HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-16 Bd Comm minutes1It S'�MA#I�WiO
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 11, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Re: Recommendation from Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
At their 11/24/2014 meeting the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
1) Accept Ad Hoc Senior Service Committee Report.
Additional action (check one)
%C No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:RECform.doc
ITMM�
4b,l,�
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Electronically approved
November 24, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 24, 2014 — 3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram
Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Staff Present: Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr, Linda Kopping
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
1) Accept Ad Hoc Senior Service Committee Report.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:40 P.M.
APPROVE MINUTES OF 11/12/14 AND 11/14/14 MEETINGS:
Honohan moved to approve the minutes of the 11/12/14 and 11/14/14 meetings as
presented. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
ACTION ON REPORT TO COUNCIL:
Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to approve and adopt the report included in the
meeting packet as the report of the Committee, and transmit the report to Council for completion
of their charge. Dohrmann moved to approve and adopt the report included in the
meeting packet. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Dobyns asked if when a report such as
this is submitted to Council if it means that the Members agree with the report or that they felt
the document was appropriately the will of the committee. Younker stated that he sees it as the
Committee is charged with submitting a report to Council, and the Committee cannot do this
without a majority of the Members agreeing with the report. He added that the reason that any
particular Member votes against the report, they can always make a statement to clarify the
record but that the vote is basically saying this is the report being sent to Council. Karr added
that it does reflect the majority of the Committee.
Honohan stated that he believes there is one thing missing from the report. He believes they
need to have something complimenting Asst. City Manager Fruin and City Clerk Karr for the
work that they have done for this Committee. He continued, stating that in his opinion, the City
Clerk has done an outstanding job in keeping up with all of the motions and minutes that have
taken place. Honohan reiterated that whether it is part of the official report or an addendum to
the report, he would like to see some mention of staff's help in this matter. Others agreed that
this is a good idea. Younker suggested putting this in the cover letter of the report. Continuing,
Honohan stated that he would also like to make some amendments to the final report. First is in
regards to the Milken report. Honohan moved to add a new bullet point at the end of the
list in the Executive Summary, that the City should continue its strong support for the
Center and the agencies who serve seniors for their role in Iowa City receiving the
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Electronically approved
November 24, 2014
Page 2
number one ranking in the Milken Institute Best Cities for Successful Aging. Dohrmann
noted her agreement to a friendly amendment to her original motion. Dobyns asked who
on the Committee has read the Milken report, noting that he has. Dohrmann stated that she
reviewed it but has not read it. Webber noted that he has not read the entire report himself.
Younker then asked Bern -Klug if she were agreeable to second the amendment as discussed.
Bern -Klug noted her agreement with this amendment. Dobyns stated that he is going to
vote 'no' on this amendment, and that he has read the Milken report. He does not believe they
should adopt something unless the people who might vote 'yes' to this amendment have read
the report. He also stated he does not believe it to be relevant here. Honohan responded that
he does believe it to be relevant and that it is quite an honor for the City to be ranked #1 in this
report. He added that there were 84 different criteria for selecting cities, and Iowa City came out
on top. Honohan noted that the Mayor is in support of this report, as well. Dobyns stated that
while this is a great award, he does not believe the report to be relevant to the discussion items.
Bern -Klug stated that she believes it could be relevant as it refers to senior services, which is
part of their charge. Dohrmann stated that she did visit the web site and that everything she
read was positive in its review of Iowa City. Conversation continued, with Dobyns stating that
he would be in support of this amendment if he felt it was the will of the group to add this.
Younker suggested they take the amendment up separately then, and others agreed. Honohan
moved to include his first amendment in the final report. Webber seconded the motion.
Members continued to speak to the Milken report and when they became aware of its existence.
Dobyns added that he believes submitting something that may not be relevant to the report,
especially this late in the process, would not be appropriate. The motion failed 2-4, Webber
and Honohan in the positive.
