HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-31 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY December 31, 2014
www.icgov.org
IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
JANUARY 6 WORK SESSION MEETING
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from Neighborhood and Development Services Dir.: Riverfront Crossings and
Inclusionary Housing
IP4 Memo from City Manager: ICCSD Housing Letter of 10/13/2014
IP5 Memo from City Manager: January 13th Work Session
IP6 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio
IP7 Pending Work Session Topics
DRAFT MINUTES
IP8 Charter Review Commission: December 23, 2014
Draft minutes of CPRB (Citizens Police Review Board): December 3, 8, 29 [Distributed as
late handout 1/5.]
1 '
&
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
December 31, 2014
www.icgov.org
IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
JANUARY 6 WORK SESSION MEETING
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from Neighborhood and Development Services Dir.: I
Inclusionary Housing
IP4 Memo from City Manager: ICCSD Housing Letter of 10/1 2014
IP5 Memo from City Manager: Janu ry 13th Work Session
IP6 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio
IP7 Pending Work Session Topics
DRAFT WINUTES
IP8 Charter Review Commission: DecemXer 23, 2014
n
Crossings and
l
-13=3T--14
IN
City Council Tentative Meeting
Schedule
3 M���
Subject to change
December 31. 2014
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Saturday, January 10, 2015
8AM-5PM
Special Budget Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
(Department Presentations)
Monday, January 12, 2015
1:00-7:OOPM Special Budget Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
(CIP Presentations)
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
5:00 PM
Special Work Session (equity)
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, January 26, 2015
4:30 PM
Joint Meeting / Work Session
IC Public Library
Monday, Feburary 9, 2015
5:00 PM
City Conference Board Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session Meeting
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Monday, February 23, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Monday, March 9, 2015
5:00 PM
City Conference Board Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session Meeting
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Monday, March 23, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
231-1
IP2
1 k i
wr ®;
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
City Council Work Session Agenda
January 6, 2015
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
5:00 PM
■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items
■ Discuss Affordable Housing
Riverfront Crossing and inclusionary zoning [IP # 3 of 12/31 Info Packet ]
ICCSD housing letter [IP # 4 of 12/31 Info Packet ]
■ Information Packet Discussion [December 23, 31]
■ Discuss format of the January 13th work session [IP # 5 Info Packet of 12/31]
■ Council Time
■ Meeting Schedule
■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 7 Info Packet of 12/31]
■ Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations
r --
CITY OF IOWA CIT 1P3
CITYIOWA CITY MEMORANDUM
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
Date: December 15, 2014
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Douglas Boothroy, Director Neighborhood and Development Services
Re: Riverfront Crossings and Inclusionary Housing
At the time it adopted the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, the City Council requested
that staff meet with stakeholders (i.e. developers, affordable housing advocates, etc.) to
determine whether or not the Riverfront Crossings Code should be amended to require
affordable housing as an integral part of any new residential development. The current
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code does not require the inclusion of affordable housing. It
does, however, provide development incentives (e.g. density bonuses) for affordable housing.
Background
The fundamental purpose of an inclusionary housing upzoning requirement is to provide a
minimum percentage of affordable housing units as an integral part of new residential
development. To achieve this goal, incentives are commonly provided to the developer for the
inclusion of affordable housing. Inclusionary housing policy is one tool cities have used to: 1)
increase production of affordable housing; 2) establish a relatively permanent stock of
affordable housing units; and, 3) promote mixed income neighborhoods.
As a `stand-alone' strategy, inclusionary housing policy is not a panacea for attaining a
community's housing aspirations or solving a community's housing challenges. It does not
guarantee the production of affordable housing units or the location of affordable housing units
in a given school attendance area. Because inclusionary housing promotes affordable housing
in new residential development, affordable housing units are produced only to the extent that
overall development proceeds.
However, such policy can be useful when employed as one component of a broader and more
comprehensive strategic approach. For example, one such policy that requires `scattered site'
housing is the 2011 Affordable Housing Location Model, which requires publically-funded
affordable housing to be located in neighborhoods and elementary school attendance areas
which do not have a concentration of affordable housing. A description of the Affordable
Housing Location Model, in addition to other existing Policies, Codes and Programs which in
combination form a comprehensive approach to encourage development and preservation of
affordable housing, is attached.
Inclusionary housing policies have been found to be most effective when they are:
• Mandatory;
• combined with meaningful developer incentives; and
• required in areas of the community that have the potential for substantial new residential
growth (such as Riverfront Crossings).
Developer incentives/benefits have been found to be most effective when they:
• are meaningful;
• are achievable;
• offset the profits lost on below -market -rate affordable units; and
0 do not impact the price and supply of market -rate units.
December 18, 2014
Page 2
Inclusionary housing works only when the policy provisions make sense — financially and
otherwise — to the development community. Developer involvement is essential to the process
of creating a practical, workable inclusionary housing policy. Absent this involvement, barriers to
implementation and enforcement are more likely to occur.
Benefits
The City's recent adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Plan and Form -Based Code has created
a "Neighborhood of Opportunity" in Riverfront Crossings. All parties (private and public) will
benefit from these City actions, even without inclusionary affordable housing. However, because
Riverfront Crossings upzonings provide a significant increase in the development capacity of
this area, a favorable inclusionary housing environment, unique to this time and place, has been
created. The potential now exists for the public benefit of mixed income housing to become a
reality in this area.
Landowners and developers in Riverfront Crossings will benefit from density increases, building
and site design flexibility, mixed uses, and options for financial support (such as Tax Increment
Financing - TIF). Furthermore, they will benefit from significant public infrastructure investment,
including the creation of a major riverfront park amenity for the area.
The community will benefit from Riverfront Crossings through the creation of an economically
vital, mixed income, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, sustainable neighborhood located near
downtown. A case can be made that affordable housing will further enhance the public benefit
and that by requiring inclusionary housing, the City is engaging in a mutually beneficial
reciprocal exchange with landowners/developers.
The Riverfront Crossings land use changes and upzonings, as well as other public initiatives,
will increase land value and redevelopment opportunities. Because this increase in land value
and development capacity is directly attributable to the City's actions, consideration should be
given to recapturing a portion of the increased value/development capacity to benefit the public.
When a landowner/developer benefits from public action (such as upzoning, infrastructure
upgrades, density bonuses, etc.), it is reasonable to expect that public benefits (such as
affordable housing) are extended to the community, as well. Affordable housing is identified as a
goal in several of the City's guiding documents: Riverfront Crossings Plan, Form -Based Code,
City's Strategic Plan, City STEPS, and other policies and programs noted in the attachments.
Requiring inclusionary affordable housing to be tied to upzonings and/or TIF financial assistance
should be considered a quid pro quo for recapturing some of the public benefits/value assigned
to the land in Riverfront Crossings.
Initial Stakeholder Input
Staff has held meetings with various stakeholders to discuss the possibility of requiring
affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings in exchange for upzoning and/or use of TIF financing.
The stakeholders included the Chamber's Local Government Committee and representatives of
for-profit developers, the Homebuilders Association, non-profit developers, and affordable
housing advocates. Stakeholder discussions were positive and productive. Participants agreed
on two general principles. First, that any time the City participates financially in a residential
development project, a minimum of at least 10% of the units must be affordable/workforce
housing. Second, that if inclusionary housing were to be required in Iowa City, it should be
limited to Riverfront Crossings because of the significant land use changes and development
capacity provided by the City.
The for-profit developers were not convinced that the upzonings and other beneficial incentives
would offset the cost of providing below -market -rate housing. In their view, any inclusionary
housing program must be designed so that the incentives/benefits offset the costs associated
with both construction and subsequent rental or sale income of the affordable units. They
December 18, 2014
Page 3
indicated they may be able to support inclusionary housing requirements if the amount of
housing leveraged and the incentives provided result in no net cost to the developer.
Stakeholders generally agreed that if inclusionary housing can work in Iowa City, Riverfront
Crossings is the "neighborhood of opportunity" for its success. All participants expressed
interest in maintaining stakeholder involvement in future discussions. The following participants
volunteered to work with staff as members of an ad-hoc work committee.
Tracy Achenbach, Housing Trust
Maryann Dennis, Housing Fellowship
Chad Keune, Homebuilder Association President, 2014
Brad Langguth, Hills Bank & Trust
Scott McDonough, Iowa Valley Habitat Chair, 2015
Sally Scott, Affordable Housing Coalition
Glenn Siders, Siders Development
Recommendations
Recommendation #1: (effective immediately)
Any time the City participates financially in a residential development project, a minimum of 10%
of the units must be designated for affordable housing. In the case of an all -student -housing
project, the City may consider a fee in lieu of the provision of affordable housing.
Recommendation #2:
Staff should convene an ad-hoc work committee to study and develop, for City Council
consideration, a proposed inclusionary housing upzoning requirement for the Riverfront
Crossings area. This committee will include individuals who have a broad range of housing
expertise and experience, including the volunteers listed above. The committee would be
expected to complete its work in 3-4 months.
