HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-08 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY May 8, 2014
www.icgov.org Y
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Email from City Manager to Iowa City School Supt.: Memo from Planning and Zoning Chair
requesting incorporating a walkability clause into the school district diversity policy
IP3 Memo from Wastewater Superintendent to City Manager: Response to student letters on
wastewater treatment operations, received by Mayor Hayek
IP4 Email from Acting Transportation Planner to City Manager: Response to Thomas Novak
regarding excess parking in neighborhood
IP5 Email from Council Member Botchway: Georgetown University Energy Prize
IP6 Notice from Asst. City Attorney: Dealer Properties IC, LLC voluntary settlement on tax
appeal
IP7 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator
IP8 Joint meeting minutes - April 28
IP9 Email response from Development Services Coordinator to Astrid Bennett: Walnut Street —
Longfellow Redistricting
DRAFT MINUTES
IP10 Charter Review Commission: April 22
IP11 Citizens Police Review Board: May 5
IP12 Historic Preservation Commission: April 10
IP13 Human Rights Commission: April 29
city
CITY Of IOWA CITY
Date Time
Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Monday, July 28, 2014 TBA
Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, September 2, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:00 PM
LO:5-08-14
.Oouncil Tentative Meeting Schedule P1
Subject to change May 8, 2014
Meeting Location
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Joint Meeting /Work Session Tiffin TBA
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Marian Karr �PZ
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 9:35 AM
To: Stephen Murley (Murley .Stephen @iowacityschools.org)
Cc: Council; Geoff Fruin; Bob Miklo; Steve Long; John Yapp
Subject: FW: PZ memo school walkability zone.2.docx
Attachments: PZ memo school walkability zone.2.docx
Attached please find a memo from the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission. As our next city council
meeting will not be held until May 20, 20141 am sending this memo on now so that you know of the memo and the
likelihood that our city commission will likely consider this recommendation at their next meeting. By cc to our city
council I am making them aware of this recommendation so that they might be thinking of how to consider this
information when they take up this matter. If you have any questions regarding the memo please feel free to contact
me.
From: Karen Howard
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:36 PM
To: Tom Markus
Cc: Freerks, Ann M (ann- freerks @uiowa.edu); Geoff Fruin; Bob Miklo; Steve Long; John Yapp
Subject: PZ memo school walkability zone.2.docx
Tom,
Per our conversation earlier in the week, here is the memo that I drafted for Ann regarding the
Planning and Zoning Commission's request recommending that the school district insert a "walkability
clause" into its diversity policy.
Thoughts?
-Karen
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 5, 2014
To: Tom Markus
From: Ann Freerks, Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Re: Incorporating a walkability clause into the school district diversity policy
At our meeting on May 1, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to request the City
Council to send a recommendation urging the Iowa City Community School Board to adopt a
"walkability clause" into its diversity policy. The Commission requests that the City Council
forward the following message to the school district:
The City of Iowa City would like to work collaboratively with the school district to
promote a more sustainable community by supporting and investing in our core
neighborhoods, which exhibit many of the attributes we are striving for in our new
subdivisions: a mix of housing types that support families of varying incomes; a
highly connected pattern of sidewalk -lined streets; and a layout of lots and blocks
that places as many homes as possible within walking distance of neighborhood
schools, parks, and shopping areas.
It is well- documented that when a significant number of children can safely walk
to school, it increases the health and welfare of those families and of the
community as a whole. It not only reduces transportation costs for the school
district, it reduces living costs for families. Unfortunately, not every neighborhood
in the school district is designed in a manner that makes it comfortable, safe, or
even possible for children to walk to school. So when a family chooses to live in a
compact, walkable neighborhood within a safe walking distance of their child's
school, we feel that choice should be supported.
Since walkability is a key indicator of healthy neighborhoods, and the City strives
to preserve and sustain the long -term value embodied in our walkable
neighborhoods, we urge the school district to adopt a walkability clause into its
diversity policy that states, "Elementary students that live within % mile
walking distance along safe routes of one or more elementary schools are
guaranteed enrollment in one of said elementary schools. Further,
residential areas within % mile walking distance along safe routes of one or
more elementary schools shall not be redistricted to another elementary
school outside said % mile walkable distance."
Inserting a walkability clause into the diversity policy will provide encouragement
to all jurisdictions within the district to build more compact, walkable
neighborhoods. The sustainable development pattern that results will reduce
costs to the cities, to the school district, and to families and will help make our
future neighborhoods more affordable to all families.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM IP3
Date: May 1, 2014
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
Rick Fosse, Public Works Director
From: Dave Elias, Wastewater Superintendent
Re: Response to student letters on wastewater treatment operations, received by Mayor
Hayek.
I have reviewed the 69 letters submitted to the mayor from a group of University of Iowa and
Kirkwood College students. The majority of the letters were word for word duplicates with a few
having added their own colorful points of view.
They have basically cited from one to three points of concern in each of the letters. In response
to these, the following information could be conveyed to them:
Point 1: "The Iowa City Wastewater Facilities have not had an EPA permit since 2005"
The statement is inaccurate. The City was issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ( NPDES) permits for both the North and South Plants on December 27, 2000. The
expiration date of these was December 26, 2005. The "expiration date" indicates the permit
holder's duty to reapply has arrived. The City of Iowa City did apply for the renewal as
required on June 30, 2005.
The authority to re -issue permits is held by Iowa DNR (not EPA). DNR did not act on the
Iowa City renewal and most others in Iowa, due to the changing nature of regulatory issues
between the State of Iowa and the federal government.
However, state and federal regulations require that an NPDES Permit remains in full force
until a new one is issued. DNR has continued to receive our monthly monitoring reports and
conduct at least annual inspections at both plants, based on permit numbers 5225001 and
5225002. We have recognized the limitation of the 80 year old North Plant, which has
resulted in the City Council authorizing the $55M expansion of the South Plant.
As of February 7, 2014, the North Plant has ceased operation. As of today, May 1, 2014, a
new NPDES permit issued by Iowa DNR for the South Plant takes effect.
Point 2: "In February, 2014, Iowa City Wastewater received a violation letter from EPA..."
The letter cited would be the annual DNR inspection report. It indicates "violations" which
occurred throughout the year of 2013. One citation for ammonia nitrogen is related to
normal operations, for which the South Plant expansion is specifically designed to correct.
Another citation, referencing two separate parameters, occurred during the FEMA declared
disaster conditions of April, 2013. A third citation, referencing chlorine, is an incorrect value
from DNR's review of the plant operation. On the day referenced, 7/13/13, the North
Wastewater Plant was totally offline for maintenance and no discharge at all occurred for the
following 10 days. (All wastewater flow was diverted to the South Plant.) Although the
offline condition was reported to DNR in the monthly report, and maintenance records are
May 8, 2014
Page 2
clear and available, DNR apparently did not carefully consult their records before making
their report.
Point 3: "The Wastewater Plant discharged 7 times the amount of chlorine permitted by
EPA..."
The chlorine values referenced in the DNR report do not reflect the actual conditions of the
plant discharge. In 2013, due to extreme weather conditions and ongoing construction
activities, the North Plant was frequently turned off and all flow diverted to the South Plant.
On the dates cited in the DNR report, no flow was leaving the North Plant, so there was not
a discharge limit violation. The operational reports submitted to DNR will confirm this as well
as our own daily operating log of activities.
For perspective, in reviewing the last 5 years of monitoring data for both treatment plants,
chlorine effluent samples were analyzed 5 days per week at each plant, from April through
October. In the 1,550 sample results reported for chlorine, there were 5 samples with
chlorine detected, or 1,545 samples with 0.00 mg /L chlorine. Of the 5, two were on non -
discharge days, in 2013. The other 3 were all below DNR limits of 0.034 mg /L. In plain
language, the chlorine limit was 34 parts per billion; on three days in the last 5 years, Iowa
City discharged chlorine at 20 parts per billion.
Furthermore, the use of chlorine for disinfection was ended at the South Plant on July 25,
2013, when Ultraviolet Light Disinfection began. The use of chlorine at the North Plant was
ended on November 1, 2013, at the normal end of the disinfection season.
Other points: "the water dries my skin, smells like chlorine, tastes awful ..."
"we should clean up the wastewater, the river, and our act, ... for future
generations..."
It appears that several of the letter writers did not recognize the difference between drinking
water and wastewater (sewage). It should also be noted that without knowing the address
of the writers, they may actually be drinking water produced by other cities or the University
of Iowa.
The City of Iowa City began a modernization of its Wastewater Treatment Facilities in 1988
and has since spent $150M on conveyance and treatment facilities. The facility expansions
have allowed the City to overcome serious flood threats, advancing regulations, economic
downturns, and population and industrial growth. The facilities are now truly "state of the
art" and an example of effective technology with fiscal responsibility. By far, the majority of
Iowa City residents do recognize and support the environmental investment and
achievements of the Wastewater Division. The Iowa Water Environment Association
presented the City of Iowa City with the Grade IV Operator Advancement Award for
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, in 2010.
The Wastewater Division also conducts tours of the South Plant for interested citizens age 5
to 95. Many folks have taken up this opportunity but the names of those writing the letters
referenced here are not recognized by the staff. We would be happy to provide all the
safety equipment and detailed information necessary to demonstrate the commitment Iowa
City has to protecting the health of the public and the environment in our community.