Moving on to his seconded amendment, Honohan moved to add to the conclusion at the
end of the last sentence the wording `and continue to be recognized as a Best City for
Successful Aging. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Honohan then spoke to the fourth bullet on the Executive Summary, where it says `external
municipalities.' Honohan moved to delete `external municipalities' and replace it with
`other cities in Johnson County and the Board of Supervisors.' Bern -Klug seconded the
motion. Honohan stated that in previous years the Center has approached other cities within
Johnson County, and the Board of Supervisors as well, to ask for more funding. This is what he
is trying to do in the wording here. The motion carried 6-0.
Moving to page 2, Obstacle B, Honohan moved to delete `the working committee.' He
added that what they want here is 'the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the
Center staff should continue to explore ways to add the current diversity of participants at the
Center.' Honohan stated that this change does not make any change to the obstacle, but that
'the working committee' is not clear. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Honohan then moved to page 9, B — he stated that they need to do this here to remain
consistent and made the motion to this effect. Webber seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
On page 6, the last paragraph, Honohan questioned who the 'providers' are here. Then he
stated that he would delete `Although' and put a period after `providers,' if they know
who they are. Fruin noted that the two senior service providers would be Pathways and Elder
Services in this instance. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 24, 2014
Page 3
Electronically approved
Dohrmann pointed out a grammatical error on page 8, 38 of the .pdf file — Section 3, #1, where it
says `the Committee recognize,' it should say `recognizes.' Bern -Klug noted that on page 7,
under Section 2, she asked if they could spell out what HAAA stands for, and also MECCA,
VNA, and SEATS. Younker reiterated that the motion now on the floor is to adopt and approve
the report, and to transmit it to Council as amended. The majority agreed with the suggested
changes.
Younker thanked everyone for their time and effort on this Committee, noting that they had a big
charge and it took the efforts of everyone. Honohan thanked the Committee for putting up with
him.
ADJOURNMENT:
Bern -Klug moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:07 P.M. Webber seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 24, 2014
Page 4
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0'
0'
°'
°O'
-4
-4-4
opo
m
m
o
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
O
N
O
N
i
W
Cn
N
(4
N
A.
Ah
Ah
.p
A
�i
A
�
�
as
A
A,
A
12/1/14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Bern -Klug
Hiram
12/1/14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
---
---
---
Cannon
Jane
12/1/14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dohrmann
Rick
12/1/14
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O/E
O/E
x
x
x
Dobyns
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM 4-=
Date: December 8, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Staff Member of Citizens Police Review Board
Re: Recommendation from Citizens Police Review Board
At their November 10, 2014 meeting the Citizens Police Review Board made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-09
Additional action (check one)
x No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:RECform.doc
FINAL/APPROVED
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — November 10, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih, Joseph Treloar
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 #14-09
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or
amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 10/13/14
• ICPD Memorandum (Quarterly Summary Report [AIR/CPRB, 3rd Quarter 2014)
• ICPD Memorandum #14-20 (September 2014 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — September 2014
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
Treloar commented on the article written in the paper about Officer Schwindt initiating the
Thank you Iowa City program and how it highlighted one of the many good things the police
department is doing in the downtown area.
Jensen officially welcomed the new Board member Fidencio Martinez.
STAFF INFORMATION
None
November 10, 2014
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar 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 5:35 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:39 P.M.
Staff will email available dates to the Board for a special executive session only meeting.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14-04 to
8-8-7 (13)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to summarily dismiss CPRB Complaint #14-09 due to
the complaint not being filed within 90 days of the alleged misconduct.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• December 9, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to December 3rd)
• January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to move the December 9th meeting to Wednesday,
December 3rd at 5:00 P.M. due to scheduling conflicts.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Salih, seconded by Treloar.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:44 P.M.