Caveat:
The design and ultimate adoption of an inclusionary housing requirement for Riverfront
Crossings will be a challenge for all involved. As you know, over the past twenty years,
inclusionary housing has been discussed and recommended, but it has failed to see any
political traction. Further study of this issue will be worth the investment of committee and
City Council time only if there is genuine interest in pursuing an inclusionary housing
requirement. Out of respect for potential committee members' time and goodwill, it is critical
that a majority of Council be willing to give serious consideration to the recommendations of
an ad-hoc committee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Existing Policies, Codes and Programs that encourage affordable housing
2. Table I: Housing Choice and Veterans' Supportive Services Voucher Utilization
3. Table II: Inventory of Subsidized Housing, Johnson County, IA
4. 2011 resolution approving the Affordable Housing Location Model
December 18, 2014
Page 4
EXISTING POLICIES, CODES AND PROGRAMS THAT ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Iowa City has addressed affordable housing with a myriad of policies, codes and programs
which have combined to encourage affordable housing and a diversity of housing in our
neighborhoods. Policies that have been adopted in documents such as the Comprehensive
Plan provide the basis for Zoning Code and other code provisions, and the basis for a variety of
programs which help support affordable housing, both renter and owner -occupied.
POLICIES
2013 Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan supports housing diversity in neighborhoods, and encourages the
development of smaller lots that conserve land and allow for more affordable housing options.
The Comprehensive Plan also explicitly supports programs and funding for housing
maintenance and rehabilitation. These goals are carried over from the 1997 Comprehensive
Plan, and similar goals are identified in the City's District Plans (which are subsets of the
Comprehensive Plan). As far back as the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, support for density
bonuses to encourage provision of affordable housing was identified as a goal.
2014 Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan states that the City should define and address affordable housing options in
the community, should avoid proliferation of low income housing concentrations, and should
pursue strategies to facilitate mixed income neighborhoods. As a Healthy Neighborhoods
strategy, the Strategic Plan emphasizes evaluating programs and methods to promote
affordable housing.
2004-05 Scattered Site Housing Taskforce
This City -sponsored taskforce made several recommendations including a scattered -site policy
to ensure distribution of assisted housing, and to avoid the concentration of assisted housing.
The Taskforce was formed after the City Council received a letter from the School Board
"requesting that the Council in its policy considerations carefully review locations of future
affordable housing." This scattered -site policy eventually resulted in the creation of the
Geographic Information System (GIS) map -based strategy (2011 Affordable Housing Location
Model) which uses geographic criteria to help determine appropriate locations of City -funded
affordable housing.
2007 and 2014 Affordable Housing Market Analysis
The 2007 Affordable Housing Market Analysis was a consultant -led study of demographics,
housing costs, and cost burden information for the metropolitan area. It included
recommendations for increasing the supply of affordable housing. In 2014, the MPO of Johnson
County updated much of the information with available data.
2008-09 MPO Affordable Housing Taskforce
In 2008-09 the MPO of Johnson County (MPOJC) sponsored a taskforce including
representatives from Iowa City and other MPOJC-member entities. This taskforce made
recommendations to the MPO Board, which were copied to each of the MPOJC-member
entities.
December 18, 2014
Page 5
CODES
Codes, or regulations, are requirements adopted through a legislative process through which
Iowa City is provided with the tools to encourage (through the use of incentives) or require
(through regulations) affordable and/or diverse housing in new development.
2005 Zoning Code
The Zoning Code has been amended over the years several times, most significantly in 2005, to
encourage more affordable housing, and diversity of housing in neighborhoods. These
amendments have included allowing mixed-use (residential) development in more commercial
zones, to allow duplexes on corner lots in single family zones, to allow smaller lot sizes in single
family zones, to allow mixed-use and mixed housing types in planned developments, to allow
accessory apartments, and to exempt up to 30% of dwelling units in the CB -10 and CB -5 zones
from parking requirements provided those units are part of an affordable housing program. In
combination, these zoning code provisions have resulted in a more significant mix of housing
types, sizes, and locations than was previously possible.
The recent Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code allows a building height increase if 15% of
units are for affordable or workforce housing, tying an increase in density to provision of
affordable housing.
2002 Aging in Place and Universal Design Requirement
In 2002, Iowa City Amended the International Residential Code to require Universal design in
residential construction using public funds. All dwellings funded with public funds are required
to be constructed using Universal Design techniques, which allows for `Aging in Place' and for
these dwellings to serve a greater cross-section of the population.
2011 Affordable Housing Location Model
In 2011, Iowa City adopted use of the Affordable Housing Location Model, a map -based model
used to encourage `scattered -site' affordable housing. The model is used for affordable rental
housing projects funded with CDBG, HOME and City funds to not allow additional publically-
funded affordable housing in neighborhoods which are considered `over -burdened;' and to
encourage affordable housing in other neighborhoods. Two of the three stated goals for this
model are that "the City does not want to further burden neighborhoods and elementary schools
that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty;" and the "City desires to have
diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of income levels."
In developing the criteria for the model, the City asked ICCSD what data/factors were important.
The District stated that three factors were important including Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL)
rates, mobility, and test scores. The City took the District's input and made it part of the model.
Many cities have contacted Iowa City about use of the model, and the Kirwan Institute for the
study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University has told staff the City's Model could be
used as a national model on de -concentration. To our knowledge, Iowa City is the only City in
Iowa which uses such a model. The resolution approving use of the Affordable Housing
Location Model is attached.
December 18, 2014
Page 6
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Iowa City participates in a multitude of housing programs which collectively have a significant
impact on affordable and workforce housing. These programs range from federally -funded
programs which Iowa City participates in through the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) to
state and locally -funded programs.
81 Public Housing Units
Iowa City currently owns 81 public housing units, which are managed by the Iowa City Housing
Authority (ICHA). The Public Housing Program started in 1982, and Iowa City has owned and
managed public housing units since that time.
1,272 Vouchers
ICHA administers 1,215 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and 57 Veterans Affairs Services
Housing (VASH) Vouchers. As of December 16, 2014, 1,260 of these vouchers are being
utilized in the ICHA jurisdiction (see Table I for voucher locations, by City). In 2014, ICHA paid
out $6.1 million in payments (federal funds) through the voucher programs. It is worth noting
that the voucher programs are clearly `scattered -site' in that the household is able to seek
housing from any landlord, in any City/neighborhood. ICHA has administered some form of
rental assistance program since 1969.
1,462 Subsidized Housinq Units
There is an inventory of 1,462 subsidized affordable housing units in Johnson County (see
Table II for locations, by City). The majority of subsidized units are in Iowa City. Of the
subsidized units, 779 are designated for seniors and/or persons with disabilities. These projects
are subsidized by a variety of funding sources.
GRIP Housing Rehabilitation Program
The General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program (GRIP) is a low-interest loan program
targeted to low and moderate income households using local funds. Loans are provided to
homeowners who need to make repairs to their homes, which allows for preservation of owner -
occupied housing stock. In FY14, Iowa City utilized $206,473 through the GRIP* Program.
Other CDBG/HOME projects
In the last completed year (FY14), Iowa City utilized $650,299 on 21 HOME housing projects.
Projects included:
• Tenant -based rental assistance
• Owner -occupied housing rehabilitation*
• Rental rehabilitation (HACAP and Housing Fellowship)
• Acquisition of rental units for frail seniors and persons with disabilities
• Operating expenses for the Housing Fellowship to maintain and manage their affordable
rental housing
In FY14, Iowa City utilized $273,712 on CDBG* housing rehabilitation projects for income -
qualifying owner -occupied homes, and $10,000 for rehabilitation of two Habitat for Humanity
homes.
* In total, the GRIP/CDBG/HOME housing rehabilitation programs have assisted 115
homeowners in the past three years.
December 18, 2014
Page 7
38 UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Homes
The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership is a program to acquire rental homes, renovate them,
and sell them as owner -occupied housing. To date, 38 homes have been renovated and sold.
141 Single Family New Construction Homes
The State's Single Family New Construction Program resulted in 141 homes being constructed
and sold in Iowa City to income -qualifying households.
