The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-05-20 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission April 7, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY APRIL 7, 2014 — 5:30 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION FINAL Members Present: John Etheredge, Christine Douglas, Matthew Wolford, Terry Dahms Members Absent: Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek Others Present: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Tharp called the meeting to order at 5:34 P.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: a. Orientation — Tharp welcomed members to the meeting. Tharp described the role of the Airport Zoning Commission and what they were being asked to do. Tharp then described the information packet to the members. Tharp noted the enclosed Open Records memo and discussed the open meeting rules with members. Tharp then described the draft ordinance that was in the packet. 3mu�� b. Chair Selection — Tharp stated the second half of the meeting was going to be to decide a method to select the Chair. Tharp stated that the Commission was made up of 2 appointees by the County and 2 from the City, and that they collectively were to decide the chair. Dulek noted that they could have an informal process or a formal process. Dulek also noted that they could agree to select a woman to fulfill the gender balance requirements, or they would need to advertise and after 90 days they could appoint anyone. Dulek stated that one other option would be for one of the two county appointees could also go back to the Board of Supervisors and request they appoint a female instead. Douglas nominated Jill Fishbaugh. Upon an indication that Jill Fishbaugh would not be available, there was no second. Members continued to discuss candidates for the Chair position. Members discussed the schedule while waiting for responses from chair candidates. Tharp noted that evenings work better than morning. Dahms asked for some additional information regarding the amendment, and Tharp stated he would provide that at the next meeting. Airport Commission April 7, 2014 Page 2 Etheredge nominated Elaine Reitz to be Chair, seconded by Wolford. Motion carried 4 -0. Members set the next two meetings for April 17 and April 24th at 5:30pm. ADJOURN: Etheredge motioned to adjourn, seconded by Wolford. Motion Carried 4 -0. Meeting adjourned at 6:01 CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 7, 2014 Page 3 Airport Zoning Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o NAME EXP. John Etheredge 12/31/14 X Christine Douglas 12/31/15 X Matthew Wolford 12131/17 X Terry Dahms 03/01/16 X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Airport Commission April 15, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2014 — 5:30 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Terry Dahms, Matt Wolford, Christine Douglas Members Absent: John Etheredge, Elaine Hayes Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: None. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: Tharp called the meeting to order at 5:38 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: 3o bid Tharp noted that they had the minutes ready for approval, and if members had any corrections to make they could recommend them and approve amended minutes. Dahms moved approval of the minutes of April 7, 2014, seconded by Douglas. Motion carried 3 -0 ( Etheredge, Hayes absent). ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: a. Consider a recommendation to amend airport zoning code Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 6, Airport Zoning, Section 4, Airport zones to allow an administrative review process of proposed objects which may penetrate the Horizontal Overlay zone under certain conditions — Tharp began by discussing the agenda packet, stating that he hoped he had provided everything the Commission had been looking for after the first meeting. Tharp noted that he had included a copy of an airspace study and a memo that described the review process. Dahms asked about the cranes and other objects around the city. Tharp noted that while they had been reviewed by the FAA, they were outside of the city jurisdiction due to the fact that they were associated with the University of Iowa construction or Veterans Administration. Tharp noted that because those were state and federal level entities the city zoning code didn't apply to them; however in the past both entities had been good neighbors and worked within the city rules. Douglas Airport Commission April 15, 2014 Page 2 asked about the process to obtain a building permit, Tharp and Dulek described the process that developers use currently to obtain building permits. Members continued to discuss the recommended changes. Douglas stated that she would like more time to review and examine the changes and asked what other cities were doing. Tharp noted that he could go back to some of the locations and pull versions of their zoning codes. Dahms stated that he had concerns about voting just with a minimum of members present. Members continued to discuss the recommendation. Members decided to continue the discussion until the next meeting so that the missing members could weigh in. ADJOURN: Dahms motioned to adjourn, seconded by