would probably not suffice every day for the next
ten years, but court administration could attempt to keep all criminal cases in the
courtrooms in the new facility.
Judge Doug Russell agreed, and said the more serious criminal cases would be
handled in the new part of the facility, because of security reasons. He said the draft
proposal meets the current space needs, but does not address all of the security and
accessibility needs. Rettig said yes, it is less than ideal. The County may choose to
remodel courtroom space, as opposed to remodeling the basement Courthouse courtroom.
Russell said regarding judicial resources, there is a method for the Sixth Judicial
District to acquire additional judges from less populated judicial districts. He said this
has been done at least one time in the last few years. Having the additional courtrooms
makes it more possible to assign additional judges to Johnson County, because there will
be a place to put them. In the current situation, there is no space to assign an additional
judge to Johnson County. The new justice center facility will give the Sixth Judicial
District the opportunity to secure more personnel resources.
Rettig said the four shelled courtrooms could be built out one at a time, whenever the
County needs an additional courtroom, or whenever a judge is available for transfer. The
courtrooms do not need to be remodeled in pairs. The building envelope and the
infrastructure will already be built.
Champion asked Russell if having more judges would expedite caseloads and
potentially get people out of jail faster. Russell said the court will always address the
bond reviews right away each day in the Courthouse, no matter what happens with the
new project. However, generally speaking, having additional judges means a quicker
disposition of cases, both on the civil and criminal side. Rettig said she has heard there is
a lack of court reporters as well. Russell said the courts are suffering from that lack at all
times.
Mid - Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) Director Ron Berg asked how
the new draft plan would change the plan for the Courthouse, if at all. Rettig said the
November 2012 design reutilized three courtrooms on the third floor of the Courthouse.
In the revised plan, the third floor of the Courthouse would be reutilized, as well as
potentially two or three courtrooms on the second floor. Depending on the cost, the
basement of the original Courthouse could also be remodeled for the County Attorney's
Office as well. Currently, there are a total of six courtrooms. After building the new
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 5
facility, there would be a total of either eight or nine courtrooms. Berg asked if two to
three courtrooms would be added, overall. Rettig said yes. Pulkrabek said the four new
courtrooms would also be fully equipped. For example, right now the jury rooms are
being shared. Reutilizing existing courtrooms means some will have access to jury
rooms and others would be less than convenient.
Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston asked if the
remodeling of the County Attorney's Office and Clerk of Court's space is now postponed
for the time being. Rettig said the Courthouse remodeling was always going to be paid
for with capital funds, not bonding. Whiston asked that since the existing courtrooms
would continue to be used, then nothing else can be put there. Rettig agreed and said it is
likely that the County Attorney's Office staff would expand to the full basement and the
second and third floor would be available to the courts. Russell said under the new
proposal, the County Attorney's Office would gain one - quarter of the first floor and half
of the second floor. Harney said eventually, when the current Jail facility is sold, the
money would be designated toward remodeling the Courthouse.
Rettig said the third issue was that people thought the original design looked like a
cage because of all the exterior glass. The purpose was to allow the glass to reflect the
image of the Courthouse and reduce energy costs. She said the green roof was just a bid
alternate. The justice center was never designed with a flat roof, no matter what the
design looked like. She said the Board discussed the aesthetic changes with Neumann
Monson Architect Principal Dwight Dobberstein. Surprisingly, the changes allow for
additional cost savings. Including some furniture savings, the cost is reduced by
$325,000. She reiterated that the new design is only a draft.
Dobberstein said much of the glass was replaced with more limestone. He passed out
renderings that showed three separate views of the Courthouse and proposed justice
center drawn to scale. He said the project is headed in the right direction and welcomed
feedback from people concerning the architectural aspects of the facility. The architects
have been trying to come up with a less costly solution.
Rettig said there is a detail not included in the renderings. She wants the public to
understand the proposed justice center will not be landlocked. The City of Iowa City
(Iowa City) is willing to vacate Harrison Street to the County. The County owns one -
quarter of the block to the south and is in negotiations with the federal government to
own the entire block, perhaps with a joint project with Iowa City. If the Board goes
forward with the draft justice center project, the Board would be offering a project which
meets the immediate County needs. They know how the County would complete the
project in the next five to 15 years, as the County population continues to grow.
Rettig said in regards to appearance, the changes are also cost effective. Dobberstein
said the original renderings showed areas for future expansion. However, it was not clear
enough to the public. The justice center will be designed for expansion across Harrison
Street into the lot that is presently owned by the County. He said the Neumann Monson
Architects staff will update the rendering to show how it would look.
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 6
Rettig said the last issue is how much money the County can use for a down payment
through Capital Expenditures and Capital Projects. She said in November 2012, the
County said they could allocate $1.3 million for the justice center. The Board has since
found $2.7 million for a down payment made available by stretching out other Capital
projects and holding department heads and elected officials tight on expenditures and
demanding the turn back of revenues. With this additional money for a down payment,
the ballot request could be $43.5 million; the total project cost would be $46.2 million.
Champion said the Board has put a lot of work and thought into the draft plan and she
is pleased with the cost reductions. However, she is not so sure the cost was the reason
the justice center bond referendum failed.
Whiston agreed with Champion in that cost was not the factor in November 2012, but
a reduction in cost is a goodwill gesture. It shows that the project has really been cut
down to the bare bones. She said it is a shame to have to scale back office space.
Berg asked if the Board has any sense of the ideal dollar figure is. He agreed that the
cost was the deciding factor. Rettig replied that the Board began with the premise that
the County has a space crisis and needs another solution. She said the Board wanted to
hear from the voters again, but not on the same project because voter feedback was that
the justice center should be built for current needs, not for the needs 10 to 15 years from
now. While it is not great planning to build for today and ignore the reality of inmate
population growth, or the uncertainty of state funding for the courts, the Board responded
to public concerns and asked for a design that would meet current needs on opening day,
but also allows for future expansion.
Neuzil said there was a desire to reduce, not only the size and scope of the total
project cost, but also a desire to invest more County dollars into the justice center project.
Making this initial investment will mean that addressing other priorities within County
government will be put on hold. The Board heard from many people that the justice
center was the immediate number one priority. While the Board puts all the Capital
Improvement dollars into the justice center project for several years there are going to
have to be sacrifices within County government, deferred maintenance or deferred
additional infrastructure.
Bar Association Representative James McCarragher said the public was concerned
about the number of jail beds. The new draft plan addresses this issue by reducing the
number of beds to 195, however inmates may still need to be housed in other counties.
He said some people did not like the design of the building, and did not think it blended
with the current Courthouse, so the revised design has addressed those concerns as well.
McCarragher emphasized the most pressing problems are safety and security. The
111 - year -old Courthouse faces significant safety and security issues. By connecting the
Courthouse to the new justice center facility, it allows for another entrance off the top
floor. This avoids the use of the narrow staircases that are currently present in the
Courthouse and improve access out of the building to a safe area for the people on the
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 7
upstairs floor. The new design will still allow secure and separate inmate movement
between the Jail and courts. Some people that did not like the roof because they thought
it was flat. The roof was never flat and the revised renderings clarify the issue for people.
McCarragher said there are numerous safety and security issues which make the
current Courthouse environment risky for jurors, Courthouse visitors and staff. There
may still be a protest vote during the next justice center bond referendum, but the Board
has spent a lot of time addressing as many concerns as possible the best as they can.
Harney said the Board and Neumann Monson Architects staff discussed many options
for eliminating or scaling many variables. The Board even considered shelling out the
entire top floor, by putting the mechanical room on the top floor and the courtrooms
down on one level. But this change would compromise security and access to the
courtrooms. The Board considered reducing the number of pods, however that meant
more masonry walls would have to be built to enforce security. The revised plan
represents compromise, allows for future expansion, and it will serve the public well.
Russell said the Board has done a great job of addressing the issues in a responsible
way. It is important to remember that the 111 - year -old Courthouse is still functioning
and the proposed justice center will probably last a long time as well. The County is
taking future needs into account, because a new jail and courthouse will not be built in 20
or even 50 years, so this project must look that far ahead. Russell said to build for current
needs and plan for future needs in the most cost effective way is the right approach. He
hopes the Board will continue negotiations with the federal government to purchase the
General Services Administration property adjacent to the Courthouse because the County
grows in population, but not in land size. Russell said it is very forward- looking and
thoughtful to keep the land acquisition process alive.
Rettig said the Board had discussed shelling out other areas, but the Board decided
that it would be penny wise, but pound foolish. She said there was also negotiation
amongst Board members, because the Board does not always agree. The Board diligently
considered and rejected many ideas. Regarding selling the Jail, the Board fully intends to
sell the Jail at a fair price and reinvest every nickel from that sale into the justice center.
She said the Board will wait for a fair offer on the Jail, it will not be a fire sale. The
Board will prepare a resolution to publicize the Board's intentions just like Iowa City
should prepare a resolution documenting their intention of vacating Harrison Street to the
County upon request.
Rettig said there are a number of reasons why the Board wants to move forward with
another proposal. First, the County is flirting with serious disaster in current operations
and needs a resolution to the space crisis. Fifty -six percent of the voters approved the
bond referendum and the Board wants to respond to those voters also. Second, interest
rates are historically low at this time. Rettig said there has never been a better time for
cities, counties, and governments to invest in infrastructure. She said they will never
likely see these interest rates again in their lifetimes.
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 8
Rettig said a third reason is Johnson County is a transient community. Therefore, the
Board wanted the voters who had the opportunity to participate in November 2012 be
afforded another. The special election date being considered would allow the UI
community to participate in the decision again. The Board is very concerned about
inflation and while the architects budgeted for inflation, the estimate will not be firm
much longer. Finally, the fourth reason is that with a special election on May 7th, the
project, if approved, will be included in FY13.
Rettig said there are additional action items that the Board has discussed significantly
but the Board does not have anything to present on at this time. The first item is that the
Board asked Peckover and Pulkrabek to put together a multi -year strategic plan for the
Jail Alternatives Program. The County has committed significant money to the Jail
Alternatives Program, MECCA, mental health programs, jail diversion programs, and
drug courts, among other things.
Rettig said the second issue is that the Board has participated in a lot of discussions
regarding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). The Juvenile Justice Youth
Development Program (JJYD), which was originally funded by a grant, is now County
funded, and administers $200,000 to address juvenile courts. She said the Board is very
concerned about this issue, but the Sheriff's Office does not make the bulk of the arrests,
the city police do. She is glad Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine is present tonight
because this is a countywide concern and partnership, but does not impact the Jail as
much as people might believe. She said the County would like to use its bully pulpit and
its partnership with the local City governments to have broader discussions.