^s_r eo
"D CO
N
m
7
k
QQ
C'M
y
E'
rA
N
CD
to
eC
eC
0-4
R
F.•i
QQ
n
vl
�
w
a�
w
v,
rn
rSi
00
00
N
�I
H+
r+
..1
0
>C
O
yC
O
yC
000
N
W
A
H+
N
00
I
U
O
I
1�
Iry
�
I
1�
Iry
F.1
W
ISS
I
�
I
O
Iry
I
�
N
O
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
CPRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Re: Investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-09
CPRB Complaint #14-09, filed October 9, 2014, was summarily dismissed as
required by the City Code, Section 8-8-3 D and 8-8-3 E. The complaint was not
filed within 90 (ninety) days of the alleged misconduct.
DATED: November 10, 2014
r-.,,
5
--_...
FINAL/APPROVED
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD 4
MINUTES — November 25, 2014 4b(3)
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 4:02 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih (4:14 P.M.), Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez 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 and Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 4:03 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 5:10 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14-06
and CPRB Complaint #14-08 to 8-8-7 (13)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• December 3, 2014, 5:00 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Salih.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:12 P.M.
C% d
CD CD
r y
.7
O !
•S
eD
A A
'�
H
•� n
C?
S
��
eD y
S
O y
eD
eD
•e
x
a
00
H+
O
� A
..,
O Ny
H
~
00
y� z
�Z= O
0
d rA
i
i
i
N
yy
eD y
h+
O C
fD
tA
�
WO
O
00
Ul
W
O
tA
"MMMIrm
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014 4b(4)
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 25, 2014 — 7:45 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(arrived at 7:52), 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):
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 11/10/14
b. Letter from Rita Bettis
Chappell asked if anyone had any proposed amendments to the minutes. Craig noted that she
did not agree to attend the League forum, as is stated in the minutes, and Kubby attended.
Vanderhoef moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Sullivan seconded the
motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell spoke about the League of
Women Voters' recent forum, noting that there were perhaps a dozen people
present, in addition to the four Commission Members and the League. He noted
that they briefly covered the history of the Charter, talked about the
Commission's review process, and then shared some of the issues that have
identified as needing further input, i.e., whether to change to a directly -elected
mayor, whether to have pure districts, whether to change initiative and
referendum so that eligible electors can sign petitions, and whether to do
something about increasing compensation for Council Members. Chappell
explained the issue of qualified versus eligible; what an initiative and a
referendum are, giving an example; pros and cons of a directly elected mayor;
and the issue of Council compensation. Another question asked why the Mayor
and the City Manager cannot share power. Kubby noted that a few of the
questions were not about Charter issues, but more about the City Council.
Sullivan asked if the majority of participants were League members. Kubby
responded that the majority were League members, with a few members of the
public present as well.
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 2
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board — Chappell noted
that he was in contact with the Chair of the CPRB and briefly discussed with her
the issue of a name change for this board. He stated that she showed a high
level of concern regarding any changes whatsoever, and that she believed the
CPRB itself would have concerns regarding this. Chappell stated that he
reviewed this Commission's feelings regarding 'resident' versus `citizen,' but that
the Chair did not share the same concerns. Chappell stated that he offered to
have a few of the Members meet with the CPRB to better explain their stance on
this issue, should it come down to being part of a formal recommendation.
Chappell then spoke to the CPRB's possible proposal to remove any reference to
the Charter from their policies and procedures. The Chair told Chappell that this
came from their legal counsel. He stated that her description was that this just
concerns their public hearing and their concern that people are expecting the
CPRB to make recommendations at the public hearing. Kubby noted that this is
basically the CPRB's fundamental function that is in this document and that this
is what makes it so powerful. Chappell stated that he then spoke to the CPRB's
legal counsel very briefly and that his recollection was that since the Board is
unable to make recommendations about policies, practices, procedures, it would
make sense to remove this from the Charter. Karr stated that she was at a few
of the CPRB's meetings, and she shared how the CPRB views some of these
issues. For instance, they read Al totally to refer to the community forum,
separate from the ordinance duties. Kubby stated that perhaps their job is to
make this more clear, that the 'ability to make recommendations' is not just about
the annual public process. Others agreed, and Kubby stated that they could
make it clearer in the ordinance. Karr stated that the ordinance is very clear, as it
is more detailed.