Wolford. Motion Carried 3- 0(Etheredge, Hayes absent). Meeting adjourned at 6:22pm CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 15, 2014 Page 3 Airport Zoning Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 NAME EXP. o � Cn John Etheredge 12/31/14 X O/ E Christine Douglas 12/31/15 X X Matthew Wolford 12/31/17 X X Terry Dahms 03/01/16 X X Elaine Hayes O/ E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Airport Commission April 24, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2014 — 5:30 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Terry Dahms, Matt Wolford, Christine Douglas, John Etheredge, Elaine Hayes Members Absent: Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of an amendment to the Airport Zoning Code, Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 6, Airport Zoning, Section 4, Airport Zones, to allow an administrative review process of proposed objects which may penetrate the Horizontal Overlay zone under certain conditions. CALL TO ORDER: Tharp called the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Tharp asked for any edits to the draft minutes. Douglas asked if they could clarify a sentence where he and Dulek had described the permitting process. Tharp noted he could listen to the audio and clean that up. Etheredge moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Wolford. Motion carried 5 -0. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: a. Consider a recommendation to amend airport zoning code Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 6, Airport Zoning, Section 4, Airport zones to allow an administrative review process of proposed objects which may penetrate the Horizontal Overlay zone under certain conditions — Tharp noted that they are continuing the discussion on the amendment change. Tharp noted that much of the packet had been duplicated, but that he included a copy of the Des Moines City Code covering the airport, as well as another airspace study that showed a presumed hazard. Tharp noted that those airspace results were initially given for objects that would penetrate a protected zone and gives the project sponsor a choice to build at a reduced height or ask for 3b(3) Airport Commission April 24, 2014 Page 2 a more in depth study. Douglas moved to recommend the zoning code change, seconded by Etheredge. Dulek stated that she had looked at the city web site and pulled some of the airspace studies from the building permit process if members wanted to view them. Douglas expressed her concerns regarding the changes stating that she was concerned with the area north of the airport. A vote was taken, and the motion carried 5 -0. ADJOURN: Etheredge motioned to adjourn, seconded by Hayes. Motion Carried 5 -0; Meeting adjourned at 5:44 P.M. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 24, 2014 Page 3 Airport Zoning Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 � � NAME EXP. O Cn N � .A 41 .rh, John Etheredge 12/31114 X O/ X E Christine Douglas 12/31/15 X X X Matthew Wolford 12/31/17 X X X Terry Dahms 03/01/16 X X X Elaine Hayes O/ X E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission 3b(4) April 22, 2014 Page 1 - MINUTES FINAL 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 — citycharter(M-iowa- city.orq. 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 definitions are not in alpha order, but rather in the order of where they fall in the Charter. ➢ Article I — 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 (2nd and 4th 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 f NAME EXP. coo N 4/1/15 X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 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 4/1/15 X X Moyer Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/16 X X Vanderhoef Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time r r NCO Ault CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2014 To: Mayor and City Council From: Staff Member of Citizens Police Review Board Re: Recommendation from Citizens Police Review Board At their April 21, 2014 meeting the Citizens Police Review Board made the following recommendations to the City Council: (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #13 -05 (2) Request a 45 -day extension for CPRB Complaint #13 -07 Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action S:RECform.doc 3b(5) FINAL /APPROVED CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — April 21, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Donald King, Mazahir Salih (5:37 PM) MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD; Marian Karr, City Clerk and Jerry Nixon, Cable TV Gov. Programmer RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #13 -05 (2) Request a 45 -day extension for CPRB Complaint #13 -07 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King, seconded by Jensen, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/11/14 Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — The forum is set for Tuesday, May 13th. Treloar and Jensen will work together to work on an introduction piece for the forum. Tuttle handed out an email received for the forum. The Board agreed to forward the email to the Police Department for a response and acknowledge receipt and read the email and the response at the forum. Video — Karr stressed the importance of Board members participating and scheduling a time for their interview for the video. Nixon said he was willing to work with Board members to find a time that will work for them. He also offered to be available before and after their next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None. (Karr and Nixon left the meeting) PUBLIC DISCUSSION Hart introduced himself to the Board as Captain Wyss's replacement due to his retirement. CPRB April 21, 2014 Page 2 BOARD INFORMATION Salih reported that many members of the Sudanese community have contacted her regarding the process of a pending taxi investigation. Many members of the community were confused of what their rights are and the proceedures of the Police Department. Hart suggested holding a community meeting where they can educate and give them the opportunity to ask questions. He said to contact the new Public Relations Officer Al Mebus to set up a meeting. King announced that this was his last meeting and that he was resigning from the Board. Staff requested that he send an email to include in the Council packet. Treloar extended his thanks for his service to the Board and the Community. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle asked the Board to look over the contact sheet and let her know if there are any corrections needed. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King, 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, 4/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 6:10 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:49 P.M. Motion by Jensen, seconded by King to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #13 -05 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Motion by Jensen, seconded by King to request a 45 -day extension for CPRB Complaint #13 -07, due to a second request for additional information from the Iowa City Police Department; and direct staff to request the information for review at their next meeting. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. CPRB April 21, 2014 Page 3 Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14 -01 to 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(d), Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation; and direct staff to request additional information from the Iowa City Police Department regarding CPRB Complaint #14 -01. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • May 5, 2014, 5:30 PM, TBD • 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 Moved by Jensen, seconded by Salih to schedule a Monday, May 5th meeting at 5:30 PM. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Salih. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:56 P.M. uuuuu QtQ O a N � O d W � N O �I � N ro .r 1 bd O O � GL`s ��xbzyo dC-44 S �' =i y a°� �.s o. = Y s ,roe W i O 000 N � O d W � N O �I � N ro .r 1 bd O O � GL`s CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 April 21, 2014 Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -05 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #13 -05 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on October 22, 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 January 21, 2014. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with 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 met to consider the Report on January 28, 2014, February 11, 2014, March 11, 2014, and April 21, 2014. N E5 r+S2 +qg • , To: City Council Complainant ry City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police; =- Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -05 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #13 -05 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on October 22, 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 January 21, 2014. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with 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 met to consider the Report on January 28, 2014, February 11, 2014, March 11, 2014, and April 21, 2014. FINDINGS OF FACT On August 31, 2013 at approximately 1843 hours, the Complainant called 9 -1 -1 about his camera being stolen while he was at the Airliner. At 1846, an officer was dispatched and arrived about four minutes later but could not locate the Complainant. At approximately 1931 hours the Complainant again called 9 -1 -1 where he becomes abusive and curses the dispatcher. During the call he is told the officer was there but could not locate him. The Complainant tells the dispatcher that he is across the street at the bus stop and will wait for the officer. At 1938 hours the Complainant again calls the 9 -1 -1 dispatcher for the third time. He is again abusive and swearing and hangs up on the dispatcher. Less than a minute later he calls again for the fourth time, more irate and swearing. The Complainant claims he has been waiting for two hours for an officer to show up. Officers arrive two minutes later. When asked what had happened, the Complainant says the "And the person in dispatch got all stupid and shit on me." While talking with the Complainant the officers noticed signs of intoxication so they asked if he had been drinking. He admitted that he had something to drink but declines to take a breath test on three different occasions. After the Complainant