Harney said Iowa City takes the brunt of arrests, because the population and activity
within the community. However, nothing is ever heard about the UI Department of
Public Safety (DPS). The UI has full time law enforcement, whose arrest rates are close
to those of Iowa City. This is a county wide issue.
Russell commended the Board on its attention to these issues which are extremely
hard to address. He said the police departments, the Board, Iowa City City Council, as
well as others, are trying to solve these problems. He is very disappointed that national
statistics on racial disproportionality on inmates have caused votes against the justice
center. He is also concerned that there is some disproportionate impact on youth in the
community and he hopes that the issues will be addressed in a collegial way and that the
UI DPS will be involved in this discussion. UI DPS has the most junior police agency in
the county and will benefit from these discussions. He said all the police agencies and
governing bodies in the county will cooperate in looking at these issues.
Auditor's Office Account Clerk II John Deeth said the three possible dates to place a
funding measure on the ballot in 2013 are May 7th, August 6th, or in combination with
the November 5th City Election. It cannot be earlier than May 7th. Deeth said special
election turnout is very consistent, about 12,000 to 15,000 people will vote. The biggest
expense in conducting an election is the wages for Election Day poll workers. A
countywide special election is not going to be nearly as expensive as a presidential
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 9
election. He said whether the election was in May or August there would be a similar
turnout. The Auditor's Office would need to hire 192 poll workers to process an
estimated 13,000 voters. In the November 2013 City Election, it would be more
complicated because the overall turnout is higher, but the County and cities share in the
cost of wages paid to poll workers. Overall, the taxpayers would be paying a little bit
more for a larger election. However, turnout would be higher because of the City
Council races and the possible justice center bond referendum.
Rettig asked why a special election cannot be held with the school board election.
Deeth said under Iowa Code, no other election can be combined with a school election
for any reason. Rettig said there may or may not be a special election to replace former
Supervisor Sally Stutsman. Lyness said the requirement to replace her position has time
limits. It is not acceptable to go beyond 90 days from the time Stutsman leaves the
position. If the Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer opt to hold an election, the election
shall be held at the earliest practicable time. Any time after April is too late. Deeth said
certain dates in the Iowa Code are reserved for school districts or cities to have special
elections. In general, cities and counties can combine. However, nothing can be
combined with the school election.
Sullivan said May is good timing for another bond referendum because the
Information and Outreach Subcommittee has conducted significant public education
which would still be fresh on people's minds. August and November might be too far
out. Champion concurred and said there is much annual turnover in Iowa City. Lyness
said she prefers the May date to August because there will not be nearly as much
participation from the community; the UI is not in session and many people take
vacations in August. If they wait until November, the cost will increase because there is
a 2% annual inflation rate built into the costs.
Deeth said the May date is the last week of regularly scheduled classes but early
voting will begin well before that time so students will have enough opportunities to vote.
He also said the voter registration files are fresh right now because everyone updated
their registration for the General Election and in August, new students will have just
moved and it will be more work for the voters. Champion rejected the August date.
Russell favors the May date because he would like the UI, and especially the student
population, to be heard. Lakin favors the May date because it targets the same voters
who have already received information in the fall whereas an August date would include
an incoming freshman class who likely would have no idea what this issue is about.
Whiston asked if strides have been made to work with the vocal opponents. Rettig
replied she understands the opponents have attended subcommittee meetings and she
assured Whiston that the Board is committed to working to resolve the differences.
Harney said the County Jail is required to accept state prisoners from law
enforcement but it doesn't necessarily have to accept prisoners from city law
enforcement. However, it would not make financial sense to operate separate jail
facilities in Iowa City and in Coralville.
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 10
REPORT FROM FUNDING /GRANTS SUBCOMMITTEE
Rettig said she is waiting for the Board to reach a consensus on the direction to take.
The tax impact might change slightly.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Citizen Mike Carberry asked if a special election is scheduled for May 7, 2013 and
for some reason the referendum does not pass, could it be placed on the ballot again in
the November 5, 2013 election which Carberry noted is just slightly less than six months
after May 7th. Deeth said he is not sure but will ask Elections Deputy Auditor Kingsley
Botchway.
Citizen Martha Hampel asked if there were any subcommittee meetings held between
this meeting and the last one. Sullivan said there were no formal meetings but that
individual people may have met. Pulkrabek said there were no subcommittee meetings
which he was party to. Rettig said the Board of Supervisors has met twice in Informal
Work Sessions.
Citizen Terry Dahms said that the justice center is certainly one of the most important
issues facing Johnson County citizens as well as any citizen running for office this year,
making it a campaign issue. Attempting to be proactive, he obtained a list of inmates as
of December 7, 2012, and there were 148 which he assumed was typical. He prepared an
excel spreadsheet to calculate how long the inmates were in jail and he handed out the
spreadsheet to meeting participants. He said at least three inmates are held on murder
charges. He calculated just over 50 days as the average incarceration time, which is
skewed by those who are held for a longer period of time. The median is 21 days, which
he said he thinks is probably a reasonable amount of time for moving people through the
justice system and into courts. Dahms calculated an average of two charges per inmate.
He said there is a protest vote against the Jail and he said he thinks this is helpful in
explaining exactly what is going on in the Jail and how it is not serving as a warehouse.
He agrees with the May election date.
Lyness said Jail Alternatives Coordinator Jessica Peckover evaluates inmates to
decide where they should enter the system and which community services should be
sought. She also helps ensure that when people are released they are connected with
whatever resources needed to prevent recidivism. Lyness said her office does not have a
case expeditor but they have an attorney whose job is to meet weekly with Peckover,
someone from the Public Defender's Office, and Jail staff to review the inmates and
determine if any can be released, even individuals who may require supervision upon
release. This process, along with the Jail Alternatives Committee, has significantly
reduced the jail population and will lead to financial savings.
Rettig said the County has been successful in Jail Alternatives and with their
relationships with MECCA and drug courts, but the County cannot do any more work in
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 11
that area because there is no space. Rettig said she understands that Peckover is going to
come forward with a Jail Alternatives plan that may end up costing more money, but they
hope to stabilize the inmate population in order to capture some of the population growth
of Johnson County without dramatically increasing the population of the jail. She said
that is why the Board is more comfortable coming forward with the project of 195 beds
because some of the changes they have put into position will absorb more population.
There are 35,000 more people in Johnson County than in 1990, and there will likely be
35,000 more in 15 years. Rettig said no matter what the County invests in Jail
Alternatives, there is just a much bigger population to handle.
Lyness said people who are in jail for months are waiting trial on murder charges or
very serious felony charges, not simply for example, marijuana possession charges.
Facilities Subcommittee Member Larry Wilson said he has been involved in this
project for a very long time and said he thinks that the changes made are very good, he
agrees with the May 7, 2013 election date as it would include students, and urges the
Board to go forward with this proposal.
Citizen Bob Welsh said the Courthouse steps are very steep and he would like to add
rails to them, especially for elderly people. Rettig said the general public will most likely
enter the facility from the front of the building. Welsh also asked if inmates must be kept
overnight, why they could not be released at 11:00 p.m. or 1:00 a.m. the next morning,
and if there were any other alternatives to overnight stay in jail. Pulkrabek said that there
are certain charges for which the staff works hard at releasing people immediately with a
signed promise to appear in court, but it is a behind the scenes process that most people
do not know or hear about. Pulkrabek said generally, if someone is arrested for public
intoxication, they have done something to draw the attention of a police officer to
themselves. After that initial contact, that police officer makes a decision on whether
they go to jail. People have suggested a detoxification center. MECCA does not always
have room in their detox beds, but there has been discussion about an additional detox
center so when a police officer makes an arrest they can decide whether to take the
person to jail or, if they are being decent, respectful and non - threatening, to the detox
center.
Pulkrabek said one obstacle to this detox center is the Iowa Code does not allow a
detox center to be a locked facility, which means potential problems arise when the
arrestee decides to just walk out the door because the facility cannot be locked. The idea
has not been developed further because the cons outweigh the pros at this point. He said
there are many inmates who are signed or bonded out prior to court the next morning.
The people who spend the whole night in jail are those who have to see the judge the next
morning, were not cooperative, or did not have someone to post bail.
Welsh asked what percentage of people arrested spend the night in jail. Pulkrabek
said he isn't sure but guessed it to be 20% or 30 %. There are times when publicly
intoxicated people have sobered up in time and had a sober friend willing to take
responsibility for them. Pulkrabek said there are times when people are arrested on
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 12
serious driving offenses and actually beat the arresting officer out the door, because the
officer may have additional paperwork to get done.
Welsh said he thought the Board made a wise decision in terms of shelling out the
third floor for expansion in the Health and Human Services Building, and doing the same
in the justice center is the correct way to go.
Harney said there is the same correlation regarding mental health issues as the
unlocked detoxification facility concerns. An officer will arrest someone and take them
to the hospital for mental health evaluations and assistance, and unless they are court
committed they are able to walk out as well. He said it is impossible to put someone in a
detox center and keep them there, just as someone for mental treatment cannot be kept
against their will.
Berg said MECCA has six detox beds, one room that has four beds and another that
has two, which are split between male and female. Those beds can serve anyone who is
under a committal order until their hearing is held, as well as people who are scheduled to
come in for treatment services who show up intoxicated. He said there are limited
resources and recently a Coralville police officer brought someone to MECCA and a few
months ago, an Iowa City officer did the same.
Samuels Group Member Brian Carlson commended the Board, the CJCC, and the
architects on fiscal responsibility. He said his firm is involved in construction and
management of justice center projects and detention centers. Carlson supported the
progressive planning process. Currently many large construction projects are underway
in Iowa. As the country emerges from the recession, construction costs will continue to
rise. Carlson said it is imperative to spend and invest the money in the best possible
manner in this particular time in order to defer some of these costs down the road.
OTHER
Neuzil said there is still plenty of work to do. The Public Information/Outreach
Subcommittee should review the ballot language to make sure it still includes the justice
center concept, but also make clear that the project is a jail. He said the public will need
more information on issues like why the Board chose a size of 195 beds rather than 160,
or the site location, which was based on two years of study with consultants. Ultimately
the voters will decide, and Neuzil said the current proposal is worth public consideration.
Harney asked people to come forward with suggestions for the name of the facility
since there was public complaint about Justice Center. He is not sure what title would
convey the facility includes a jail as well as courtrooms, County Attorney's Office, and
Sheriff's Office.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE
The next CJCC meeting is scheduled for February 6, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
Informal Minutes: January 2, 2013/ page 13
Adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
Attest: Travis Weipert, Auditor
Recorded By Cynthia Courter
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
January 15, 2013 — 6 P.M.