Homeownership Programs
The homeownership programs administered by the ICHA include the Housing Choice Voucher
Ownership Program, the Tenant -to -Ownership Program, and the Affordable Dream
Homeownership Program. Eighty-nine (89) families moved into homeownership through these
programs. In addition sixty-three (63) 63 graduates of the Family Self -Sufficiency program (FSS)
moved on to home ownership, forty-seven 47 of them independent of any other Housing
Authority Program
December 18, 2014
Page 8
Table I: Housing Choice (HCV) & Veterans' Supportive Services (VASH)
Voucher Utilization
Iowa City Housing Authority Jurisdiction (as of 12/16/14)
Households Households
Number % With Minors With Minors
Iowa City, IA
864
69%
325
38%
Coralville, IA
207
17%
95
46%
North Liberty, IA
134
10%
68
51%
Solon, IA
16
1%
1
6%
Oxford, IA
11
1%
4
36%
Tiffin, IA
7
1%
4
57%
Lone Tree, IA
5
0%
2
40%
Hills, IA
5
0%
3
60%
Riverside, IA
4
0%
2
50%
Wellman, IA
3
0%
0
0%
Amana, IA
1
0%
0
0%
North English, IA
1
0%
0
0%
West Liberty, IA
1
0%
0
0%
Williamsburg, IA
1
0%
0
0%
TOTAL 1260 100% 1 504
December 18, 2014
Page 9
Table II: Inventory of Subsidized Affordable Housing, Johnson County, IA
Effective November 5, 2014
Iowa City
Location
# of Units
Aniston Village
Iowa City
22
Berry Court
Iowa City
14
Builders of Hope
Iowa City
7
Citizen Building
Iowa City
18
Concord Terrace
Iowa City
30
Corridor Woods
Iowa City
8
Emerson Point
Iowa City
54
Hawkeye Community Action Program
Scattered Sites (Iowa City)
51
ISIS
Scattered Sites (Iowa City)
10
Lexington Place
Iowa City
30
MECCA
Iowa City
12
Melrose Ridge
Iowa City
15
Peninsula
Iowa City
10
Pheasant Ridge Market Rate
Iowa City
17
Regency Heights (1010)
Iowa City
36
Regency Heights (1060)
Iowa City
38
Successful Living
Scattered Sites (Iowa City)
18
System Unlimited Group Homes
Iowa City
18
The Housing Fellowship
Scattered Sites (Iowa City)
93
Whispering Garden
Iowa City
12
Autumn Park Apartments
Iowa City
64
Capitol House
Iowa City
81
City of Iowa City Public Housing
Scattered Sites (Iowa City)
81
Ecumenical Towers
Iowa City
81
Pheasant Ridge Apartments Project Based
Iowa City
231
System Unlimited Group Homes
Iowa City
48
Subtotal
1099
North Libert
Savannah Village
North Liberty
28
Corridor Woods
North Liberty
14
Country Living Apartments
North Liberty
16
Farkus Apartments
North Liberty
4
Jefferson Point
North Liberty
60
North Front
North Liberty
24
North Liberty Living Center
North Liberty
80
North Liberty Park
North Liberty
24
Penn Oaks
North Liberty
36
Subtotal
286
Coralville
Coral Village
Coralville
57
Subtotal
57
Solon
Solon Community Housing
Solon
20
Subtotal
20
TOTAL JOHNSON COUNTY 1462
December 18, 2014
Page 10
Prepared by Jeff Davidson, KO, 410 E- Wast*Vton St., lona Guy, to 52240 (319) 3W5232
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION ADOPTING IOWA CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATION
MODEL
WHEREAS, the City of Ima City is an entitlement community for the use of U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) furxls to assist lo%w-income residents with
housing, jobs and services;
WHEREAS, the City Council has idea ftd three specific goats and concerns regarding the
location of affordable housing In Iowa City;
WHEREAS, one goattconcem is that the City does not want to further burden neighborhoods
and elementary schools that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty;
WHEREAS, a second goal/concern Is the City desires to have diverse neighborhoods in terms
of a range of Income levels;
WHEREAS, a third goaltconown is to determine the views of the Iowa City Community School
District (ICCSD) on the affordable housing Issue;
WHEREAS, the ICCSD Superintendent told City staff that low income students, indeed all
students, do better when there is a mix of income levels and that the ICCSD could provide data
on three factors it views as significant in assessing whether there is such a mix; mobility, test
results, and freetreduced lunch percentage;
WHEREAS, in order to address these three goalslconcems, seven factors were identified,
including three factors recommended by the ICCSD;
WHEREAS, one factor is the distance to existing subsidized and assisted housing (namely,
transitional, rental, shelter and public housing units) locations excluding projects developed for
the elderly and persons with disabilities;
WHEREAS, a second factor is the median household income based on U.S. Census data;
WHEREAS, a third factor is the change in residential sate prices based on records of the Iowa
City Assessor's Office;
WHEREAS, a fourth factor is mobility data represented by the rate of annual turnover at each
elementary school as provided by the ICCSD;
WHEREAS, a fifth factor is the elementary schoo! academic performance as indicated by Iowa
Tost of Basic Skills (ITBS) scores as provided by the ICCSD;
WHEREAS, a sixth factor is the free and reduced lunch percentage at each elementary school
as provided by the ICCSD;
WHEREAS, a seventh factor is mime density based on calls for service to the lova City Police
Department pertaining to drugs, most alcohol offenses, property crimes, and personal Injury,
December 18, 2014
Page 11
Resolution No. _ILzj�
Page 2
AREAS, with the exception of erne dorksity. each of the data reflects the goats/concerns
identified by Council;
WHEREAS, crime density is inciuded because persons assisted with furiding befit from ung in
areas where crime Is lass prevalent;
WHEREAS, some of the seven factors more directly further the goa ls/conoems than others and
thus the factors should be weighted based on their relative significance;
WHEREAS, the distance to existing assisted rental housing is the most effective vmy to scatter
affordable houses and avoid conceenb*ions of assisted rental housing and should be given the
most weight;
WHEREAS, in order to scatter affordable housing and avoid con=centrations of assisted rental
Ding, new assisted rental housing should be located at least 400 feet, or approximately one
city block, from existing subsidized and assisted rental housing;
WHEREAS, mobility should to weighted the highest of the three ICCSD factors because
ICCSD administrators omphasizod that it was the most important of the throe factors;
WHEREAS, weighting of the factors should be as follows: 40% - distance to existing assisted
rental housing, 209 - elementary school mobility rate, 10% - mecism household Income, 10% -
change in residential sate prices, 10% - crime density. 5% - elementary school dTBS
performance, and 5"% - elementary school free and reduced lunch rate;
WHEREAS, the factors are appropriately weighted in accordance with the relative signifxcarwe of
each as Identified by the City Council and the lovra City Community School District administration;
and
WHEREAS, the seven factors and their respective weights further City Council's three
goalstooncerns;
WHEREAS, using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. the City was divided into 80
foot by 80 foot squares, or pExels,
WHEREAS, the corresponding data set for each factor was assigned a score for each squama, the
scores for said factors were there weighted and added together to create a composite score for
each sere throughout the City;
WHEREAS, a threshold score should be determined. below which funding should not be
available, that assures now assisted rental tubus°ng projects will not be funded vftin 440 feet of
existing assistodts idize d rental horsing:
WHEREAS, the threshold sire for each 80 foot by 80 foot square is shaven on the attached map
entittext "Affordable Hoishhg Location Model," and each square with a score beeknv the threshold
score is a location where funding should not be available;
WHEREAS, the attached "Affordable Housing Location Model' furthers City Councirs three
goalstconewns;
WHEREAS, tate City should not restrict the location of funding for owne:r•oowpied housing
because of the positive effect of home"vnembip on ne=ighborhoods;
December 18, 2014
Page 12
Resolution No. i i - s r
Page 3
WHEREAS, the City should not restrict the location of funding for rehabilitating existing rental
housing because providing funds will revitalize, stabilize and Improve existing affordable rental
housing and will not increase the number of rental units. and
WHEREAS, the City should rwt restrict the location of finding for projects for the elderly and
persons with disabilities because these units have little or no impact on the schools.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
1. The attached AHordabfe Housing Location Model is hereby approved and adopted for use in
all progtw%s and projects funded with CDBG, HOME, and discretionary City funds as follows:
a) The model is amicable to rental housing projects for new construction and acquisition
excluding assisted renal housing projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities,
The model is not applicable to new construction or acquisition of owrver-occupied hous"I
•
c} The model is not applicable to projects to rehabilitate existing renal housing or owner -
occupied housing.
2. The model shad be updated annually by November 1 beginnirV November 1, 2011.
Passed and approved this i *irh day of ES ritary 2011.
MAY/OR `" G-'..�—
Approved by
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office
` * At
.�;.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Date: December 31, 2014
To: City Council
From: Tom Markus
Re: ICCSD's Housing Letter of 10/13/2014
Introduction:
You are scheduled to discuss the School District's Letter to Elected Officials dated October 13,
2014 at your work session of January 6, 2014. While this letter was directed to all municipalities
within the ICCSD, the City of Iowa City has been engaged in a conversation with the District
regarding the location of affordable housing for a number of years and has responded to the
District's concern with a number of initiatives, including the formation of a Scattered Site
Housing Task Force and creation of the Affordable Housing Location Model that is used for
affordable rental housing projects receiving financial assistance from the City. As you begin
your discussion of the School District's recent request, staff believes it is important to review the
history of these initiatives, particularly for those of you that are new to the City Council.
