HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-25 Bd Comm minutes5b 1
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2009 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally
Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jesse Allen, Larry Pugh, Ed Foraker, Lars Anderson, Chad
Struve, Adam Slager, Zeb Rino, Lane Thomas, Corey
Tweden, Doug Alberhasky, Frank Gersh, Martha Gordon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5-1 (Koppes voting no; Eastham abstaining) to approve REZ09-
00010, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning to amend the
Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential (OPD-8) zone
for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury Drive, south of Middlebury
Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units.
The Commission voted 6-0 (Plahutnik abstaining) to approve SUB09-00009, an
application submitted by DASH Properties, LLC for a preliminary and final plat of
Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an outlot for private open space), a 3.92 acre residential
subdivision located between Washington and Jefferson Streets at 1136 E Washington
Street, subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ09-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a rezoning
to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 2 of 10
(OPD-8) zone for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury Drive, south of
Middlebury Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units. The 45-day
limitation period ends November 29, 2009.
Eastham abstained from consideration of this application because he is a board member of an
organization that owns property within 200 feet of the proposed development.
Kuecker said that a new site plan had been submitted since the last meeting. The new plan
relocates some of the paths to the shelter area in order to provide greater accessibility. Kuecker
said the new site plan also narrows the driveway in the rear to provide more screening and
green space. Outstanding technical issues have been addressed.
Kuecker said that Staff's recommendation has not changed, and that Staff continues to
recommend approval of the rezoning.
Kuecker offered to answer any questions from the Commission; there were none.
Freerks opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant to address the Commission first.
Jesse Allen, Allen Homes, 3704 Lower West Branch Road, said that he had spent the previous
two weeks going around and speaking to his neighbors to discuss the project, just as the
Commission had suggested.
Larry Pugh, 321 Westbury Court, said that he had attended the last meeting on the subject and
had had strong objections to the project. He said that since that time Allen had taken the time to
meet with him and fully explain the project and that he now supports Allen's rezoning application
and wants to see the project succeed. Freerks said that this was the first time she had actually
had someone come back before the Commission with a change of opinion and she applauded
the efforts at conversation and the open minds of the parties involved.
Ed Foraker, 3527 Middlebury, thanked the Commission for their service and openness. Foraker
said he has 22 notarized protest forms from people who live within 300 feet. Foraker said he
had contacted 23 people about the issue, and all 23 had agreed to sign the petition to keep the
area as open space. Plahutnik asked Foraker to read the wording of the petition to the
Commission. Foraker said it was a standard protest form given to him by the City. Foraker
noted that every property owner contingent to the project is against it, and that most expressed
the same reasons for opposing it. He said that all along Westbury Drive, property owners facing
the proposed project said that they would like to see open space remain there. Foraker said
that he believed that shrubbery and plantings could alleviate the City's concerns about the view
of the backs of people's homes along Middlebury, rather than building a new 5-plex to obstruct
the view. Foraker said petitioners also expressed concerns that the project would cause traffic
congestion and parking issues; issues which are already a problem in the neighborhood.
Foraker said that it is possible that there are water issues to be considered, as it is unclear
whether the water retention system will actually function as intended. Foraker said that the
Comprehensive Plan seems to support small neighborhood greens, which is exactly what will be
taken away if this project is approved. Foraker said that he also wanted to point out that their
condominium covenants show that area as open space. He said he understood that the City
was not bound by the covenant, but the Commission should be aware that every person that
purchased property in that area did so under the belief that that lot was going to be left as open
space. Foraker said that Allen may not have intentionally deceived the homeowners, but that
the homeowners were deceived nonetheless.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 3 of 10
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen to clarify the legal issues with the plat. Greenwood
Hektoen explained that the lot was never actually designated as "open space," a technical term.
The lot was shown as being undeveloped on the plat, but was not designated as open space.
Greenwood Hektoen said she believed it would be difficult to establish that the neighboring
property owners had vested rights in the property r2m91ning UrldevelOped beCaUSe the plat dOeS
not have the area marked as open space.
Lars Anderson, 123 North Linn Street, an attorney representing Allen Homes, Inc., said that the
condominium declaration had been amended prior to the purchase of any of the homes and that
it clearly stated that there would be an additional dwelling in the development, though its
location was undecided. Anderson said that it was clearly in the public record that there would
be another building and that the site plan would be amended to incorporate that building,
pending City approval. Freerks asked if the property had ever been looked at as a set-aside for
the Parks and Recreation Department. Anderson said that it had not. Miklo added that in the
original planned development the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the
configuration of Lot 1 with the townhomes on the perimeter. In order to add to that, Miklo
explained, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have to take action allow
to the planned development overlay. Miklo said that the property owner could not simply go out
and get a building permit for another building; the public process involving the Commission and
the Council is required.
Chad Struve, 318 Westbury Drive, said that he was one of the first people to live in Old Town
Village. Struve said that a lot of the original residents of Old Town Village were present to
support Jesse Allen. Struve said there were not concerns from those who had been in Old
Town Village for a considerable amount of time. Struve said there had been stormwater issues
in the past but those problems have been solved.
Freerks asked Kuecker for information on water issues. Kuecker said that when the stormwater
retention facility was constructed one of the berms was constructed higher than the road,
leading to flooding; that has since been corrected.
Adam Slager, 3612 Glastonbury Street, said that he lives right next to the proposed building and
he is in favor of it. He said that he had never been approached about a petition of any kind.
Zeb Rino, 309 Westbury Drive, said that as a resident of Westbury Drive he believes he should
have just as much say about what it looks like as someone living on Scott Boulevard does. He
said that he would much rather see the facades of buildings than the back sides of them. Reno
said that if Allen left the space open it would take a pretty large hedge to cover up all of the
garages and the decks that make up the view currently. He said he would like to see the
townhomes built.
Blaine Thomas, address not given, said he lives across the street on the north side of Herbert
Hoover Highway. Thomas said that Iowa City has been greatly affected by the nation's
economic downturn. He said that he personally had recently had difficulties refinancing a home
that he had purchased here in town. Thomas noted that money is a lot harder to get a hold of
right now than it had been in the past. He said that Allen is a young man who employs
hundreds of people in this community. Thomas said that he and two other people in the room
were employed by Allen indirectly and that this project will keep the tax base moving forward
and sustain momentum in Iowa City's building community. Thomas said the project is beautiful
and the neighborhood is great and he asked the Commission to allow it to go forward.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 4 of 10
Corey Tweden, 445 Thornberry Avenue, said that he believes having homes facing the street
would be an improvement over the current view, which is of the backs of homes. He said that
there is a great deal of noise that comes from the backs of the homes, and the new building
would also serve as a noise buffer.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Payne motioned to approve REZ09-00010, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc.
for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family
Residential (OPD-8) zone for approximately .44 acres of property located on Westbury
Drive, south of Middlebury Road to allow five additional townhouse style dwelling units.
Plahutnik seconded.
Payne said she drove by the area a couple of days ago and that she agrees with the sentiment
that the building would improve the overall appearance of the area. She said she understood
the parking issues discussed by residents, but that she did not think this building would make
the issues exponentially worse, as the majority of the parking issues were probably caused by
the presence of the nearby restaurant. Payne said the wetlands look great and they are not
going to go away. She said the additional townhome would probably enhance the look of the
area.
Freerks asked Staff if a great deal of parking would be removed by minimizing the driveway.
Miklo said that he did not believe there would be a net loss of parking; the new plan simply
relocates six parking spaces. Miklo said that each home will have atwo-car garage with two
parking spaces behind the garage. There will be no loss of on-street parking in front of the
proposed building. Miklo said the City did recently prohibit on-street parking for a portion of
Westbury Drive in response to concerns that restaurant patrons were parking on the residential
portion of the street. Miklo said that the parking allotted in the plan exceeds zoning
requirements.
Koppes asked if Staff had come across any other OPDs that had been changed after
development was complete. Miklo said that while there had been some modifications of OPD
developments he could not recall ever having added a substantial number of units. Miklo said
that in regard to concerns expressed about setting a precedent for changing planned
developments, it is Staff's view that, like any other zoning matter, anyone can apply to change a
given zoning and engage in the public process required for reaching a decision on that
application. Koppes asked if there was no concern that developers might in the future simply
leave a lot undesignated and then come back to try to rezone it later. Greenwood Hektoen said
that every decision made by the Commission is individualized and does not have precedential
ramifications. Miklo said that even if the property owner had designated the lot as open space,
he would still have the right to ask the Commission and the City Council for permission to
change that designation. Miklo said the Commission plays an important role in this decision.
Busard said he is somewhat conflicted on this issue due to the parking issues and the possibility
that there was some misunderstanding about whether or not the lot was intended to remain
open on the part of area homebuyers. Busard said he had initially had concerns about setting a
precedent for changing an already-developed OPD, but accepts Greenwood Hektoen's
assurances that the decision will remain individualized. Busard said he would likely vote in
favor of the application.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 5 of 10
Plahutnik said that the whole Commission was conflicted on this issue. He said that he
understands the viewpoint of the property owners who believe they are not getting quite what
they paid for because it was their understanding that the space would remain open. However,
he said, the Commission is not party to the covenants in questions and so it can consider only
the tenets of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. Plahutnik said the building is
compatible with other buildings in the neighborhood. He said that he lives on Gilbert Street so
by his reckoning there are no parking issues to speak of in Old Town Village. Plahutnik said
that it all boils down to what an individual can do with his/her property. He said that the owner
has come before the Commission with a reasonable plan that is not excessively dense.
Plahutnik said he finds himself in a position where he must regretfully support the application.
He stressed that communication is so important, and that it is so much better when a developer
can lay out expectations from the very beginning and communicate them to nearby
homeowners.
Weitzel said he too has felt conflicted on this issue. He said there seemed to be a genuine
appearance that this open space was intended to remain that way forever to homebuyers.
However, he said there was in fact no legal guarantee for that, and the land is developable.
Weitzel said that it might not have been a reasonable expectation to believe that properties
fronting on Scott Boulevard would retain open backyards forever. Weitzel said that quite a bit of
green space will remain in that development between the wetlands and the improved
designated open space the developer is providing. Weitzel said that in addition to open space,
other factors need to be considered, such as maximizing density for a given zone; failure to do
so leads to other issues. Weitzel said the rights of the developer must also be considered, and
while it may be unpalatable to him, he will also vote in favor of the application.
Koppes asked if the open space being dedicated is guaranteed to remain open space. Miklo
said that it will remain open space for as long as the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council say that it must remain open. Someone could always petition to have the
designation changed, as is happening with the lot currently under consideration; although it is
doubtful that Staff would recommend it. Koppes said she is inclined to vote no on the
application because she feels like a development plan was in place, and that it is not right or fair
to change it now.