Helling Conference Room
Members Present:
Members Excused:
Staff Present:
Page 1 of 21
PRELIMINARY
Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr., Jessie Harper, Kim
Hanrahan, Dan Tallon, Joe Coulter, Katie Anthony.
Shams Ghoneim, Diane Finnerty.
Stefanie Bowers
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission
meeting of January 15, 2013.
Recommendations to Council: None.
Call to Order:
Chair Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:00.
Consideration of the Minutes of the December 18, 2012 Meeting:
Coulter moved to approve minutes, seconded by Townsend.
Motion passed. 6 -0. ( Hanrahan not present)
New Business:
Recognition of Incoming Commissioners
HO: Joe do you want to tell us a little bit about yourself?
U- a�%'iZJS
IP9
JC: I'm Joe Coulter and I'm a faculty member here at the Department of Public Health for the
College of Public Health, Department of Community and Behavioral Health. I'm also a
faculty member in anatomy and cell biology in the College of Medicine. I do Indian
health and have an old house in Iowa City. Enrolled in member of the Potawatomi
Nation.
HO: Katie will you tell us about yourself.
KA: I live on the southeast side, it's on Wakefield. I work for the Iowa City Area Association
of Realtors. I'm the education and marketing director there. I'm also on the fair housing
ambassadors committee, and the staff liaison for that committee. I've lived in Iowa City,
in the area since 1989. I moved here from the Chicago area, and met my husband here
and just kind of stayed here.
Page 2 of 21
HO: Welcome.
Fair Housing Training
SB: I placed this on the agenda to let everyone know that if they want to attend there will be a
fair housing training on April 23rd at 1:30 in meeting room A at the Iowa City Public
Library. April is fair housing month, and we usually try to do training for the community
on fair housing.
HO: It's a very good training program and I encourage you to attend.
SB: It starts at 1:30 with the approximate end time to be at 3:30.
HO: Okay anything else on that?
Request for Sponsorship Choice Event 2013
HO: This is in your packet as item 4(c).
SB: If you want I can just kind of highlight the e-mail that the Commission received. The
Emma Goldman Clinic is holding their Annual Choice event on Friday, February 1 S` at
the Hotel Vetro, downtown Iowa City. They are asking for sponsorship and it looks like
a participating sponsor an organization would receive their name in the program, and
there would also be some sort of video display at the choice program that would have the
Human Rights Commission name. It would also be mentioned in the Emma Goldman
Journal /newsletter. It says that their advertising reaches approximately 2000 community
members, and the sponsorship amount is $250. It includes two tickets for the choice
event, a value of $100. You will be able to enjoy excellent exposure to a large diverse
and supportive audience so says Toni -Ann, who sent the correspondence to the
Commission.
SB: In the past it looks like the Commission has chosen to sponsor in 2008 and 2009. I'm
guessing over the years that maybe their sponsorship has changed. It looked like in 2008
the Commission gave $100, and in 2009 they gave $75. So at some point they must have
set a threshold for what an organization is required to contribute.
JH: Do we have the necessary things for them like the video and things like that?
SB: Like a logo to forward to them? Yes there would be one that I could send.
DT: What is our sponsorship budget?
SB: It's about $1100 and as of the last meeting, and there has not been any additional requests
for funding since that meeting. I believe the Commission had spent $250 -$300 of that
amount that runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
Page 3 of 21
DT: So halfway through.
SB: Correct.
HO: Do I hear motion?
Coulter moved to approve sponsorship, seconded by Townsend.
Motion passed. 7 -0.
HO: Any further discussion?
SB: I would just ask the Commission since there are complimentary tickets if anybody would
be interested in attending the event. If you're not sure at this time perhaps check your
calendar it does come with two tickets. So if somebody would like to attend if they could
let me know I will request those tickets and get them to you.
JC: Is the event on February 1 st?
SB: Correct. It doesn't look like they gave a time does it? I don't believe they gave the time of
actual start, but that's information that I can get and send out.
HO: I'd be interested.
DT: I'd be interested too depending on what time it was.
Elect Chair
HO: Okay now we have the pleasure of electing a new chair for 2013.
SB: Before you start I erred on this agenda. I thought I put elect chairs for 2013, but because
I put chair singular you can elect for chair tonight, but unfortunately the vice chair and
secretary should be, I can correct that and put that on the February agenda and we can
take care of it at that time. I do apologize. I did not catch it until today otherwise I could
have amended the agenda. So the Commission will vote for chair today, and then in
February do the vice chair and the secretary, which I'm usually secretary so. I don't have
any competition.
HO: Do I hear any nominations?
JH: I would like to nominate Orville for this position.
HO: Okay second to that?
JC: Second.
Page 4 of 21
HO: Any further nominations?
DT: Anyone else have an interest?
HO: Okay. Then let's see by unanimous vote should we say that Orville has it?
SB: I would do a roll call.
HO: Okay.
Harper moved to nominate Townsend for Chair for 2013, seconded by Coulter.
Motion passed 7 -0.
HO: Congratulations Orville.
SB: Then just kind of remind me that we will place the vice chair on the agenda for February
for those of you who may be interested.
OT: Thank you for the nomination. I'm looking forward to it. I'm hoping in the coming year
that we can work at education in the minority communities. We have a lot of people in
town that are living here, but basically aren't aware of things like what their rights are or
where to go to get certain things. Life could be so much better for them if they had more
knowledge about their surroundings. I'm a firm believer in that old saying give me a fish
I eat today, teach me to fish and I can eat for a lifetime. I think a lot of that is happening
here in Iowa City, and I'm hoping that you know we can kind of focus on education for
the minority populations in town here. Basically just kind of get a better handle on what
are some of the issues that they're dealing with, and basically put a little focus on that.
Black History Proclamation
SB: This is something in the past that the Commission has sometimes opted to do. Sometimes
they have opted not to. February is Black History Month and there is a proclamation that
could be submitted if the Commission so chooses. If you do vote yes on a proclamation I
will submit that to the mayor, and upon the mayors receipt if he accepts, then I would
need one Commissioner to accept that on behalf of the Commission at a city council
meeting in February. The dates for the council in February are February 5t' and also
February 19'`. So those would be the two possible dates if it's a yes vote.
HO: Discussion?
JH: This has been done previously?
SB: Correct.
KH: So there's already proclamation available to us?
Page 5 of 21
SB: That's correct.
JC: Is the proclamation, is this a recommendation that the city do the proclamation or is it this
committee?
SB: It would be this Human Rights Commission presenting a proclamation to the city council
asking Iowa City residents to celebrate and recognize Black History Month is basically
what it is. It says a lot of other stuff, but that would be the last few sentences.
HO: Is there a motion?
JC: I move that the proclamation, the recommendation from this committee to the council,
Black History proclamation.
DT: Second.
HO: We have a motion before us, is there any further discussion? Hearing none I'll take roll
call.
Coulter moved to submit a Black History Month proclamation, Tallon seconded.
Motion passed 7 -0.
SB: Before you move on I'd just like to add that if there are other celebrations, recognitions
that you would like to have the council, well the mayor because they are the mayor's
proclamations, for the mayor to consider to read at a city council meeting, please let me
know. The proclamations that are presented are generally just going on the past, it doesn't
mean things can't be changed and new proclamations added. So that's just something to
consider.
KH: Do you recall proclamations have been historically?
SB: I can look that up and report back at the February meeting.
JC: There are a series through the year Native American History Month, Latino...
KH: That's why I was asking what our current proclamation history is so that we can
JC: We probably ought to ask you to get us a calendar.
SB: I can certainly do that. I'll put that on for February, along with the history of what the
Commission has done.
JH: The original question was you will need someone to go ahead and , so if no one
else I can do it.
Page 6 of 21
SB: Do you want the 5`" or the 190'? It makes a difference for when I give it to the city clerk.
If you don't know just let me know.
DT: Is the 190i the same day as our meeting in February?
SB: Yes it would be. The council meets at 7, so you would just have to be there at 7, and as
long as we had a quorum we could continue to meet if we should go longer than 7, but
thank you for pointing that out.
Old Business:
Youth Awards
SB: A friendly reminder of the date of the Youth Awards. They will be held at the Englert.
They will start at 7 p.m. and I ask that Commissioners be there at 5:30 to kind of go
through an orientation of what to anticipate for the event. As it gets closer in time we
will need presenters for the Youth Awards. There are usually at least three
Commissioners on the stage at the Youth Awards. One does an introduction to the
audience along with an introduction of the mayor, who is usually the keynote speaker at
the Youth Awards. Then there is also another Commissioner who would need to read the
names of the students and what they're being recognized for, and then a Commissioner to
do the closing. We'll plan on discussing that at a later date. It just serves as a reminder
on the calendar again, and I also will in the next few weeks getting the materials ready to
submit to the various organizations, schools, home schools concerning the Youth
Awards, and soliciting nominations.
HO: We also are going to be promoting the Youth Leader Award as well this year?
SB: Correct.
Updates/Reports:
MLK, Jr. Proclamation
JH: Yes I have this here with me, and the mayor did a wonderful job with reading and
expressing the support from Iowa City. I didn't make any comments, but they gave me
the option but I just accepted it. It went well and I enjoyed the meeting and that's why
I'm offering to go back again. It was a good meeting.
SB: Thank you for doing that.
Municipal Identification
SB: There is not an update and to give you the reason is the council currently has, what I'm
required to submit would be considered draft minutes from the December meeting. And
so until tonight when those minutes were approved, which those will also get submitted
Page 7 of 21
to the city council at that time they can choose to take action or to respond to the
recommendation. But since they just had draft minutes those are not things they consider
until they are final minutes or approved minutes.
HO: I want to mention in that same light on Thursday, January 24 at 7 p.m. the Immigration
Roundtable is going to be meeting at the public library and the topic of discussion is on
Universal Identification. So some members may want to attend that. I'll be out of town
that day
SB: You said Thursday the 24th at the Iowa City Public Library?
HO: Yes at 7 p.m.
SB: And what was the full name of the organization?
HO: Immigration Roundtable.
DT: On the municipal identification, I know we talked about it a lot last time, I really when I
went to get a new license a couple weeks ago I realized how hard it can be to get a
license. I was lucky because I have extra identification from having been in the military
and things like that, so I have like secondary forms easily accessible. You have to take a
lot with you just to go get a driver's license, and then they don't give it to you
immediately. You have to wait for it. I didn't realize that it was kind of a challenge. I
didn't realize that the state had made it more difficult.
KH: So they have a list of primary documents that you can submit, and then you have to
accompany that with secondary documents, that's what he was referring to.