Socioeconomic diversity in our neighborhoods and schools has many social, educational, and
cultural benefits, and the City supports initiatives that can improve this diversity. However, while
the concerns expressed in the School District's letter are understood and the goal of greater
socioeconomic balance across the District is laudable, the solutions proposed are decades' long
processes whereas the detrimental effects of the current imbalance are immediate. As you
know, we are currently contemplating an inclusionary zoning ordinance for Riverfront Crossings
as a first step. However, I would caution anyone against believing that this will be a panacea for
socioeconomic imbalance in our community or the School District's attendance areas..
Inclusionary zoning by definition is tied to new development and thus positive effects would be
realized in growth areas, not in the established neighborhoods impacted by socioeconomic
imbalance. In fact, some of the growth areas in Iowa City are located in elementary school
attendance areas that already have a disproportionate percentage of low to moderate income
households, for instance new development near Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. Thus,
requiring more affordable housing in these areas may increase the total availability of affordable
housing but has the potential to exacerbate the socioeconomic imbalance of some schools.
That is not to argue against adopting inclusionary zoning, only to place expectations for its
effects on the School District's goal of improving elementary school economic diversity in a
realistic context.
It is also important to make a distinction between market rate housing that is inexpensive and
subsidized affordable housing for income -qualifying households. Housing costs respond to a
number of factors including the age, upkeep, and modern amenities of the structure itself,
proximity to public amenities and employment centers, land values, and nearby investments in
schools, parks, and other public facilities. A fraction of rental permits are for subsidized
affordable housing units and Iowa City has adopted a scattered site affordable housing model
December 31, 2014
Page 2
that precludes the City from subsidizing additional affordable housing in areas with a
disproportionate number of low income households. For instance, there are 864 active Housing
Authority vouchers in Iowa City and 81 public housing units, compared to 18,000 rental permits.
There are 1,099 subsidized housing units in Iowa City, many of which were subsidized privately
or through public agencies other than the City. This is a small percentage of the City's rental
units.
History:
By letter of November 13, 2003 the ICCSD Board of Directors asked that the City Council
"carefully review locations of future affordable housing" in light of the District's focus on
removing "barriers to student learning", specifically, the barrier of "living conditions associated
with poverty" that had been identified in a recent community -wide forum. The letter included a
table showing poverty rates in ICCSD attendance areas that were determined based on free
and reduced lunch data. ICCSD communicated that the most important factor that presents
"barriers to student learning" was "mobility", meaning that improving housing stability will have
the greatest impact on student outcomes.
In response to the District's November 2003 letter the Council created a Scattered Site Housing
Task Force by resolution dated April 6, 2004. The direction to the Task Force was to "study the
existing distribution, location and types of assisted housing in Iowa City" and "recommend
policies or actions, as appropriate, regarding the disbursement, location and type of future
assisted housing," which was defined as that "receiving any public assistance or support."
(Resolution No. 04-101). The Task Force was comprised of persons from the Neighborhood
Council, United Way of Johnson County, the ICCSD, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of
Supervisors and HCDC. The Task Force was chaired by Mayor Hayek who at the time was
Chair of HCDC and not a member of City Council. The Task Force submitted its final report to
the City Council on October 11, 2005.
Beginning with Fiscal Year 2005, the CDBG/HOME Applicant Guide has addressed the desire
of the City to encourage the distribution of affordable housing and included consideration of the
location of the project and the potential impacts on the school district. In 2007 the Council
discussed the differences between owner -occupied and rental projects, concluding, based on
staff's recommendation, that location criteria should apply only to affordable rental housing
projects because owner -occupied housing is more stable, and therefore, there is less mobility of
children and less effect on the schools. As the School District identified mobility as the most
important factor in this discussion regarding student outcomes, this was an important distinction
to make.
In February 2011 Council adopted resolution no. 11-51 which adopted the Affordable Housing
Location Model, a map -based GIS model, to guide the City's use of funds for rental housing
projects (excluding elderly/disabled). A copy of that resolution is attached for your reference.
The resolution identifies three goals/concerns regarding the location of affordable housing in
Iowa City: 1) "the City does not want to further burden neighborhoods and elementary schools
that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty"; 2) the "City desires to have
diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of income levels"; and 3) the need to "determine the
views of the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) on the affordable housing issue." In
developing that model, the City staff worked with the District to determine what school data
should be considered in determining whether there were concentrations of poverty, and were
told that the following data should be considered: 1) mobility data, as represented by the rate of
turnover at each elementary school; 2) academic performance as shown by test scores; and, 3)
free and reduced lunch percentages at the schools. Of those three factors we were told that
mobility was the most important factor. All three factors are included in the model with mobility
rate being the second most important factor of the 7 factors used in the model.
December 31, 2014
Page 3
The City's Affordable Housing Location Model has received a significant amount of national
attention as other communities struggle with the same issues. A number of communities have
contacted City staff about the model, including Danville, Illinois; Boise, Idaho; Charlottesville,
Virginia; Davenport, Iowa; and Palm Beach County, Florida. Additionally, staff has been
informed that the City of Austin, Texas is using our model as a starting point for a similar
project. "Planning," the magazine of the American Planning Association, featured the model in
its March 2013 issue and the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State
University has told staff that HUD is moving in this direction and that the City's model could be
used as a national model on deconcentration.
The Affordable Housing Location model is updated every fall in conjunction with the City's
funding cycle for HOME/CDBG funds. Unfortunately, this year when the City asked the ICCSD
for the mobility data, the response was that it would not be presented to the Board until
December, and therefore, would not be provided to the City in time to include it in the model
update for the next funding cycle. As a result, the previous year's mobility data were used in
updating the model.
Zoning:
As noted above, inclusionary zoning affects only new development and realistic expectations for
the impact on existing neighborhoods should be discussed. The neighborhoods around the
older elementary schools, including Twain, Mann, Longfellow, Wood, Lucas, Lemme, Hoover,
and Horn are already developed, and an inclusionary zoning ordinance would have little effect.
For example, the majority of the neighborhood in the Twain School enrollment area was
developed in the 1950's — 60's, with some homes built as far back as 1900. There is little, if
any, additional developable area in the Twain neighborhood nor in many other older elementary
school enrollment areas.
While an inclusionary zoning ordinance would have some effect in new neighborhoods as they
are being developed, it would have little to no effect in the older elementary school
neighborhoods where the school district has identified FRL imbalances. The older
neighborhoods are already developed, and the best way to preserve housing stock, and make
these neighborhoods more attractive to families is through programs such as the UniverCity
Neighborhood Partnership, Residential Rehabilitation programs, and investment in parks and
infrastructure — all of which the City has funded using local and federal funds.
Reinvesting in Neighborhoods:
Reinvesting in neighborhoods can have a positive impact on neighborhood diversity. As you
know, supporting healthy neighborhoods is one of the City Council's five strategic plan goals.
As a means to pursue this goal the City has and will continue to invest in neighborhood parks,
microenterprise loans and forgivable grants for businesses that benefit low to moderate income
persons, and public art to name a few. Significant investments continue in Towncrest and the
Iowa City Marketplace. Reinvesting and rehabilitating homes and commercial building stock is
accomplished through the UniverCity, General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program,
Targeted Neighborhood Improvement Program, and several CDBG and HOME programs.
Home rehabilitation programs are subject to income eligibility. Down payment assistance is
also available through the City for income eligible homebuyers in the Grant Wood, Twain,
Downtown, and Miller -Orchard neighborhoods which can help encourage home stability. These
are just a few examples of the many investments the City is making in the community's
neighborhoods. Much of this is focused on neighborhoods experiencing socioeconomic
imbalance.
While the cost of land, age and condition of housing stock, and other social and economic
factors can exacerbate the suburbanization that leaves older neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of poverty, public school and infrastructure investments can certainly play a role
in the type and amount of residential investment and reinvestment in neighborhoods. For
December 31, 2014
Page 4
instance, the southern end of Iowa City has seen significant residential investment surrounding
public investments in Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, Archibald Alexander Elementary
School, and the South Sycamore Greenway. Much of this residential construction will help to
diversify the socioeconomic balance in Iowa City's lowest income census tract. Conversely,
many factors have led to increased concentration of poverty in the Grant Wood catchment area.
Examples of such factors can include smaller and aging housing, a poor street grid, and the
long term use of mobile classrooms on the school campus. In recent years, the City has
invested in this neighborhood through its parks, streets, and in partnership with the ICCSD on
an expanded gymnasium and programming.
It stands to reason that all else being equal, families with the means to do so will choose to rent
or purchase homes in less overcrowded school zones with modern educational facilities. We
applaud the School District's recent investment in Twain Elementary, Alexander Elementary
School, and future investments planned for City High and Hoover Elementary on American
Legion Road. These investments in Iowa City schools east of the river were long overdue.
Overcrowding on the east side has long been a problem while new facilities were constructed to
the north and west. School siting and investment, along with public infrastructure and housing,
all play a role in the socioeconomic makeup of neighborhoods.
Rental Density:
The City recognizes the many benefits that housing diversity can provide neighborhoods.