Freerks said that it often happens that people come before the Commission upset about the
development of land that they do not own but believed would be open space indefinitely. She
said that while she has a great deal of empathy for that situation, ultimately it comes down to the
fact that property owners have the right to develop their land for uses in accordance with the
zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said that change is difficult and she feels for
the neighbors. She said that she hopes at some point the neighborhood can come together on
this issue. Freerks said she must look at each development individually, and she does believe
that because the lot was not designated as open space or park land the property owner's
position must be respected. She said that a great deal of open space remains, and that in the
end, she believes that the amenities and upgrades to the remaining open space will be positive
for the area. Freerks said she is no longer concerned about parking or stormwater issues for
the neighborhood. Freerks said that the current plan is a better plan than the one presented two
weeks ago. She thanked everyone for coming to participate in the process; noting that if no one
had expressed concerns at the last meeting then the plan presented there would likely have
been approved. Freerks said all of the conversation resulted in a better plan, a better view, and
better open space.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 (Koppes voting no; Eastham abstaining).
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 6 of 10
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by DASH Properties, LLC for a
preliminary and final plat of Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an outlot for private open
space), 3.92 acre residential subdivision located between Washington and Jefferson
Streets at 1136 E Washington Street.
Plahutnik recused himself from consideration of the application because his employer is the
applicant.
Miklo explained that the property has frontage on both Washington Street and Jefferson Street.
There is an existing house on the property that has a driveway from Washington Street within
an easement shared by two other properties in the vicinity. Miklo said there is an odd
panhandle shaped strip of land on the property that goes back almost all of the way to Court
Street. Miklo said that Staff's understanding is that this panhandle was an old railroad right of
way that attached to this property at some point in history. There is a creek running through the
property which divides it into three segments.
The proposed preliminary plat would create two lots: one with the existing house and the
panhandle on it and another lot for private open space. The outlot would front Jefferson Street.
The lot on which the existing house is located would continue to front on Washington Street.
Miklo said the property is zoned RS-5 which allows single family homes on lots of at least 8,000
square feet. That zoning code requires a 60-foot lot width or frontage on a public street; Miklo
said that that requirement is fulfilled on both proposed lots. Much of the area is encumbered by
floodplain, floodway, potential wetlands and woodlands in the area, as well as a major sanitary
sewer easement. As a result, the outlot would be very difficult to develop. Miklo said that with
the current plat, there will be no development on Outlot A unless the applicant comes back
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to ask for the designation of
private open space to be removed. Miklo said there may very well be a place on the property
where a house could be built, but that it would have to be looked at very carefully. Miklo said
that the other lot will retain the existing house and will not change. He said it is possible that
another garage or outbuilding could be built on the lot, but not another house. With this
subdivision, Miklo explained, there will be no increase in density or housing units being
approved. Miklo said that an access easement has been requested because of the
configuration of the creek on the property so that if the outlot needs any maintenance or
improvements the owner can reach it. An access easement has also been added to the lot with
the existing house on it.
Miklo said that all of the technical deficiencies with the plat have been corrected and the City
attorney is reviewing a draft of the legal papers. Staff is recommending approval of the
application subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council's consideration of the
matter.
Miklo offered to answer any questions Commissioners might have.
Payne said that her concern was whether the access easement actually afforded access to the
property in real life or just on paper. Miklo said there are places that are rugged but that he
believed that for the purposes that someone would need to get back there it would suffice.
Payne asked if the easement were actually useable. Miklo said it is probably the best
alternative for the property. Eastham asked how wide the easement is and Miklo replied that it
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 7 of 10
is ten feet wide. Koppes asked what the purpose of the subdivision is. Miklo said that it is his
understanding that the people who currently rent the home wish to buy it, but that they cannot
afford the whole property. As a result, the applicant is retaining a portion of the property for their
own personal open space. Payne asked for clarification on concerns expressed by a neighbor
in an a-mail to Staff. Miklo said that the neighbor was concerned about property lines, but that
he did not believe that was an issue because all of the property lines in question are internally
set. Miklo said that concerning the neighbor's letter, one of the issues in play is that the
property line is along the creek and the creek moves somewhat.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Doug Alberhasky, 911 E. Market Street, said that both his wife's family and his own family have
a long history with this property. Alberhasky said that his grandfather's last memory before
leaving for World War II was pulling up all of the old railroad iron on the property; the outlot was
a pasture where his grandfather's family raised cows and livestock. Alberhasky's wife grew up
at 1200 East Washington Street, and her godmother owned the property prior to Alberhasky's
purchase of it. Alberhasky said that the couple had rehabilitated the house and rented it, but the
reason for subdividing the property is to provide a space for his son to go camping and to
recreate in. Alberhasky said that the current tenants have been wonderful tenants and really
want to buy the property, but cannot afford to buy the entire property. Alberhasky said that he
had never dreamed that the process of getting the property subdivided would be such a pain.
He said he and his wife have no evil intentions in mind and that they would consider giving the
outlot portion of the property to the Johnson County Trust or something like that at some point in
the future. The idea behind the subdivision is simply to allow the house to be affordable for the
tenants to buy and to provide a recreational space for the Alberhasky family.
Payne asked if the 10-foot easement was sufficient for accessing the property. Alberhasky said
that it is, and that he has put a lot of time, energy, equipment and work into restoring the
property to its more natural state.
Frank Gersh, 1041 Woodlawn Avenue, said that the area is a very beautiful one and that
Alberhasky has done some very good things in planting prairie grasses and removing scrub
trees. Gersh said it was not clear to him whether building actual buildings on the outlot was a
part of the plan. If it is, he would not support it. Miklo said that approval of this subdivision
would not approve additional buildings. Although there is potential in the future for one
additional house to be built on the subdivided property, it is not being proposed at this time.
Freerks noted that Commissioners had received a letter from the Johnson County Soil and
Water Conservation District which talks a great deal about endangered species, soil types, etc.
that would have to be carefully looked into before further development could be considered.
Freerks said it is clear that good things are happening with the property, but that she respects
Gersh taking the time to express his concerns. She said that she has the impression that a lot
of work would need to be done before anything could happen on that outlot. Greenwood
Hektoen said that unlike the previous application, this outlot would be designated as private
open space. She said that if the applicant ever applied to be permitted to build on the lot then
neighbors would be notified, the property would be posted, and an intensive sensitive areas
review of the property would be done. Greenwood Hektoen explained that in order to build a
house on the existing lot, the owner would have to tear down the current house and build a new
one. Gersh asked why a new easement is necessary if there already is one in place. Miklo said
that in order to get to the back half of the outlot there needs to be some access from
Washington Street. Miklo said that if there is no easement in place the only legal access to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 8 of 10
Outlot A will be from Jefferson Street. Miklo explained that the easement would allow the owner
to build a driveway if they wished. Gersh asked if the 100-year floodplain would affect any
future plans to build. Freerks said there is no reason that an outlot cannot be located in a
floodplain, and there is no discussion of building at present. Miklo said that in the future if
anyone wished to build on either of the lots they would have to build one foot above the 100-
yearfloodplain either by building on stilts or bringing in fill.
Martha Gordon, 1041 Woodlawn Avenue, asked what the property is designated as now, and
what the difference would be if the designation was switched to private open space. Gordon
asked why the change was needed, and if there was any protection from building on it in the
future other than the difficulty of building on that site. She said although she does not own the
property, she would like to make sure that it is preserved because it is a really nice wooded
area.
Miklo explained that as it exists now there is more than one lot there. Miklo said that the
purpose of the change is to allow for the sale of the existing house to another party. Without the
subdivision, that would not be possible.
Freerks explained that the lot would be considered a "difficult" one by many developers and
owners; however, it is precisely because this owner has a history with the property and cares for
it that he wishes to see it subdivided so it can be better utilized and maintained.
Payne noted that designating that strip Outlot A made it difficult to build upon without jumping
through several hoops.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham motioned to approve SUB09-00009, an application submitted by DASH
Properties, LLC for a preliminary and final plat of Hunter's Hideaway, a 1-lot (with an
outlot for private open space), 3.92 acre residential subdivision located between
Washington and Jefferson Streets at 1136 E Washington Street, subject to Staff approval
of legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
Payne seconded.
Eastham said that he wished to respond to a letter from Joan Jehle of 1167 E. Jefferson Street.
He said that it is his understanding that the Commission and the City Council do not have
authority to re-establish property lines.
Weitzel said he wished to reiterate that the subdivision is being done to allow someone to
purchase the home they are currently renting. Weitzel said that it does sound as though the
current landowner has a mind toward stewardship. Weitzel said that while the lot is very difficult
to build on, it is not impossible that at some point someone will take the time and expense
required to look into that possibility. Even so, Weitzel said, it seems like this is the best use of
the land and fits all of the zoning criteria.
Freerks said there are not that many places like this left in Iowa City and she is glad it is being
preserved and well taken care of. She said she appreciated Alberhasky's efforts to subdivide
the land.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Plahutnik abstaining).
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2009 -Formal
Page 9 of 10
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 2 & 5. 2009:
Busard motioned to approve the minutes.
Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Plahutnik not present at time of vote).
OTHER:
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Plahutnik not present at time of vote) at 8:05
p. m.
Z
O
~G
~~
00
V W
~ ~
Z V o
NZN
OD
Q W
C9 ~
Z_ Q
Z
Z
Q
J
a
T X X X X X X X
r
X X X X X X X
r
o O X x x x x X
r
; x x x o x o x
~ x x x x x x
o
N X X X X X X X
w
X X X X X X X
ti
°~° x ~ X X X X X
c~
~ o x x x x o x
X X X X X X X
x X X X X ~ X
X X X X X X X
M X X X X X ~ X
N x x x x o x x
~ x x x o x x x
w r y M N O O M
~ ~
F.X o o o o o 0 0
w
W ~ ~-
~ m J
~ J
= a z ~ ~
W O V ZQ J 2 ~_
Q ~ W v Y ~
Z ~ Q Y ~ H
a
~
w N
a
z
= W
~
v~ cn w a ~ Q -
w
~
m Q
w o0
w 0
Y 0
a .~
a ~
c7
Z_
H
W
W
O
X X X X X X X
r
r
x X ~ X X X X
o O X X X X X
~ x x x x x x o
ti
M X X X X X X X
M
M X X X X X X X
N X X X X X X X
~ O X X ~ X X ~
~W .- ~ M N O O M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~X o o o o o 0 0
w
w ~ }
~ m J
J J
2 Q Z ~ 2
W ln 2 Z _ ~_
z m Q Y ~
=
~ N F- ij
^~
a Z 2
~ W ~ ~ J W
m w ~ Y a a ~
z
H
W
W
O
z
0
as
~ O L
X ~~
W •~ ~
a~
~- c a~i ~
~ ~ N E ca
cn N ~ p ••
~ ~ Q Z Z
n.au„u
Ii ~~ LLl
~~ ,
xooz ;
>-
w
Y
5b 2
MINUTES APPROVED
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL
Members Present: Jan Finlayson, DaLayne Williamson, Ann Kahn, Rick Fosse,
Mark Seabold
Members Absent: Terry Robinson, Patrick Carney
Staff Present: Jeff Davidson, Marcia Bollinger, Karl Burhop
Public Present: Melissa Mitchell, interested party, Alex Solsma, UI Student,
Sujin Kim, UI Student
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
Recommend approval of a revised annual cost program for Public Art Program.