Marian Karr
From:
Tom Markus
Sent:
Wednesday, May 07, 2014 5:32 PM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
FW: Excess parking in Neighborhood
Info packet please.
From: Kent Ralston
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:53 PM
To: 'thomas.a. nova k @gmail.com'
Cc: 'mg9425 @mchsi.com'; ' manvilleheightsneighborhoodassociation @hotmail.com'
Subject: Excess parking in Neighborhood
Mr. Novak —Your correspondence was forwarded tome for response. You maybe aware that your neighborhood has
experienced similar on- street parking frustrations in the past — most recently in 2011 when the City restricted on- street
parking between 8AM -5PM Monday- Friday on a portion of Normandy Drive and Manor Drive at the request of the
neighborhood. The City is willing to consider further prohibiting vehicles from parking on- street, but our policy is that
you submit a petition to the City (with a handful of your neighbors signatures) making a formal request to move
forward. The petition ensures that there is broader neighborhood interest in pursuing further parking restrictions. You
can forward the petition tome at the address below. Once a petition is received, the City will administer a mail -back
survey of all affected property owners. If a majority of those affected are in favor of the changes, a recommendation
will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. A few things to consider:
1) The increase in on- street parking you are experiencing may be a result of the VA Hospital temporarily displacing some
parking as they are constructing a parking ramp. Even though temporary, any parking restrictions established in your
neighborhood would be considered permanent.
2) If we are to consider further restrictions, the City would prefer utilizing a No Parking 8AM — 513M Monday- Friday
designation (rather than a four hour limit as you suggested) for consistency with existing parking prohibitions in your
neighborhood as well as the greater Manville Heights neighborhood. Consistency in parking helps the City provide
better parking enforcement and is more predictable for motorists.
3) If you choose to move forward, please clearly identify on the petition at what locations you are requesting the
prohibitions and what the prohibition would be — as noted we would prefer No Parking 8AM -5PM Mon -Fri. I would also
recommend the extent of the prohibition to include all of Normandy Dr, Eastmoor Dr., Manor Dr., Granada Ct, and Park
PI. My feeling is that if we try to further piecemeal restrictions in the neighborhood, we would just 'push' the parking
further into the neighborhood and not correct the issue.
My apologies for the lengthy email. If you need any clarification or have any questions please don't hesitate to contact
me.
Best regards,
Kent Ralston, AICP
Acting Transportation Planner I City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St I Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5253 1 www.mpojc.org
From: Thomas Novak <thomas.a. nova k @smail.com>
Date: May 6, 2014 at 5:09:06 PM CDT
To: < marcia- bollinger @iowa- citv.org>
Cc: Mary Murphy <mg9425 @mchsi.com >, < manvilleheiehtsneighborhoodassociation @hotmail.com >, "rick- fosse @iowa -
city.org" <rick- fosse @iowa- city.o >, <tom- markus @iowa- city.org >, <ieff- davidson @iowa- city.org>
Subject: Excess parking in neighborhood
I live at 609 Manor Drive and would like to express my concern about the number of cars that are parking in our
neighborhood. I understand that University Hospitals lost a large number of parking spaces in the ramp where the new
children's Hospital is being constructed. Apparently the word is out that our neighborhood is within walking distance for
anyone who is unwilling to pay for a permit in their commuter lots, and we are seeing a sharp increase in the number of
cars parked on our street from 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday. Over 20 cars were parked today just on the
corner of Manor and Eastmoor. This is disturbing to me both in terms of aesthetics (the area is starting to look like a
parking lot) and safety (more unattended cars in an otherwise quiet neighborhood).
There are ample spaces available to University employees in several lots controlled and maintained by the University
and University Hospitals. It is not necessary for the city to supply free parking for their employees. I would like to
request a 4 hour limit on parking from 8 AM to 5 PM on Manor, Normandy and Eastmoor, similar to what is in place for
Manville Heights. What process does our neighborhood need to review so that an appropriate restriction for our area
can be in place?
Thank you.
Tom Novak
z
IP5
Marian Karr
From: Kingsley Botchway
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:39 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Fwd: Georgetown University Energy Prize
Marian,
Can you add this to the info packet?
Kingsley Botchway II
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nathan Kron <nkron@mcbeestrate ig c.com>
Date: April 23, 2014 at 9:24:03 AM CDT
To: "matt -hayek e,iowa- city.org" <matt- hayekgiowa- city.org >, "Kingsley-Botchway@iowa-
city.org" < Kingsley- Botchwaygiowa- city.org>
Subject: Georgetown University Energy Prize
My firm is involved in the launch of this event, and I think Iowa City should consider doing this:
Georgetown University has a new energy efficiency competition with a $5 million prize. At least
49 small and medium U.S. communities and cities will compete, and organizers say thousands
more are eligible. Participants in the multi -year contest will compete to cut power and gas
consumption, with bonus points for doing in ways that can be replicated elsewhere. In 2017, the
winner gets $5 million to spend on energy efficiency programs.
http: / /guep.org /rules- timeline
Nathan Kron, ESQ Director
MCbee STrategic Consulting
T 202.578.3571 F 202.234.1223
Washington, DC 20001
455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
May 7, 2014
Sally Hoelscher, President, and Members, Iowa City School Board
IP6
- •a.as._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City Attorney's Office
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(319) 356 -5030
(319) 3S6 -5008 FAX
and www.icgov.org
Terrence Neuzil, Chairman, and Members, Johnson County Board of Supervisors
and
Matthew Hayek, Mayor, and Members, City Council of Iowa City
Re: Dealer Properties IC, LLC
Pursuant to Iowa Code § 441.44, this is to notify each of you that the Iowa City Board of Review
has reached a voluntary settlement regarding the above - referenced tax assessment appeal filed by
this property owner, d/b /a Billion Kia. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2013 valuation will be
lowered from $2,744,340 to $2,524,935, and the 2014 valuation will be lowered from $2,839,330
to $2,623,410.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Denny Baldridge.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Goers
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Denny Baldridge, City Assessor
YV
C=
.t'
co
IP7
L%
memo -
- •�.a�._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Strcet
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(319) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
May 6, 2014
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Mass Transit
Operator.
William Mossman
Tom Seemuth
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyra U. Dickerson, Chair
M IP8
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014
ICCSD EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER - ROOM 142 A
Present: Chris Lynch ( ICCSD), Jim Throgmorton (IC), Rod Sullivan (JC), Coleen Chipman (NL),
Terry Dickens (IC), Matt Hayek (IC), Louise From (UH), Laurie Goodrich (C), Michon
Jackson (T), Gerry Kuehl (NL), Pat Harney (JC), Tim Kemp (H), Susan Mims (IC), Tuyet
Dorau ( ICCSD), Janelle Rettig (JC), Mitch Gross (C), Stephen Murley ( ICCSD)
(IC = Iowa City; NL = North Liberty; C = Coralville; JC = Johnson County; NL = North Liberty; C =
Coralville; JC = Johnson County; H = Hills; ICCSD = Iowa City Community School District; 0 =
Oxford; S = Solon; UH = University Heights; T = Tiffin; CCA - Clear Creek Amana Schools)
Call to Order
Marla Swesey called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm.
Due to the inclement weather conditions Stephen Murley instructed those in attendance
where to seek cover in the event of inclement weather.
Welcome and Introductions
Marla Swesey welcomed everyone and asked elected officials at the table introduce themselves. Pat
Harney noted that Supervisors Terry Neuzil and John Etheredge were unable to attend as they were
attending an open house.
Attendance Area Development
ICCSD - Superintendent Stephen Murley gave a process update on the attendance area development.
Prior to spring break an all community meeting was held to do two things; review the diversity policy
and review Board Policies Appendix S. Appendix 5 talks about parameters to consider when looking at
attendance zones and those in attendance were asked to help prioritize those parameters as high,
medium, or low. Cluster meetings started after spring break with two clusters; one to look at
elementary schools in the northwest quadrant, and one to look at elementary schools in the southeast
quadrant. Both clusters followed the same format where there were three meetings. At the first meeting
individual tables took the parameters that were prioritized as high and rank ordered them 1 -7. They
were then given a blank map and asked to use the diversity policy mandates and the ranked parameters
from Appendix 5 to draft changes to current attendance zones. The maps were brought back to the
group and through an iterative process they looked at two successive maps and made suggestions for
changes. The last meeting for both clusters was last week. Changes have been made on input through
both of those meetings in addition to input received electronically either through email or on Engage
Iowa City website. Administration met with principals today to look at maps to make certain they were
accurate based on the feedback received. The new maps will be posted online either Tuesday or
Wednesday. When the maps are online there will be a message sent out to parents and staff as well as a
post on the website encouraging them to go online and look at the maps and use either email or Engage
Iowa City website to provide additional feedback. That will be open for about a week. The next Board
meeting is May 13, 2014 so the opportunity for feedback will be closed next Wednesday to allow time
for any needed changes so the maps can be included in the Board packet. The Board will consider them
at their meeting on May 13, 2014.