Reviewing this, Chappell suggested stopping the sentence after'to hold at least
one hearing on the procedures of the Iowa City Police Department.' Then delete
the `and' and capitalize 'To,' making this paragraph #2, changing 2 and 3 to 3
and 4. He stated that this should make it clearer that this is one of the CPRB's
powers and in their authority to do so. He asked if there was consensus to these
changes and Members agreed. Karr reiterated that the confusion started with
the feeling that people will get some sort of response or satisfaction, or even
dialogue, with the Police at this public forum, and that this is not a requirement in
the ordinance or the Charter.
Chappell then asked Members what their feelings are on the name issue. He
reiterated that he told the CPRB's Chair that if the Commission felt there should
be a change to their name that he would send a couple of Members to meet with
the CPRB and have a dialogue regarding a possible recommendation to the
Council. Karr noted that originally this board was called the 'Police Citizens
Review Board,' and that through work with the Diversity Committee and the
Board itself, the name was recently changed to the 'Citizens Police Review
Board.' Sullivan stated that given the Board's history, he would not be inclined to
fight them on a name change. Chappell asked how others felt, and Vanderhoef
responded that for her, it was the citizens that pushed to form this board to begin
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 3
with and that they have heavy ownership to the review process. She believes
that to turn it around and say 'police' only would be a tough fight. She agreed
with others that it would not be worth it. Chappell suggested that he, Craig, and
one other Member have some dialogue with the CPRB regarding the changes
they are proposing throughout the Charter and why. He asked who would join
him and Craig at such a meeting. Sullivan agreed that he would join in this. Karr
will let Chappell know when the CPRB's next meeting is scheduled. Atkins
asked if they as a Commission have a definite stand on this issue. Kubby noted
that she thought there were two possibilities, one was to have it be 'Police
Review Board,' and the other to have 'Resident' in place of 'Citizen.' Chappell
stated that they could call it 'Community Police Review Board,' or any number of
things, but that the sense he got was that they do not want the name changed at
all.
b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell noted that Kubby submitted a memo
regarding this issue. He asked if she wanted to speak to this further. Kubby
stated that she was trying to respect the Supreme Court's decision that
corporations are people, while still separating it out in the Charter. She stated
that Dilkes could speak to whether her suggestions would work or not. Kubby
reviewed her suggestions, noting that she found a few instances in the Charter
where a person meant something more than an individual. She reviewed her
suggestions for change here, as well. Chappell spoke to his impressions, asking
how they would define a person. Kubby asked if they could say 'human being' in
this case. Shaw asked for some clarification here, asking if the concern is that
an entity that operates for profit will receive a benefit that others in the community
do not, or imply their powers. Kubby stated that the concern was the whole idea
that these other entities are defined as people in the City's fundamental
document, and trying to find a way to separate this out within the Charter.
Schantz noted that the Supreme Court's decision really only applies to federal
Constitutional rights and that a city can define a person how they want in broad
terms. Craig asked what the State's definition is, and Dilkes replied that she will
obtain this information for the Members. Kubby stated that if no one else is
interested in this separation then there is no sense in spending more time on the
issue. Atkins asked why this is so important here, and Kubby stated that for her
it is both a political and a functional statement, that organizations are not human
beings and should not have all of the same rights and privileges as a person.
Schantz asked where, other than voting and political speech, this would matter.
Shaw spoke to the use of the word 'person' within the Charter, noting that it is
used liberally throughout. He spoke to how a corporation would have the same
basis to say that they have a liberty to do what they want, or to challenge it
should they be told they cannot do something —just as a person would.