Moved by Finlayson. Seconded by Fosse. Motion passed 5:0.
CALL TO ORDER
Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:37 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4 2009 MEETING
MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the minutes; Williamson seconded. The motion
passed 5:0.
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSAL FOR MINIMAL ART PROGRAM
CONTINUATION
Bollinger started by explaining the City Council's stance towards the Public Art Program;
they would like to keep some components of the Public Art Program as well as the
Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) if at all possible. Bollinger presented the
Committee with a proposal for an "abbreviated Public Art Program. cost sheet. Bollinger
said that Dale Helling [Acting City Manager] would discuss the Public Art Program and
costs associated with the City Council at a work session on Monday night, September
28. Bollinger commented that most of the costs reflect her and her intern's time.
Williamson asked what the Public Art Program has in reserves. Davidson said around
$38,000. Bollinger said that funds were needed to cover administrative costs; there are
available funds for capital costs. Fosse said that the amount of money spent by PAAC is
highly dependent on the type of art project. Davidson said he had talked to City finance
director about the City's art assets and it seemed that there is commitment to maintain
current art assets. Fosse stated that maintaining a maintenance budget was important
as the streets division expenses were starting to exceed its revenue and it would make it
more difficult to provide maintenance assistance to the art inventory.
Public Art Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Page 2 of 4
Davidson highlighted discussion he had with Dale, saying that Dale seems to want to
continue the Art Program and has great appreciation for the work the PAAC does.
Davidson pointed out that the Neighborhood Art Project accounts for roughly 60% of the
total costs of the abbreviate Public Art Program as proposed. Davidson said that Dale
suggested looking at this expense. Bollinger concurred that Neighborhood Art Project
expenses could be reduced. Davidson also said that the Mayor had thought maybe
funds could available for Art Program through grants or money from the Iowa Tourism
Department.
Bollinger reminded everyone that there was still an outstanding obligation to Dale Merrill
for $5,000. Seabold commented on the cost list presented by Bollinger, saying that the
list looked very good and that most of their projects are relatively low cost and have
been successful. Seabold also stated he thought the Lemme Leopard project was very
successful and the recent murals have been very popular. Davidson added that the
Public Poetry project has been great and Iowa City has been designated a City of
Literature by UNESCO; it only makes sense to continue such programs.
Seabold asked if upcoming reductions would only last for a year. Davidson wasn't quite
sure but speculated that the Mayor might not even bring up the topic of reducing funds to
Public Art Program this year. Seabold elaborated further by reminding everyone that
Iowa City is a city of culture; he doesn't want PAAC to disappear.
Bollinger asked about the letter Seabold drafted to City Council. Seabold explained that
the letter drafted to City Council had captured a degree of understanding PAAC has
about the uncertain times and limited funds available, however the letter still insisted that
some type of art program still continue, even if minimal or reduced from its current state.
Williamson asked if administrative costs are an issue. Bollinger said she couldn't
speculate. Davidson said that staff time devoted to the Public Art Program and PAAC is
essentially shared or subsidized by the Planning Department and/or Neighborhood
Services.
MOTION: Finlayson moved to approve a revised annual cost program for the Public Art
Program and then to recommend that to City Council. Seconded by Fosse. Motion
passed 5:0.
Bollinger reminded the Committee about the City Council work session on September
28. Davidson added the meeting should start at 6:30pm. Bollinger said she would keep
everyone informed on the upcoming meeting/work session.
Seabold said it was good to hear there was support from staff, acting city manager, and
the City Council. Davidson suggested that the PAAC should consider changing meeting
times from monthly to quarterly, or once every two months, or so on.
Seabold asked about spending right now. Davidson said that the balance prior to June
30 should be entirely available. Davidson said the political climate makes it difficult for
the Public Art funds to be spent on large projects, but the funding is there. Finlayson
asked about the $38,000, if that was it and what about next year's budget? Bollinger
reiterated that capital funds cannot be used on administrative costs. Williamson asked if
there was a Neighborhood Art Project currently underway. Bollinger said that Melrose
hadn't started yet but had something in the works. Bollinger also said there was strong
interest from Creekside, Friendship, Grant Wood, and Miller Orchard.
Public Art Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Page 3 of 4
COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES
Bollinger informed Committee that Jason Messier's Simple Flight sculpture was installed
last Friday [September 4], though unfortunately since then one of the wings had been
bent and footprints had been found. There is concern about safety and care for the
sculpture. The City Attorney will respond to Messier's concerns. Bollinger pointed out
that the sculpture had gone up during Fry Fest and immediately before an Iowa football
game so that area was particularly busy over the weekend.
ADJOURNMENT
Kahn motioned to adjourn; Fosse seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:01 PM.
Minutes submitted by Karl Burhop.
rn
~o
~o
~ N
U ~
~~
vii a°i
'> cn
Q ~ ~
~ ~ O
U C ~
~ ~ ~
~~a
.~
~ 'd
o '"
U ~
~a
~ ~
.~ V C
~ d N
"C ~
C
v
.r.,
a
~
'~
'~
'~
'~ W
o, O O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M ~ ~C r~C ~ ~ 0 ~C
0 ~C ~C ~C ~C ~C ~C
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
.--~
~ '-+ N ~--~ O N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..-.~ ,--~ '--r ~-+ ,--~ ,--~
O O O O O
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W r-. ~ ,--~ .--~ ..-r
O O O O O
rr
O
~
b O
~
~ ~
~ ~ ,~
~ y
C ~
x 3 ~
~
~ ~ ~
~
' ~" ~ V
cd
z G
~ C~
A
ti
~ ~
a
~ ~
H
b
U
W
r--~ r--~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a ~ Q
~~ ~~ ~~
AA~~ W
1~1 ~ O O
5b_ ~3~
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 10, 2009
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Pam Michaud, Jim
Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, David McMahon, Alicia Trimble
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Rhonda Miller
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairperson Downing called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
846 Rundell Street.
Kuecker said this project involves a window replacement. She said this is anon-historic
structure, aranch-style house in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. Kuecker said the
applicant would like to replace all the windows and would prefer to use vinyl windows.
Kuecker said that the guidelines allow for the replacement of deteriorating windows with new
windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall
appearance of the original windows. She said, however, the guidelines disallow the use of vinyl
windows unless they are original to the structure.
Kuecker said that in staff's opinion, vinyl windows are not appropriate for this house, as the
house currently has wood windows. She added that ranch houses of this vintage were often
built with wood or metal windows. Kuecker said staff believes that wood or metal clad wood
windows would be appropriate on a house of this vintage and integrity.
Kuecker said staff's recommendation is to approve the window replacement project with the
conditions that the windows be wood or metal clad wood; the replacement windows match the
original windows in type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance;
and the final windows specifications being approved by staff.
Miller, the owner of the house, said she has lived in this house six and one-half years. She said
that she planned to replace the windows and was alerted that her property is in a historic
district.
Historic Preservation Commission
December 10, 2009
Page 2
Miller said her reaction to this has involved quite a bit of frustration. She said she is in the
process of getting quotes and the difference between the cost of wood and vinyl is substaintial.
Miller said that in the event that the Commission decides the windows can be wood only, she
might not be able to afford to do this.
Miller said she wanted to understand this better. She pointed out that the classification of her
home is non-historic.
Ponto asked Kuecker if this house is truly non-historic, since it was built in 1946. Kuecker
responded that it was built after the period of significance for the district so that it is a non-
historic property in the district. Kuecker said that anon-contributing property is built during the
range of significance but has been altered so significantly that it has lost its historic integrity.
Miller said there are other homes in her neighborhood that have vinyl windows. She said she
does not look around the neighborhood and see it as a historic neighborhood. Miller said that
her end of Rundell is somewhat run down, and there are a lot of rentals. She said this seems a
bit much for her particular ranch home.
Downing said that vinyl windows certainly can be less expensive but are not necessarily so. He
said there are a number of reasons that vinyl windows are not approved for historic reasons and
also a number of reasons not to install them for practical purposes. Downing said that vinyl
windows cannot be painted, and they don't usually represent the style of historic windows. He
said that, practically speaking, vinyl windows are low performing thermally and really have a
very short life span.
Downing said that vinyl, as a material, is very dry and very brittle. He stated that solvent-based
plasticizers are added to it to make plastic. Downing said that vinyl, such as vinyl siding and
windows, crack and fall apart over time.
Miller said she was told differently and that wood windows would dry out and crack. Downing
said that his house was built in 1890, and he still has mostly original windows. He said that in
1988, Andersen windows, a high quality vinyl window, were put into one room. Downing said he
took them out a year and one-half ago, because they were falling apart.
Michaud asked Wagner, as a contractor, his opinion of vinyl windows. Wagner replied that vinyl
windows are called replacement windows, because the owner ends up replacing them.
Wagner said that the cost of installation is about the same for wood or vinyl windows. He said
the contractor would probably take off the brick molding, the trim around the window outside.
Wagner said that the labor cost is essentially the same. He suggested the homeowner get some
quotes on the windows the Commission is recommending. Miller said that she has spoken with
Knebel Windows a couple of times but is still looking at the information.
Michaud asked how deteriorated the current windows are and if repair had been attempted.
Miller stated that they had repainted everything, which was extremely time consuming. She said
that was one of the reasons to do replacement, as the windows continue to require a lot of
maintenance. Miller said the windows are very drafty. She said they have also considered just
replacing the storm windows.
Historic Preservation Commission
December 10, 2009
Page 3
Wagner asked if, when Miller replaces the windows, she is going to replace the storms as well.
He said that storm windows do not fall under the Commission's purview. Miller said she was
hoping to use a type of window that would include all of that in one.
Baldridge asked if either of the bidders gave an estimate of life span for the windows. Miller said
the vinyl windows have a lifetime guarantee that is passed on to subsequent homeowners. She
said she did not have that information for wood windows.
Miller asked what a metal clad window is. Kuecker replied that it is a wood window with a metal
exterior cladding that would could be painted, but would not require painting.
Michaud said that the owner could use insulated windows or just replace the most exposed
section of the house. Kuecker said there is a tax credit available right now for qualified energy
efficient upgrades to a house, which the owner is hoping to take advantage of.
Wagner said the windows that are there now have two lights. Miller confirmed this. He asked if
the guidelines require the same considerations, and Kuecker confirmed this.
Swaim asked about the current windows. Kuecker said they are wood windows, but the storm
windows are metal.
Downing suggested that Miller look at independent contractors who don't represent any
particular window, as well as multiple window companies that have a range of products. Wagner
asked if the quote for the price of the windows was for wood with metal clad with the two lights.
