Loading...
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