Today's planning procedures and policies encourage the densest multifamily developments in
the downtown and near downtown areas, while multifamily developments in residential areas
are encouraged to be designed into the fabric of the neighborhood. Recent development in the
City has included multifamily housing in new neighborhoods, including those that are
predominantly single family. As the City's Comprehensive Plan update notes, "A rich mix of
housing within a neighborhood may include single-family homes on small and large lots,
townhouses, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and zero -lot -line housing, as well as
apartments in mixed-use buildings located in neighborhood commercial areas and the
Downtown." For example, the South District Plan, adopted in 1997 and amended in 2002, calls
for development to, "locate low to medium density multi -family housing in the form of
townhouses and small apartment buildings at the edges of the neighborhood along arterial
streets, and near the neighborhood commercial center, trails, major open space areas, and
institutional uses, such as a school or religious institutions. Limit the size of individual parcels
zoned for such development, so that the scale of buildings is compatible with surrounding uses
and the traffic generated from such developments is adequately accommodated." It should be
noted, however, that planning for future development does not affect existing buildings or their
density. Again, significant impacts on elementary school socioeconomic diversity will not be
realized in older neighborhoods.
Conclusion:
In short, the answers the School District is looking for in the near term do not lie in zoning
policies. Those are long term solutions that are part of an ongoing discussion of urban growth
and investment in pubic facilities and infrastructure. While the discussion of long term strategies
is important, frankly I believe tying this conversation to the current socioeconomic imbalance of
elementary schools may be a distraction from the issues the community experiences in the near
term. I also believe it is essential that this effort garners strong regional buy -in from all local
governments. Inclusionary zoning in one neighborhood or one community in the ICCSD service
area will have minimal impact on the larger issue. Further, inclusionary zoning policies will have
the largest and fastest impact in higher income growth areas. As the School District is learning
with challenges and complications in instituting the Diversity Policy, so too is inclusionary zoning
a difficult process to embark upon. This is not a course to take lightly or without due diligence.
December 31, 2014
Page 5
We will pursue this analysis, but one should not depend solely on inclusionary zoning to remedy
the socioeconomic imbalance across ICCSD elementary schools.
A potential collaboration between the School District and cities that may affect future
development could be tied to school siting decisions. The opening of a new school is of
significant benefit to a municipality in a number of ways and there could be prerequisites tied to
the selection of a new school site. A policy requiring a certain percentage of affordable housing
within a School District defined walkable distance radius as a condition of site selection could be
implemented. Further, to have truly economically diverse neighborhoods adjacent to schools,
facilities must be sited on land that has the potential to achieve the necessary density.
Understandably, the cost of land is a significant factor in selecting the site for a new school.
However, the cost of residential development can be significantly impacted by the topography of
the site. Higher development costs may prove to be a barrier to the development of affordable
housing. We appreciated the collaboration with the School District on choosing the two new
elementary school sites in Iowa City and these sites have good potential to achieve
economically diverse schools. The cost of new development will be less expensive than if they
were wooded lots, and will be able to achieve the density necessary to have a diversity of
housing. We appreciate the School District's concerns and look forward to community -wide
discussions as to how future planning and zoning can best be approached, though recognizing
that impacts are long term propositions.
r
IP5
-,Fi CITY OF IOWA CITY
4 k
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 31, 2014
To: City Council
From: Tom Markus, City Manager
Re: January 13th Work Session
As you are aware, we have scheduled a work session to continue the discussion of the City's
Equity Report on January 13th at 5:00 p.m. Due to the public interest in this particular issue, I
believe it is best to modify the traditional work session format.
I am recommending that the work session open with a brief staff review of current initiatives and
action plans, as well as an overview of our thoughts on additional actions for your consideration.
Following this brief introduction, I suggest you open the floor for a discussion of diversity and
equity related issues with the public. I envision the Council and staff being able to respond to
questions, comments and suggestions from the public. Following this dialogue, the Council can
wrap up with your own discussion and discuss plans for any future actions.
Apia�alk
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 24, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk A�4—
Re: KXIC Radio Show
At your December 16 work session meeting Council Members agreed to the following schedule:
December 24 – No show
December 31 – No show
January 7 – Hayek
January 14 – Dobyns
January 21 - Botchway
U: rad ioshowappts.doc
� r
wrlIMI
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
December 31, 2014
January 13th, 2015
1. Continuation of discussion on the Equity Report
Pending Topics to be Scheduled
1. Discuss recycling opportunities for multi -family housing
2. Discuss city related marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions
3. Discuss community business attraction and anti -piracy compact
4. Review of the Sensitive Areas ordinance
5. Discuss formation of staff /citizen climate adaptation advisory group (spring 2015)
6. Discuss transit route planning framework
7. Discuss ad-hoc Senior Services Committee Report
8. Discussion on Gateway Project aesthetic elements (February)
IP8
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 23, 2014 — 7:45 A.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(via telephone), 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:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. He noted that Commission
Member Schantz is joining them via conference telephone.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 12/09/14 — Chappell asked if there were any
comments, concerns, or changes that need to be made to the minutes. Shaw noted
that there is one change he would like to make last paragraph on page 3 and top of
page 4, where it states: "Shaw... arrived late... has no opinion at this point either.";
and requested the record show he was undecided at that point.
Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended. Atkins seconded the
motion. The motion carried 9-0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Karr provide information regarding initiative and referendum required signatures and census
numbers. Karr reported how the census figures would compare, if indeed it was solely based
on census numbers. She shared census data provided by the Library, and then reported on the
increase in signatures using the same percentage (.0533617%).
1970 population was 46,850; no fewer than 2,500
1980 population was 50,508; would have been no fewer than 2,695
1990 population was 59,735; would have been no fewer than 3,187
2000 population was 62,220; would have been no fewer than 3,320
2010 population was 67,862; would have been no fewer than 3,621
Kubby then stated that she had a question for the Commission. She noted that she will have a
column coming out in the Press -Citizen on Saturday. In this column, she would like to write
about the Commission's January 7 meeting, basically using the press release. Kubby's
intention is not to give her opinions, but to say what the topics are and to perhaps give one
sentence on two sides of each issue to try to encourage the public to attend. She asked if
anyone had any concerns about her doing this. Several Members stated that they thought this
would be a good idea.
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 2
Kubby then asked if she could get a copy of the Charter in a Word document, and stated she
wanted to play with the document and that it would be easier to have a Word version to do this
with. Karr will send to the Commission.
Vanderhoef stated that she was looking at old minutes from the Charter Review Commission
and noted that in 1984 a recommendation was made to Council to move the date of the Charter
Review to one year following the census so that the numbers would be the most current. She
noted that evidently Council did not wish to do this, and she stated that she believes it to still be
a good idea just so they would have the most current census data to work with. Chappell asked
that they add this topic to another agenda so that they can further discuss it.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Update — Changes proposed by the Citizens Police Review Board —
Chappell asked Karr when the CPRB meets next, and she responded that they
do not meet again until February. She added that they have not yet had any
discussion regarding Charter issues. Chappell continued, stating that they can
wait until the CPRB has this discussion. Kubby asked if they need to make a
request to be on the CPRB's agenda. Chappell responded he had already
appeared at a Commission meeting. Karr stated that the CPRB is closely
watching the Commission's work and monitoring the discussion.
b. Use of the word `person' — Chappell spoke to Kubby's proposal regarding use
of the word 'person.' He read the definition of `person' aloud, noting that Kubby's
proposal is that `person' means 'an individual.' A new term would be `other
entity,' which would have the definition of 'a firm, partnership, corporation,
company association, political party, committee or any other legal entity.'
Chappell asked what Member's thoughts are on this proposal, and whether they
want to make a change to the current definition. Sullivan stated that he is not
strongly in favor of this change, nor is he opposed to it. He added that he does
not believe there is a problem to be solved, but that he does understand the
morale type of argument of it and would not be opposed if others feel strongly
about this.
Atkins then asked how they would be furthering the governing process by making
these changes. Kubby responded that she does not believe it changes the
process or what any person or entity's rights and responsibilities are, but that it
clarifies this issue for the community, that it is more of a political piece than a
process piece. Sullivan stated that they should give this consideration even
though it is not a substantive change. Kubby noted that language indicates
values. Shaw stated that he would support the change with some modification.
In regards to the newly added `other entity,' he would remove `other' and have it
just say 'entity.'
Chappell asked Dilkes if she had any legal concerns with the proposed change.
She responded that she has some concern about unintended consequences, but
that at this point she is not sure what those might be. Moyers -Stone stated that
she found their conversation regarding 'citizen' versus 'resident' to be more
compelling than this. She believes that if they did make this change it would only
make the Charter more 'wordy.' She questioned a person being an individual,
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 3
asking if that means an individual human being, an individual resident of Iowa
City. She believes that what they have now works and to make such changes
would only create more questions.
Kubby stated that there are only four or five sections where they would need to
make this change, and Dilkes asked if they could look at these sections again.