refused a breath test he was arrested for public intoxication. The Complainant is walked to the officer's vehicle and told to put his bag on the trunk of the car. During the arrest the Complainant turns to his right and both officers began to make comments or give instructions indicating that the Complainant did something unexpected. The Complainant later explained that he turned because one of the officers had grabbed his bag from behind unexpectedly and he reacted. Both officers thought the bag was already on the vehicle. Officer A thought the Complainant was turning around to continue to debate his arrest and the officer did not think the Complainant was being resistive or non - compliant. Both officers said that the complainant was "moved" back toward the car and finished handcuffing him. After he was handcuffed, he was placed in the back of the patrol car without incident. The complainant was offered a post- arrest breath test which was refused. There was no mention from the complainant that he wanted an alternate test. Officer A attempted to gather information about the missing camera. The camera bag was searched and placed in the back of Officer B's vehicle and taken to the Wilson Building to await the Complainant's release from jail. Neither officer recalls seeing an Pad or a point and shoot digital camera in the complainant's bag. ALLEGATION 1: rlo Complainant alleges that Officers violated his rights by not reading him a Mirandawarnig after he CD was arrested. m Once the Complainant was in custody he was only asked about his missing_. ogma ans address. The questions did not deal with the charges against him which woull ive trgge d a Miranda warning. M _' NOT SUSTAINED _ " c.> r-) ALLEGATION 2: Complainant alleges that officers used excessive force Investigation shows that while the Complainant was being handcuffed he turned toward one of the officers, regardless of the reason for his action, there is no evidence that the officers used excessive force and if they used force it appears to be minimal. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION 3: Complainant complained that the officers threw his bag into the patrol car. Video from the patrol vehicle shows that the officer set the Complainant's bag in the back seat of the car. He does not throw the bag in the car and can clearly be seen setting the bag in his patrol car. NOT SUSTAINED COMMENTS: None. E5 CC) ca 3b(6) MINUTES APPROVED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2014 ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER — MEETING ROOM B Members Present: David Bourgeois, Clay Claussen, Cara Hamann, Katie Jones, Lucie Laurian, Joe Younker Members Absent: Suzanne Bentler, Larry Brown, Maggie Elliott Staff Present: Mike Moran, Chad Dyson Others Present: Del Holland CALL TO ORDER Chairman Claussen called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): OTHER FORMAL ACTION: Moved by Bouraeois, seconded by Jones to approve the February 26, 2014 minutes as written. Motion passed 6 -0 ( Bentler, Brown & Elliott absent). PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None FRIENDS OF HICKORY HILL PARK REPORT: No one was present from Friends of Hickory Hill. Moran reported that there will be a prairie burn at North Hickory Hill Park the week of March 24, weather permitting. They will gain access through the Cemetery. DogPAC REPORT: No one present from DogPAC. Bourgeois reported that there will be new signs for both parks in place soon. TRAIL CROSSING DISCUSSION: Kris Ackerson was to discuss this topic with Commission tonight; however, he was not able to attend due to an illness. He will be added to the April agenda. The discussion will include trail crossing signs and etiquette. At Scott Blvd. and First Ave. there are "pedestrian refuge island" meant for people to cross one section, stop and then continue on. Often cars will not let people cross; however, it is also a concern for motorists as it presents a risk of other motorists running into them when they do stop for pedestrians. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 12, 2014 Page 2 of 4 NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REVIEW: None RECREATION DIVISION REPORT: Dyson reported that the City Park Pool project is picking up momentum, although weather has put the project behind 2 -3 weeks. The workers will be working longer days and weekends to catch up. He is still optimistic about having a Memorial Day weekend opening but is also working on a contingency plan. It may mean waiting until school is out to open the pool. While this may upset some lap swimmers, Mercer and Recreation pools will be available. Swimming lessons are scheduled to begin the second week of June so should not be an issue. Dyson is working with Parks staff in hiring their new employees for the summer. Dyson noted that the City Park Rides will again be run by Parks and Recreation Staff this year rather than contracting them out. They will be open Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day, noon — 8 p.m. daily and then weekends only through the rest of September. PARKS DIVISION REPORT: Moran reported. He noted that he has made some changes in the interviewing process for the summer temporary help for the Parks Department. He has assigned a senior maintenance worker from Parks, Forestry, CBD and ball fields to work with a division head (Chad Dyson, Recreation; Scot Justason, Maintenance; Russell Buffington, Cemetery) in interviewing and hiring staff. There will be some changes in the job description of these employees to help better identify their roles. 1111:4 *Plfej:�v 0 =11101 ' Ashton House: The Ashton House will be opening on March 26. There will be a temporary ADA accessible ramp in place for the first six weeks before being replaced by a permanent ramp. We will contract with the same Event Services Coordinator that we use for The Park Lodge at the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. School District: Dyson and Moran have met with them regarding their 28E agreement with the City. The school district will be providing us with a flat rate for the use of their gymnasiums. Chadek Property: An agreement has been sent to the Chadek sisters for their review as well as their attorney's review. There will have to be an environmental assessment done of the property. Phase one of the project will include paperwork while phase two will include locating where trenches will be dug etc. Moran received a call from an Iowa City resident who is working with a cohousing group and expressed interest in purchasing 2 acres of this land. Moran said it was not likely to be approved as the neighborhood would likely not buy into that idea. Laurian mentioned that phase 2 could also include locating the place for community gardens. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 12, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Parks Superintendent: The City received 30 applications for the Parks Superintendent position. Staff will begin interviewing candidates on Thursday, March 20. David Bourgeois will be sitting in on the interviews. Following their interview with staff, they will be taken to the Parks Office and then on for a parks tour. Moran hopes to have this person in place by mid - April. Willow Creek Park: RFP's for Willow Creek will be reviewed by staff and Maggie Elliott from the Parks and Recreation Commission. They will interview 2 to 3 companies to do the design work and will also hold neighborhood meetings to get their input. Senior Services Committee: Moran would like to see at least one member of this Commission be a part of the Senior Services Committee. The Committee will be in charge of evaluating current senior services and making recommendations to Council. Joe Younker expressed his interest. Moran noted that applications are due by March 25 and they will appoint members at the April 1 Council Meeting. This committee will exist through December 1 when their final report will be due. CHAIR'S REPORT: Claussen noted that he attended the farewell reception for Terry Robinson. A plaque was given to Robinson on behalf of the Commission recognizing him for his years of service. COMMISSION TIME /SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Jones noted that the Blue Zone activities are really vamping up in Iowa City. She asked if there was anything the Commission could do. Dyson was involved with preliminary actions but not as much so now. He said that city employees Brenda Nations and Kris Ackerson are involved. Moran noted that when Ackerson gives his presentation next month on trail crossings, Commission can also ask him about Blue Zone activities. Laurian asked Moran about the plans for renovating the downtown area. Moran noted that there is a whole downtown revitalization plan being done and that a scope of service for this project will be presented to Council on Tuesday. He stated that there are projects on the list identified as "Quick Start Projects." These include playground resurfacing, electrical components installed /replaced and others. Moran said he can provide commission with that list after the April council meeting. Laurian said she would like to see more edible gardens in the downtown. Moran stated that they have hired an arborist to do an assessment of the existing trees. He will keep the commission updated. Laurian also announced that the School of Planning is holding its 15th anniversary in September and shared some of their ideas with the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Hamann to adjourn the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Motion passed 6 -0 (Bentler. Brown and Elliott absent). PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 12, 2014 Page 4 of 4 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION NAME M M M M M M M M Cl) tt M O N r' O r W T- 00 to N r TERM EXPIRES Z ti O0 w o T- � 00 N r th Suzanne 1/1/17 * * * * * X X X NM X X X O/E Bentler David 1/1/15 X X X LQ X X X X NM X X X X Bourgeois Larry 1/1/18 * * * * * * * * * * X X O/E Brown Clay 1/1/14 X X X LQ X X X X NM X X X X Claussen Maggie 1/1/13 X O/E X LQ X X X X NM X X X O/E Elliott Allison 1/1/14 X X X LQ X O/E O/E X NM X Gnade Cara 1/1/16 X X X LQ X X X X NM X X X X Hamann Katie 1/1/18 * * * * * * * * * X X X Jones Lucie 1/1/15 O/E O/E O/E LQ O/E O/E X X NM X O/E X X Laurian Alex 1/1/16 X X X Taylor John 1/1/14 X X X LQ X X X X NM X Westefeld Joe 1/1/16 X X X LQ X X X O/E NM X X O/E X Younker ATTENDANCE RECORD KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum * = Not a member at this time