Miller stated that she had not received the quote.
Miller said the person she spoke with was talking about sash replacements because that would
be the least expensive way to go. She said it would look almost identical to what is there now,
and that is a wood option. Miller said that in order to get the tax credit, she would also have to
put on the storm windows. She said she would need to price out the cost of the storm windows.
Wagner said that for some windows, it's almost better not to replace the original sashes but put
the money into a better storm window..
Wagner suggested Miller consult with Iowa City Window and Door to get a comparison. Wagner
said they have Andersen Windows as well as Pella and possibly others. He said that Andersen
and Pella both make wood windows. Wagner said that Knebel Windows sells a good quality
window, but they might be a little bit more expensive. He said the big window in front will
obviously cost the most. Wagner said that Lowe's has Pella windows that are wood with metal
clad, as does Menard's. He said that would give an idea of what those cost for a comparison.
Kuecker said there are some storm windows that qualify for the tax credit. She said that may
allow the owner to spend less and still get the credit. Kuecker said that Miller is welcome to
contact her with questions as she gets more quotes.
MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application
for 846 Rundell Street with the following conditions: the windows be either wood or metal
clad wood; the replacement windows match the original windows in type, size, sash
width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the original windows; with
the final window specification to be approved by staff. Swaim seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Bunting Eubanks McMahon, and Trimble absent).
Historic Preservation Commission
December 10, 2009
Page 4
The Commission discussed the need to have the information regarding historic and
conservation districts available to property owners.
Wagner said the window with the divided light is going to have to be custom made, whether it is
vinyl or not, because it is just not common. Kuecker said the window would have to be done as
stated in the motion, but an exception could be made if the Commission voted on it. Wagner
said that the two over two window would cost more. He said the one over one style would look
just fine and be appropriate to the style.
Kuecker stated that the divided lights in the picture window are more character defining than the
divided lights in the other windows. Wagner agreed and asked if the guidelines allow for a
change in the configuration of the lights. Kuecker responded that there is a section of
exceptions for non-historic properties that would allow for exceptions that do not further detract
from the historic character of the district, do not create a false historic character, and are
compatible with the style and character of the non-historic property.
Wagner said that putting in wood windows or metal clad that have one light would definitely add
to the home, whereas vinyl replacement windows would detract from the home. Kuecker added
that vinyl windows are specifically disallowed, unless they were original.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Downing moved to amend the main motion to
allow for one over one mullion patterned windows, except for the picture window. Baker
seconded the amendment to the main motion. The amendment to the main motion
carried on a vote of 8-0 (Bunting Eubanks McMahon, and Trimble absent).
421 Fairchild Street.
Kuecker said this property is anon-historic property, because all of its character-defining historic
qualities have been removed.
Kuecker said that the front deck and side deck were installed about eight years ago. She said
the applicant's homeowners' insurance is requiring him to install railings on the two decks.
Kuecker said the applicant proposes a fairly simple rail, as shown on the photographs she
displayed. She said staff believes this railing is appropriate for the simple style of the building.
Kuecker said that because the house was at one time historic and may at some future time
have features reattached, at least the front railing should be paintable. She said the motion
therefore includes the condition that the front railing be stained or painted. She recommended
that the front rail not be constructed of treated lumber.
Downing asked if a synthetic material could be used. Kuecker said she does not know if that
material was considered when the guidelines were written and is unsure of its appropriateness
in this application. Downing said the Commission allowed it on the Mansion for the upper level
railings.
Michaud asked about the dimensions of the railings. She said it has two by two square spindles
with four by four posts.
MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application
for 421 Fairchild Street as submitted with the condition that the railings on both the front
Historic Preservation Commission
December 10, 2009
Page 5
and side deck be stainable or paintable. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried
on a vote of 8-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 12. 2009.
MOTION: Downing moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation
Commission's November 12, 2009 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
s/pcd/mins/hpc/2009/hpc 12-10-09.doc
Z
O
O
U
Z
O
H
Q
W
N
W
a
U
O
N
2
°
O
V
W
w
U
Z
Q
°
Z
W
H
Q
N X X X ~ ; O X X X X ~ X
X X ~ X ~ O X X ~ X ~ X
r
c
~- X X ~ X ~ X O X O X ~ X
X ~ X X ~ X X X X ~ X X
01
~ X X ~ X ;
' X X X X ~ X X
X
~
X
X
~
X
~
X
X
~
X W
~
r-
cc
X
X
X
X
~
~ w
p W_
O w
O ~ X X
N X X X X ~ ~ W
O X X ~
'
' X ~
~
X X X X X ; X X ~ ~ X X
~ '
X ~ X X X ; X X ~ ~ X X
~ '
M X X X X ~ ~ ~ X X ~ X X
X X X X X X X ~ X X
N '
~ X X X X ; ; X X X ; X X
~ a
W LJJ
~ ~
~
rn
N
M N
r
rn
N
M O
r
rn
N
M ~
~
rn
N
M ~
~
rn
N
M ~-
~
rn
N
M N
r
rn
N
M O
~
rn
N
M N
~
rn
N
M ~-
r
rn
N
M O
r
rn
N
M N
r
rn
N
M
N
W
z
=
ui
Op
o
m
W
y
w
W
m
J
~
t9
Z
o
G
~
Y
a
w ~
U
a
~
v
~
~
i °_
>
°
O
a
~
~
~
a
°
Q
~
~
N
a
~
~
a
J
z_
C9
~
a
~ Q
Q
Z
Z
~
_
U
Q
w
m
~
~ Y
Q
LL
~
z
a
~
as
0
0
N
E
O
-~ d
~ o
~ Z ~
X ~~
c
_ c ~ °'
~~~~c~
~~~
~~¢Z o
d.¢ ii n Z
n u w ~
XOOZ ;
5b(4)
MINUTES APPROVED
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 16, 2009 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson, Will Jennings,
Robert Anderson
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Barbara Eckstein
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Pete McNally
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Tyson, Sheerin, Anderson, and Jennings were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 14, 2009:
Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes.
Tyson moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Anderson seconded.
The motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: Postponed due to weather event to January 13 meeting.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
October 14, 2009
Page 2 of 4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz explained that the board would consider another cell phone application in January. The
board expressed some uncertainty about its scope of review. Previously cell towers were limited
to commercial, industrial, or public zones. The zoning code now allows location of cell towers in
the ID zones by special exception. Walz explained the reason that this change was made was
to provide coverage to more residential areas.
Hektoen explained the limits of the Board's review. She stated that the City Council, as the
legislative body, establishes the criteria.
Jennings asked whether the Board could advocate for changes to the criteria. Hektoen said the
Board could advocate independently of a specific application.
Jennings asked for clarification regarding the definition of antennas vs. towers. Walz explained
the difference between the criteria for locating antennas on existing structures, which is
provisional use that is reviewed administratively, and the criteria that apply to the location for a
cell tower, which is an application to the Board of Adjustment. The tower or other proposed
structure is what triggers the special exception.
Hektoen explained that while some of the criteria are broad, as long as the board can articulate
the facts on which it is basing its decision, and provide substantial evidence, the decision was
defensible. The Board cannot deny location based on the fact that another company already
provides coverage to the area. Jennings clarified that the term "service" in the criteria refers to
the individual cell provider.
Anderson asked whether the Board could ask for a higher tower to create opportunity for co-
location. Walz indicated that the desire for co-location needed to be weighed against other
considerations such as aesthetics. Walz explained how the appearance of cell towers have
changed over time to become less obtrusive and the staff has advocated for the least obtrusive
designs.
Pete McNally, a representative for I-Wireless, explained that the use of wireless services have
changed over time. Fifteen years ago there was no system and people expected pockets in
service because they were not relying on cell service. Now that there is a system, people are
demanding more services. As more people use wireless devices and want service in more
areas, providers cannot have pockets in the service area. This has called for more, shorter
towers, in areas that have always been problematic.
McNally explained that different carriers have different band frequencies carry further and more
strongly than others. Those companies that got into cell service earlier got the better
frequencies. Other carriers have problem pockets in their service because their frequency does
not carry as far. Not every carrier needs a tower in the same spot. McNally indicated that the
board is doing its job by making the carrier find the best spot possible. Cell providers would
rather find a spot that is allowed administratively, such as co-location or mounting antennas to
an existing structure, than have to go through a long process. He thinks the City's policy makes
cell companies do their job better.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
October 14, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Jennings asked that the code be reviewed to be sure that it is up-to-date with current
technology. He felt that providers' claims of need for improved service overshadowed the other
criteria.
Walz and Hektoen explained recent legislation that requires Boards to make decisions
regarding cell tower locations within 150 days.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings moved to adjourn.
Tyson seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
O
O
N
r
N
O
U
0
C
N
N
O
f0
O d.
m o
U ~
~~
o~
~_
Q
M0
W
N
t~
i
O
V
~A'
W
~A,
W
~o
N ~( ' ~ ~ ~ ~g~ . ~ ~'
O
a Z Z ~ Z Z '~~ Z ~~-
O_ a a ia' a a ~i a
N u u u u u
N
~
~ c
L
a
_ Z Z ~
~ Z Z ~ Z
O
O~
N
'~ V ~` ~"` Z
Z Z Z Z
O +~., Z Z Z Z Z
~ ~ ~'
~ Z Z ~ Z Z Z
~., Z Z ~ Z Z '~ Z
M
N
a~ X x ~ X x R~, x
N ~
N
~/
H N ~ _ v1 M N _ O
~ ~ ~ ~
y .~ O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
~ C C
.L C
o
l
/
l
~
y
~
N ~ ~
C v i =
E
{A O !~ O
~ ~ L C 7
.
O ~ .
d ~ ~
O
d
~ m~ 3 u W ~ z
Vl
X~
W
~ ~ ~
~ Q Q
C
.O
d
d
C
d
N
.a
O
C
ce
t
.~
L
O
L
d0
C
~L
7
N
C
d0
L
u
L
t
.~
L
d
c~
L
L
C ~
Gl
N ~
O O
Z Z
II II II II II
w
Approved Minutes
November 2009
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
ROOM 205, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Chuck Felling, Jay Honohan, Sarah Maiers, Charlotte
Walker, Nancy Wombacher
Members Absent: Merce Bern-Klug, Michael Lensing
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light
Others Present: Tiffiny Johnston-Hines, Dave Dowell
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Jay Honohan chaired the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 15.27, AND NOVEMBER 5, 2009
MEETINGS:
Felling asked to have a point clarified relating to Buhman's investigation of
options for a ping pong table in the October 15 minutes. Johnston-Hines said that
her name should be added to the "Others Present" area of the November 5
meeting minutes.
Motion: To accept the minutes from the October 15, 27, and November 5,
2009 meetings with corrections. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0.
Wombacher/Maiers.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Maiers will write the web article. Honohan will visit the City Council to report on
the November Commission meeting. Bern-Klug offered to visit the Board of
Supervisors.
5b(5)
Approved Minutes
November 2009
REVIEW, DISCUSSION. AND APPROVAL OF THE PARTICIPANT
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE TO BE USED WHEN VIOLATIONS OF THE
CENTER'S CODE OF CONDUCT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ENJOYMENT
OF OTHER PARTICIPANTS:
Kopping reported that the procedure was created in response to a specific
participant situation that was becoming volatile. The City Attorney suggested that
Kopping come up with a disciplinary policy that identifies consequences for
violations of the code of conduct. Kopping said the Center has never needed to
use a disciplinary procedure before this incident.
Walker said she did not think it was necessary to enact a new policy because
things have worked okay for many years without having a written disciplinary
procedure in place. Walker said the participant was expressing a legitimate gripe.
Kopping said the problem was recurring, and she made every intervention she
could in order to deal with the situation. There were meetings, conversations, and
letters. These efforts were unsuccessful.
Walker said she believed the actions Kopping took were successful because the
person was disciplined and is now welcome to return to the Senior Center.
Honohan said he does not believe the problem has been fully resolved because
the participant had left a sharp note in the ceramics room as recently as today.
Walker suggested the note be removed from the room to take care of the
problem.
Kopping said that the situation is not a matter of notes; it is a matter of one
participant getting in the face of another participant, threatening them and
throwing things. Walker said she was sure it wasn't very threatening to have an
80-some year old woman in the face of a young person. Kopping said it may be
hard to imagine if she wasn't there. Wombacher said she would feel very
threatened if she were the one involved in the situation.
Kopping pointed out that there is a difference between a code of conduct and a
disciplinary procedure. The first thing the attorney asked in response to this
situation was, "What is the disciplinary procedure if the code of conduct is
violated?" One has not existed prior to today, so Kopping drafted it.
Motion: To approve the disciplinary policy submitted to the Commission by
Kopping. Motion carried on a vote of 4-1. Wombacher/Felling. Walker
opposes.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF INSTALLATION OF A BULLETIN BOARD
FOR PARTICIPANT USE THAT IS UNREGULATED BY STAFF:
Approved Minutes
November 2009
Walker distributed a diagram detailing her proposal for a public bulletin board. It
included suggested rules for the board, which she said could be modified, and
information on the size and price of the bulletin board she is suggesting. She
described her proposal. She said amodest-sized board of 36"x48" could be
divided into three parts. One third would be used to display 4"x6" cards, another
for 3"x5" cards, and the third section would display the board rules and business
cards for senior-related businesses. She suggested that cards would be available
for a small price at the front desk.
Walker's suggested rules for the board are:
All cards must be signed and dated and clearly written.
Cards of different colors are allowed.
Cards can remain for up to 2 weeks.
Out of date announcements will be removed even if up less than 2 weeks.
Maintain orderly placement.
No political postings.
Don't cover up previous postings.
Cards in poor taste will be removed.
Business cards don't require dates, can remain while in good condition.
Honohan said he does not find 3 feet by 4 feet to be very modest. Honohan does
not like the idea of business cards. He said there is already a suggestion box on
the second floor of the Senior Center where participants can communicate
comments, with or without signing their name to them.
Wombacher noted that there is a bookcase at the Washington Street entrance
with lots of business cards and brochures for senior-related services.
Wombacher asked what is the purpose of the board? Walker said the purpose is
the same as the kiosk that used to exist in the Senior Center. Wombacher said
she doesn't remember it. Walker said she has heard from people that it was
popular in the past. Wombacher said she was not aware that there were many
people who wanted to post something outside of the existing available spaces.
Wombacher said she has a serious concern because when she worked at the
university, staff members had to be very careful about materials that were
posted. If something were posted that someone found sexually harassing or
otherwise offensive, there could be a risk of a lawsuit. Felling said he had the
same experience from his work at the university. Wombacher said she feels an
unregulated board could be an invitation for problems.
Kopping said the current policy that the Center does not post information for for-
profit businesses, but pretty much anything else can be posted on the designated
public board. Research recruitment postings have to be approved by the IRB at
the university. Kopping said she cannot speak to the popularity of the old kiosk
as a gathering space and she didn't know what the regulations were for its use.
Approved Minutes
November 2009
Motion: To install an open bulletin board in the Senior Center. Walker/no
second.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LIABILITY WAIVER USED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH SENIOR CENTER MEMBERSHIPS:
Honohan said that the Senior Center is a division of the City of Iowa City. The
Center has generally enjoyed a lot of autonomy in its operations, but if the City
Attorney makes a recommendation to the Center, it must be followed.
Wombacher asked if there are people who do not want to sign the waiver.
Kopping said she is aware of three instances in which participants have
complained about the waiver. Wombacher said she thinks it would be worth
pursuing if there were a groundswell of members who spoke out against it, but
she is not sure it is worth the time for three complaints.
Walker said that when slavery was popular people did not object either. Honohan
said he does not think that is a valid comparison.
Kopping said liability waivers have been used at the Center for a long time. She
has found documentation in the operational handbook of use of waivers back to
1995. She said the Center used the same form for a long time. When the
operational handbook was updated in 2008, it was a Commission
recommendation that the waiver of liability should be updated by the Legal
Department. In order to more consistently collect the signed waiver of liability, it
was placed on the reverse side of the membership registration form and printed
in the program guide. Only for the last six months or so has the waiver been
printed in the program guide.
Walker said the form was never used for everyone because the Senior Center
only created membership in 2004. Kopping said that prior to paid memberships,
there were voluntary memberships. People who elected to become members
were given a membership packet that included a release of liability.
Walker said she couldn't believe that people would sign the form. She said she
could understand requiring a release form for the exercise room. That is the only
legitimate reason we need it.
Wombacher asked how we would know whether or not someone plans to use the
exercise rooms. Should the Center ask members to sign agreement stating they
will not use the exercise rooms if they do not want to sign a waiver of liability?
Walker suggested that membership cards could be programmed to deny access
to exercise rooms for members who do not want to sign the waiver. Kopping said
that is true. Light said that this is the practice currently in place. If a new member
refuses to sign a waiver, their membership card is programmed not to give them
access to exercise rooms.
Approved Minutes
November 2009
Honohan said the only way to change the rule about requiring a waiver of liability
is to go to the City Council and ask them to reverse the decision of the Legal
Department. He does not see this happening.
Walker asked why someone should have to sign a waiver who is not going to use
the exercise rooms. Wombacher responded by saying it is not worth using the
staff time to screen out those members. Wombacher does not believe it is much
of a problem. Honohan does not think the issue needs to be further pursued
based on this discussion.
UPDATE ON OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT:
Kopping reported that there are 4 teams working on the self-assessment project.
Each team is examining two operational areas, similar to the way the Center has
conducted the assessment in the past. The groups are currently holding
meetings to assess their first operational area. Each team's second operational
area will be assessed after the holidays.
Johnston-Hines said she is impressed with the commitment of the participants.
She is grateful and surprised at the level of engagement of the volunteers
involved in the process.
ADJOURN FOR A MEETING OF SENIOR CENTER FUND, INC.
Motion: To adjourn for a meeting of Iowa City Senior Center Fund, Inc.
Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Maiers/Felling.
RECONVENE THE NOVEMBER 19 MEETING OF THE SENIOR CENTER
COMMISSION
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Kopping said she and the staff would like to recommend a change in policy
regarding participation in Senior Center groups and clubs. The policy would state
that it is recommended that participants in groups and clubs be members, but not
required. Kopping said that the policy started out requiring all participants to be
members. Then different groups that were taking place at night started to include
more intergenerational adults. The question of membership requirements is
getting very blurry, so Kopping feels it is time to revisit and clarify the policy.
The updated policy will also include definition of the criteria used for determining
whether a class requires membership or not.
Felling asked for clarification on what is considered a group or club at the Center.
Kopping listed the examples of the card groups, chess club, tango club, bowling
Approved Minutes
November 2009
group, and the singles group. Kopping described the blurriness of the current
criteria for membership requirements. For example, membership has not been
required for groups that meet outside of the Senior Center building or groups that
meet in the evening and attract adult participants under the age of 50. The same
confusion is arising with classes. Kopping plans to develop a policy for the
Commission's consideration to make the membership requirement issue more
cut and dry.
Honohan said he thinks that all classes should require membership. Kopping
said that makes it difficult for new people to try out a class and see how they like
it. Walker pointed out that some instructors will not allow their classes to be
offered only to Senior Center members.
Kopping updated the Commission on the Elder Services office in the Center. The
new nutrition manager moved his office into the suite with Joan Cook. Kopping
said she thinks he is making a lot of positive changes. She has noticed
improvements, such as hand-washing and cleaning equipment on the counters.
He has policies and procedures in place; he is planning in-service programs for
the staff; he is running a much tighter ship than we've seen before. He asked for
the Senior Center's logo to place on staff aprons that would recognize all of the
groups that are contributing to the nutrition program. He is interested in working
with the Senior Center, and Kopping said she is interested in working with him.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Correspondence: Honohan asked the Commission to officially receive the
correspondence included in the packet as part of the record.
Motion: To receive correspondence from George and Alliene Schrimper as
part of the record. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Felling/Wombacher.
Honohan asked the Commission to look at the draft of the Executive Committee
of the Senior Center Curriculum Committee. On the second page it appears there
is an inconsistency in the area of Composition and Duties of CSC Membership at
Large. It first says, "Members at large shall be current Senior Center members or
non-members..." The next line indicates that non-members cannot participate.
Honohan has pointed out his question to Michelle Buhman, and she will adjust
the document to remove the inconsistency.
Walker asked if the Commission is going to discuss the Center Steering
Committee. She said it seems like a really drastic change.
Kopping responded by saying that the CSC is a participant committee and she
doesn't believe it is a drastic change. It is just another way to secure participant
involvement in the operation of the Senior Center, and that was one of the things
encouraged by the goals and objectives that were just established at the October
27 meeting.
Approved Minutes
November 2009
Walker said she noticed the CSC document came from the Operation
Procedures for the NC Center for Creative Retirement, so this wasn't a creation
by local people.
Kopping said the CSC was created by local people; the committee structure was
adapted from another organization, but a lot of work went into the creation of the
committee. The Curriculum Committee and Participant Advisory Committee have
spent a lot of time discussing the implementation and wording of the document.
Walker said she has all kinds of questions. She said it looks like Susan Rogusky
has been shut out of process. Kopping said Rogusky was at the meeting with the
Curriculum Committee and the Participant Advisory Committee, and she will be
taking a role as the staff support for the community outreach standing committee,
which is a big deal.
Walker said she doesn't think the Commission is adopting or approving the
document or creation of the committee. Kopping said the Commission does not
need to approve it.
Wombacher said she views this committee as a wonderful step forward; it is a
positive thing to have people who are involved and willing to participate in this
way.
Walker said not too long ago we disbanded the Council of Elders that had a
similar purpose. She said the group was ignored and neglected. Walker said the
CSC strikes her wrong.
Kopping asked what about it bothers her. What could be wrong with having
participant input in the operation of the Center?
Walker said she does not like the name "Center Steering Committee." It should
be "Senior Center Steering Committee." Walker said she doesn't know how the
members will be chosen -are they volunteering themselves or selected? She
does not approve.
Kopping said she will take the naming suggestion back to the group for
discussion. None of this is cast in stone yet. Kopping said she thinks a lot of
Walker's questions will be addressed in the bylaws.
Walker said she will write up a report stating her concerns with the group.
Kopping said the group is having a meeting next week, and it would be helpful for
Walker to submit her concerns sooner rather than later. Walker said she would
submit her report by Monday.
Approved Minutes
November 2009
Honohan asked Light about the revenue report in the Commission packet. He
asked if the membership fees would see a surge of renewals in January. Light
said we receive membership renewal fees all year long. Memberships are
renewed a year after the membership is purchased or previously renewed; they
are not set to a fixed period like the parking permits. The parking permits are sold
for set periods of July 1, 2009 -June 30, 2010; July 1, 2009 -December 31,
2009; and January 1, 2010 -June 30, 2010. There will be a concentration of half
year permits sold at the beginning of 2010. Honohan asked why the contributions
and donations are so low. Light said the contributions and donations listed on the
report are for the operational budget only, not the gift fund, scholarship fund, or
Endowment. The projected revenue for operational contributions and donations
includes anticipated contributions from Senior Center Fund, Inc. for approved
purchases and annual interest earnings from the Endowment.
In addition to contributions from Iowa City Senior Center Fund, Inc., the
contributions and donations line in the operational budget includes donations
made by individuals to the Center's current fiscal year operational budget.
Board of Supervisors Report on the October Meeting: Honohan was not able to
attend the meeting of the Board of Supervisors because of cataract surgery.
Honohan wants to be sure the ceramics room issue is on the agenda for the
December meeting, since it was supposed to be revisited by the Commission.
Wombacher wanted to clarify that the Generations of Jazz event is a Senior
Center project. It outgrew the Senior Center space because it was so popular, so
the event was moved to a larger venue, the Englert Theatre, which was filled to
capacity at this year's event. The project is hosted by the Senior Center Silver
Swing Band. The Press Citizen has sponsored the event in the past. The
Community Foundation sponsored the event this year. Many groups contributed
to this event, including Zephyr Printing, The Englert Theatre, and West Music, as
well as the Senior Center. Walker indicated that the Community Foundation
provided $1500.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Maiers/Wombacher.
N O~
d O
~ O
C N
C~ L
C
d
0 O
az
a
Q
C
N
.~
'C
O O
V ~
as ~
+~ ~
~ t1 ~
C ~ N
C
L
Q
ti
N
r
X X ~ X X X
r
~
o
X
X
X
X
X
X W
~
N ~ X X ~ X X X
0
M ~ X X X X X X
0
X X X ~ X X X
N X X X x X X o
N X X X X X X ~
v
N X X X X X ~ ~
M
i
' ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z i
'
Z
N
' Z Z Z Z Z
~ ~ rn o o rn ~ rn
.Q
X
W ~
N O
N `
N ~
N O
N ~
N O
N
L r r r r r r r
~
L
r
7 ~
L
O
Z c
m
N
~
U
~
~
7
U
~
O
O
>+
~ c
m
J
O
~
U_
~
•~
~
`
~ ~
~
~
O
~C
U ~
o
>,
C
Z
vii
N
X C E
W ~ O
~ ~ N
O
~ ~ ~ O O
~QQZZ
II II
II W ~
II u
XOOzf
Y
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES -November 3, 2009
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
Janie Braverman, Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young
Abigail Yoder
Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
Captain Richard Wyss, Officer David Schwindt, and Officer Mike Smithey of
the ICPD; and public, David and Benjamin Brandauer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept PCRB Report of Summary Dismissal on Complaint #09-06
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Treloar to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 10/13/09
• ICPD General Order 89-04 (Civil Rights)
• ICPD General Order 99-11 (Arrests)
• ICPD Department Memo #09-36 (June-July 09 Use of Force Review)
Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent.
OLD BUSINESS Community Forum -King and Treloar meet with the Police Chief and agreed that the
Chief would do the Use of Force presentation at the forum. All questions should be
directed to the Board after the presentation. King will introduce the Board and give
some background on the PCRB. There will be complaint forms, Use of Force policy,
and information on how to find the general orders on the City website. Braverman
would also like to mention at the forum that the PCRB will be reviewing the Board's
polices and procedures over the next few months. Braverman confirmed that she
would draft the summary of the forum for the December meeting. The Board would
also like to have information regarding the Citizens Police Academy at the forum.
Tuttle thought the dates and information would be available in time for the forum.
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Young, seconded by Braverman to re-open item number 2 (consent
calendar) for discussion.
Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent.
Young wanted to know why the Board receives the General Orders and what they're
supposed to do with them. King and Braverman explained that it's part of the Boards
overall charge to look at policy. In the past the Board has looked at language and
made corrections to typos. More importantly the Board will ask for clarification if they
don't understand part of the general order and why that policy is in place. There is a
re-evaluation date on each general order. After the police department has re-
evaluated the general orders come to the Board for review. Braverman also
explained the color coding on the general orders.
FINAL/APPROVED
5b 6
PCRB
November 3, 2009
Page 2
Also under General Order 89-04 (Civil Rights), Section III (Procedures/Individual
Rights) 62(c), Young asked for some examples that can otherwise legally justify an
officers action when entering a private dwelling. Wyss explained that this allows for
not having to change the policy every time the case law changes and gives some
discretion to the officer to make the entrance. Also under Section III
(Procedures/Arrested Persons) B3, Young inquired whether coercion includes verbal
manipulation. Wyss explained that coercion is placing a person in a situation where
a person that's not guilty of an offense would confess to that crime anyway because
whatever is explained to them in their perception would be worse than confessing to
the crime. Verbal manipulation by simply asking questions would not be considered
coercion, such as interviews or interrogations since there is on-going dialogue and
the goal is to get to what the truth is. Under the same section B4, Young asked for
clarification on the prisoner's right to refuse to give evidence against him/herself and
should they voluntarily supply such information. It was explained that when a
prisoner chooses not to speak without an attorney that is their right, but if they
voluntarily start talking even after stating they want an attorney present, any
information given is admissible.
OLD BUSINESS (cont.) Braverman handed out materials for the December planning meeting
regarding the Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's to save
on postage and to give the Board ample time to review.
NEW BUSINESS King referenced a letter from the Chief regarding Pursuits and the Boards request to
receive the annual analysis. The Chief is looking into and will forward to the Board.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION Wyss had an update on the Service Animal Training. The training will be held in
November with the Police Legal Science Training for all officers. Wyss was unable
to get a printout of the lesson plan prior to the Board packets going out. He will get
the information to staff for inclusion in the next meeting packet.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION Tuttle responded to the inquiry from the last meeting regarding Board members
receiving a City a-mail account. Currently there are no citizens that have a City e-
mail account. There are costs incurred by the IT department as far as setting up
and maintaining and with 18 Boards and Commissions and open records laws it
wasn't going to be cost effective. Tuttle is looking into a way for members to
subscribe and receive an agenda notice to their personal a-mail account and then a
link where they could go on-line and review the meeting packets. Confidential
materials would still have to be mailed, but overall costs could be reduced.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Braverman and seconded by Young 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
PCRB
November 3, 2009
Page 3
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, Yoder absent.
Open session adjourned at 6:08 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 8:34 P.M.
Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to Summarily Dismiss PCRB Complaint
#09-06 as required by the city Code, Section 8-8-3 E, requiring that only those
complaints which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City sworn police officer.
Motion carried, 3/0, Young abstaining and Yoder absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• November 18, 2009 7:00 PM, Harvat Hall (Community Forum)
• December 8, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• January 12, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• February 9, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Young and seconded by Braverman.
Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
~~oyC
zz~~b
0 o a a ~,
~ ~ ~
a~ C
~ ~
^~ ~
C.
~ c ~ m ~ o ~ ~
o ~
C "S fD ~ o ~
d
• fD '1 A
' p C'+ '3
~
Z
.7 LT O "~ fD ~
'+ QQ ~ O C~ ~ fp Y
ua~ ~~ - 7~
o a~ a -,
@ ~
,~ ~ t~
~ ~ a
a ~
ua
o c ~ ~
ro
W
W
N
~p
~p
N y
y
a
yc ~ ~ ~ ~ w
N
~ k k ~ k
0
w
0
z z z z z ~
~ y y
i i ~ ~ ~ k
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z z z zz
i ^yy ~/-
l ~y-
1 y
a ~ A '
r~ ~ n
. r
60
i i ~ X ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ k ~
w
~ ~ ~ x ~ w
~
k ~ ~ ~ ~
z z z ~ z z N
~ ~ k ~ ~
..
Y
y
C~J
~z
d o~
~~
.~ ~
0
0
r
n
n
c
O
Y
PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
Re' Investigation of Complaint PCRB'#09-06
Complaint PCRB #09-06, filed October 26, 2009, was summarily
dismissed as required by the city Code, Section 8-8-3 E, requiring that only those
complaints which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City sworn police officer
may be subject to summary dismissal by the board.
DATED: November 3, 2009
FINAL/APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
COMMUNITY FORUM
November 18, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
410 E Washington St
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Joseph Treloar (7:14), Vershawn Young
MEMBERS ABSENT: Abigail Yoder
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: Chief Sam Hargadine of the ICPD
(Transcriptions are available)
PRESENTATIONS The following presentations were made:
Introduction and Complaint Process by PCRB Chair Donald King.
ICPD Use of Force Policy by Chief Sam Hargadine from the ICPD.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION The following individuals appeared before the PCRB:
Carol deProsse
Heidi Sinderman
Dean Abel
Michael Smithey
Caroline Dieterle
Jerry Partridge
1401 Burry Dr, IC
1503 Rochester Ave #4, IC
2049 Tanglewood St, IC
PO Box 2013, IC
727 Walnut St, lC
Iowa City
CONSIDER MOTION TO ACCEPT CORRESPONDENCE AND/OR DOCUMENTS
None.
01-25-10
5b 7
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Young and seconded by Treloar.
Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:46 P.M.
!C
~~OyC
~ 0 ~ ~ ro
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ A
~ ~ O ~
~ A
a ~
~ y
"'S CD
~ ~~ o~ ~ ~~ ° ;~~
o d ~. z
a a ~ a°~ S
~ ~ °'• ~ a ~ a =~ ~ ~
~
o ~ ~
a m
~ t~
va
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
k
~ C o o ~ ~ ,~'b
W _
W N ~O ~O N
r+
N
i X X ~ ~ ~ ""
i ~ O
W
i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
A
i i y
y y
i„1, ~, yy
r~ 77
r~ A
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ x ~ ~ ~
z z z z z
~ 3 3 3 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O yC >t ~ ~ ~ o0
~ ~ ~ ~ x w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
k
~
~
~
x ...
c
d
...
b
r
~n
~~
~n
~~
~y~
~ n ~
o~~
`°
O~
~~
O
FINAL/APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES -December 11, 2009 -
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 11:04 A.M. 5b 8
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Joseph Treloar, Abigail Yoder, Vershawn Young (11:09)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #09-03
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Braverman and seconded by Treloar to adjourn into Executive Session
based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which
are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept
confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued
receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel
records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and
school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where
disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not
required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of
its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the
government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from
making them to that government body if they were available for general public
examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, Young absent.
Open session adjourned at 11:05 A.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 11:44 A.M.
Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to request 45-day extension for PCRB
Complaint #09-04, a 60-day extension for PCRB Complaint #09-05 due to timelines
and scheduling.
Motion carried, 5/0.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Yoder to forward the Public Report as amended for
PCRB Complaint #09-03 to City Council.
Motion carried, 5/0.
Motion by Yoder, seconded by Braverman to schedule aname-clearing hearing for
Complaint #09-04 for January 19, 2010, at 5:15 P.M.
Motion carried, 5/0.
PCRB
December 11, 2009
Page 2
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• January 12, 2010, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Rm (RESCHEDULED TO 1119110)
• January 19, 2010, 5:30 P.M., Housing Authority Conference Rm
• February 9, 2010, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Rm
• March 9, 2010, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Rm
Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to move the January 12th meeting to
January 19th.
Motion carried, 5/0.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Yoder and seconded by Braverman.
Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 11:47 A.M.
~C
~~o~c
O ~ ~ C' ~
y ~ „~„~ p D
~~ C
A y
~'! fD
~ ~ o o c ; ~~ o `'
~
o
c -~ ~; a eo -~ ~ I °
m o
•
z
o n
as ~, o ^o
~ ~ ~~
'' _ w o s
o ~ a~
a ~ ~ ~
, o x ~
~ ~
~~
~
o o ~ ~ ~
ro
w w N ~O ~O N „~,
...
N
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
W
O
z z z z z A
i i ~ ~ 7
7
~ yy
a ~
y
~ A
r r
i X ~ X
~ x ~ ~ ~
z z z z z
: ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 A
~ ~ k ~ ~t
o ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ° i ~ ~
C17 W
~ ~ ~ X ~ W
~ ~d
~ ~ y
z
~~
r o ~'
~~
n
0
r
n
r~
n
y
z
r~
0
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
December 11, 2009
To: City Council
Citizen
Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Police Citizens Review Board
Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #09-03
0
~n
A~
c~-<
~n
fir"
. m
o~
~'..`
a
0
A
i~'1
r
~•
3
ca
0
..._
This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the
investigation of Complaint PCRB #09-03 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the
Police Chief s Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the
Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the
Report "because of the Police Chief s professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City
Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that
the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by
substantial evidence", are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police
Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the PCRB at its June 8, 2009 meeting. 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 completed on September 1, 2009 and was filed with the City Clerk on
September 3, 2009.
The Board met to consider the Chief s Re~ort on September 8, October 13, November 3, and
December 11, 2009. At the September 8 meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in
accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation".
Page #1
This complaint was based on Complaint #09-02 which was filed April 20, 2009 by a person without
"personal knowledge" of the incident. The Chief's review of the complaint was filed with the
Board on May 1, 2009.
At the June 8, 2009 meeting the Board considered Complaint #09-02. City Code section 8-8-3B:
Definition of Complaint states that any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police
misconduct may file a PCRB complaint with the board. In order to have "personal knowledge",
the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. It
was the conclusion of the Board that the complainant was not directly involved and had not
witnessed the incident, and therefore did not have personal knowledge of the incident.
It was, however, noted by the Board that there still should be some investigation into the allegations
made in Complaint 09-02. The Board felt that although the complainant was not directly involved
in the incident, a complete investigation would remove any doubt about police misconduct
O p
On September 1, 2009 the Chief completed his review of 09-03 and submitted his rt the C
Clerk's Office on September 3, 2009. c~-C - 6""
-.tc~ ~
FINDINGS OF FACT '~~ " rn
~ ~
~ ~n
The original incident happened on April 10, 2009, at 5:00 am in downtown Iowa Cry and ~s
observed by Officers A, B and C, who were on foot patrol. The officers observed Citizen being
tackled into a tree. That assailant was arrested. During the course of the investigation into the
incident, it became apparent to the Officers that Citizen A was under legal age and intoxicated. He
was "flippant and verbally aggressive" with the Officers, who described him as "mouthy". Citizen
A was then arrested for public intoxication. A specimen of his breath showed a BAC of .164, over
twice the presumptive level for under the influence.
Officer A observed a scrape on Citizen A's cheek. He assessed the wound as superficial and mostly
likely caused by tree bark. Citizen A did not complain of the injury at that time.
Officer B had minimal contact with Citizen A, did not know the grounds for the arrest or recall
seeing an injury or hearing Citizen A complain about an injury. Officer B then transported Citizen
A to the Johnson County Jail.
While the Officers were preparing to transport Citizen A and the assailant, Citizen B approached
Office A and reported that he, too, had been assaulted. Officer A took information for an incident
report. Citizen B then approached the Officers again, reporting that the man who had assaulted him
was at the Fieldhouse bar. Officer A walked toward the Fieldhouse with Citizen B, but then Citizen
B told the Officer that the assailant was gone again. There was another assault call at the
Fieldhouse bar, so Officer A checked for the assailant inside the Fieldhouse bar.
Officer D was summoned to College and Clinton Streets by Officer A at the request of Citizen B.
Citizen B complained that Citizen A had been assaulted and arrested. He said that he, himself, had
been assaulted. Citizen B also complained to Officer D that he had approached two other officers
Page #2
who were dealing with another subject on the plaza about having located the man who had assaulted
him near the Third Base bar. He stated he felt it was un-American that two officers were dealing
with one person, that it shouldn't take two officers to deal with one person, and was upset that the
officers had told him that they were busy. He felt that his assault was more important than whatever
the officers were dealing with at the time. During the time Officer D was with Citizen B, Officer D
stepped away to deal with a bar fight. Officer D also noted that Citizen B was intoxicated and that
Citizen B admitted to being intoxicated.
The Chief s report also notes that this was not the first interaction that Citizen B has had with
Officers A and C. On February 25, 2009, at 12:43 am, Citizen B was cited for a PAULA violation
and for being under 19 years of age and in a licensed alcoholic beverages establishment after 10 pm.
A statement attributed to Citizen A includes the following allegations: (1) he was threatened with
having the police fill the police car with tear gas; (2) he was not allowed to tell officers his account
of what happened nor did any officer ask him for an account of what happened, nor was there an
acknowledgement of his having been assaulted and injured; (3) he was offered no medical attention
nor was medical intervention provided by the jail staff.
A statement attributed to Citizen B includes the following allegations: (1) Officers were non-
responsive to his inquiries about Citizen A and the assaults; (2) officer threatened Citizen A with
force if Citizen A did not quiet down and were rough with Citizen A when they put him into a
police car; (3) later in the night, when Citizen B saw his assailant, officers refuse to assist him and
refuse to give him their names; and (4) when he tried to pick Citizen A up from jail, jail staff told
him he could pay Citizen A's fine or he could leave.
The Police Chief s Report finds the "incidents regrettable", but goes on to state that both on-scene
and post-event investigations have been hampered by Citizen A and Citizen B. At the scene,
Citizen B was "aggressive and intoxicated". He failed to follow through with evidence (the
cellphone photograph) which he stated directly related to the identification of his, and possibly
Citizen A's, assailant. The Report goes on to state that Citizen A's arrest was predicated entirely on
his level of intoxication and corresponding behavior that night. He was detained initially so
Officers could evaluate his role in the conflict. Only as the contact between Citizen A and the
Officers continued was the decision made to arrest him, due to "his flippant nature which is clearly a
demonstration of poor decision-making and judgment, him being under legal age, and being
profoundly intoxicated and unable to attend to his own actions safely and satisfactorily."
Officer D initiated a Report of Inquiry (ROI), an internal document used to identify performance or
behavior which is either in question or performance which is of an exemplary nature. This ROI
addressed performance by members of the Police Department, which was being questione~by a
community member. Officer D spoke with Officers A, B and C in connection with R~ ,,,~~
D _..i n
Officer D prepared and submitted a second ROI regarding a phone conversation tl4~t-Btffieer D
with Citizen A's mother. Citizen A's mother was concerned that Citizen A had bssau~lted,
not been seen for a head injury, that he had a headache and that he had a laceratio>i~is ~'. S e
felt the injuries should have been of concern to the officers and that the evaluatior5 in~qua~
In response to Officer D's inquiry as to why Citizen A hadn't discussed his injuri~'and h~iache
0
Page #3
with jail staff, she stated that officers had told Citizen A to shut up or they would beat him and that
one of the officers had hit him with a night stick. When she was told that that particular officer did
not carry a night stick, she then said that officers had threatened to shoot Citizen A with a Taser.
Following Officer D's submissions of the ROIs, the Watch Commander followed up on the
investigation by interviewing the officers involved. The information obtained by the Watch
Commander was consistent with that gathered by Officer D.
The assault reports were submitted and turned over to the Investigations section for follow up. The
Investigations Commander learned that Citizen B had a picture of his assailant on his cell phone.
Citizen B was asked to submit that photo to aid in the follow-up investigation, but as of September
1, 2009, had not done so. Citizen B had not made Officer D aware of the photo at the time he made
his complaint on April 11, 2009.
The Investigations Commander also contacted Citizen A, who advised him that the person who
assaulted Citizen A is a friend of the person who assaulted Citizen B. The first assailant was
contacted, initially lied about his own identity and refused to discuss anything about the identity of
any friends who were with him or who may have been involved in a fight. Citizen A shared nothing
more about his attackers. Attempts to contact a witness who was listed on the incident report as
having accompanied Citizen B to make the report to Officer A, were made with o succ~. Citizen
A advised the Investigations Commander that he did not know the witness. ~c-a r°~ `
1~ ~ n
According to the Chief s Report, additional follow-up has occurred on the case, ~e gase ~
remains in open/active status. :ern ~ ~
o~
Inquiry was made to the Johnson County Sheriff's Office regarding activities thap~lc irr~Q at the
Johnson County Jail. The Sheriff s Office provided intake information and a phone wai~', which
indicated that Citizen A had waived his right to a phone call and signed the waiver. Jail staff
confirmed that Citizen A appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that Citizen A
admitted to drinking (or taking unprescribed drugs). The intake form indicates that Citizen A
denied, when asked, that there were any other medical problems (or dental disorders) that he was
not asked about and that he thought the jail staff should know about.
On September 8, 2009 the Board reviewed the Chief s Report and made the following conclusions
with regard to the allegations.
The mother of Citizen A made seven allegations that the board thought needed addressed. Of
the seven allegations made, only two involved Iowa City Police officers.
ALLEGATION 1: No medical assessment was conducted when Citizen A was arrested.
When Citizen A was walked over to a planter, Officer A observed a scrape on his face. Officer A
assessed the wound as superficial and most likely caused by the tree bark from the tree he hit when
the assailant tackled him into. Since Citizen A talked through most of the interaction with the
officer and did not complain of the injury he had, it supports the officer's assessment that the wound
was superficial. NOT SUSTAINED
Page #4
ALLEGATION 2: Citizen A's attackers were not pursued
In fact, the person responsible for attacking Citizen A and tackling him into the tree was arrested.
Additionally there has been no formal information received from Citizen A about the attack which
he states preceded him being tackled into the tree. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 3: No medical assistance or treatment was offered prior to Citizen A being placed
in jail. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County jail.
As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department, it is NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 4: No continued medical assessment was conducted after Citizen A fell asleep in
his cell. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County jail.
As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department, it is NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 5: Citizen A who had open wounds was allowed to be in the presence of others in
a jail cell. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County
jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department, it is NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 6: Due to Citizen A's open wound, he was exposed to contaminants in the jail cell.
He was not offered gauze to protect against infection. This allegation involves Johnson County
Sheriffs Department personnel at the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police
Department, it is NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 7: Citizen A was in jail for 11 hours and while there, had no access to water to
drink or clean up with. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff s Department personnel at
the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department, it is NOT SUSTAINED
A statement attached to the origina109-02 complaint was from Citizen A. An investigation
was initiated on these allegations and_the findings are listed below as Allegations 8 through 13:
ALLEGATION 8:
Citizen A alleges that he was not read his Miranda warning.
Citizen A was not asked questions about the offenses for which he was arrested and was not the
subject of an interrogation. Miranda warnings were not required as information wad of being
solicited. NOT SUSTAINED.
~ o
~ o r-h
a~ `~'
ALLEGATION 9:
c~-~ -
r ~..
--sc~
Citizen A alleges that he was sworn at by police and demeaned by the officer's l~ge~ [~I'~
~~
A w
0
Page #5
There was no evidence other than Citizen A's allegation to support this allegation. NOT
SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 10:
Citizen A alleges that he was threatened with force.
This allegation is both specific and non-specific. In one allegation, it was stated that the officer
would or did beat him with a night stick. When the investigating officer responded that the officer
in question does not carry a baton or night stick, it was then stated that the officer threatened to use a
Taser on Citizen A. Investigators were unable to identify any information other than Citizen A's
0
allegation which supports this allegation. NOT SUSTAINED c
0
ALLEGATION 1 L• ~v ~ n
~,-< ~- ~
Citizen A alleges that he was threatened with having the police car filled with tear ~
_rn ~
Officers do not carry, or have at hand, tear gas. Investigators have not been ab~~c id~tify
information other than Citizen A's allegation which supports this allegation. NOT~EJSTA~IED
O
ALLEGATION 12:
Citizen A alleges that he was not allowed to tell the arresting officer his account of what happened
nor did any officer ask him for his account of what happened, nor was there an acknowledgement of
him having been assaulted and injured.
The circumstances of Citizen A's assault are captured in the officer's report. The substance of this
incident report is provided by Citizen B, another person involved, and nowhere in this report does
he allege that Citizen A was assaulted prior to being tackled into the tree. It is the original
complainant in PCRB complaint 09-02 that contains the allegation about Citizen A being assaulted
prior to being tackled. During the investigation conducted by Officer A, based on information heard
at the scene, it was apparent that the person(s) who assaulted Citizen B, which was the subject of the
report, were responsible for the assault on Citizen A. An investigation into this matter was initiated
on the scene and has continued via the case being routed to the Investigative Section of the Iowa
City Police Department. This could only have been gleaned by officers listening to assertions made
by Citizen A about the assault he alleges occurred that preceded his being tackled into the tree.
There clearly was acknowledgement of the injuries sustained by Citizen A, as officers mentioned
that they observed the injuries and attributed them to him having been tackled into a tree.
Allegations made by Citizen A differ in degree of injury and the manner in which it was addressed
by both Iowa City Police and Johnson County Jail staff. Officers on scene and the transport officer,
who serves as supervisory staff in a combat medical unit, did not believe the injuries presented were
of a degree to require on-scene medical intervention. Citizen A was accepted by the jail staff
without being redirected to UIHC for further evaluation. Citizen A did not offer at booking the
same assertion as to degree of injury he makes in the statement which is attributed to him in
complaint 09-02.
Page #6
Part of the investigation has included a conversation between Citizen A and Investigation's
Commander. At no time, did Citizen A ask the Commander to file an official crime report
regarding the assault which preceded him being tackled into a tree. Citizen A has failed to advance
his concern about the assault which he states occurred prior to him being tackled. Additionally, lack
of cooperation from Citizen B to submit the photo which he alleges that he has on his cell phone,
has hindered the investigation. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 13
Citizen A alleges that while in jail, he was offered no medical attention nor was medical
intervention provided by jail staff.
This issue does not involve Iowa City Police personnel and should be referred to the other agency
involved. NOT SUSTAINED
A statement attached to the original 09-02 complaint was from Citizen B. An investigation
was initiated on these allegations and the findings are listed below as Allegations 14 through
18:
ALLEGATION 14:
Citizen B alleges that he was told to leave the area after Citizen A was handcuffed and was not
given the opportunity to give a statement about his and Citizen A's assault. He also alleges that the
officer was not interested in pursuing the perpetrators of Citizen B's assault.
Citizen B did provide information for an incident report, quizzed Officer A about what he had been
told. Officer A recited the facts back to Citizen B, to his apparent satisfaction. Officer A,t~ien went
to the area of the Fieldhouse Bar twice, and inside the bar once, to try to find Citi~,en B's ~sailant.
NOT SUSTAINED ~t~ r°
ALLEGATION 15: ~~ ~ r
r-- [~'~
The statement also includes references to the officers being non-responsive to his rie~bout~
Citizen A and the assaults. ~~`
Not only were officers responsive, Officer A accompanied Citizen A to try to identify the assailant
who Citizen A said was in the plaza near the 3`d Base Bar. The assailant was not located.
Additionally Officer A made an examination of the interior of the bar for the suspect, without
success. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 16:
Citizen A also alleges that the officers threatened him with force if he did not quiet down, and that
officers were rough with him A when they put him into a police vehicle.
Page #7
It is significant that Citizen A, to whom this alleged aggressiveness by the officer is directed, does
not list his loading and transport as one of his grievances. No other evidence supports this
allegation. NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 17:
The statement further alleges that later that night, he saw the assault suspect, tried to summon
officers who were with another subject, and they refused to assist him and refused to give him their
names.
This allegation relates to Citizen B approaching Officers B and C who were occupied with another
incident. As the officers tell him they are busy and can't attend his problem, Officer A approaches
and advances toward the Fieldhouse to search for Citizen B's assailant.
NOT SUSTAINED
ALLEGATION 18:
Citizen B alleges that when he tried to pick-up Citizen A from jail, jail staff told him he could pay
the Citizen A's fine or leave.
This issue is for the Johnson County Jail staff to address. NOT SUSTAINED
BOARD COMMENTS:
Both of these incidents are unfortunate, but both on-scene and post-event investigations were
hampered by the victims themselves.
Citizen A was arrested entirely on his level of intoxication and corresponding behavior that night
and had nothing to do with the fact that he was a victim of an assault. He was detained initially so
officers could evaluate his role in the conflict. Only as the contact between Citizen A and the police
officers escalated was the decision to arrest him made. He was arrested for public intoxication;
being under the legal age; being profoundly intoxicated; and unable to attend to his own actions
safely and satisfactorily.
Citizen B was aggressive and, by his admission to Officer D, intoxicated. He did not like the way
the officer took report information, even though the officer repeated the information back to him.
He challenged the manner in which officers were dealing with a separate issue were deployed,
asserting that his issue was a priority and was defiant when told differently. He has also failed to
show investigators evidence related to his assailants identification (the cell phone photo).
Page #8
o 0
~°
~ ~?
~~ r°*~
~
c'~-C
=tt~
~ r.-
:~~
rn ~
~
~~ ~
~
v' ~„~
0
MINUTES 5b 9
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED
November 17, 2009 - 6:00 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Dianne Day, Corey Stoglin, Newman Abuissa, Yolanda Spears, Wangui Gathua.
Members Absent: Eric Kusiak, Dell Briggs, Martha Lubaroff.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present: Karla Stolzfus-Detweiler.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Abuissa called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE October 20, 2009 MEETING:
Spears moved to approve.
Stoglin seconded.
The motion passed 5-0.
PROGRAMMING
Stolzfus-Detweiler spoke to the Commission about the Sanctuary City Committee (hereinafter "Committee").
She reported they are planning on holding several educational forums in the community about Sanctuary Cities
and would like Commission support on sponsoring the programs. A previously formed sub-committee of the
Commission (Lubaroff, Day and Gathua) will attend the next meeting of the Committee. This meeting will be
held on 11/25. The subcommittee as well as a representative from the Committee will revisit possible
programming and forums at the December Commission meeting.
Day updated Commissioners on a Civil Society and will be attending a meeting concerning the program on
11/19.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION
Spears will co-star in a four part video series being produced by the Iowa City Community School District that
will serve as a tool to better educate parents on how to become involved in their child's education. The series
will run on the local Public Access station. Stoglin was interviewed by the Chicago Defender for Veteran's Day.
Stoglin also attended a program on Gang Awareness and reported that he thought it was a good program and
would recommend it to others. Gathua participated in the Iowa School Counselors Seminar sponsored by the
Iowa National Guard. Abuissa expressed sympathies to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting.
ADJOURNMENT
Stoglin moved to adjourn.
Day seconded.
The motion passed 5-0 at 6:56.
Human Rights Commission
November 17, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2009
Meetin Date
NAME TERM
EXP.
1/27
2/24
3/24
4/21
5/19
6/16
7/21
8/18
9/15
10/20
11/17
12/15
Newman
Abuissa 1/1/10 X X X X X O X O O X X
Kelli
Shireen-
Fleming 1/1/10 - - - - - O/E X X X R R
Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 O/E X X X X X X X O O O
DeIl6riggs 1/1/11 X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E
Yolanda
Spears 1/1/11 X X X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X
Corey
Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E X X X X
Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X X X X
Wangui
Gathua 1/1/12 X X X X X O/E P O/E X X X
Martha
Lubaroff 1/1/12 O/E X X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E
Joy Kross 1/1110 O/E O/E R R R R R R R R R
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting/No Quorum
R =Resigned
- = Not a Member