Kubby continued, further explaining where she is proposing they make this
change and why. Chappell noted that Kubby originally identified the following
sections as needing this change: 1.03, 6.01 6.02, and 7.01. Members then
reviewed each of these. Ultimately there was not a majority of Members wanting
to pursue this change.
C. Section 4.02, Accountability and Removal — Chappell then moved the
discussion to Section 4.02, noting that this is one of the sections they left
undecided after their initial review. He spoke to the issue, noting that they did
find out that the city manager has a contract that spells out much of this, such as
being entitled to three to six months of salary if terminated. Chappell noted that
he does not have any strong feelings toward changing this. He added that he
would not want the Charter to make this amount any higher than two months
salary, but that the Council can do what it wants in this matter.
Shaw stated that he would propose that the phrase `not less than two month's
salary' be changed to `termination pay as stated in the city manager's contract,'
or something similar to this. He further explained why he is suggesting this,
noting that basically this is paying someone to leave. Others disagreed, stating
that they believe this sentence is not necessary and should be removed.
Chappell asked if this was put in the Charter due to a time when written contracts
were less likely to come into play.
Reviewing the proposal, Chappell noted that it would read: a) The city manager
is under the direction and supervision of the council and holds office at its
pleasure. The rest of Section 'a' would then be deleted. He asked how
Members felt about this proposed change. Dilkes reviewed some of the history,
noting that there was the desire to provide a minimum amount of protection in
order to get qualified city managers, but that she does not have any major
concerns with this. She gave some examples of arguments that could be used,
however, if the `contract' portion were removed. Kubby suggested having a
sentence that refers to there being a contract, and Chappell suggested a phrase
be added to the first sentence: "...consistent with any contract...".
Discussion continued regarding whether or not to have `contract' in the first
sentence. Dilkes agreed that Chappell's suggestion of adding something to the
first sentence, which would contain the reference to there being a contract, would
probably be the best way to go here. Members continued with whether or not to
add wording regarding a `contract' or `employment agreement' to this sentence.
Chappell reviewed the wording for the second sentence: A city manager
removed by the council is entitled to receive termination pay consistent with any
employment agreement between the city manager and council. He asked if this
covers the sentiment of the change they have been trying to make. Dilkes
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 4
suggested it read `as provided by contract' instead, and she re -read the
sentence: A city manager removed by the council is entitled to receive
termination pay as provided by contract. Schantz suggested they add 'if any' to
the end of the sentence. He further explained his feelings on this matter, noting
that he believes they do not want to give the Charter too much power in this
regard. Chappell asked if others would like to add 'if any' to this second
sentence. Kubby stated that she does not believe it to be necessary, as
contracts will typically always have a termination pay clause in them and others
agreed. Members then agreed to the discussed changes in Section 4.02.
d. Article 6, Campaign Contributions and Expenditures — Chappell moved to
Article 6 next, noting that they have not tentatively approved any of this section.
Dilkes noted that there is one minor change in Section 6.03 — the chapter is now
68A instead of 56. Moyers -Stone asked if there are any State rules regarding
campaign contributions. Dilkes responded that there are none regarding
amounts, but that there are a lot of requirements regarding disclosure. Chappell
asked if there were any proposed changes for 6.01, 6.02, or 6.03, other than the
chapter number that Dilkes referred to. Members agreed to tentatively approve
Article 6 as discussed.
e. Section 7.03(c), Petitions, Affidavit of Circulator — Moving on, Chappell noted
that they tentatively approved some parts of Section 7, but that others are waiting
for the decision on 'qualified' versus 'eligible.' Looking at 7.03(a), Chappell
stated that they may want to have this discussion after their public forum. On (c),
the only possible change would be replacing 'a qualified' with 'an eligible.'
Members agreed to tentatively approve this section.
Section 7.07, Prohibition on Establishment of Stricter Conditions or Req. —
Chappell noted that they had quite a bit of discussion previously about whether
this section should change or remain the same. He asked Dilkes if she had any
further thoughts on this section. She responded that she had a note that they
were considering eliminating 'which are higher or more stringent than' and
change it to `that are.' Others spoke to what their notes on this topic were and
what they remember the changes to be. Chappell noted that it would read as
follows: 'The council may not set, except by Charter amendment, conditions or
requirements affecting initiative and referendum, which are inconsistent with
those imposed by this Charter.' Kubby stated that keeping the second part of the
sentence allows council, by ordinance, to make clarifications and small changes.
Without this sentence, she noted that they would not be able to do this without a
Charter amendment. Dilkes spoke to this section, stating that it would actually
be best to end the sentence after the word `referendum.' She noted why she
suggests this, noting that it really is not necessary to have this here.
Atkins noted that he is looking at the word 'may,' wondering if that shouldn't be
changed to 'shall.' After further discussion, it was decided to put a period after
'referendum' and to change 'may' to 'shall.' Members then tentatively approved
this section.
g. Section 8.02, Charter Review Commission — Chappell stated that they have
not yet touched this section. Sullivan spoke to the timing of this Commission,
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 5
noting that the next one would either have to be three or four years too early, or
four or five years too late. Chappell stated that he believes they have better
information each year on population. Karr agreed, stating that they can gather
data in a more current manner now. Members continued to speak to population
numbers. Sullivan stated that the times they need actual up-to-date, valid
census data is pretty small. He questioned if there are really that many
scenarios where they would need to rely on up-to-date population numbers.
Members continued to discuss this issue and whether changing the Charter
Review timeline would be helpful or not. Karr stated that with the present
language it says 'at least once every 10 years.' She noted that if the population
were to spike, the council could at any point in time call for this review to take
place. Atkins noted that census information is very important to the city
administration as it affects eligibilities, for example. After further discussion,
Members agreed to tentatively approve this section of the Charter.
h. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) —
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
PUBLIC FORUM (January 7, Iowa City Public Library, 6:00 P.M.
Chappell stated that they are close to having tentative approval on everything but those topics
being discussed at the January 7 forum. This should help them narrow their work significantly
after the forum. He added that if anyone has something they would like to add to the public
forum agenda, to send him an email regarding this. The Commission will plan to review the
forum and how they plan to proceed with it while at the January 6 meeting. Dilkes noted that
after the forum Members will receive a new red -lined version of the Charter that they can use in
their review. Karr asked if any supplies would be needed for the public forum, such as flip
charts. Members briefly discussed this and the use of them in these small settings. Atkins
asked how they will be expected to participate in this forum, and if they are speaking as
Commission Members or individuals. Chappell further explained what he sees their roles as,
which is to try to get the public to give their opinions on these specific issues. Kubby gave some
examples of how they can try to get people to open up more and give their opinions. Shaw
spoke to the need for them as facilitators in getting the discussion going, but added that he does
not see a lot of back -and -forth taking place.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specifieal): Chappell
asked if the meeting time still works for everyone. He stated that he would like to plan on
having the same Tuesday morning meetings through March, at which point they can decide how
to proceed. He added that he believes after the public forum, their work will become more
narrowed and they will have less issues to discuss.
January 6 — to discuss forum agenda
January 7 (FORUM)
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion
carried 9-0.
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 6
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
j
P
CJ1
tJ1
CA
V
co
co
W
to
W
o
o
-a
NAME
EXP.
O
tb
—L
W
N
-4
—
o
N
�
N
N
N
N
o
O
to
N
W
W
o
-N
o
o
to
4/1/15
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
Charter Review Commission
December 23, 2014
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
N
w
O
CD
O
cn
cn
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
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
Schantz
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
Moyers
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
Vanderhoef
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
P
DRAFT
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — December 3, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih, Royceann Porter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Treloar
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD; Andy Chappell, Adam Sullivan, and
Karrie Craig from the Charter Review Commission; Charlie
Eastham, Joseph Hall and Edward Hall, public.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-06
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Porter, seconded by Salih, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 11/10/14
• Minutes of the meeting on 11/25/14
• ICPD Department Memo #14-28 (October 2014 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — October 2014
• ICPD General Order 08-01 (Conducted Energy Devices)
• ICPD General Order 00-08 (Weapons)
• ICPD General Order 00-10 (Evidence and Property Handling Procedures)
Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of proposed CPRB-related amendments to the Charter — Chappell went through some of
the proposed changes to the City Charter that relate to the CPRB in regards to public forums. The
current language is as follows: Section 5.01 a(1) To hold at least one community forum each year for
the purpose of hearing citizens' views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police
department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the
city council. The proposal from the CPRB was to drop the last part of sentence, "and to make
recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the city council." The Charter
Commission is going to recommend leaving in the current wording and re -number the section so they
are each an item to avoid any confusion. Craig and Sullivan addressed the Board regarding the
proposal to remove "citizen" from the Charter and wanted the Board's input on removing Citizen from
the name and if they had any suggestions on what could replace it. Their concern with the use of
citizen in the Charter is that they feel there are many people in Iowa City that do not identify as citizen
or qualify for the things citizen connotes. They are proposing to remove citizen from all other areas of
CPRB
December 3, 2014
Page 2
the Charter. A couple ideas that had been discussed by the Charter Review Commission as a
replacement to citizen were resident or taking out citizen and leaving it as Police Review Board. Hall
had additional suggestions to what the name could be changed to. Jensen thanked them for coming
and said that the Board would put it on a future agenda for discussion and would include a copy of the
City Charter in the Board packet at that time so they could look at the suggestions as it relates to the
whole Charter. The Charter Review Commission will be holding a public forum on January 7th at
6:OOpm at the Iowa City Public Library.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Eastham spoke regarding the suggestion from the Charter Review Commission to change the
name of the Board. He wanted to remind members that the name had just been recently
changed and the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee had agreed with the recommendation. One of
the reasons the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee wanted to change the name from Police Citizens
Review Board to Citizens Police Review Board was so it didn't appear as through it was a
police review by the police department.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
Tuttle directed Board members to the copy of the news release in the packet regarding the
Citizens Police Academy and if they were interested to let her know. Salih stated that she had
attended last year and it was really awesome.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Salih, 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, 4/0, Treloar absent. Open session adjourned at 5:27 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:28 P.M.