Chappell stated that he sees this recommendation's sole intent being to call
partnership to corporations something other than 'persons.' His only concern is
how they would then define 'person,' and that perhaps they do use 'human
being.' Kubby noted that currently it is 'individual.' Schantz stated that he has no
problem with this being separated out. Shaw spoke to what he thought originally
was being said here, but now he understands what Kubby is attempting to do
with her suggestions. Craig added that it is not a functional change in any way,
but a semantic, political statement type of change instead. Shaw stated that he
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 4
would not have any issue with this. Chappell asked that they list this on the
agenda for the next meeting and that Members go back and look at Kubby's
material in this context. Kubby asked that Dilkes look at the State's definitions on
this.
C. Preamble and Definitions — Moving on, Chappell noted that Karr has printed up
copies of Schantz's proposals. Schantz stated that he is agreeable to the red-
line version included in the packet. Kubby stated that she likes the proposals put
forth by Schantz, and Atkins spoke to the wording used here with 'We the
People.' Chappell suggested that the dashes be replaced with numbers. Atkins
noted that he is in favor of these suggested changes, but asked that they also
have the right to go back and revisit this, should they change other things within
the Charter that would be tied to this. Dilkes noted that once they are done with
their review, staff will prepare a red line version of the entire Charter so that
Members can see all of the changes being made and can make further
suggestions at that time. Chappell asked if there was tentative approval for the
red line version of the Preamble at this point. Members agreed to approve this
section.
d. Initiative and Referendum — Chappell noted that they tentatively approved
some of the basics, and that now they need to speak to `qualified' and `eligible'
persons. He asked if Members had proposed changes to share at this point.
Kubby referred to J, amendments affecting City zoning, asking if this was added
after the last Charter review. Dilkes stated that the concern on this one is around
the process for zoning changes, as it is set forth in State code. Sullivan asked
Kubby if this is a concern for her, and Chappell responded that there are people
who do not like this State code. Shaw stated that he had a question regarding
sub -paragraph K, and if public improvement includes roads or anything other
than structures. Dilkes stated that it is construction projects in general.
The discussion turned to the two-year timeframe that both a referendum and
initiative are considered good. Kubby spoke to how difficult and extended the
process is for referendum and initiative, one that is not taken lightly. Then within
two years, either the Council can change it or someone can come back with a
referendum or an initiative again. Previous discussion had looked at extending
this timeframe. Kubby stated that they had considered four years, not wanting
the timeframe to be too long as things do change over time. Chappell gave an
example of how four years could be too long, especially if you are trying to get
something moved forward. Vanderhoef stated that the other side of this would
be unintended consequences showing up. Sullivan stated that he does share the
concerns that Chappell and Vanderhoef have voiced, but that it could also go the
other way, that two years may be too short. Chappell asked if there is any
history of Council undoing what's been done at two years. Sullivan spoke to red
light cameras, noting that this was with the understanding that Council would
revisit the issue, which expires in a few months time.
Conversation continued on this issue, with Dilkes noting that she does not recall
any instances where Council made changes, but that people have taken
advantage of the two-year timeframe to bring an issue forward again. Atkins
noted that a rule of thumb with projects is: it takes a year to approve a project, it
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 5
takes a year to design it, and it takes a year to build it. Kubby noted that public
improvements, however, aren't subject to referendum and initiative, so they won't
need to address that here. Kubby stated that she wonders if two years is long
enough to understand the unintended consequences, adding that you need at
least three data points to show a trend. With lag times included into this
equation, the timeframe goes even further. Moyers -Stone stated that with the
21 -ordinance, for example, it seemed that they voted on and discussed the issue
a lot. Sullivan noted that the 21 -ordinance example is one that appeared to be
working after two years, but that after the two-year period, it was obvious that it
was working even better than expected. Chappell stated that he did not recall
the Council `undoing' anything like this. He added that the only thing that comes
to mind is the First Avenue issue and he briefly shared what he remembers of
this issue.