DT: I was unlucky since mine had expired and I didn't realize that and it got taken away, so I
had to go without a license. Just renewing is not a problem we talked about municipal
identification card last time, and when we gave some recommendations in the minutes.
But if you're just getting one for the first time there is, I mean even if you, just for your
average person there are a lot of requirements.
HO: Any other discussion? Moving right along.
Immigrant Subcommittee
KH: I don't have any new updates and Stefanie could you tell me if this is the right time to
offer this up. I'm wondering if we are able to make any adjustments to the subcommittee
as it stands because I think what I'm finding, is this a good time to talk about that?
SB: Yes.
KH: I think what I'm finding is that we are tapping into a lot of the same leaders in the
community, and then we're overextending them and then all of a sudden they are being
Page 8of21
asked to go to five or six meetings every month. They really are having to pick and
choose, and even with the co -chair Gloria , she's even struggling to make her
schedule work with all the demands for all the different meetings including Immigration
Roundtable. I'm wondering we have done it for a year and that was the council, was that
the council's recommendations for a year or was it to extend beyond that first year?
SB: I think that was actually the Commission decided that, but it continued. It wasn't
something that ended at a year.
KH: I'm wondering if we couldn't recommend having representatives from the Commission
attend some of the already existing organizations that are working really hard on
immigration communities, especially the Latino community. Then they can report back to
the Commission, because if ideally the intent was to have mostly Latino in the meeting
and in the room and really listening to them. I think just having one, hopefully one white
person that's the Commission representative there, that would be the way to do it. Just to
have Gloria and I be able to attend all the existing meetings, and then reporting back to
the Commission what those meetings had to offer.
HO: That's a good idea.
KH: Even now we're already in the next quarter and we have met three or four times in
December, and we are already struggling with trying to find a date that Gloria and I can
attend, let alone some other folks who are interested in being kind of part of the
movement. It was a thought.
SB: I actually have the, I guess the by -laws as the Commission created the sub - committee last
spring. It says length of member services not to exceed two years, but there was no length
of time placed on the establishment of the actual sub - committee.
HO: I think the city wants to hear back from us in one year some sort report if I recall
correctly.
SB: My memory does not, I can't say for sure. I can go back and check. I don't recall a
requirement for a specific time. I thought it was more on an as needed basis, but I can
double check that.
KH: And it seems like we've completed the primary recommendations for that, the original
establishment of that subcommittee. So I was hoping we could discuss as a Commission
if that's something people can agree on. I mean I would still be willing to be the co -chair
of the subcommittee. I think Gloria would still be willing to be the co- chair. It's just kind
of changing how we would organize group meetings.
SB: So the composition of the subcommittee would not change? It would just be how you
meet?
Page 9 of 21
KH: I would suggest that any of those other meetings we would go to, the members that have
been interested in being on the subcommittee would be also in attendance at those
meetings.
SB: Meaning each Human Rights Commissioner?
KH: The two Human Rights Commissioners and then the four or five other people who have
SB: Okay.
KH: I just think we're over extending a lot of the leaders and it's just been really challenging.
We have people, who are doing great organized meetings and movements and
recommendations to the council, and so I was hoping to be able to combine some of our
activities and some of our energies because we're spreading ourselves really thin at this
point.
JC: Did these recommendations from the committee come through this Commission to the
council or are they directed to the council?
KH: Yes they did.
SB: Looking at the by -laws I don't think, I'm not even sure they would need to be amended.
As far as meetings it says that the IHR or the subcommittee on immigrant human rights
shall meet quarterly and shall report on a quarterly basis back to the Human Rights
Commission or more often if needed. So I kind of feel that those are flexible enough to
allow what you are requesting, but certainly if you feel more comfortable actually
changing the by -laws to be more specific. I mean the Commission can do that too.
OT: So if I understand you've got two individuals from the Commission who are already
attending, and what you're saying is you would like some of the other Commissioners to
also attend the meetings?
KH: No. The challenge is to have a formal mini committee meeting of Immigration Human
Rights (IHR) because a lot of the leaders in the Latino community are already involved in
Immigration Roundtable. I can't recall two or three other the Voices Project.
SB: Yes, and with the consultation of religious communities.
KH: There is a university affiliated workforce, all of them are putting their time and energy
into a lot of the same things that we would be doing. So it would be more instead of
having formal quarterly IHR meetings, Gloria and I would attend the Voices or the
Immigration Roundtable, and then bring back input about what's happening in a few of
these and where the energies are being focused. It just makes so much more sense to me
because we're duplicating a lot of the same discussions. I mean they are working on the
municipal universal ID cards right now. I bet Diane would have some thoughts on this.
Page 10 of 21
HO: Okay I don't think we need a motion for this.
SB: It's the comfort level of the Commission. If you want I can reread what it says
concerning meetings. It says that IHR shall meet quarterly and report on a quarterly basis
back to the Human Rights Commission or more often if needed. The date of review is
actually March 2014 and so we still have another year and a few months.
DT: I think that if you and Gloria as the co- chairs are comfortable that most the people that
you need to engage with are going to be at those meetings, if you think that's the best
way to in a sense kind of meet, then I think that's the way you should do it.
HO: I agree. Any other further discussion?
KH: Just one more comment. One thought is that it can almost be considered a listening post
where Commissioners would be available at that time for anyone who was at the meeting
to be able to come to us with thoughts and share ideas that we may not be tapping into
under its current makeup.
SB: Are you currently the only Human Rights Commissioner?
1114 : -S 0
SB: So if anyone is interested, I mean really the subcommittee can have up to four Human
Rights Commissioners on the committee or subcommittee, and so if there were three
other Commissioners or one other Commissioner who was interested even if it would just
be to attend one meeting just to get a feel and see if it's something that you would want to
pursue in the future, that would certainly be fine. I would just suggest that you get in
touch with Kim as far as when those meetings are held, and Kim if you could let me
know so I can send that out to all the Commissioners just to see because there might be
interest, that way everybody has the same information.
HO: I think it'd be important to take and announce that you're representing the Commission at
these meetings so that they know.
KH: Yes that's what my idea was too.
HO: Any further discussion?
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee
JC: We just met at our last meeting, which was yesterday. We've completed our rounds and
discussed the input that we received from the public information gathering sessions,
which were at City High, West High, the Spot, Waterfront Hy -Vee and Pheasant Ridge.
There was reasonable attendance, it was not particularly large, seven or eight people. We
are now making plans and getting our meeting dates set up and our tasks together to
Page 11 of 21
develop our list of recommendations, which we've kept an ongoing list which appears in
our minutes. I will articulate those into a formal sets of recommendations, which we will
then share with the city manager, law enforcement and transportation people before we
finalize those to make our recommendations, which would be due to the council on or
before the 13th of March or there abouts.
JH: I would like to point out I actually went to one of the sessions at Hy -Vee to listen, and it
seems that they are getting a lot of different voices, not just one particular group. They
are getting
HO: Orville are you able to add anything?
OT: We had the meeting at the public library and we didn't have a good Black turnout so the
committee decided to divide into groups and go out into the community. I think that was
a good move because we are getting to talk to more people. We're getting more
information. It looks like we will be able to make some very precise recommendations to
the city council.
SB: I would just add that if any Commissioner is interested in having detailed information the
minutes are available on the city website for review.
Building Communities
OT: We've been meeting and we have placed most of our focus on organizing meetings where
we invite individuals from the community to come and meet with us so that we can kind
of discuss issues. Basically see if we can get them to commit to forming a committee to
look at various issues. You know identify issues and then see what can be done to
improve those situations. Our meeting is going to be Thursday February 7th at 5:30 p.m.
at the library. I'm really excited about that. We've been meeting but we actually get to a
point where we're going to be spreading out and actually involving others.
HO: What time is that meeting again?
OT: It's at 5:30.
JH: I have a quick question. So I have something that was as a result of developing of the
building communities meeting. Should I not bring that up right now or wait for the
Commission? It's not, it was something that came up as a result of that, so it kind of ties
into it, but it's something that I would like to add for future for the Commission to look
at. Should I wait to bring that up or?
SB: I would mention in reports of Commissioners.
HO: Any further discussion?
Page 12 of 21
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
HO: I was hoping to have something more to report today, but we haven't had our retreat. We
met with the provost and there has been an offer made. It looks very good, but I can't go
into details about it right now. released the information. We're having a retreat
this Saturday at which time we will explore any other options or ideas that we may have
that we might want to present to the provost.
DT: Does the offer include a continued Center for Human Rights basically?
HO: Yes. How the structure of that will look is not yet been totally determined.
OT: I'd just like to say that the U of I Center for Human Rights is the epitome of what can
happen when people have concerns and people get involved. A decision was made and if
nobody had done anything, you know it would have just been totally gone, but because
people did get involved and give support and express a voice. It may not be exactly what
it was, but at least it's going to exist at some level. I think that's really nice to have
public support.
HO: I must credit a lot of that to the students themselves because they petition drive.
They had a protest demonstration. They did a lot towards seeing that the University
Center for Human Rights was secured. They need to be credited for their work.
DT: I actually think that's almost a good thing that if it exists, if the continued Center for
Human Rights exists in an acceptable form I think it could almost be a good thing
because clearly they weren't being sustainable in how they were being funded. They
needed to find a more sustainable form of funding. The professor that came and talked to
us talked about how they were just using the old grant as a major part of their funding.
So I think that not only is it going to make them more sustainable in the future, but it also
got people interested in what they do and realize that they exist. I wouldn't be surprised
if you saw more students looking into their programs or taking part in what they're
putting out there. In the long run it could be a good thing that people got excited about it.
HO: I might add for those that are in the University Camille's internship program is accepting
applications and I've been on the screening committee for three years now for the
applications. The internships for both graduate and undergraduate can be domestic as
well as worldwide. If you know a student that is interested in doing some type of service
somewhere, there is money available. There is $20,0000 total each year that we give and
it's a matter of them coming up with a project that has a human rights blend to it. You
can get all that information from the Center for Human Rights and on the website.
Reports of Commissioners
DT: The only thing I thought of is since I've been a member I've never, besides the professor
from the Human Rights Center, I've never seen anyone come in and talk to us. I think
it'd be cool, I mean if there's nothing that anyone has then that's fine, but extending that
Page 13 of 21
invitation on a wider net would be interesting because I'd be interested in hearing what
people say or what they think we should be looking at.
SB: I want to make sure I understand the invitation, to the Center for Human Rights?
DT: No, just to the community as a whole. Like we have this public comment on the agenda
every time and I've never heard anyone. I don't know if it's even possible, but if anyone
knows anyone to, that you are working with or excited about what they have to say, invite
them to come in.
KH: That's actually one of the ideas behind a listening post is to be able to hear people's
comments and then invite them to come before the Commission. I do think we could do
a better job about putting ourselves out there and letting it be known what we do and
what kind of work we're capable of.
DT: Lend our voice to people if they have a cool ah, something that they're working on I
wouldn't mind lending our voice or a little bit of our time to.
KH: I have two things. One I apologize for being late. I would just like you all to know that I
facilitate a support group for young women on Tuesday nights that finishes at 5:30, and if
there is a crisis it's unpredictable. I just get here as soon as I can. I'd also like to share
that I've been invited by Henri Harper to go to President Obama's inauguration with his
group of young men and women so I'm excited about that. It's really kind of a vacation
where we will see the memorials at night, and then again visit them during the day and go
to some of the museums.
JH: I just have two things it's actually 2013 I guess we are just in sync with each other,
but as far as the expanding thing. The first thing that I would just like to put out there
was the idea of maybe us addressing ideas and becoming more supportive for different
holidays. When I say that I'm thinking of Black History Month so I don't know if people
are doing things individually, but I feel like as a Commission even if we don't do
something specifically, maybe we could reach out to organizations on campus or maybe
through the University and have them either come and share something or we can offer
support to them. So I would just like to bring that forward as far as getting involved that
way, but also with the idea that calendar that you were talking about because I don't want
to make just singling out you know Black History Month, but if we could
tap into all the specifics like that. Second thing is pertaining to building our
communities. It was actually brought to my attention at the high school, I can't remember
which specific one, but the issue that is coming up is that kids that are placed in selected
BD rooms (behavioral disorders) or are transfers from Tate School, what's happening is
they are not being advertised or advocated for to take ACT's within the school . It's
almost like from my understanding those specific group of kids are being looked over
because they might not have the proper training. So if they do take the test they will get
lower scores, which eventually will have a high school reporting lower test scores. I
know that there are also a couple other programs that are coming up in the Iowa City area
that are being offered as alternatives if you're not at the mainstream school. So I just want
Page 14 of 21
to bring that up again and I would like for the Commission to look at that a little bit just
to see if this is true, and if those other programs that are being offered to the high school
students, are credible, and that they are preparing them to move forward. Also just
making sure that ACT is being offered to all the students and not just a particular student
group that will make the high school
DT: Just to be clear you are talking about not only the test but also about the prep programs?
JH: Yes. My understanding they are not even getting the invitation of are you getting ready
to be preparing for that? Do you want to take some courses in tutoring and things of that
nature.
DT: I think that's really important because I didn't take that at all, and and
then I took those classes. Just being prepared and practicing and taking these practice
tests make a huge difference. It's not like a marginal difference. It is really going in with
the tools you need as opposed to trying to find those tools yourself.
HO: In the governor's state message this morning to the legislature opening session he
mentioned taking and having tests available throughout the state at no cost to the
students, which I believe is the ACT test, and then a workforce test that would be
administered for those that didn't see themselves going to college. We may want to keep
our ears and eyes open to the information on that. The one commentary that was made
afterwards is like you said, that if everybody takes it those students that don't perform
well are...
SB: He mentioned something that was of concern that he wants the Commission to look into
if the Commission wants to place it on agenda for future time certainly the Commission
can so vote.
JC: In that regard I have some of the same concerns that Jesse does, and I was going to
propose that that we do discuss that issue and some other issues that I'll
talk about when it gets to be my turn.
OT: I think that is a serious issue and it does need to be addressed. Stefanie you might want
to take a look at that to see if there is something that we should be dealing with, and what
are the boundaries we can function within, and as a group do we have authority to do
anything about it.
JC: I think if we put this on the agenda that would be where we'd find out.
OT: So make an agenda item then and you can share that information with us.
DT: Do you need a motion for an agenda item?
Page 15 of 21
JC: I'll move that we put school issues including testing, the school's diversity, pending
diversity policy, which is out there. Then the other things that relate to both, to any of
our K -12 or pre -K through 12 educational systems in Iowa City.
HO: Second?
DT: I'll second.
SB: The last part of that may be a bit broad. I think your first two, the diversity and policy
that was clear enough to give the public notice of what the Commission may be
discussing. The third one may be a bit broad and the agendas are supposed to at least
allow the public an opportunity to have a good grasp of what the Commission would be
discussing.
OT: I guess basically maybe we can put more focus onto student's rights. You know
every student should have the right to take the ACT test.
JC: I'll amend my motion, which I believe is that we have a future agenda item
hopefully on our next meeting agenda that would address the issue of testing, pre - college
or for ACT or any other testing that's going on, and also discussion of the Iowa City
School district's diversity policy.
DT: I'll second.
HO: Any other further discussion? Hearing none I'll take roll.
Coulter moved, and Tallon seconded.
Motion passed (7 -0)
HO: I asked Stefanie to send out a memo today, a forward memo on the Forging Hope: Local
Alliances for Good Jobs & Racial Justice Conference February 9th from 9 -3, which is a
Saturday. It's being put on by the Labor Senate at the University, and it sounds like a
good speaker coming up from Louisiana and talking about basically the problems that
Katrina presented itself. Take a look at that information that was sent out.
OT: No.
KA: No
JC: I have three points that I thought should be included for a future agenda, and perhaps
because in order to be timely want to consider . The issues are and these
have been driven from comments that have been made to me by a number of individuals.
They concern the justice center. They concern the school diversity, and I think we've
already had a motion there, but we might want to because to be timely both of these
issues are coming to, are already pretty visible out there. It seems to me that they are
certainly human rights issues involved there, and that I would like to see the Commission
Page 16 of 21
deal with these, and would hope that this could be done as quickly as possible. The third
item I had is would be to one extent or we should probably have some discussion of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity's recommendations. Depending on the outcome of
discussion and make some recommendations from this commission.
HO: The Ad Hoc Diversity Committee is an agenda item each month.
JC: These three items are coming quickly to a head. I don't need to tell any of you that the
justice center and the school diversity thing and the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee's
recommendations are core human rights issues. I've been asked why the Iowa City
Human Rights Commission isn't doing anything about this. I would move that those
three items be amongst agenda items for a meeting prior to the scheduled February 19th
because these things are and I'd like to have a meeting as quickly as next week.
JH: I second the motion.
HO: Okay any discussion?
SB: Just one thing because those are three lengthy, it'd be the justice center, the school,
diversity and testing and then the Ad Hoc Diversity recommendations?
JC: We might not have anything at that point.
OT: What, if we take a look at these things to address and what will our role be?
SB: I think that would be for the Commission to decide. It's a lot to put on the plate for one
meeting, certainly the Commission can do that but.
JC: I don't believe that the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee's recommendations will be
forthcoming in a week. So that part of the agenda, but certainly the issues surrounding
the justice center and the school diversity policy, Iowa City School District diversity
policy. Those are actions already being taken. The mayor has already put out an editorial
in regards to this. I think we are being derelict as a Commission to not be discussing
these, and depending on what the outcome making recommendations to the council.
OT: The students in the school okay I'm with that, I can understand that because maybe we
have people that are being treated differently, but when we talk about the justice center,
you're talking about the one we just had the vote on?
JC: Yes its coming up for another one.
OT: Okay so I'm having some trouble comprehending what our role would be with that
because that's something that the citizens of Iowa City determine. That will be the
outcome of a vote. What can we do with it?
Page 17 of 21
SB: I think just for purposes of open meetings I think the Commission at this point there
would need to be a vote I believe versus a discussion on the three areas. As staff if there
is something that you know is not coming down until March I guess I don't necessarily
see placing an item on the agenda that more likely is not going to be discussed.
JC: I would amend my motion to only deal with the justice center issue and the schools
testing and diversity. All I'm saying is that they be put on the agenda for a meeting
within the next week or two.
HO: Jesse do you accept that as a friendly amendment?
JH: Yes.
HO: Any further discussion? Hearing none I'll take roll.
Coulter moved, Harper seconded.
Motion passed (7 -0)
JC: Thank you very much. As a new member of the Commission I don't mean to be as
presumptuous about pushing these things, but on the other hand felt it's unethical for me
to not pass on what I hear from the community.
Reports of Staff
SB: I don't think I have too much to report. I did an orientation of new Commission members
today. I think other than that that's it, however for purposes of having another meeting I
need to know when the Commission is thinking about meeting and a time so that I can
get that taken care of. This would be considered a special meeting because it's not part of
the regular calendar.
HO: How many days' notice do you have to give for a special meeting?
SB: It is really just to the public I believe 24 hours, but from a staff perspective I guess to be
prepared and to be organized I would respectfully request a little more than 24 hours.
KH: My question would be would this discussion, would it just be determined by what our
current level of knowledge is concerning these issues? Would it be staff s responsibility
to share with us where we are at?
SB: I mean I don't work for the school district so I can try to get answers to some of the
questions, but I certainly would not be in a position to answer those questions as
authority. I mean the questions that were of the concerns I can forward to the district.
JC: I think if we have copies of the diversity policy that we had and whatever Jesse might be
able to provide in terms of information in regard to the testing situation, and that we had
whatever is publicly available in regard to the justice center issue would be at least
Page 18 of 21
minimal background, you know essential background for us to hold a discussion on those
topics.
KH: My question was more about the diversity policy.
JC: That will not be on the agenda for this next meeting because
SB: I thought we just amended the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee's recommendations.
JC: I thought that's what you said.
KH: No the diversity policies, school district diversity policies.
OT: I think also you know we might want to be careful because if we go look for the
information under the category of diversity and get one set of information.
JC: I'm talking about the Iowa City diversity policy.
OT: We might want to basically not only get to diversity, but look at special programs
because that is where students are really taking a beating. The special programs used to
be a couple special programs and now there are a multitude of special programs, and
those are the students that are being excluded.
JC: Would you be able to provide information about that because that I agree with you.
SB: I mean I don't know at this point it may be better to try and get a representative from the
school. I mean it's different than having a special meeting to look at city stuff. I mean
that information is accessible, but the school is not necessarily something that I can
provide the information the Commission may be looking for at a meeting. It's just not
said something that I can guarantee.
DT: So I'm slightly lost. I understand that there's a vote coming up on the justice center and I
understand that there are issues there. I understand that the school district is considering
a diversity policy that they've been voting on. My question is since I don't know the
specific issues and this isn't a discussion time, could you send what you think are the
specific issues that you want to address, and maybe some of the background, some of the
documentation behind what you and what you want to address to her so she could send it
out to us?
SB: The documents of course can be part of the packet.
DT: Well I just mean like what we want to discuss because I would like to get some
background on what is to be discussed. I really have no...