Administration was also working on secondary schools and had the first meeting for that. At the first
meeting community members suggested that the second and third meetings be held off until after there
were more finalized maps for the northwest and southeast elementary quadrants as articulation
patterns were being looked at. The second and third meetings were postponed a week and will now be
held on May 12, 2014 and May 21, 2014. The hope is to bring the secondary map to the Board on May
27, 2014. Most people are interested in having elementary schools feed junior high schools and junior
high schools feed high schools and not splitting them up.
Tuyet Dorau ( ICCSD) stated that the May 13, 2014 Board meeting is also a meeting where the Board is
going to decide on its process and although they are going to see the maps it does not necessarily mean
the Board will be approving any boundary changes at that time.
Matt Hayek (IC) asked how elementary would be integrated with secondary, if an elementary approach
would be locked in, and if the secondary would bring cause to look at the elementary again. Murley
stated at the secondary meeting their concern was they were working with current attendance zones
and the elementary zones may change. They were not interested in splitting up an elementary school in
terms of where it went. Given that sentiment they wanted to see what the new attendance zones looked
like before they decided where they would be sending those elementary schools to junior high or high
school.
Murley stated all of the information for the entire process is on the district website. Mitch Gross (C)
inquired if the attendance area development is a result of the diversity policy or the facilities master
plan. Murley stated it is both. Murley stated there is the diversity policy and the facilities master plan
and administration went to the Board in October to look at one potential draft for doing attendance
zones. The Board determined there were too many instances of rezoning so administration went back
and developed larger clusters and that is where the five sets of clusters came from. That transpires over
the course of the next six years and they tried to align it as close as possible with the facilities master
plan.
Murley stated the next round of elementary schools is Horn, Borlaug, and Weber and then two new
elementary schools, north and east, coming on line in 2019 so the northeast and the northwest cluster
will go through redistricting as those new schools come on line.
Facilities Master Plan Update
ICCSD - Superintendent Murley reported that South Elementary is slated to open in fall 2015 with a
building capacity of 500. The design work is ready to go, dirt is ready to be moved, and work is taking
place to extend the road Daniel Place so parent traffic comes in off of south Sycamore. The District is
also working with the City to build an additional gym at South. One of the things learned through
partnerships with the cities is that there needs to be better segregation between community space and
school space for a utilization of safety standpoint. The design creates the ability to lock down the
instruction area and leave the facility open for community use. Matt Hayek (IC) stated facility use
involves heavy staff interaction and expressed appreciation for the ongoing communication. Murley
reported the District has worked to create a standardized 28E agreement so there is a synchronized
template that standardizes the process.
Jim Throgmorton (IC) asked Murley to talk about the building naming process. Murley stated the Board
has a naming policy and there may be one joint process that allows multiple people to participate to
name all three schools simultaneously.
Murley reviewed the timing of the rest of the schools stating East Elementary will open in 2017 but will
have no name at that time as it will in serve a transitionary role to house students for Lincoln,
Longfellow, and Mann as work is done on those schools. Lincoln and Mann will move together to East
Elementary for one year while work is done on their buildings and then Longfellow will move to the site
for one year to allow work at their building. East Elementary will open for students in fall of 2019 at the
same and North Elementary construction is completed. The High school is slated to open in 2017.
Budget Adiustment Update
ICCSD - Superintendent Murley stated there is a Board requirement of administration to maintain an
unspent balance of 5% and the District will fall below that this fiscal year. In order to maintain that same
unspent balance at the end of the next fiscal year requires a budget adjustment of $3.6 million. The
District will still be below that unspent balance requirement and through discussions with the Board at a
work session in January it was proposed that we ladder back up to that 5% unspent balance over time
by FY2019. This is similar process to what was done in the 2010 -2011 school year. The opening of the
new schools was built into the budget plan. One of the challenges is setting allowable growth in a timely
manner. Another challenge we have as a state is funding education and right now we rate 37th in the
country in per pupil expenditures which presents a challenge. We have lobbied for use of excess dollars
available to help play catch up and get some of the funding dollars put back into education. We are
fortunate in the greater Johnson County to have legislators who understand that and we are fortunate
that we are a growing school district and are expected to grow by 300 students per year for the next ten
years. In Iowa schools are funded on a per pupil basis so as the student population grows income grows.
We are looking at a one -time budget adjustment to maintain and get back to the 5% unspent balance.
Coleen Chipman (NL) inquired what the excuse was of legislators not in favor of funding allowable
growth when state revenues and reserves have been high. Murley stated they said it is too hard to
predict future income. Tuyet Dorau ( ICCSD) stated that by law if they don't have reserves allocated it
goes back to property tax relief.
Jim Throgmorton (IC) asked for clarification of how the District is spending money building and yet
cutting programs. Murley stated that Iowa has a very progressive funding model for public education.
Most states get all of their money in one bucket however in Iowa money comes in many discrete buckets.
We get money from one -cent sales tax, money from SAVE and PPEL, money from instructional support
levy, and money into the general fund. Each fund has specific parameters of where you can spend the
money. The money shortfall for the District is in the general fund which funds the instructional
programs. The money for infrastructure needs come from SAVE or PPEL and cannot be used to hire
teachers and pay for instructional costs.
Gerry Kuehl (NL) stated one of the questions he gets from the community is how the shortfall in the
general fund happened in a growing district. Murley stated in Iowa there is spending authority where
the state says this is how much money you can spend per pupil and then based on whether you are a
property rich or a property poor district they will provide you state aid and then you levy the rest of it
against your local property taxpayers. Regardless of how much property value you have in your
community you can only spend a certain amount of money. Coupled with that is the allowable growth
piece and in the last decade there have been two years where the allowable growth hasn't been at least
2 %. One year it was 0% and another year it was 1 %. If in those two years they would have just set it at
3
2% we would have $12 million more in spending authority than we have right now which would allow
us to collect more state aid or levy additional tax dollars. We will never get those dollars back and
although we are a growing school district we are limited by spending authority. Tuyet Dorau (ICCSD)
stated that in 2010 there was a 10% across the Board cut and the District received federal stimulus
dollars and Ed jobs dollars, which are one -time dollars, and decided to use a large portion of those
dollars for continuing costs.
Janelle Rettig (JC) inquired what the schools funding would be at this point if they would have set
allowable growth for 2016 at 2 %. Murley stated that as a school district in Iowa your fund balance
cannot be below zero. The District determined that they don't want next year's fund balance to be below
this year's fund balance predicated on 2% allowable growth. Had they set allowable growth at 4% or 6%
that would have been guaranteed income and we might have been able to go to the Board and say there
is a little more wiggle room. There is no guarantee that there is even the 2% and the legislature can
come back and zero us out. Janelle Rettig (JC) inquired if it comes in higher would the District be able to
reinstate programs. Murley stated there are a couple of options with that. It would give the opportunity
to grow back towards that 5% unspent balance sooner and it could also give the opportunity to look at
programming.
Chris Lynch (ICCSD) stated he believes the facilities master plan is more important now given the
current budget challenge simply because we have local control over PPEL and SAVE funds and with that
money as we renovate our schools and use the PPEL dollars to make them more efficient, we can get
rebates that can go into the general fund.
Citizen Concerns - Re: Roads in the vicinity of the new high school
County - Pat Harney (JC) stated they have been getting a lot of feedback from residence in the area about
increase in traffic, increased road capacity, and who will improve the roads, pay for it, etc.
Murley stated MPO did their traffic analysis in January so there is some idea of what the road load would
need to be. The MPO did the analysis as the district got ready to look at that parcel of property so the
District could look at it from a standpoint of making sure that as they go through the design for that, they
can take in to account what anticipated traffic would be from students and extra - curricular activities
that take place after hours and on the weekends.
Pat Harney (JC) inquired if the analysis also looks at possible traffic going into the Iowa City /Coralville
area vs. just what the school would generate? Murley stated it does.
Gerry Kuehl (NQ stated the North Liberty City Administrator, the Coralville City Administrator, and
some individuals from the county and secondary roads department are meeting on a regular basis so the
road situation is resolved. He knows there is also an agreement with the City of North Liberty as to who
will pay for those roads as that area develops. He asked Ryan Haier if it was correct that it is going to be
developer driven for those off roads. Ryan Haier (NL) stated the City of North Liberty is working on a
28E agreement with the County as to who will maintain what roads into the future.
Jim Throgmorton (IC) encouraged all municipalities, including Iowa City, to think about land
development patterns around all new schools because there is nothing inevitable about the growth in
traffic as traffic volume depends on land development trends.
4
Nancy Goeken expressed concern that there would be serious accidents unless North Dubuque Street is
upgraded to make it safer and stated she and those who live in the area would like to see concrete plans
as to what is going to happen with the traffic flow.
Janelle Rettig (JC) stated she was on the MPO website and saw the 2012 update and is not aware of the
January update. Kent Ralston, MPO, stated the current study is in final draft format and basically what
that means is it is based on assumptions that came from the school district. Once it is in final version it
will be posted to the site. Rettig stated that previously she was in on the first meeting with Coralville
and North Liberty and the shock about where the schools were going and that the county was not
consulted about the high school going on a rock road. What was also talked about was it was not known
at that time where the population of students would come from. She inquired if it was correct that what
MPO has is mostly a draft and they are waiting on the school district to provide more information.