Shaw asked about the resubmission of a measure and whether it would be
considered, if an initiative received a positive number of votes, sooner than the
two-year timeframe. Chappell stated that he would not be interested in
something like this as there is not a consistent number of voters in these types of
elections. Members continued to discuss the initiative and referendum issue.
Moyers -Stone spoke to how if the 'eligible' versus 'qualified' issue were to
change it could open the door to creating higher standards for some of these
other issues. Kubby stated that perhaps they need to hear Dilkes' reaction to the
ACLU's attorney's interpretation. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to know
the number of cities in Iowa that have initiative and referendum as a possibility
for their citizens. Dilkes replied that there is only one other city in Iowa.
Vanderhoef stated that this tells her that the majority of cities don't want to
engage in this type of thing with their citizens.
Dilkes then spoke to Members regarding the ACLU's letter, noting that it makes
allegations of unconstitutionality, and distributed copies of Chapter 362. She
added that there is no argument shown or any case law with respect to the
constitutional issues, and that she addressed these issues in her memo dated
August 5, 2014. Continuing, Dilkes stated that the main argument being made
by the ACLU is that the Charter must follow the State Code provision of 362.4 for
petition requirements. Dilkes stated that there is nothing in State law that
requires you to set a certain petition requirement for initiative and referendum.
She pointed out State Code 362.4, noting that she does not agree with the
ACLU's view on this matter. She explained why, pointing out what the State
Code says specifically regarding this issue.
e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) - none
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Caroline Dieterle addressed the Commission regarding the possible change of 'citizen' to
'resident.' She added that she understands that the Commission's intention is good. However,
she raised some concern about how this plays into the 'eligible elector' issue. Dieterle stated
that she believes it to be contradictory to use 'resident' in place of 'citizen.' She then stated that
she is appalled by the Commission's worry about citizens filing petitions and asking for votes on
things. She added that this is a participatory democracy, one where you urge people to vote
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 6
and participate, and yet when people try to do this, it becomes impossible with all of the
roadblocks that get thrown up. Dieterle then stated that in reply to Dilkes' assertions about the
ACLU's letter, she finds it interesting to hear that there is a section of the Charter that ignores
State law. She added that this then implies that they can do other things under the Home Rule
that also ignore State law. She suggested they pass a pesticide ordinance under this, and
abandon the idea that you cannot do these things under Iowa Code. She added that she finds
this whole thing exceedingly offensive, that things should be made easier for the people to
participate in city government. Dieterle continued to voice her unhappiness with these issues,
noting that to use 'resident' in the Preamble is just not right to her. Her main concern, however,
regards the initiative and referendum. She has participated in these petition drives and stated
that it is a very onerous job to undertake. Schantz explained his stance on this issue. Dieterle
stated that 'eligible elector' does cover it, that you don't actually have to be registered to vote
but that you are eligible to.
Martha Hampel stated that she agrees with Dieterle's views on these issues. She too has
collected the 2,500 signatures for a petition, noting that it is more than what the State requires.
Hampel too noted that it is a lot of hard work to undertake a petition drive, that people do not
take these issues lightly. She added that it is really just a few people doing a lot of hard work for
the collective city. That with having to work and raise families, many are unable to take part in
any way — other than being able to sign the petitions. She believes they should eliminate the
`qualified elector' requirement and have 'eligible electors' able to sign petitions.
SCHEDULE NEXT PUBLIC FORUM:
a. Date — tentative January 7
b. Location — Public Library
C. Time — Members agreed to a 6:00 PM start time to begin this forum.
d. Format — Chappell stated that they should briefly discuss the format. He noted
that Kubby sent the information from the last Charter review forum for their review. He
asked if Members wanted to follow a format similar to this. Sullivan stated that his
preference would be for more of an open format, but that if they are going with a
`steered' format, then this would be a good one to follow. Members spoke briefly to what
issues they want highlighted at this forum. Craig suggested that if they do go with this
format that the Members themselves rotate between groups. She believes they would
get to interact more with those who attend. Kubby stated that her concern is the building
of rapport with the small group, and that staying with the same group helps to keep this
going. Karr shared her concerns with a January date as there has not yet been any
publicity for the forum, and secondly, the subjects have not yet been set. She added
that the press release and all of the publicity will be based on the format of the forum.