Motion by Porter, seconded by Martinez to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB
Complaint #14-06 to City Council.
Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent.
CPRB
December 3, 2014
Page 3
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Salih, seconded by Martinez to set a special executive session only meeting on
Monday, December 8th at 8:00 A.M.
Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Porter, seconded by Martinez.
Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:32 P.M.
Z.
'i
1-14.A4
w
b�o
y`"
d
`�
fD
CD fb
O 'fl
fD in
N
x
�e
�z
N
r+
H+
H
O
i
i
0
H+
000
N
x
W
A
th
tA
W
O�
r+
00
x
i
H+
O
W
O
Z.
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
December 4, 2014
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
u._.
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Citizen Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-06
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #14-06 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review..
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3)).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 08/12/2014. As required by Sbptlon _
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for invetjgaic3n.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on 10/15/2014. R `
The Board voted on 11/25/2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs ReporlF,
"On the record with no additional investigation", pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 6.8-7(B1('1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on 11/25/2014 and 12/03/2014.
Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On August 13, 2014, officers were involved in patrol at the Pheasant Ridge complex at the request of
management in response to previous incidents, including shots being fired and reports of drug dealing.
Individuals loitering and determined to be non-residents were to be given trespass warnings. Officers
observed the Complainant multiple times and engaged him in conversation. A routine check of the
Complainant showed he had an active warrant for his arrest. During the search that occurred because
of the arrest, a cell phone and a large sum of cash, $2722, were found on the Complainant. The
Complainant was advised of his Miranda rights and questioned. The Complainant made statements
denying ownership of the money and the phone. The phone was examined by officers and evidence of
drug distribution and drug use was noted. The phone and money were then seized as part of a drug
investigation. Prior to the CPRB complaint being filed, the Complainant was advised how to appeal
before a Judge who would rule if the property should be returned.
ALLEGATION 1 — Unlawful Search.
When the Complainant was arrested on an outstanding warrant, the Complainant was searched as part
of this arrest. The Complainant initially denied ownership of the property in his possession. The in -car
video recordings clearly document both the Complainant being advised of his rights and the statements
he made denying ownership of the phone and the money. Denying ownership of the property prevents
the Complainant from claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. At the time of the incident,
officers were following procedures and had the authority to remove property in the Complainant's
possession. As the Complainant denied ownership of the phone, the officers were looking at the phone
in an attempt to identify the owner, and to determine if it had been stolen. Officers did locate
information in the phone to show it belonged to the Complainant. A search warrant was later obtained
due to further examination of the phone being needed. Officers involved were appropriate and within
the parameters of the law.
Allegation: Unlawful Search - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Unlawful seizure.
When Officers discovered an outstanding warrant for the Complainant, they also discovered he was
part of an on-going drug investigation. A search warrant for the Complainant's phone was obtained
from the Johnson County Attorney's Office and they also approved to move forward with the forfeiture
of the money found in the possession of the Complainant. To move forward with forfeiture case, the
State only needs to prove there is a preponderance of the evidence to prevail. The cell phone is also
being held as evidence in the criminal case. Officers involved were appropriate and within the
parameters of the law. The Complainant has also been advised of his right to present evidence at a
hearing before the Court as to why the property should be returned to him.
Allegation: Unlawful seizure - Not sustained
COMMENTS
None
1! P ,
DRAFT
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — December 8, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 8:02 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih, Royceann Porter (8:04 A.M.),
Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-02
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-04
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-08
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih 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 8:03 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 9:06 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB
Complaint #14-02 to City Council with the option to amend if a name clearing hearing is held.
Motion carried, 5/0.
Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB
Complaint #14-04 to City Council.
Motion carried, 5/0.
CPRB
December 8, 2014
Page 2
Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB
Complaint #14-08 to City Council.
Motion carried, 5/0.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
*January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (CANCELLED)
• February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
*April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez to cancel the January CPRB meeting due to
scheduling conflicts.
Motion carried, 5/0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Salih.
Motion carried, 5/0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:06 A.M.
v
u
CD °
CD
cC
R
UQ
t
cn
n
v
o�
w
cn
orn
i�'„
>C
O
yC
yC
yC
�
a
00
N
w
00
N
w
U
I
Iry
O
v
I
�
N
O
U
I
�
O
�
I
✓V
N
r+
v
u
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
December 8, 2014
To: City Counsel
Complainant
City Manager
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) Involved in complaint
From: Citizen Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-02
Y _ i
X210 2 2015
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation
of Complaint CPRB#14-02 (the "Complainant")
Board's Responsibility
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of
the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard
of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report,
because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend th jt g 2 2015
Police Chief reverse or modify the Chief's findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal,
state or local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a
public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact;
and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint
is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(3)).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to
discipline the officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 5/22/14. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of
the City Code, the Compliant was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on 7/30/14.
The Board voted on September 15, 2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chief's
Report:
On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on August 26, 2014, September 15, 2014, October 13,
2014, November 10, 2014, December 3, 2014, December 8, 2014, and December 29, 2014.
Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 6, 2014 at 5:18 p.m., Officer A stopped the Complainant's husband at the 700 blk of
Mormon Trek Blvd. (immediately south of Bartlett Rd, adjacent to the Pheasant Ridge complex)
to speak with him about an incident that had taken place at the Pheasant Ridge Apartment
Complex, and to issue a criminal trespass warning. The Complainant's husband acknowledged
Officer A, but refused to stop, or provided identification as requested. While Officer A was
attempting to have a conversation with the Complainant's husband, the Complainant pulled up
in her vehicle on Mormon Trek Blvd, adjacent to Officer A and the Complainant's husband. The
Complainant had four children in the back seat of the vehicle. The Complainant's husband
opened the passenger door and entered the vehicle. Officer A advised the Complainant she
21
was free to leave but the Complainant's husband was not. When asked if the complainan` t�s� 2015
husband was under arrest, or being detained, Officer A responded "he is not under arrest or
being detain, but he is also not free to go." The complainant did not leave and turned the: vehicle
off.
Additional officers arrived. Officer B went to the driver's side of the vehicle to speak with the
Complainant, and Officer C went to the passenger side to assist Officer A. An additional officer,
Officer D arrived and went to assist Officer B at the driver side of the vehicle. The Complainant
was becoming increasingly upset and gave out her first name and license number. At one point
the Complainant rolled her window half way up and refused Officer D directive to roll the window
back down, because the Complainant stated they could still hear each other. Officer D then
opened the driver's door. Only after the officer opened the door, did the officer ask the
complainant to get out of the vehicle.
The complainant's husband, at this point, was out of the vehicle on the passenger side. Officer
D reached into the vehicle taking the Complainant by the arm and attempted to remove her from
the vehicle within seconds of opening the vehicle door. The complainant's four children were
inside the car when Officer D began to physically remove the complainant out of the vehicle.
The complainant was still buckled to the vehicles seat belt as officer D and B continued to pull
the complainant out of the vehicle. The Complainant continued to yell at the Officer D and tried
to pull away holding onto the seat and console. Officer C came over to assist Officer D, the
Complainant continued to struggle and was advised by the Officers she would be pepper
sprayed. The Complainant continued to struggle and was pepper sprayed by Officer D. Officer
then unbuckled the complainant's seat belt and removed the Complainant from the vehicle. The
Complainant was taken to the Johnson County Jail where she was decontaminated by
ambulance personnel. The children were relinquished to an acquaintance at the scene. Later in
the day, the acquaintance approached Officer C and told them that at least some of the children
were also suffering from the effects of being pepper -sprayed. An ambulance was required to
respond and evaluate/ treat the children as needed for OC contamination.
Allegation 1- Excessive Use of Force.
The Police Chief s findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
The Complainant alleges Officer D used excessive force by deploying his OC/Pepper Spray.