Ralston stated that is mostly correct but said he would call it final draft as they have not received any
more information that would keep them working on it. He stated the study was based on best
assumptions and until it is know where the traffic will come from it cannot be finalized. He stated that at
the request of North Liberty they added information of what the area around the school would look like
in 2040 and the crux of the study is that there are definitely spot improvements necessary. Rettig stated
she would like to see the analysis on the website now and that what Ms. Goeken expressed is that people
who live in that area aren't residents of Coralville, Iowa City, or North Liberty and they feel like the
growth of urban area is all the sudden in their back door. Rettig stated the county does not have a
nickel budgeted for any of the roads and in fact they aren't even in the ten -year road plan. The county
has been realtively clear that the problems of urban growth on those roads is an urban city issue and
will have to be driven by development. She stated the residents have every right to be wondering these
questions and she sees no harm in posting the draft the website now.
Colleen Chipman (NL) stated the cities, schools district, and county need to work together to find a way
to address the problem including identifying potential federal and state funding sources.
Daryl Granner stated those who live in that area understand these roads and stated that in their view it is
unconscionable to put a high school out there with novice drivers on the roads they way they are. He stated
that in opening a high school in 2017 they are several years behind in this process and the road situation
should be in line. He further stated that if the school is open and the roads aren't done something bad is
going to happen and if it is because of inertia, the people in this room are responsible for that.
Other Business
Marla Swesey ( ICCSD) stated that today's agenda was mostly regarding ICCSD and with the redistricting,
diversity policy, and growth of the schools she thought it was a good opportunity to share a copy of an
article about communities taking a role in their housing development plans. She distributed the article.
The next joint meeting will be held on July 28, 2014 at the new city hall in Tiffin.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
5
Marian Karr
From: John Yapp
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 10:36 AM
To: 'astridhbennett @gmail.com'
Cc: Tom Markus; Council; Doug Boothroy
Subject: FW: Walnut Street- Longfellow Redistricting
Ms. Bennett — Thank you for your email; it has been forwarded to me for a response.
The City shares your concerns with walkability to schools, and has communicated this to the School District. The City
Planning and Zoning Commission has also discussed recommending a 'walkability clause' be inserted into the District's
Diversity Policy. As you have noted, walkability to neighborhood schools is a component of neighborhood
stability. While we have communicated this to the School District, determination of school attendance boundaries lies
with the District staff and School Board. We are also excited about the potential for Twain to become a magnet school —
this decision also rests with the School Board. I encourage you to express your views to the School District as this
process unfolds.
You may already have seen this website, but information about the school attendance area process can be found on the
school district website at http: / /www.iowacityschools.ore /pages /ICCSD /Community /Attendance Area Engagement
Thanks again for your comment — it is nice to see so many engaged with the School District process.
Sincerely,
John Yapp
Development Services Coordinator I City of Iowa City, IA
319.356.5252 1 john -yapp @iowa - city.org
From: Astrid Bennett [mailto :astridhbennett @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:48 AM
To: Tom Markus; Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne
Subject: Walnut Street- Longfellow Redistricting
Dear City Manager Markus, Mayor Hayek, and members of the Iowa City Council,
I returned from an emergency medical trip out of town to find my own neighborhood in the spotlight for school
redistricting. This issue goes far beyond the idea of diversity at one school (which I applaud and am sensitive
to). The issue affects all of us neighborhood residents. I am alarmed to find that the School District was already
on the second reading without those of us without children even knowing about the issue.
Targeted are the families of about 20 students, mostly clustered right around the Walnut Street *. There are also
quite a few infants and toddlers in this area. This is a smaller transitional neighborhood that has seen quite a bit
of good growth towards families and single owner- occupants. This is exactly what the City would like to see,
and the UniverCity partnership did not have to invest in housing here. The neighborhood is doing it for itself
and in such a way that owner occupants of diverse backgrounds can afford. It is the closest to affordable
housing that I see in Iowa City. However, I would term this a fragile neighborhood that can go either way -
towards more owner occupants and families, OR towards primarily rentals and more run down.
Families here have invested in the concept of their children walking the few blocks to Longfellow school. In
many cases, they have invested in the idea of living in simpler, more modest homes with sometimes up to 4
children. One family I talked to in February had just had their third child. They chose to stay in their home,
remodel because they are located three blocks from Longfellow and they believe in smaller homes and walkable
lifestyles. Their values system is often towards older, more modest homes and living a walkable/bikeable
lifestyle. I know this because I know my neighbors from my twice daily walks.
In my view, by removing the Longfellow School -walk to school option from this small area, you run the
risk of families selling out and moving elsewhere. What will be left are an influx of University parents buying
homes for their students that then deteriorate. Or others who wish to become landlords. They become rentals.
Those that rent are more likely to be marginal in terms of income. We would be sending lower income
students to Twain when that is what the school district is trying to avoid. I fail to see that logic!
Please, reconsider this. Create a magnet school at Twain. Do not bus these Longfellow kids. It is unfair to
students and to their neighbors who are working hard to create a thriving and diverse neighborhood. I invite you
to take a walk with me and see for yourself.
Sincerely,
Astrid Hilger Bennett
909 Webster Street, Iowa City, resident here since 1979
Three children attended Longfellow, now grown but ready to start families and own homes of their own
*For the purposes of this email, I will label this as the Oak Grove- Walnut Street Neighborhood. This
neighborhood has very distinctive geographic challenges, with the train tracks to the north, and the very busy
and dividing Kirkwood Avenue to the South. Summit and Dodge cut through it as well. At its heart is all of
Walnut Street. I once headed the Oak Grove Neighborhood Association; we worked hard to reestablish
playground equipment that lay un- replaced by the City for 4 years because the City wrongly thought it was all
rental properties. Kirkwood Avenue is the true dividing line. In all my years of walking the neighborhood, I can
tell you about each neighbor along the way, where the children are, etc. But I know none of the neighbors on
the south side of Kirkwood Avenue:
A bit of history here: When I moved to the neighborhood in 1979, investor landlords bought three houses in a
row in various areas, hoping that zoning would change so they could build the very large mansard - roofed
apartment buildings common on South Van Buren north of the railroad tracks. Neighbors fought zoning
changes and were able to retain this area as a mixed neighborhood of modest, owner- occupied home, many by
elderly residents, and rentals. As time wore on, our elderly neighbors passed away and sold either to other
owner - occupants or to out of town student parents, who purchased often immaculate homes for their students.
Many of these, but not all, are run down. I have one next door to me.
Charter Review Commission IP10
April 22, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 22, 2014 — 7:30 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz,
Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. Roll call was then taken.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
Chappell asked how Members would like to handle the approval of the Consent Calendar. The
options are to vote on the minutes and correspondence items separately, or to adopt the
consent calendar as presented. Majority agreed to adopt as one unit and allow discussion as
necessary of individual items. Atkins asked what the rules are going to be with regard to
correspondence. Chappell stated that it would be best to send correspondence to the group's
email address — citycharterCa)-iowa- city.org. He added that if Members do receive individual
correspondence, they should forward this on to the other Members, or ideally send to Karr for
inclusion and acceptance on the next Consent Calendar. Kubby asked if the attendance record
will be part of the minutes, and Karr noted that it is. Kubby stated that she was shown as
`excused' at the April 8 meeting and that it should actually be 'unexcused.' Karr stated that she
would correct this. Kubby stated that she also has questions about items in the minutes. She
noted on page 3, in the middle, where it talks about the limit for contributions to political
campaigns locally. She questioned the $50 shown here, asking if it shouldn't be $100. Dilkes
replied that it had been lowered to $50, but that they did raise it up to $100 again. Karr will
make the correction. Kubby also noted the comment about what can be talked about at
meetings and if someone comes to public discussion, whether the Commission could engage in
conversation with them. She stated that this seems discourteous to her, that if the person
comes to the meetings and has questions, they should answer them or have a discussion at
least. Atkins suggested they add wording to the agenda, such as, "If time allows, further items
will be discussed." Members continued to discuss this issue, noting that they want the public to
feel they can come to any meeting and ask questions or share their concerns.
Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended per discussion; seconded by
Atkins. Motion carried 9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
April 22, 2014
Page 2
REVIEW CHARTER:
➢ Preamble
Chairperson Chappell asked if a Member would volunteer to read the Charter's Preamble aloud
before they begin their review. Shaw offered to do this. Chappell asked if anyone had any
questions regarding the Preamble, as they began their discussion. Sullivan asked if this section
is basically intact from the original Charter. Karr noted that by looking at the ordinance number,
you can tell that this section was passed in 1976, and therefore has not been amended since
the original Charter. Kubby began the discussion by looking at the word `citizens,' noting that
there are some residents of the city who are not citizens. She added that the word citizen is in
the Preamble at least four times, which she believes feels a bit exclusive. Atkins asked Kubby
what she meant by this, and Kubby stated that people who live here may be residents but not
citizens of the United States, for example. The Charter covers all people, and she wants that to
be clear in the wording. She did question the changing of this word, but noted that it is
something they should think about. Schantz noted that residents is used in #5. Craig added
that she wondered if it shouldn't say "persons" or something along those lines in order to include
everybody. Chappell stated that it appears they have two options here — they can either change
"citizens" to something else, or they can add a definition of the word "citizen" in the definition
section. Kubby stated that she believes the Preamble should be clear right away, not lead
people to look up definitions. Shaw added that under the definitions section, under #10, it
defines a person but not a citizen. He asked if both need defining. Dilkes noted that there has
been some discussion in other commissions about the use of the term 'citizens'. She added
that if you look up the word citizen it says `a resident of...' Chappell asked if using `resident'
would be a problem then, and Dilkes stated that she does not believe it would be.
Atkins stated that he reads the Preamble as sort of a grand statement, noting that it
states, "That the government of Iowa City belongs to all its citizens and all share the
responsibility to it." He doesn't believe that the wording 'to it' at the end of that statement is very
fitting here. He reworded it to say, "...and all share in that responsibility." Atkins then
questioned #5, "That the City should perform all acts," questioning if this shouldn't say, "...shall
perform..." in keeping with the style of the Preamble. He added that these small changes would
help to polish and make stronger the statement of the Preamble. Chappell questioned this,
noting that `shall' imposes a duty. Members briefly discussed this issue. Karr noted for
Members that as they go through this process, staff will begin to make note of these proposed
changes so that the Commission can go back to review and finalize any of these suggested
changes. Atkins noted that #3 also has `should,' and he questioned the use of 'shall' here, as
well. Shaw questioned this, noting that if these things are not carried out, as is inferred with the
use of `shall', then who is responsible for failing to do so. Kubby stated that she is more inclined
to change `should' to 'shall' in #3, than she is on #5. Stone stated that she sees these as five
principles, like goals, not rules. She believes a wording change, such as `should' to `shall,'
would mean changing the basic feel of the Preamble, which is setting forth the principles
adopted by the citizens of Iowa City.
Members continued to discuss the Preamble and possible wording changes, with
Vanderhoef noting that she reads a change in #3 as meaning that the public officials are to be
perfect and that the expectation from citizens would be this perfection. Dilkes added to the
conversation at this point, noting that she believes there is a conflict between use of the word
`shall' and what the Preamble is intended to be. Sullivan added that he believes they should
stay away from using words that they then have to specifically define as this tends to give them
more weight, something that the Preamble is not intending to do. Chappell noted that one word
Charter Review Commission
April 22, 2014
Page 3
that is specifically defined, and used in the Preamble, is 'measure.' He added that he believes it
is broadly enough defined, but he asked if anyone had any concerns with this. Members briefly
discussed this. Karr then noted that the way this document is laid out is the Preamble is first,
followed by Definitions. This typically means that you use those definitions as you read forward
into the document.
Craig asked for clarification on #3. She asked what an 'affirmative obligation' is versus
an 'obligation.' Schantz noted that basically you're expected to get out in front rather than react
to a request from a citizen. Chappell agreed, stating that he sees it as an 'obligation' can be
related to doing or not doing thing, and 'affirmative obligation' means you are directed to make
an effort to further that obligation. Schantz then commented on #2, where it talks about the
government being a `service institution.' He stated that he's not really sure what that term
means. Sullivan, at this point, stated that in his view, Preambles are typically full of statements
like this, that could be picked apart. He stated that they need to decide what they want the
Preamble to actually do — something that is full of things to be aspired to or specific things that
the citizens want the government to do. Chappell asked the staff what their opinion is of the
term 'service institution.' Dilkes responded that they talk about customer service a lot at the
City, and to her this is just redundant to responsive and accountable to its citizens. Members
continued to discuss the use of the word 'service' and what they see this to mean here.
Shaw stated that if they are broadly saying the Preamble is aspirational in nature, then
they should move on to the other parts. However, if they believe it has more meaning in how
they review each of the different articles, then it is time well spent to review it this closely now.
Chappell stated that this is a good point. He suggested they keep these initial principles in mind
as they review the rest of the Charter. Atkins stated that he would like to see some more
discussion on some of the issues they've brought up so far, such as the 'citizen' and 'resident'
definitions. Chappell shared how this process took place ten years ago at the previous Charter
Review Commission meetings, and what he is familiar with. He suggested that they make
tentative changes along the way, and then at the end of the process they come back and
consider all of the changes together. This will allow the Commission to see how the various
changes may or may not affect one another. Schantz asked if there is a current model Charter
that they can use as a guide. He noted that there was mention of one in the minutes, but that
he hadn't seen it. Dilkes stated that staff can look into this, but that she is not aware of one.
➢ Definitions
Chappell asked Craig to read the section. Chappell asked Dilkes which definitions, if any, would
make her uncomfortable for them to discuss, as they closely match the current State law.
Dilkes responded that it would really depend on what change the Commission were proposing.
She added that if they do discuss any changes that she is uncomfortable with, she will definitely
let them know. Members briefly discussed this issue. Sullivan stated that he will be interested
in discussing 'eligible' and 'qualified elector' and hearing some input on this, as well.
Vanderhoef brought up the use of 'councilors' versus 'council members'. Schantz spoke to the
definition of 'person' now, in reference to the Constitution issues. He suggested they flag this to
perhaps discuss further.
Atkins then asked about the use of `eligible elector' standards to the issue and /or
another issue where you would use 'qualified.' Sullivan stated that he does not see much
distinction between the two, that everyone is a voter as they are eligible to vote and can show
up at the polls to vote. Chappell stated that both terms are used in the Charter, such as where it
states, "...only qualified electors can sign initiative and referendum petitions." Sullivan
Charter Review Commission
April 22, 2014
Page 4
continued to discuss this distinction, noting that he believes there is no real distinction.
Chappell also spoke to this issue, noting that there is a distinction, because people need to
actually register to vote to be considered 'qualified.' Stone then made the suggestion that
'measure' be alphabetized within the rest of the definitions, instead of being out of order. Karr
noted that the definitionq are not in alpha order, but rather in the order of where they fall in the
Charter.
➢ Article 1— Powers of the City
Sullivan volunteered to read Article I. Atkins asked if 'invalidity' is a word. Sullivan asked Dilkes
if these are things that should not be changed, that they are straightforward things that should
be in the Charter. Dilkes agreed that these are in reference to State law about charters.
Chappell asked if everyone agrees to then tentatively approve this section. Schantz agreed that
they would need all of this included, but he questioned a few word changes. He stated that if he
still thinks this after reviewing the Iowa Code, he will bring up the issue again.
➢ Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows)
None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None
TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (2 "d and 4t" Tuesdav of month):
May 13 — Chappell noted the next meeting date and stated that they would be reviewing
the Preamble and Definitions again, if Members so decide. They will then move on to reviewing
Article II and adding the general wording of other sections as time allows.
Discussion turned to the meeting schedule, with Karr noting that she picked a three -
month cycle, rather than a full year, for inclusion on the agenda tentative schedule and
distribution of calendars. Chappell reviewed the dates quickly, and Atkins noted that he will be
absent the 5/27 meeting. It was also noted that this is shown incorrectly as May 20 on the
agenda. Chappell asked the group's preference for how to handle meetings when one Member
is going to be absent. Members agreed to keep the schedule in tact with only one absent and
the May 27 meeting date was confirmed.
Kubby asked if they are going to have a discussion about public input. Chappell stated
that they will definitely add this back in to an upcoming agenda. Karr asked what Kubby means
by this — public input at meetings or a general session. Kubby stated that she would like to
discuss the 'public process' in general. Others agreed that this should be on an upcoming
agenda. Shaw stated that he noted in past minutes that they had public input early on, with a lot
of advertising and a push for public comment. Chappell suggested they put this topic on an
upcoming agenda as well. It was also suggested they add a section on the agenda for
"Committee Member Reports," where Members could share information that they have received
from the public. Karr will make those additions.
ADJOURNMENT:
Atkins moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion
carried 9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
April 22, 2014
Page 5
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
NAME
EXP.
00
N
4/1/15
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
411/15
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
Schantz
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1115
X
X
Moyer
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
411/15
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
L�j
U5
DRAFT
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — May 5, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:38 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Mazahir Salih
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #13 -06
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or
amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 04/21/14
• ICPD Memorandum #14 -05 (1St Quarter 2014 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2014
• ICPD Use of Force Report — February 2014
• ICPD Use of Force Report — March 2014
• ICPD Memorandum (Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 1St Quarter 2014)
• Email from Joseph Jason — Criticism of Iowa City Police Department, Johnson County
Prosecutor and Johnson County Board of Supervisors
• Email from Scott Dean — Civilian Oversight Meet -Up
• Center for Worker Justice — Know Your Rights Workshops 2014
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent.
OLD BUSINESS
Community Forum — The forum is set for Tuesday, May 13th. Treloar and Jensen will present
an introduction piece at the forum. Tuttle handed out the response from the Police Department
for an email received for the forum. The email and the response will both be read and
accepted at the forum.
Video — All but one of the Board members have participated and finished their interview for the
video. Cable will begin putting together the segments.
NEW BUSINESS
Ford had a memo in the meeting packet regarding suggestions for public reports. The Board
agreed with his suggestions and will work those into their public complaint reports.
CPRB
May 5, 2014
Page 2
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Salih, seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section
21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by
state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that
government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal
information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports,
except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications
not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its
employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government
body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could
reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 5:52 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:38 P.M.
Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB
Complaint #13 -06 to City Council.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• May 13, 2014, 6:00 PM, IC Public Library, Room A - Annual Community Forum
• June 10, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• July 8, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• August 12, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
The Board agreed to have another May meeting, executive session only. Staff will look into
meeting rooms and dates and send out an email to check Board availability.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Jensen, seconded by Salih.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M.
�C
u n u ii u
0 0 rA
d
O
b
Nz
O
A�
G+
y
b
0
v
u
v
Lx
O p
O
Q
A a
Sys
x
QrQ
W
00
N
Zi
r+
rvI
r,I
,1
O
N
0No
iC
1
O
iC
yC
�C
�
d
O
b
Nz
O
A�
G+
y
b
0
v
u
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826
(319) 356 -5041
May 6, 2014
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -06
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation
of Complaint CPRB #13 -06 (the "Complaint ").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -7B (2), the Board's job is to review the
Police Chief's Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the
Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to
the Report "because of the Police Chief's 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 November 27, 2013. 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 February 24, 2014.
The Board voted on March 11, 2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report:
Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (d), "Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager,
or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation." The Board requested the Police
Chief provide a copy of all audio and /or video recording of the incident.
The Board met to consider the Report on April 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014.
To: City Council
C
w
?
r
Complainant
`M
City Manager
-
y
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
r
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Citizen Police Review Board
cr)
cr_)
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -06
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation
of Complaint CPRB #13 -06 (the "Complaint ").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -7B (2), the Board's job is to review the
Police Chief's Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the
Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to
the Report "because of the Police Chief's 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 November 27, 2013. 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 February 24, 2014.
The Board voted on March 11, 2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report:
Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (d), "Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager,
or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation." The Board requested the Police
Chief provide a copy of all audio and /or video recording of the incident.
The Board met to consider the Report on April 21, 2014 and May 5, 2014.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On August 30, 2014 at 9:15 pm, officers began a bar check of the Union Bar, While conducting
the bar check, Officer A observed two female subjects with cups of beer, confirmed they were
under age, and escorted them from the bar to be issued citations for Possession of Alcohol
While Under the Legal Age (PAULA). While the citations were being written by officers, the
Complainant came and stood next to one of the females, who was his sister.
Officer B asked the Complainant to move away, saying he would speak with him when finished.
The Complainant did so, but then returned and was again asked to leave, which he did. Officer
B escorted the female further away from the Complainant so he could complete the citation.
The Complainant returned for a third time, standing behind and to the left of Officer B, between
his sister and the officer. The Complainant was within arm's reach of Officer B. The left side is
the closest to where Officer B carries his Taser.
Officer B advised the Complainant to move for a fourth time. The Complainant did not do so.
Officer B pushed the Complainant once with open hands to move him away from his person.
This was confirmed by Officer A and witnesses. The Complainant was yelling, and was
arrested for Interference with Official Acts, taken into custody, and handcuffed.
ALLEGATION 1 — False arrest.
The Complainant filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him; this was ruled on by a District
Associate Judge. The motion to dismiss the charge was denied with the following "the Court
finds all of the elements of the crime are sufficiently alleged.
The above ruling from the court is also consistent with the investigative reports. BaseWon this
information, the arrest is considered lawful. -�
Allegation: False arrest - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 2 —Assault. __� =
:X CD
The Complainant alleges Officer B assaulted him by pushing him twice, moving =him bank a
distance of an estimated 20 ft. Officer B's statement, contained in the investigative reprb- t, says
he pushed the Complainant once by placing his open hands on the Complainant's chest and
straightened his arms, which created a gap between them. Officer A's statement says he
observed Officer B push the Complainant once, and described it as more of an arm extension.
Witness A (who is also a brother), stated he observed the complaintent being pushed back an
estimated 6 feet. Other witnesses did not observe the complaintent being pushed.
Officer's A & B, the Complainant, and witness statements all place the Complainant within five
ft. or less of Officer B.
The Complainant's version of the events is not consistent with the witness statements. There
was no violation of law, General Orders of the Iowa City Police Department, or established
practices in Officer B's push of the complaintent in an attempt to create space between them.
The Officer's contact with the Complainant was a justified, lawful and proper use of reasonable
force to defend the officers pursuant to law.
Allegation: Assault - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 3 - Excessive Use of Force
The Complainant alleges Officer B violated the Iowa City Police Department General Order 99-
5, Use of Force policy, saying he did not pose any threat to the officer. Both the officer
statements and the witness statements contradict this, and place the Complainant within five
feet or less of Officer B. Statements also describe the Complainant as yelling and leaning
forward in assertive manner. There is nothing to indicate that Officer B's contact with the
Complainant, prior to his arrest, significantly impacted the Complainant's actions.
There was no violation of law, General Orders of the Iowa City Police Department, or
established practices in Officer B's push of the Complainant in an attempt to create space
between them.
The Officer's contact with the Complainant was a justified, lawful and proper useG-o�reinnablei
force to defend the officers pursuant to law.' -3
Allegation: Excessive Use of Force - Not sustained
M
ALLEGATION 4 - Failure to Complete a Use of Force Report - " C,-1
The Complainant stated Officer B should have completed a Use of Force Report. Iowa City
Police Department General Order 99 -05 states that a Use of Force Report shall be submitted
with any use of force. Per the General Order, when the only use of force is the application of
handcuffs, no use of force report is necessary. The physical contact initiated by Officer B
against the Complainant was not found to be a use of force as defined by the Iowa City Police
Department Use of Force Policy.
Allegation: Failure to Complete a Use of Force Report - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 5 - Failure to Use a Body or Car Camera
The Complainant alleges Officer B should have used a Body or Car Camera. Per the Chief's
report, Officer B did not use a body camera on August 30, 2014. The report indicates, based on
the number of body cameras the Department has and the level of department activity, it appears
that a body camera was not available for use. This is supported by a check of body camera
recordings for this date which show no recordings from either Officer A or Officer B.
Officer B did not violate Department policy as a body camera was not available for use.
Allegation: Failure to Use a Body or Car Camera - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 6 — Withholding Evidence
The Complainant states he believes the Officers may have tampered with, or withheld,
evidence. The Complainant filed subpoenas with the Johnson County Attorney's Office, the
Iowa City Police Department, and the Downtown Business Association, in addition to a motion
for discovery and inspection of evidence. The Complainant, in a motion to dismiss, states he
has received all of the evidence the Officers determined was available. The Complainant notes
the motion specifically requested audio and video recordings, and none was available other
than the car camera footage while the Complainant was being transported to jail.
Based on the subpoenas and motion for discovery, the Complainant was provided available
evidence.
Allegation: Withholding Evidence - Not sustained
COMMENTS
None.
�.11
CO
'
Cil
c
IP12
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 10, 2014
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham,
Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran, Gosia Clore, Andy Litton
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Russ Garrett, Teri Toye (FEMA), Angela Collins and Cindy
Peterson (OSA), Eric Wieland, David Kieft
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and welcomed the new
commissioners.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
632 Brown Street.
Miklo showed photos of and the location of the subject property on the corner of Brown and
Dodge Street and said it's a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. He said
the first component of this proposal is to remove a porch enclosure on the back of the house
and replace it with a new addition, which would include an extension of the garage at the lower
level and widening of the driveway. He said the applicant had to get approval from the Board of
Adjustment for a special exception for a building setback from the rear property line, and the
Board put on a condition requiring some landscaping at the end of the driveway for pedestrian
safety and aesthetics. He showed plans for the proposed changes.
Miklo said there are Guidelines that apply in this situation and staff finds that overall the concept
of the plan complies with those guidelines but there are details missing from the plan that need
to be resolved before a building permit is issued. Miklo said one of the key elements that will
need to be addressed is that the Guidelines call for rooflines that are proportional and in
keeping with the historic structure and in this case staff recommends that for the lower addition
the eaves be proportionally smaller so staff needs some detail of those eaves. He said that
would also apply for the roof over the garage doors.
Miklo said the house has obvious frieze board and detailing that need to be carried over to the
addition and the plans should reflect that before approval.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2014
Page 2 of 7
Miklo said the applicant intends to match the concrete block material that would be used in the
exposed part of the garage door and match the neighbor's retaining wall as it turns the corner.
He said staff finds that the plan generally meets the Guidelines but they just today received
product materials for the foundation block and garage doors and have not had the opportunity to
verify that they match.
Miklo said staff is recommending a Certificate of Approval for removal of the small porch and
construction of the new addition with six conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Swaim invited the contractor to speak.
Russ Garrett of 3044 Rohret Road said he's there to answer any questions.
Sandell asked if the tree in the right of way will be affected at all. Miklo said he didn't believe it
would be. He said it's in the City's right of way so the City Forester would be involved in any
decision to remove it.
Swaim asked if the owner has been able to use the garage. Garrett said they had, but you can't
exit the car when it's in the driveway due to the retaining wall.
Miklo said the change would certainly improve the visibility and safety of backing out of this
driveway and would possibly enable one of the cars to swing around and go forward.
Corcoran asked if the Board of Adjustment had approved the special exception. Miklo said that
normally a twenty -foot rear yard setback is required, but the only way to add on to this property
was to reduce that to eleven and one -half feet, which the Board did approve.