Members discussed how some of these issues overlap and how they would want the
format to go. Schantz noted that December 9 is the last meeting he will be able to
attend for a while, and he suggested they discuss at that time these issues a bit further
so they can firm up their agenda. Members continued to firm up their main topics for the
forum, ultimately deciding on 'qualified' versus 'eligible,' Council compensation, and then
combine direct election of the mayor and pure districts. Chappell suggested that Karr
move ahead with the publicity for this forum.
e. Televised — TBD
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 7
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified):
December 9
December 23
January 6
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 A.M., seconded by Schantz. Motion carried
9-0.
Charter Review Commission
November 25, 2014
Page 8
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
ft
0
cry
0
cn
0
M
0
M
0
-4
0
W
0
W
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
0
NAME
EXP.
CX)
W
-4
c
N
N
CD
m
W
CD
b.
00
o
Cn
411115
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
12-1
4b(5
MINUTES APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 8, 2014
ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER — MEETING ROOM B
Members Present: Suzanne Bentler, David Bourgeois, Larry Brown, Clay Claussen,
Cara Hamann, Katie Jones, Lucie Laurian
Members Absent: Maggie Elliott, Joe Younker
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Zac Hall, Chad Dyson
Others Present: None
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):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
Jones noted that an amendment was necessary to the September minutes. She was
inadvertently named as the member who asked about the turtle when it should have been
Brown.
Moved by Jones seconded by Bentler to approve the September 10, 2014 minutes as
amended. Motion passed 7-0 (Elliott and Younker absent).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
FRIENDS OF HICKORY HILL PARK:
None
DoaPAC:
None
NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REVIEW:
Iowa City Co -Housing Request: The Iowa City Co -Housing group has requested a rezoning
for property located at Miller Ave. and Benton Street. They are requesting access to the
development via Benton Street on land that is owned by the City as part of Benton Hill Park.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
October 8, 2014
Page 2 of 7
The group has offered to dedicate 1.97 acres of land on the southeast end of the property
for park use. Moran noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission was not comfortable in
approving this request. Therefore the group will determine whether to go to Council with
their request as is or to make changes to the project prior to doing so.
RECREATION DIVISION REPORT:
None
PARKS DIVISION REPORT:
None
DIRECTORS REPORT:
None
CHAIRS REPORT:
None
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Laurian seconded by Bourgeois, to adjourn the meeting and depart for
their annual parks tour at 4:07 p.m. Motion passed 7-0 (Elliott & Younker absent).
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
October 8, 2014
Page 3 of 7
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
o13v
r=
14
r
r
a
r
a
a
v
TERM
O
M
r
r
W
N
T
`�
r
=
rCD
r
iq
M
�
a
^a
o;
EXPIRES
Suzanne
1/1/17
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bentler
David
1/1/15
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bourgeois
Larry
1/1/18
*
*
*
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brown
Clay
1/1/18
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Claussen
Maggie
1/1/17
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
Elliott
Allison
1/1/14
X
NM
X
Gnade
Cara
1/1/16
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hamann
Katie
1/1/18
*
*
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jones
Lucie
1/1/15
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
Laurian
John
1/1/14
X
NM
X
*
*
X
Westefeld
Joe
1/1/16
O/E
NM
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Younker
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
4b(6)
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVED
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27,2014--5:30 P.M.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Alexa Homewood, Bram Elias
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Butler, Nick Kilburg
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Ty Coleman
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Bond Drager, James Mimms
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Goding reported PATV would hold their annual membership meeting on Nov. 18 at 6 p.m. at the Mill
restaurant. Staff assisted series are being put on PATV's YouTube channel. Minims said there has
been a large increase in the number of people wanting to join PATV over the past few months.