The board recommends that the police chief or city manager reverse or modify their findings
based on the board's conclusion.
Though it may seem as the officer was following policy, it is our duty to ensure the discretion
and judgment are used within enforcement of the policy, According to the policy The Use of
Force (III) officers should "recognize and respect the value and special integrity of each human
life ... a careful balancing of all human interests is required." Officer D in choosing to rapidly use
force failed to recognize the hazards and dangers of employing pepper spray within 1) enclosed
quarters of vehicle 2) a motor vehicle where children are present 3) on someone who could
reasonable gain control of the vehicle.
Furthermore, section 804.8 under the Use of Force Policy IV. Code of Iowa- Use of Force in
Making Arrests and Preventing Escape, indicates that use of force should be reserved for times
when a "peace officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest or to defend any
person from bodily harm while making the arrest." The CPRB agreed that under these
provisions, Officer D failed to accurately assess the situation and use reasonable judgment. The
complainant showed no physical threat/harm to herself, her children, her husband, or the
officers.
Furthermore, the complainant had asked questions in regards to her husband's holding and was
met with ambiguous responses. Officer D displayed unreasonable and sudden reactions to the
circumstances. No reasonable person would use such a weapon (pepper spray) within an
enclosed car, in the presence of four children, and without first knowing the context of the
situation. The CPRB finds the actions of officer D sudden and troubling when considering the
extremely brief time frame in which the officer had contact with the complainant. Officer D
arrived at the scene and rapidly escalated tensions 1) by opening the door without permission or
first asking the complainant to open the door, 2) pulling the complainant out of the vehicle
without providing her time to unbuckle her seatbelt, and 3) ultimately pepper -spraying the
complainant within seconds of opening her door.
Allegation #1 — Excessive Use of Force — Sustained.
COMMENTS
The CPRB acknowledges that suitable changes have since been made to the Weapons policy.
XAN02,2015
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
December 8, 2014
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director',
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police- -
Officer(s) involved in complaint -_ a
From: Citizen Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-04
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #14-04 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings 2nly if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 07/23/2014. 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 09/18/2014.
The Board voted on 11/10/2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report
"On the record with no additional investigation", pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8 8m7(131�1)(a).T_
The Board met to consider the Report on 10/13/2014, 11/10/2014, 12/03/2014, antj.-2/082014.:
Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident.
F �}
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 27, 2014, at 11:59 pm, officers responded to Highway 1 near Sunset for a vehicle in the ditch
with its headlights on. Upon arrival, officers found the vehicle still in the ditch and the Complainant
sitting in the front passenger seat of a witness's vehicle. The Complainant was on the phone with his
insurance company trying to arrange for a towing company to remove the vehicle from the ditch.
During conversations with the Complainant and the witness, officers learned the following information
about the crash. The Complainant had been to Walmart to get a can of dust off air to blow off his
computer. The Complainant left Walmart, and went westbound on Highway 1. He initially told officers
he was going home but later said he was going to an adult store in Cedar Rapids. The witness said the
Complainant crossed the median and both eastbound lanes of traffic and then went into the ditch.
When the Complainant was asked how he ended up in the ditch, he said he may have fallen asleep, he
did not remember. The accident occurred within a few blocks of Walmart, which can be seen from the
scene of the accident. The Complainant's vehicle was removed from the ditch by the towing company
and towed to his residence.
After speaking with the Complainant about the accident, officers felt the Complainant may have been
impaired so they began field sobriety tests. After the evaluation, officers took the Complainant to the
police department for further testing. The Complainant was advised of his rights. He initially denied
and then later admitted to inhaling the dust off. The Complainant also admitted the can of dust off was
in his vehicle.
ALLEGATION 1 — Responsibilities.
The Complainant claims the officers failed to call an ambulance to check for medical conditions that
may have caused the crash.
At the scene, while on the phone with his insurance company, the Complainant is clearly overheard
saying he is not injured. Later when the Complainant is asked by officers if he needs medical attention,
he says he does not. The Complainant is also asked on more than one occasion if he has any
disabilities that would affect his ability to perform any of the field sobriety tests, and he never claims any
injuries or disabilities. These statements are supported by the video/audio recording, and officer
reports. According to officers, the Complainant also had no apprant or observable injuries.
Allegation: Responsibilities - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Obedience to laws and regulations.
The Complainant alleges officers illegally searched his vehicle and failed to follow department impound
procedures when towing his vehicle. The Complainant also claimed officers completed a statement as
part of the search warrant application that was intentionally misleading.
The vehicle was impounded after officers were denied permission to enter the vehicle to remove a can
of compressed air that was wanted as evidence. The officer did not inventory the vehicle when it was
towed because the search would have been illegal at that point. Officers were advised by the Johnson
County Attorney's Office to tow the vehicle from the Complainant's residence, and apply for a search
warrant. A search warrant was issued after a judge determined probable cause existed. After obtaining
the search warrant, an officer searched the vehicle and removed a can of "Ultra Duster" from the
vehicle.
Allegation: Obedience to laws and regulations - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 3 — Incompetence.
The Complainant stated the officers failed to include all the relevant and important information in the
reports submitted to the County Attorney's Office and that this failure meant the County Attorney's
Office was unable to include information into decision on whether to prosecute the case.
The officers documented theirs observations of the Compliant and his performance of the field sobriety
tests both at the scene and the police department in their reports. There is also in car video and video
from inside the police department. All of this was made available to the County Attorney's Office, the
Complainant, and to his attorney, as well as to this Board. A review shows no coercive and there was
no motion to suppress filed.Y
Allegation: Incompetence - Not sustained
COMMENTS -:
The original eight allegations are summarized in the three categories listed above. ?4 - _ 4 u
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
December 8, 2014
r-:)
e
To: City Council,
Complainant
City Manager '. m
Equity Director
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Citizen Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-08
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #14-08 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings pp/y if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 09/24/2014. 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 11/07/2014.
The Board voted on 11/10/2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report:
"On the record with no additional investigation", pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on 11/25/2014, 12/03/2014, and 12/08/2014.
Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident.
CO
FINDINGS OF FACT r;
On April 27, 2014, at 11:59 pm, officers responded to Highway 1 near Sunset for a vehicle in the ditch
with its headlights on. Upon arrival, officers found the vehicle still in the ditch and the Complainant
sitting in the front passenger seat of a witness's vehicle. The Complainant was on the phone with his
insurance company trying to arrange for a towing company to remove the vehicle from the ditch.
During conversations with the Complainant and the witness, officers learned the following information
about the crash. The Complainant had been to Walmart to get a can of dust off air to blow off his
computer. The Complainant left Walmart, and went westbound on Highway 1. He initially told officers
he was going home but later said he was going to an adult store in Cedar Rapids. The witness said the
Complainant crossed the median and both eastbound lanes of traffic and then went into the ditch.
When the Complainant was asked how he ended up in the ditch, he said he may have fallen asleep, he
did not remember.
After investigating the accident, Officer A completed a state accident report and estimated the damage
to the Complainant's vehicle as $1500. Officers also issued the Complainant a citation for failure to
maintain control of his vehicle. The Complainant was also arrested for Operating while intoxicated.
ALLEGATION 1 — Officer included inaccurate information in an official police report.
On September 1, 2014, the Complainant contacted the police department by email, asking to have the
damage estimate changed as he was concerned the accident would be reported to the DOT and listed
on his driving record. The Complainant stated he repaired the damage himself, however the
Complainant admitted he never took the vehicle.to a mechanic or body shop to verify the damage or
obtain a repair estimate. Officer A emailed the Complainant, saying the damage estimate on scene
was not meant to be a solid figure, and declined to change the estimate.
Allegation: Officer included inaccurate information in an official police report - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — This was a retaliation against the Complainant for filing a complaint against
another officer in an earlier CPRB complaint.
Officer A said he was aware the Complainant had filed an earlier CPRB complaint against another
officer, however repeated the damage estimate on scene was not meant to be a solid figure, and if the
damage to the vehicle was repaired by a body shop, it would be at least $1500. Officer A stated he did
not set the damage amount to penalize the Complainant. The Complainant did not take the vehicle for
a damage estimate, there is no way to prove the damage estimate was or was not $1500.
Allegation: This was a retaliation against the Complainant for filing a complaint against another
officer in an earlier CPRB complaint - Not sustained
COMMENTS
None
-1, . P
DRAFT
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — December 29, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 8:07 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih
Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
None
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Porter, 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, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 8:08 A.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 8:38 A.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to request an extension to January 14, 2015 for CPRB
Complaint #14-02, due to the holidays and the need for a final meeting to complete the Public
report.
Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
*February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
. March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
*April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Porter.
Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent.
Meeting adjourned at 8:39 A.M.
CrQ
�C
yC
yC
yC
DC
O
i
i
x
O
f+
0\N0
N
A
i
a
00
H+
W
it
O
�
DC
o
DC
yC
r+
N
ONTO
r+