Corcoran said that a special exception is a higher legal standard that has to be met and she
appreciates that the Board of Adjustment has agreed that a special exception is warranted here
and has granted it.
Michaud said it looks like a good plan and it's harmonious with the style and the arcs in the front
porch. She said it seems that just removing a limb or two from the tree should be enough. She
said it changes the history so much by removing a tree.
Garrett said that the Board of Adjustment actually wanted the applicant to make the driveway
wider than originally planned, so it will be much safer.
MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
632 Brown Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions:
applicants to provide product information for exposed foundation block; provide roof
overhang dimensions; revise drawings to show frieze board and water table trim; provide
product information for new garage doors, and for door at west side of new addition;
provide final design and product information for new driveway and retaining wall; All of
the above must be reviewed and approved by Chair and staff.
Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 ( Agran, Clore and
Litton absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2014
Page 3 of 7
Swaim stated that this is available for review in the Commission packet.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION WITH FEMA AND OSA
Miklo introduced Teri Toye, Environmental Protection Specialist from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), who was there because the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106, requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties. She introduced all the speakers who would be presenting at this meeting. She said
the focus of the presentation will be on Hancher Auditorium — Voxman School of Music- Clapp
Recital Hall relocations and amending the memorandum of agreement (MOA) for the Iowa
Memorial Union due to additional adverse effects.
Toye explained that an undertaking is anytime a federal permit, license or funding is issued. She
explained that historic properties are those buildings, structures, districts, objects or sites
including archeological sites that are either listed in the National Register of Historic places or
are determined eligible for listing by the federal agency. She said FEMA resolves adverse
effects on the properties through the development and execution of a memorandum of
agreement.
Toye said the undertaking for the Hancher/Voxman /Clapp relocation is relocating those facilities
out of the Iowa River Flood Plain. She said the project activities for these relocation projects
include demolition, relocation out of the flood plain, site acquisition and preparation and
construction of the new facilities. She said the new site for the building, just south of Park Road,
is within the boundaries of the National Register eligible University of Iowa River Valley Historic
District.
Toye said that the Voxman and Clapp facilities will be at the southwest corner of Burlington and
Clinton Streets, and FEMA determined that the area of potential affects for this undertaking
included the ground disturbing activities associated with site preparation, demolition and
excavation for those and extended to the buildings that surround those sites that could be
potentially structurally or visually adversely affected by construction of the new facilities. She
said they determined that it was not necessary to do an archeological survey during
construction and that the two former bank buildings were less than fifty years old and did not
meet the requirements of buildings less than fifty years old to be considered eligible for listing in
the National Register.
Toye explained that The University of Iowa purchased the Sabin School and offered it as a
relocation site for a neighborhood bank. She said at that time, 2011, FEMA determined that the
building was National Register eligible and began the process of developing a MOA. She said
FEMA reviewed the purchase option agreement between the university and the bank and
realized that the demolition wasn't certain, FEMA stopped the process and FEMA, the
university, the State Historic Preservation Office, Iowa Homeland Security all signed a letter of
agreement that said they would be notified if the building were to be demolished, at which point
a memorandum of agreement would be developed, which is where they are today.
She said that FEMA evaluated the Sabin School for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. She said it was constructed in 1917 -18 and was one of three schools that George
Lockhart designed in Iowa City, including Longfellow School, which is listed in the National
Register, and Horace Mann School, which has been determined potentially eligible. Toye said
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2014
Page 4 of 7
that despite some alterations and additions to the building and a change in its original use,
FEMA determined that it did meet the requirements to be considered for listing in the National
Register, therefore its demolition would result in adverse effects to historic properties. She said
when the university notified FEMA in 2013 that the bank was going to demolish the school,
FEMA reopened consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office with a finding of
Adverse Effects to Historic Properties. She said it's FEMA's responsibility to resolve those
adverse effects through the development and execution of a MOA, which is a legally binding
document outlining steps to be implemented to offset or solve the adverse effects. Toye
explained the steps taken to develop an MOA in these cases and said that through consultation
FEMA will discuss the treatment measures and then she will draft the MOA and will circulate
that amongst the potential consulting parties for a thirty day review and issue a revised version
for another review if there are substantial changes. She said the project will not be closed out
until the entire scope of work is completed, including the construction of Hancher, Voxman and
Clapp and also the mitigation measures associated with the adverse effects.
Toye said that FEMA does not advocate the outcome of this consultation process, and will not
say what the mitigation measures should be. She said they have some requirements that need
to be commensurate with the level of adverse effect and must have a benefit to historic
preservation and the public and the local community where the adverse effects occur.
Toye related the mitigation measures that were recommended previously for Sabin School
including salvage of significant architectural features and reusable building materials; electrical
and HVAC upgrade study for Longfellow and /or Horace Mann; a National Register nomination
for Horace Mann School; implementation of preservation goals outlined in the City Historic
Preservation Plan; additional documentation of the school and expanded Iowa site inventory
form; suggestions from consulting parties and the public.
Toye said the architects who are preparing plans for demolition of Sabin School have
recommended the significant features that could or should be salvaged. She listed the features,
which included the stone work.
Toye said during demolition of the banks and excavation for construction of the School of Music
archeological resources were discovered. She said she wanted to make sure that the
Commission is aware of the significance of some of the archeological finds because they relate
to the early history of Iowa City women and campus life.
Angela Collins of the Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) showed a picture of one of the
banks where the archeological site is located. She showed historic pictures of Iowa City in 1868
and showed where the School of Music site is located. She explained that one of the features
discovered was a stone -lined well full of domestic materials. She said the next features were a
limestone foundation and a wood -lined privy also full of domestic objects. She showed a
number of pictures of these features and the artifacts as they looked when were initially
discovered and during excavation. She said the dates of the artifacts, the early 1900s,
correspond to a time when the house on the lot was occupied mainly by working women. She
said there are records of the inhabitants of the property around the town the city was platted.
Collins said these were all unexpected findings and OSA has processed all the findings as far
as they can. She said there are mitigation measures that need to move the process further, as
outlined in the OSA Data Recovery Plan, which include cleaning the artifacts from the field,
processing, cataloging, researching and curating them. She said OSA also wants to present to
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2014
Page 5 of 7
the public about their findings with lectures, on -line, written articles, and exhibits locally. She
said OSA wants to include more public interpretation to inform the actions and mitigation
measures. She said they want to include the university population and other volunteers in
processing artifacts.
Toye explained that FEMA has a state -wide agreement in Iowa with a provision for unexpected
archeological discoveries or unanticipated effects to historic properties. She said under this
provision, the archeological site could not be preserved as it was in a construction zone. She
said it was determined that the best way to get all the information out of there was
documentation and data recovery and was a mitigation measure to develop and implement this
Data Recovery Plan. She said they want to consider any other suggestions beyond what is in
the draft Plan.
Eric Wieland, the Environmental and Historic Preservation Advisor for Iowa, said this is a
complicated project with many components, and what they are presenting tonight is one federal
undertaking but the unanticipated discovery that the OSA discussed and the connected action
of the demolition of the Sabin School are all connected actions legally for FEMA.
Swaim said that if the thirty day public comment period started today, the Commission will have
another meeting before that is over. She was told to prioritize possible measures and that any
measure put forward will need to have a cost estimate and time line attached to it.
Swaim asked if there will be any archeological work done once the Sabin School is demolished
and Wieland said once the university completes the transaction with the bank for that land, that
site is no longer part of the federal action and is not part of FEMA's responsibility.
Toye said that any mitigation measures will needed to be completed before September 16,
2016, when the grant expires.
Michaud asked if the windows and doors are salvageable and could be used for other schools.
Toye said she would confer with David Kieft of the university to see if the current windows and
doors are replacements.
Toye said the Commission will have one or two opportunities to see the draft MOA.
Toye explained the hazard mitigation for the Iowa Memorial Union (IMU). She said there were
unanticipated archeological finds on the site.
Cindy Peterson of OSA showed schematics and photographs of the site. She explained the
sequence of events that led up to the findings. She said that this site is where the early wealthy
residents of Iowa City constructed tenement buildings. She said eight contributing resources
were identified at the site, which were three cisterns and five building or structure foundations
and all the contributing resources pre -date the Civil War. She said this site was recommended
eligible for National Register listing for its ability to provide new information about Iowa City's
earliest residents.
Toye said that an amended MOA for this site is in process and FEMA is inviting any other
potential consulting parties or anyone else who has a significant role in completing any of the
mitigation measures to sign the MOA amendment. She listed the agreed -upon mitigation
measures.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 10, 2014
Page 6 of 7
Toye mentioned that due to the finding of trade beads at the School of Music site and projectile
points at the IMU, Native American tribes were notified, but at this time none are interested in
participating.
Swaim said the information presented is important but that it's a very difficult process. She said
the Commission will put this on their agenda for May 8th, 2014.
Toye said they are asking for the Commission's recommendations for mitigation measures to
resolve adverse effects as a result of demolition of Sabin School; the Commission's comments
on the Draft Data Recovery Plan for the School of Music site and if they feel that is
commensurate with the level of adverse effect; and the same with the Hubbard Park site. Toye
said she thought what would be of particular interest to the Commission is how the information
at the end of the OSA's process is disseminated to the public.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 13,2014:
MOTION: Durham moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
March 13, 2014 meeting and public hearing, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 (Agran, Clore and Litton absent).
DISCUSS INCREASED NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS
Swaim reminded the Commission that at the last meeting they finalized a memo about noise
levels and received a response from the Senior Building Inspector, Tim Hennes.
Michaud said she met with Tim Hennes about this letter and was reassured that the City was
responsive to historic neighborhoods and concerns about intrusive noise. She said that the
standards being implemented in Iowa City are international standards. She said they discussed
sustainability and how vented heated or cooled air to the inside was not in step with energy
conservation, so they discussed the possibility of fan vent scrubbers, meaning that the air would
be recirculated. She said the City will be enforcing international standards that the fan would be
ten feet from the property line and /or the roof edge. She said if the decibel level is above 55 at
night, it is not according to Smart Code standards. She said these international standards
predated the concern about invasive, intrusive noise on neighbors. She said Hennes will be
investigating if the fan is compliant with the code that was in effect when the construction took
place. She said a mitigating possibility is a shield to deflect noise.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Durham moved to adjourn. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 8 -0 (Agran. Clore and Litton absent).
Minutes submitted by Joy Bayshore.
Z
O
� 0
O O
U U
� � r
�— W O
>Z c�
Z
� Q r
N Z N
W W
CL
U F-
0
U)
z
0
0
U
z
0
F-
W
U)
WM
CL O
U M
�o
0��
U)
2 � a
T-
X
p
0
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
qq
CO)
V)
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
M
a
O
ti
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
;
X
X
CL
N M
x
X
X
X
;
x
X
X
LLJ
X
;
X
X
N
r
X
X
x
0
X
X
O
O
X
O
O
LLI
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
r
c
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
x
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
Q
p
x
co
X
I
X
X
O
O X
X
X
O
O
N
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
x
ti
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
x
x
Z
o
x
o
o
X
X
o
x
x
X
to
x
x
x
x
x
X
o
x
i
x
o
x
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
0
Lu a
W W
N
N
0)
0)
N
m
rn
N
0)
0)
N
0)
0)
N
a)
a)
N
0)
0)
N
0)
0)
N
0)
0)
N
G)
G)
Q
a)
a)
N
a)
a)
N
M
Cl)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Cl)
Cl)
z
N
¢
W
Y
3
G
W
Y
Y
O
x
2
N
O
Y
¢
w
o
Q
0
a
CL
W
m
J
z
Q
GC
0
F=-
W
F
LL
O
Q
LL
Q
Z
Z
w
Z
w
0
Q
Z
Z
¢
a
2
W
LU
¢
W
x
x
¢
z
a
m
U
N
XU E
W N
c c M
(L QQz
XOD
w
Y
IP13
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
April 29, 2014 — 6 P.M.
Helling Conference Room
Preliminary
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Joe Coulter, Kim Hanrahan, Shams Ghoneim, Paul
Retish, Andrea Cohen.
Member Excused: Ali Ahmed, Orville Townsend.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to Council: No.
Call to Order:
Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:02.
Consideration of the Minutes from the March 18, 2014 Meeting:
Motion: Moved by Coulter, seconded by Ghoneim. Motion passed 5 -0. (Hanrahan not present).
Meeting Business:
Funding Request Senior Center
This funding request is in the amount of $200. It is to offset the cost to show Before You Know It. This is
a film about generational trailblazers who have surmounted prejudice and defied expectation to form
communities of strength and represent the estimated 2.5 million lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans
over the age of 55 in the United States. Coulter moved to contribute $100, seconded by Ghoneim. Cohen
stressed the importance of the Commission following the policy enacted earlier in the year concerning
funding request. Olmstead and Ghoneim both believe the film is in line with the mission of the
Commission. Motion passed 5 -0. (Hanrahan not present).
Youth Awards 2014
Bowers asked for Commissioners to arrive no later than 5:30 for the ceremony. Seventy -six area youth
will be recognized at the event this year. Coulter and Ahmed will be unable to attend this year because
both will out of town. Bowers will send Cohen a link to view the ceremony from 2013.
Subcommittee Reports:
International Students
No report.
Racial/Ethnic Equity Roundtable
No report.
Education
Retish reported that of the fourteen - hundred special education students identified within the District, the
District had to reevaluate over seven - hundred students to assess their need for special education. After
the evaluations, eighty -seven students were no longer eligible for special education. The District provided
Retish with the racial demographics for the eighty -seven students.
Hanrahan would like to know how selection is made to send some District students to Tate High School.
Coulter thanked Retish for all of his hard work and energy on this matter pointing out that awareness can
be very powerful.
Building Communities (Housing)
Bowers provided a copy of the updated language added to the_ Who We Are & What We Do brochure for
the Housing Authority. Page eleven now reads:
TERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (24 CFR 982.553 & 982.555): The
ICHA may terminate assistance for criminal activity by a household member as authorized in HUD
regulations if the ICIIA determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the household
member has engaged in the activity, regardless of whether the household member has been charged,
arrested or convicted for such activity. The ICHA must give a participant family an opportunity for an
informal hearing to consider whether the termination decision due to criminal activity is in accordance
with the law, HUD regulations and ICHA policies. Evidence may be considered without regard to
admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings. The Iowa City Housing
Authority Informal Hearingprocedures are in the HCVAdministrative Plan: Section 15.4 C. Hearing
Procedures, Page 71. A copy of our Hearing Procedures is available upon request or viewed online at
www.Icgov. org/icha. Select Housing Authority Documents.
In future printings, Hanrahan suggested that "regardless of age" be added.
UI Center for Human Rights
The Center has established a fundraising committee and is working on creating a program committee.
Olmstead is the chair of the program committee and Ghoneim is a program committee member. Ghoneim
would like to see future Center programming on the human rights of persons with mental disabilities.
Commissioners
Ghoneim reports that she recently did a presentation for the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
on the ongoing human rights violations in Egypt.
Retish reports that he is a member of Livable Communities for Johnson County. This group may have
some concerns with area housing that would be pertinent to the Commission or even possibly overlap.
Retish has asked for further information on the housing concerns. With the information provided being
presented to the Commission at a future meeting date or for him to report to the Commission at a future
meeting date.
Hanrahan mentions the recent State of Equity Report published by the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights
Commission, which segued into Coulter's report.
Coulter and Bowers both attended the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission's Building An Inclusive
Community, One Neighborhood At A Time. Coulter was a presenter on Understanding Health Disparities:
Is Assimilation Good for People of Color and Immigrants. Bowers will send a pdf of Coulter's
presentation out to each Commissioner via email. Coulter stated that the State of Equity Report should
serve as a model for Iowa City.
Cohen reports on a recent trip to New York, while in New York Cohen met with the Executive Director
of the New York Commission on Human Rights —Pat Gatling. Cohen spoke on how the NYC
Commission on Human Rights educates and does outreach on discrimination. The NYC Commission on
Human Rights currently has over six hundred complaints pending. Cohen also reports on the Advocacy
2
Lab. The Advocacy Lab's mission is to empower youth to take action for human rights. It
partners with teachers in the New York City high schools. The Advocacy Lab provides in -class
human rights education and advocacy skills training at least once a week over the course of the
school year.
Olmstead reports that Len Sandler will be presenting a Workshop on Navigating the Process of
Changing your State and Federal Identity Documents to Match Your Gender Identity. In
addition, Olmstead mentions a report on how the City of Tuscan (Arizona) funds improvement
of its sidewalks to make the sidewalks compliant with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Olmstead has delivered copies of the report to City staff for their review.
Staff
Bowers reminded Commissioners to visit the human rights webpage. The webpage offers a lot of
information on harassment and unlawful discrimination and PowerPoint presentations on fair housing and
harassment. Brochures and flyers are available in English and Spanish. Brochures and some flyers will be
available (by mid -May) in Arabic (Saudi Arabia) and Chinese (Simplified).
Motion to Adjourn:
Coulter moved to adjourn, Ghoneim seconds. Motion passed 6— 0.
Adjournment: 19:16
Next Regular Meeting — May 20, 2014 at 6 pm.
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2013/2014
(Meeting Date)
NAME
TERM
EXP.
4/16
/13
5/21
113
6/18/
13
7/16/
13
8/20/
13
9/17/
13
10/15/
13
11/19/
13
12/17/
13
1/21/
14
2/18/
14
3/18/
14
4/29/
14
Diane
Finnerty
1/1/14
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
-
-
-
-
Ali Ahmed
1/1/17
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
X
X
O/E
O/E
Orville
Townsend, Sr.
1/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Paul Retish
1/1/17
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Dan Tallon
1/1/14
X
X
X
O/E
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Kim
Hanrahan
111115
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Shams
Ghoneim
111115
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Jessie Harper
111115
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Jewell Amos
111115
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
R
Katie
Anthony
1/1/16
X
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/16
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Harry
Olmstead
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Andrea Cohen
1/1/16
-
-
-
-
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Connie Goeb
1/1/13
-
Howard
Cowen
1/1/13
-
David B.
Brown
1/1/14
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Henri Harper
1/1/14
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = No longer a member
R = Resignation