Page 19 of 21
JC: What I would recommend is that we have the information that is publicly available on the
proposed justice center, which as I understand is being scheduled for a vote. That
number two, that we have a copy of the Iowa City School District's diversity policy.
DT: Okay we just want to discuss those actually. I want to know what you want to discuss
about them.
SB: To a certain extent there has already been a vote that says it's going to be discussed, so I
think we're kind of getting into a slippery slope. You have the meeting coming up and
certainly documents can be provided to me to put as part of the packet. I think that as far
as what the Commission should be looking at is the date and time. It may be even two
dates and times because I would have to look for a room that's available.
OT: Joe obviously you have some concerns about the justice center. Would it be possible for
you to share those concerns with us before our meeting so that we can kind o£..?
JC: I really don't. I have not looked at the proposal. I'm just relaying what friends and
community members have said why isn't the Iowa City Human Rights Commission
discussing these or doing anything. That's all. I'm not trying to steer any outcomes. This
is a human rights issue, these are human rights issues, and I would like to see our
Commission deal with them. I'm not trying to guide any outcome.
SB: And again it's been voted on so there'll be a special meeting, so what we need to
determine now is again the day and time, a few dates and times so that I can move
forward.
KH: I'll be out of town next Tuesday.
HO: I'll be out of town from Wednesday through the weekend.
SB: Okay so let's assume the week of the 21" is probably not going to work.
DT: I'd like to suggest we keep it on Tuesday and at 6:00 if we can.
HO: Okay so 6 p.m. on the 29th and you want two dates actually. The following Tuesday is an
election day and I won't be available then.
JC: That's too late to discuss these issues. You might as well put them completely off.
KH: I'm just hoping it can be an effective meeting. That was the intent of the question how
can this be an effective meeting and understand...
HO: Stefanie if we couldn't get a room here how about the library as an alternative on that
date?
Page 20 of 21
SB: It still would be best if Tuesday is not the only date to have another, just for backup. We
obviously will try to go with the 29th, but it would be a good idea to have another
alternative date too.
KH: So maybe Wednesday the 30th?
OT: That's when we have our Building Communities meeting.
DT: The 31 St?
SB: The 30th would work, do you want to have a special meeting on the 300'.
OT: I have meetings already.
HO: I'm committed on the 31St
DT: What about the 28th?
SB: So Monday the 28th at 6 p.m. or Tuesday the 29th at 6 p.m.
HO: Will you get back to us tomorrow Stefanie?
SB: If anybody has anything that they want to submitt as part of that packet please get that to
me probably by the 23rd at the absolute latest.
HO: Will there be time for public comment at this meeting?
SB: You can add that to the, since it's a special meeting you can have comments of items not
on the agenda, but of course you would want people to be able to comment on items that
are on the agenda.
DT: Can we also take care of the chair thing there too, or would you just want to take care of
it in February?
SB: I think that's more appropriate to just do that in February. This is a special meeting so I
think it should deal with special items that are not regularly a part of the agenda.
HO: Any further business? Hearing none the next regular meeting is February 19th at 6 p.m.
Adjournment:
Motion to adjourn at 19:06.
Next Regular Meeting — February 19, 2013 at 18:00.
Page 21 of 21
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2013
(Meeting Date)
KEY:
X = Present O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned - = Not a Member
TERM
NAME
EXP.
1/15
2/19
3/19
4/16
5/21
6/18
7/16
8/20
9/17
10115
11/19
12/17
Diane
1/1/14
O/E
Finnerty
Orville
1/1/14
X
Townsend,
Sr.
Dan Tallon
1/1/14
X
(Appointed
7/31/12)
Kim
1/1/15
X
Hanrahan
Shams
1/1/15
O/E
Ghoneim
Jessie
1/1/15
X
Harper
(Appointed
6/5/12)
Katie
1/1/16
X
Anthony
Joe D.
1/1/16
X
Coulter
Harry
1/1/16
X
Olmstead
KEY:
X = Present O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned - = Not a Member
IP10
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JANUARY 17, 2013 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Barkalow, Chris Reynolds, Mark Shields, Todd Bowers,
Michelle Higley, Lindsey Boorman, Ray Anderson, Jennifer Baum,
Shirley Lindell, Sally Bowers, Linda Yanney, Cindy Kuba, Mike
Wright, Chuck Meardon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5 -1 (Thomas opposed, Eastham recused) to recommend approval
of REZ12- 00018, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone
for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 North Governor Street.
The Commission voted 6 -0 (Eastham recused) to recommend approval of REZ12- 00016,
an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi- family (R3B) zone
to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately .47 acres of
property located north of 906 Dodge Street.
The Commission voted 5 -1 (Thomas opposed, Eastham recused) to recommend approval
of REZ12- 00019, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi-
family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 and 906 North Dodge Street.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Rezoning Items
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
REZ12- 00016: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multi- family (R3B) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for
approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZ12- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZ12- 00019: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multi- family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
Howard presented the staff report. In a Powerpoint presentation she pointed out the location of
the various properties proposed for rezoning and a number of photographs of the properties.
She explained that the intent of the proposed rezonings is to bring the zoning into compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically the Central District Plan. She noted that the
Central District Plan indicates that properties at 902 and 906 Dodge Street are appropriate for
low to medium density multi - family development. Howard read a passage from the Central
District Plan that outlined the need to eliminate the obsolete R313 zoning designation from the
zoning map by rezoning the property to a valid designation such as RM -20.
Howard explained that as a result of a recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
properties at 911 N. Governor Street and the vacant property north of 906 N. Dodge Street are
now designated for single family and duplex development. The proposed rezoning of these
properties to Single Family (RS -12) would bring these properties into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and provide a transition or buffer between the higher density of the multi-
family zoning and the lower density single family character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Howard noted that the application for the proposed rezoning of these properties was filed back
in August of 2012. However, City staff agreed to defer sending the application to the
Commission so that the property owner would have time to work out a development plan that
would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, after nearly 6 months,
the property owner had not submitted a proposal that, in staff's opinion, would comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff felt that it was unlikely they could reach an agreement
with the property owner on an acceptable alternative to the rezoning proposed by staff. She
noted that rezoning the properties as recommended by staff would not prevent the property
owner or any subsequent owner from requesting another rezoning in the future.
Howard stated that the Comprehensive Plan outlines that portions of the Central Planning
District located to the north and east of Downtown contain older neighborhoods where issues of
neighborhood integrity are a concern. Where existing zoning allows development at a higher
density, the City Council has indicated that measures should be taken to assure that new
structures are designed to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Rezoning the
properties will help achieve that goal since the current zoning code contains design provisions
to ensure that new buildings are designed to fit into the character of the neighborhood. In
summary, Howard stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the
City's zoning practices have fundamentally changed since the 1970's, when the R313
designation was valid. Evidence of the evolution of the City's approach to land use for the area
can be found in current policies promoting the stabilization of older neighborhoods set forth in
the Central District Plan and the City Council's Strategic Plan. The proposed rezonings will
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
provide for development that is more compatible with the adjacent properties and with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will further the goal of encouraging a healthier
balance between housing for short-term and long -term residents.
Hektoen informed the Commission that despite the litigation that resulted from a 1978 rezoning
of this land, the Commission and City Council could consider the current rezoning. The Court
acknowledged that zoning is subject to change with changing community needs and conditions.
The comprehensive plan has changed since 1978 and the needs of the community have
changed.
Hektoen further advised the Commission that Council intends to consider setting a public
hearing on this rezoning at its meeting next Tuesday, but that the Commission should feel free
to either make a recommendation on the proposed rezonings tonight or defer consideration until
its next meeting. She also noted that a site plan for a new multi - family building has been
submitted for this land, which would be contrary to the proposed rezoning. Once Council sets
the public hearing, it will establish a moratorium on the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed site plan, because it would be counter to the proposed rezoning. Staff has provided
the applicant with their initial comments, noting that the application is incomplete. This should
not affect the Commission's consideration of the rezonings.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Tracy Barkalow, owner of the subject property, said the site plan that they submitted is just one
building. He brought a copy of that plan to distribute to the Commission as well as the notes
from his meeting today with City staff. He said he has had meetings with Bob Miklo, Karen
Howard and other staff regarding what to do with the site and how to get it developed per the
Multi- family (R3B) zoning that's currently on the property. He said he was told by staff when
they were discussing the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning that they would hold off on
rezoning the property and give the owners time to work with them to come to a compromise. He
said that his site plan was submitted the week before last but wasn't mentioned at the Monday
night informal Commission meeting. He said the site plan he is submitting is a 30 unit complex,
consisting of six 3- bedroom units and 24 two bedroom units. He said his goal for the area is
somewhere in the 60 unit total development area. He said it is his understanding that the R3B
zoning would allow up to 200 4 and 5- bedroom units to be built at that location if they challenge
it and go to court. He said he doesn't want to go to court, but if the zoning is put into place, that
will be the only option to preserve his rights. He said if he does that, he will sell the property to a
larger developer because he can't financially develop the 200 units. He said he said he has
three out -of -town developers who would like to purchase the property if he goes that route. He
said he would prefer to just build the 60 units he thinks they can fit comfortably on the site.
Barkalow said he thinks this is a good plan. He said it's a very well thought out building for the
area and is much better than the plan submitted in 1988 when that owner was building the 906
North Dodge building and that site plan was approved. He passed around a copy of the 1988
site plan to show how it was all concrete, had more units, and took out the sensitive slopes. He
said it is not his intention to do that. He said a court order supersedes everyone's authority from
this Commission on up to City Council and the Comprehensive Plan. He said great credence
should be given to that court order stating this property is R3B. He said eighty percent of the
neighborhood is rental. He said as an eighteen year realtor, he doesn't see building townhomes
or single family homes on this property and being able to sell them as owner occupied with the
way the land is laid out. He said they do have long -term renters in his buildings. He asked that
the Commission defer rezoning of the property, that staff give them more time to reach a
compromise.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
Chris Reynolds of 619 Brown Street said she doesn't want to create an adversarial relationship
with Barkalow. She said she knows he's a developer and investor but she said it's also
important to note that everyone who showed up at this meeting is also an investor in the
neighborhood. She said what happens at 911 Governor Street will affect their quality of life and
their property values. She said implementing any other zoning than Medium Density Single
Family (RS -8) which would not support the City's Comprehensive Plan, nor would it add to or
benefit the neighborhood. She said it would add to the traffic, street parking, and the noise level.
She said in general construction of 3- bedroom apartments is destined to be college housing for
short-term renters with little connection or concern for the neighborhood. She said with late night
pedestrians and people making noise as they street park, you have the recipe for long -term
renters and home owners moving out. She said she believes that plans can be developed to
financially benefit the developer, promote long -term renters and allow the home owners to feel
good about investing in their residences. She asked the Commission to apply zoning that is
consistent with the current zoning in the area and also supports neighborhood stabilization.
Mark Shields of 913 Dewey Street said he and his family have rented in the neighborhood for
seven years. He said in keeping with the spirit of neighborhood stabilization rezoning from
commercial office (CO -1) to Medium Density Single Family Residential is most in line with
creating, promoting and maintaining livable neighborhood. He said by rezoning to the RS -8
designation there is still plenty of opportunity for any responsible developer to utilize these
regulations while keeping a balance with the established shape and life of surrounding
properties in the neighborhood and keeping in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
Todd Bowers of 931 North Summit Street said what he understands is that the City thinks
neighborhoods here that are integral with the character of existing neighborhoods need to be
preserved. He said he thinks the reason the City directed the zoning change was because of
development that was proposed to occur on this property to begin with. He asked if this were
just a zoning question and not a question about a proposed plan for the property wouldn't it
make sense that this historical artifact that everyone agrees doesn't belong here - wouldn't RS -8
make sense? He said maybe the reason those two apartment buildings are there is why there
aren't many owner - occupied houses in the block around the apartments. He said he doesn't like
the idea of trying to scare the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept a proposal from a
developer based on the threat of an out of state developer building 400 units.
Michelle Higley, owner of 414 North Gilbert Street, said she didn't see how given the confines of
this area, you could support 200 units with parking and the flow of the traffic on the two one -way
streets and how you could sustain neighborhood stabilization and continue to see the Northside
Marketplace flourish and keep traffic flowing and free with Barkalow's claim of 200 more units in
that small area. She said she supports RS -8 zoning.
Lindsey Boorman of 813 Dewey Street said she and her children have been living there since
October and she specifically sought out that neighborhood because it has the character of Iowa
City, not the transient student housing. She said she supports neighborhood stabilization and
she would like to see that area rezoned as RS -8 and the integrity of her neighborhood stay
intact.
Ray Anderson of 812 Dewey Street said he has lived there 35 years and is very concerned
about the change in the neighborhood because of the traffic problems and the steep slope on
Dodge Street as well the parking issue and the spill over parking. He said the only place for that
overflow parking will be on Dewey Street, a very narrow street with limited parking. He said the
Commission owes it to the residents to try to keep this community the way it is. He said it looks
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
like the city plan is just some sort of compromise between Barkalow's originally outrageous plan
and what should be there. He said if you have to buffer that high occupancy zone, buffer it down
RS -8 on the Governor Street side.
Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she strongly encourages the Commission to rezone
the CO -1 into RS -8. She said she thinks doing anything else would dramatically change the
nature of the neighborhood. She said if it was zoned RS -12 it would disrupt the surrounding
neighborhoods, decrease the livability and deteriorate the stability of these neighborhoods. She
said rezoning 911 North Governor Street would simply bring that property into alignment with
the rest of that block and the nearby blocks. She said this issue has come up before because of
the Comprehensive Plan and this Commission recommended that it be rezoned RS -8. She said
the neighborhood deeply cares about this issue as witnessed by everyone who showed up to
speak. She invited Barkalow to work with the neighborhood to get to an acceptable
level of residency on these properties. She doesn't see how the zoning could work to the
stabilization of neighborhoods being anything but RS -8.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen what was recommended last time to Council. Greenwood
Hektoen said RM -12 was the last rezoning application that Planning and Zoning approved that
Council denied.
Howard clarified that anything with RS zoning is a single family zone so the RS -12 zone allows
only single family dwelling or one duplex on each lot. The difference is that the RS -12 Zone
allows more lots per acre than the RS -8 Zone. She said regardless of whether it is RS -8 or RS-
12, in order to develop more than one house on the property, the developer would have to
subdivide the property into individual home lots. Unless the developer were to rezone the
property using a planned development process, there could only be one dwelling unit per lot or
in the case of a duplex, two units per lot. She clarified that the RS -12 zone does allow attached
single family or what many people call townhouses, but each townhouse unit still would have to
sit on its own tax lot.
Shirley Lindell of 804 Dewey Street said she and the other speakers are there to plead with the
Commission to maintain the RS -8 designation to maintain their neighborhood stabilization. She
said she understands that one of the definitions for the RS -8 is to create, maintain and promote
livable neighborhoods. She said the RS -12 does not state anything like that. She said they
would like to keep the traffic minimal and the speed down due to all the children in the area.
Sally Bowers of 931 North Summit Street said that because of the one -way nature of Governor
Street, North Summit and Dewey Street become the natural shortcut for anyone coming from
the north. She said apartment buildings of any size would increase the traffic and she is very
much against it.
Linda Yanney of 320 North Lucas Street said she has been looking for some time to buy a
house in "Deweyville" or the near North Side. She said she has been looking for modest single
family homes in that area for two years and there doesn't appear to be a lot of turn -over in sales
and availability of single family and small residences, whether it be duplexes or small apartment
buildings. She disagrees with Mr. Barkalow when he claims that there is no market for that kind
of housing.
Cindy Kuba of 819 Dewey Street said their neighborhood is already in transition because in the
time they have lived there, the dairy has left and Hy -Vee will build a new store and possibly
create more traffic. She said they need to work hard to maintain their sense of community and
neighborhood. She said she doesn't see the people in the apartments on Dodge Street getting
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
to know each other and caring in the same way as they do with both renter and owner
neighbors. She asked whether with the new plan people will be coming across from Dodge to
Governor through that parking lot and creating mid - street cut - across.
Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street said the current zoning and the development proposals
that he's seen really jeopardize the character of the neighborhood, threatening to weaken and
destroy a good chunk of the character of the neighborhood. He said he agrees with Jeff
Davidson, the Director of Planning and Community Development, who said at the November
13th City Council meeting that RS -8 is a zone that makes sense here. He said with a few
exceptions there's a consensus that this land has been badly zoned for years. He urged the
Commission to correct a long- standing mistake.
Chuck Meardon, who is a lawyer, gave the Commission a packet of information containing a
map, the two court rulings and the supplemental order. He said he hoped the Commission
would read them before they decided on rezoning. He said on one of the biggest chunks of
R3B, which is being proposed to be rezoned to RM -20, the density of RM -20 would be
consumed by the existing improvements and Barkalow would be left not able to do anything if
this area is rezoned RM -20. He asked is Howard could confirm whether or not his calculations
were correct. Meardon confessed that his father filed the first lawsuit in 1977, but the issues
haven't changed since then. He said what prompted the lawsuit then and now are concerns
about the density to which the property can be developed. He said while the goals of
development in the City may have changed over the last few years, physically this property
hasn't. He asked the Commission to bear that in mind when it makes its decision. He said he
would ask the Commission to defer this now and consider the court rulings.
Jennifer Baum said she thought that the most the R3B should be rezoned at should be RS -8,
because even if it's RS -12, you are increasing the number and destabilizing the neighborhood.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks invited discussion.
Howard asked Freerks if she could clarify by answering Meardon's previous question. She said
that Meardon is correct that rezoning the R3B parcels to RM -20 as proposed would basically
acknowledge what's already been built, but would not allow more than a couple new units to be
built on those particular parcels. She said the rezoning of the other small parcel north of 906 N.
Dodge, which is recommended for RS -12 zoning would allow some additional development, but
it would have to be duplex or single family. She said the staff recommendation for the CO -1
piece is RS -12, which is also single family zoning designation.
Freerks said that City Council is planning to discuss this next week. She said the Commission
often gives two readings if they feel there is information they need.
After discussion among the Commission, they decided to discuss the three items separately.
Weitzel moved to recommend approval of all three items.
There was no second.
The motion failed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
Thomas moved to recommend approval REZ12- 00018, an application submitted by City
of Iowa City for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single
Family Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911
North Governor Street.
Swygard seconded.
Weitzel said CO -1 has always been an odd zoning designation for this site. He said it's almost a
spot zone and probably never should have been that way. He said he thinks RS -12 as a single
family zone would be neighborhood stabilization, and he's in favor of that.
Martin said she also supports the single family zoning of that parcel. She said she feels that
maybe it should be RS -8 because the other side is the transition as well. However, she said as
long as RS -12 is single family or duplex, she's comfortable with that, but she's not comfortable
with any more than that. She said that the nature of the traffic, of what is surrounding it and the
purpose of that neighborhood is important to maintain. She said she'd agree with RS -12 but
would be even happier with RS -8.
Thomas said the issues with this project are that of neighborhood stability, particularly at
Council level, and compatibility in the surrounding context. He said this is essentially an RS -8
area with a pocket of higher density apartments, which are primarily the CO -1 and the R31B with
some adjustment of the properties north and south of the R313 to RS -12. He said there is no RS-
12 on Governor Street. He said he thinks that RS -8 is the baseline zone in this neighborhood.
He said there is a question of density here, and he is in support of providing higher density in
RS -5, RS -8 and RS -12 neighborhoods. He said the concept brought up last January at Council
was pocket neighborhoods, which is a way in an existing single family residential area to
introduce housing which would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He said they
are single family, you can achieve them at higher densities than are typically allowed in the base
zone because the dwellings are smaller, so you can achieve higher unit density while retaining
the same intensity of use. Thomas said he would urge the City planning staff to consider the
idea of pocket neighborhoods because it would address some of the issues heard tonight and
that have been mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan of providing housing opportunities that
acknowledge that household size is decreasing.
Howard said a pocket neighborhood would be allowed at this site under the Planned
Development rezoning process, but because this is a City initiated rezoning, the City is not
planning on developing the property, so it would have to be an owner or developer initiated
rezoning application. She said the base zoning that is recommended with the action tonight and
with the City Council's ruling would then set the base zoning density for any pocket
neighborhood proposal that would come forward in the future. She explained that density would
not be allowed to exceed this baseline designation. She said this would also apply to pocket
neighborhoods.
Thomas said his understanding of the pocket housing ordinance is that it allows higher unit
densities than the baseline because the units are smaller. He said it's similar to how they
changed the multi - family zones to incentivize the one and two bedrooms. Howard said the same
thing would be achieved through the Planned Development process. She said if the
Commission would like to consider smaller units on smaller lots or clustered cottage units, the
RS -12 zoning might be useful here.
Thomas said his concern with zoning and RS -12 is that there's no guarantee that a pocket
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
neighborhood would be the outcome. Greenwood Hektoen said that would require a separate
planned development rezoning process.
Howard said what would be guaranteed is that it would only be developed with duplex lots or
single family lots, which may be difficult on this site due to its configuration, without going
through the Planned Development process. Thomas asked if it was true that whatever zone
they elect, it will require a planned overlay because of the access. Howard agreed that the lot
configuration may only allow a few single home lots if the developer were to use the regular
subdivision process. However, one may not be able to maximize the number of units unless the
developer were to use the Planned Development process.
Freerks said she thinks it's important to bring this into what's current in the Comprehensive Plan
and the Central District Plan, which calls for neighborhood stabilization. She doesn't think the
area is right for CO -1 designation. She said RS -8 might be nice, as it would match the other
zonings, but there's a chance to do something nice there with RS -12 that would blend in with
the neighborhood. She said the terrain and entry are difficult, and it will take some work to come
up with something that works well there. She said the bottom line is that CO -1 is not appropriate
for this piece of land and the Comprehensive Plan, so she's in favor of changing it to RS -12.
A vote was taken and the motion carried by a vote of 5 -1 with Thomas voting no and
Eastham recused.
Martin moved to recommend approval of REZ12- 00016, an application submitted by City
of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi- family (R3B) zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906
Dodge Street.
Weitzel seconded.
Weitzel said as a transition zone, RS -12 makes the most sense.
Martin agreed with Weitzel's statement.
Freerks said R36 is an obsolete zone in the Code, and it should be brought into compliance in
some way. She said RS -12 seems to be a transition that would allow for something to be done
there and would transition somewhat from the RS -8 zoning that is further to the north. She said
the rezoning would bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Central
District Plan.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 with Eastham recused.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ12- 00019, an application submitted by the
City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi- family (1136) zone to Medium Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -20) zone for approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902
and 906 North Dodge Street.
Swygard seconded.
Thomas said that the Commission has discussed the rezoning of the Governor Street side but
not the Dodge Street side. He said that a year ago when RM -12 was proposed on 911 Governor
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Street, Council opposed it, so that reflects that on Council's part, RMA 2 on Governor Street is
not considered appropriate. He said it appears that the same considerations that were applied
to 911 North Governor Street apply to the R3B properties on both streets. He said medium
density multi- family in that neighborhood seems to be inconsistent with the single family
residential character of the neighborhood. He said he would not be in favor of an RM zone on
Dodge Street.
Weitzel said he feels it's an appropriate zoning designation because it acknowledges what is
already built there. He said it doesn't seem with the terrain that anything additional can be
added to these lots and there is a certain base level zone that they have to acknowledge is
there right now with what is already built.
Swygard said she thinks it acknowledges the existing density that is already established. She
said R3B designation is no longer used by the City, and they need to bring it up to current
zoning code.
Dyer said she agrees for the same reasons that Swygard stated.
Freerks said these properties are already developed with multi - family buildings, and the RM -20
keeps the property in compliance, but gets rid of the obsolete zoning designation. She said to
create something that makes for an area that isn't accurate with what is there may create more
problems and issues.
Thomas said his view is the long -term vision for this neighborhood. He said the apartment will
remain, but in the long -term is that kind of density appropriate for this neighborhood. He said he
feels it is not.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen to talk about what would happen if this were to be
downzoned further and there was a tornado, what would be allowed.
Greenwood - Hektoen said it would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment to zone this RS -12
because the Plan acknowledges that it should be rezoned to acknowledge the existing use. She
said if it were destroyed completely they would have to come into compliance with whatever the
current zoning of the property is. Howard clarified that unless the building were destroyed more
than seventy -five percent of its value, they would have grandfather rights to rebuild at the
current density.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -1 with Thomas voting no and Eastham
recused.
Freerks called for a five minute break.
Freerks called the meeting to order.
Development Item
SUB12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a
preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, an 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located
on Mackinaw Drive.
Howard said an engineering issue arose with the storm water drainage that they haven't been
able to resolve yet, so the applicant has asked to defer this item to the meeting of February 7th
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
2013 so they can work with the City Engineer to resolve the issue.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Weitzel moved to defer this item to the February 7th, 2013 meeting of the Commission.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030."
Eastham moved to defer this item to the February 7th , 2013 meeting of the Commission.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
OTHER:
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2012 and January 3, 2013
Weitzel moved to adopt with a minor correction.
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote.
Z
_O
C� Q
G
20
Ou
V ui
z W
2 z
Nap
06 Z
,
V V2
Z f—
24
z
a
J
a
0
Z
P
W
W
r �
O J
N Q
O
LL.
N
O
OI
a
T
N
O
a
T
T
N
T
T
O_
T
T
T
T
M
O
O
T
O
O
O>
O
T
OD
O
co
co
t-
o
N
coo
to
0
co
N
O
O
co
T
0
T
N
M
O
M
N
a
0
a
T
X
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
¢ LU
W
(o
co
r2
n
tn
d
HX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
F=-
W
H
z0wd
LL. 4
U)CaP
-;3f-
W
a
Z
W
W
m
O
LL
Z
i
Z
�o
N p
z
X c
UJ N
c N
E
v�N o
Qz
a Q II II
II II W_
>:OOz
}
W
Y
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
DRAFT
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD IN I
MINUTES — February 6, 2013
Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:31 P.M.
Kingsley Botchway (5:36), Melissa Jensen, Donald King, and Royceann
Porter
None
Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
None
Captain Jim Steffen of the ICPD.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #12 -05
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by King and seconded by Jensen to adopt the consent calendar as presented
or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 01/08/13
Motion carried, 4/0, Botchway absent.
NEW BUSINESS Community Forum — The Board discussed the next Community Forum. It was
agreed that the Board thought the Library worked out well last year, was a neutral
place, centrally located, and easily accessible being on the bus route. They also
discussed dates and agreed to April 23rd in hopes that the Diversity Committee
recommendations would be finalized and that the UI students would still be around to
attend.
Moved by King, seconded by Jensen to hold the next Community Forum at the Iowa
City Public Library on April 23rd. Motion carried, 5/0.
The Board discussed start times and agreed to 6:00 PM due to the bus routes being
less frequent after 6:00.
Motion by Jensen, seconded by Porter to set the time of the Community Forum to
6:00 PM. Motion carried, 5/0.
OLD BUSINESS Additional Board Recommendations — The Board had previously put this item on the
agenda to discuss the option of requesting audio /video if available with each Chief's
report regarding a complaint. After discussion and questions directed to Captain
Steffens about the time involved in preparing audio /video for the Board, it was
decided that they would continue as they have in the past and only request
audio /video if they felt they needed more information than what was provided.
PCRB
February 6, 2013
Page 2
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION None.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• March 6, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• April 9, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• April 23, 2013, 6:00 PM, Iowa City Public Library, Rm A (Community Forum)
• May 14, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Jensen and Treloar not present for executive session due to conflict of interest. King
continued the meeting as temporary Chair.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Porter to adjourn into Executive Session based on
Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are
required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept
confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued
receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel
records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and
school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where
disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not
required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of
its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the
government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from
making them to that government body if they were available for general public
examination.
Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Treloar abstaining.
Open session adjourned at 5:58 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 6:00 P.M.
Motion by Porter, seconded by Botchway to forward the Public Report as amended
for PCRB Complaint #12 -05 to City Council.
Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Treloar absent.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Porter, seconded by Botchway.
Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Treloar absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:01 P.M.
n u u n u
A a p
�CrQ A
fD v�i
9
Q
9
ro
O
r
y
yn
C~
NC?j�
w
O�
O
dQ
lJ
/V
�
�
,iCi
✓ti
1
i
e
C
s
9
Q
9
ro
O
r
y
yn
C~
NC?j�
w
O�
O
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826
(319) 356 -5041
February 6, 2013
w
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Police Citizen's Review Board
Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #12 -05
F "T"1
C
-,.a
1 -7
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation
of Complaint PCRB #12 -05 (the "Complaint ").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the
Police Chief's Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the
Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to
the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the
City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board
recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are
"unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are
"contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section
8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on August 31, 2012. As required by Section 8-
8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on November 30, 2012.
The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(a), On the
record with no additional investigation.
The Board met to consider the Report on December 18, 2012 and February 6, 2013.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Beginning on August 24, 2012, the complainant alleges he has been the victim of harassment
by Officer B. The complainant cites numerous incidents stemming from the first incident
occurring on August 24th where Officer B and other officers continued their harassment over the
course of a couple of days until the events culminated in his arrest on September 6, 2012.
On August 31, 2012, the complainant filed a PCRB complaint with the City Clerk's Office. While
the complaint cites numerous incidents, many incidents mentioned lack evidence regarding
date, time and location of incidents hindering further investigation. Other claims have been
refuted by witness statements and other evidence.
ALLEGATION #1 - Harrassment of complaintant by Officer B on the Hwy 6 Iowa River
Bridge.
There is no evidence of the complainant was harassed by Officer B on the Hwy 6 Iowa River
bridge. Complainant claims Officer B approached him and told him that he could not to walk
"outside the bridge." However, investigation of the on duty rosters during the time frame of the
complainant's alleged harassment doesn't show Officer B working any shifts that night.
Allegation 1: Not sustained
ALLEGATION #2 - Harassment of complainant by Officer B at the Iowa City Public
Library.
There is no evidence to suggest improper conduct on the part of Officer B at the Iowa City
Public Library. Investigation determined that Officer B was acting in accordance with a prior
warning issued due to an assault committed by the complainant.
:tea
r.�
Allegation 2: Not sustained `=' ``'
n L 4
ALLEGATION #3 - Officers threatened complainant in the Ped Mall °° M
Complainant was unable to provide information to corroborate his claim in order-to assist wittT
further investigation. Complainant was unable to identify any specific officer wlXo thre -Wened -�y
him. Complainant was also unable to give concrete information on what women the c?-ffcers
were referring to when they threatened to lock up any woman that befriends him.
Allegation 3: Not sustained
ALLEGATION #4 - Officers call every place he applies for a job and tells them not to hire
him.
There is no evidence of the officers calling businesses he specified and telling them not to hire
the complainant. The managers, from each of the specified businesses, were interviewed and
all three denied every speaking with police about complainant or that police told them not to hire
complainant in some indirect way.
Allegation 4: Not sustained
ALLEGATION #5 — Harassment of complainant by officers at the Robert E. Lee
Recreation Center.
There is no evidence to suggest improper conduct on the part of officers at the Robert E. Lee
Recreation Center.
Allegation 5: Not sustained
ALLEGATION #6 — Officer B filed the simple assault charge in retaliation for complainant
filing a PCRB complaint.
Based on the timeline, the warrant for the assault was completed five days before Officer B was
notified of the complaint against him.
Allegation 6: Not sustained
COMMENTS
None