Homewood said there were several ideas to promote the library channel change and the awareness of
the access channels. Coleman said the website serves as a central location with detailed information
that other outreach efforts can direct people to. Elias said that the strengths and weaknesses of the
overall effort could be evaluated at the next Commission meeting. Bergus said information needs to be
gathered from Mediacom. Brau said there is a draft press release awaiting review in the City
Communications Office that will start off the outreach effort to promote the local access channel
survey. A water bill insert will also be distributed. An internal city email will be sent out. Coralville
and North Liberty will be asked to contact their municipal employees as well. About 300 respondents
are needed. Bergus suggested that a free text option be added to a question regarding why a
respondent infrequently views a particular channel. Brau said that change could be incorporated.
Coleman reported that the city has been approached by a company that provides fiber to the home
broadband service to see if Iowa City is a good market for them to enter. A focus group will be formed
to meet with company officials.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Elias moved and Bergus seconded a motion to approve the amended September 22, 2014 minutes. The
motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
None.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Homewood noted the report in the meeting packet. All complaints have been resolved.
MEDIACOM REPORT
There was no report.
LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL REPORTS
Homewood noted that the library, the City Channel, and PATV had written reports in the meeting
packet. Colman said the City Channel is producing a virtual tour of the homes being sold by the city
through the UniverCity project. Live election results will be cablecast on channel 5. Goding reported
PATV would hold their annual membership meeting on Nov. 18 at 6 p.m. at the Mill restaurant. Staff
assisted series are being put on PATV's YouTube channel. Mimms said there has been a large
increase in the number of people wanting to join PATV over the past few months.
MEDIACOM INTERNET PROPOSAL AND LIBRARY CHANNEL CHANGE
Homewood said there were several ideas discussed to promote the library channel change and the
awareness of the access channels. PATV produced a PSA and the City Cable TV Office created a web
page with detailed information. Elias said the poster at the library looks very good. Drager said the
library has received little feedback about the channel change. Coleman said the website serves as a
central location with detailed information to which other outreach efforts can direct people to. The
Neighborhood Services Division put a notice in their newsletters. A news release was sent out.
Drager said the library has a slot on KXIC radio and the channel change will be brought up on that
program. Elias said that the strengths and weaknesses of the overall effort could be evaluated at the
next Commission meeting. Bergus said information needs to be gathered from Mediacom. If a
channel were to suddenly go black most people would contact Mediacom first.
LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL SURVEY
Homewood noted that the "no answer" was selected on all the questions as the default. Brau said there
is no way to change the software to not have an answer selected as a default. Homewood asked how
the survey would be promoted. Brau said there is a draft press release awaiting review in the City
Communications Office. A water bill insert will also be distributed. An internal city email will be sent
out. Coralville and North Liberty will be asked to contact their municipal employees as well. About
300 respondents are needed. Bergus suggested that a free text option be added to a question regarding
why a respondent infrequently views a particular channel. Brau said that change could be
incorporated.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE REPORT
Coleman reported that library channel change is on track to take place on Oct. 29. The city has been
approached by a company that provides fiber to the home broadband service to see if Iowa City is a
good market for them to enter. A focus group will be formed to meet with company officials. The
Commission's annual report will be prepared for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Butler moved and Elias seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment
was at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brau
Cable TV Administrative Aide
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused
Elias
Ber us
Kilburg
Butler
Homewood
12/30/13
O/C
X
O/C
X
X
1/27/14
X
X
X
X
X
2/24/14
X
X
X
0
0
3/24/14
X
X
X
X
X
6/2/14
0
X
X
X
X
6/23/14
0
X
X
X
X
7/28/14
0
x
x
x
O/c
8/25/14
X
X
X
X
X
9/22/14
X
X
X
X
o/c
10/27/14
X
X
o/c
o/c
X
11/24/14
O/C
P/C
X
X
X
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused