Investigation of Luther City Council Violation of Open Meetings Law, 2006

Case File 0603454 The Ombudsman received a complaint on August 29, 2006 alleging violations of the Iowa Open Meetings Law by the Luther City Council (Council) in its meeting on August 2, 2006. Based upon my review of the complaint, I identified the following allegations for investigation: • The Council violated Iowa Code section 21.5 by failing to announce the reason session on the August 2, 2006 meeting agenda. • The Council violated Iowa Code section 21.5 by holding a closed session for an impermissible reason. • The Council violated Iowa Code section 21.5(2) by discussing unrelated issues in the closed session.

Whose Interest Is Being Served? An Investigation of a Walker City Council Member’s Conflict of Interest, April 15, 2010

The Ombudsman received a complaint concerning Bill Smith, a city council member who is also the Walker Fire Department Chief. The complainant stated that Mr. Smith votes regularly as a city council member on matters before the Walker City Council (Council) pertaining to the Walker Fire Department. These actions were alleged to be conflicts of interest in violation of Iowa law.

Walking a Fine Line: An Investigation of the Monticello Mayor and City Council, July 5, 2011

Iowa Citizen Aide - Ombudsman Office received a complaint on February 22, 2010, concerning the manner in which the mayor and several city council members for the City of Monticello (City) attempted to remove the city administrator from his position. It was alleged that the mayor and at least one council member went to the homes of other council members and sought their signatures on a letter of offer requesting the city administrator to resign or face a vote to terminate his employment. We were asked to investigate whether this action complied with Iowa’s Open Meetings Law.

The Chicago-Iowa City Passenger Rail Program, February 23, 2011

Iowa’s share of the match will come from a combination of state appropriations and local funding. In FY 11, Iowa lawmakers approved intent language to provide up to $20 million over four years to help fund Iowa’s mmitment for matching federal passenger rail funding. To date, the legislature has appropriated $10 million to be used for the match. • Illinois announced in January 2010 that it would use $45 million from its state capital plan for construction of the route.

Business Plan Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Route, March 21, 2011

This business plan describes the methods by which the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) will partner with Iowa counties and cities to fund Iowa’s share of the operating and maintenance cost for the Chicago- Iowa City passenger-rail service, an average of $3 million per year.

Investigation of Maquoketa's Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and Enforcement, 2006

Case File 0603634 On September 13, 2006, Kelly Wilslef submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman about the Maquoketa City Council (Council). Ms. Wilslef stated a Maquoketa police officer served her an abatement notice for violating the city ordinance preventing owners from keeping pit bull terrier dogs in the city. The Council subsequently determined her dog was a pit bull mix, and ordered her to remove the dog from the city. Ms. Wilslef claimed the Council unreasonably relied on non-expert testimony supporting the city’s position her dog was a pit bull mix. She further claimed that if her dog was in fact a pit bull mix, the city ordinance did not apply to mixed-breed pit bulls; therefore, the Council acted contrary to law when it concluded she violated the city ordinance and ordered her to remove her dog from the city.

Local Public Health Guidebook, September 2011

The local board of health is described in law in Iowa Code Chapter 137. It is described in rule in Iowa Administrative Code chapter 641.77. Law and rule define the structure, powers, and duties of the local board of health. The following information is a summation of the two. LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH JURISDICTION AND APPOINTMENT: There are three types of local boards of health. 1. City (has to have been in existence before July 1, 2010) 2. County 3. District • City boards of health have jurisdiction over public health matters within the city. City board members are appointed by the city council. • County boards of health have jurisdiction over public health matters within the county. County board members are appointed by the county board of supervisors. • District boards of health have jurisdiction over public health matters within the district. District board of health members are appointed by the county boards of supervisors from the counties represented by the district.

A Literature Review of Urban Bypass Studies, 1992

Urban places attract most highway travel because more people are to be per acre in urban places than elsewhere. In the beginning of highway development the objective was to provide an all-weather road for the rural people to get to town and back to their farms, but there was no consideration of getting motor vehicles through the town to the opposite side. With the development of intercity travel, it soon became apparent that travel through the urban areas would have to be given consideration along with the travel to and from the urban areas. This consideration led to the urban bypass, a provision in highway location whereby the traveler may get to the opposite side of the urban area without going through it, or at least not through the central business district. Bypasses, although highly desired by the through travelers, were not welcomed by local business interests on the basis that the community would suffer a reduction in retail trade. Some discussion of the pros and cons of bypasses and their consequences as observed from experience will shed light upon this type of local highway. The bypass report summaries in this document were based on interviews with businessmen and community leaders of cities that have actually experienced firsthand the impacts of a highway bypass. Several of the studies were conducted by newspaper reporters, city council members and residents of Iowa cities.

In-Pavement Pedestrian Flasher Evaluation: Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2004

Numerous strategies have been experimented with nationwide in an attempt to reduce the overall number of pedestrian-vehicle crashes, especially in instances where improper crossing or failure to yield was the proximate cause of the crash. Some of these measures include overhead signs, flashing warning beacons, advanced crossing signs, more visible pavement markings, in-street “Yield to Pedestrian” signs, and more recently, in-pavement flashing lights. Pedestrian safety has been a key issue for the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in particular at non-controlled intersections and mid-block crossings. In 2002, the city council gave preliminary approval to implement a pedestrian-actuated overhead flasher system in conjunction with an in-pavement flasher system at the intersection of 1st Avenue NE and 4th Street NE in the downtown central business district. This location is uncontrolled and has several elements that can create conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles, and trains that service local industry. This report summarizes the results from a small-scale study completed by CTRE to evaluate the effectiveness of the in-pavement flasher system installed in downtown Cedar Rapids. The installation of in-pavement flashing warning lights at the pedestrian crosswalk at this site has had a net positive effect on the safety characteristics of the location. The results of this study show a marked improvement in motorist compliance with the state law requiring that motorists yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The pedestrian and motorist surveys show that both groups felt the in-pavement flashing lights have increased motorist awareness, especially at night. The data indicate the in-pavement flashing warning lights improved the motorists' response to pedestrians in the area, and that the system could be operational throughout summer and winter conditions.

1109-003 Coe Creek Watershed Final Report

The city of Elliott has had an increase in nitrate levels in their community water supply located in the Coe Creek Watershed. They have been working with the IDNR Source Water Protection (SWP) Programs to conduct site investigations and have formed a SWP Planning Team. This Team has been reviewing the investigation findings, formed an action plan and studied different Best Management Practices (BMPs). After considering the BMPs the SWP Team made a recommendation to the Elliott City Council which included native grass seeding and a shallow water wetland. The Team also held an informational meeting for the citizens of Elliott. The goal of this meeting was to inform and educate the public of the Team findings and BMPs. The Elliott City Council approved the restoration of a shallow wetland with a native grass buffer. This whole project is 27 acres and includes a shallow water wetland with native grass buffer. This would be a long term method to reduce nitrates in the city wells. Elliott is partnering with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Montgomery County Soil and Water Conservation District, Pheasants Forever, the Montgomery County Conservation Board, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors in the restoration of the shallow water wetland and native grass buffer.