25FC:0069 Cassie Rochholz v. the City of Solon - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On June 4, 2025, Cassie Rochholz filed formal complaint 25FC:0069, alleging that the City of Solon (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on June 19, 2025.

Facts

Solon is a small municipality located in Johnson County, Iowa. Cassie Rochholz is a resident of Solon. Complainant Rochholz alleged that the Solon City Council failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Iowa Code Chapter 21. Specifically, the allegation concerns the Council’s failure to provide supporting attachments or documentation for agenda items, thereby impeding adequate public notice and meaningful engagement.

The underlying dispute pertains to whether the City of Solon should issue a conditional use permit for property situated within the two-mile fringe area surrounding the city limits, for the purpose of constructing a new church. The relevant facts are as follows:

• Before the May 21, 2025 meeting, the City Council posted a tentative agenda which included, under New Business, Item 21: Resolution No. 25-26 – 2-Mile Fringe Area Conditional Use Permit – Upmeyer Farms. The agenda item was accompanied by the following description: "Council discussion and possible action on Resolution No. 25-26, a resolution on a 2-Mile Fringe Area Conditional Use Permit submitted by Upmeyer Farms for a new church building."

• On June 4, 2025, the City Council convened again. The Council posted a tentative agenda for that meeting which included two items relevant to the conditional use permit. Under

New Business, Item 17 was listed as: Resolution No. 25-26 – 2-Mile Fringe Area Conditional Use Permit – Upmeyer Farms/Jordan Creek Church. The corresponding agenda description stated: "Council discussion and possible action on Resolution No. 25- 26, a resolution on a 2-Mile Fringe Area Conditional Use Permit submitted by Upmeyer Farms/Jordan Creek Church for a new church building." Also under New Business was Item 18: Resolution No. 25-27 – Fringe Area Agreement Amendment, which included the following description: "Council discussion and possible action on Resolution No. 25- 27, a resolution on the 2-Mile Fringe Area Agreement Amendment with Johnson County."

The complainant had additional concerns that the city council’s current practices prevent transparency. No violation was alleged with respect to the required twenty-four-hour notice or the posting location for either the May 21 or June 4 meeting agendas.

Applicable Law

“Except as provided in subsection 3, a governmental body shall give notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting including a reconvened meeting of the governmental body, and the tentative agenda of the meeting, in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. Reasonable notice shall include advising the news media who have filed a request for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessible to the public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.” Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a).

Analysis

Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) requires that a tentative agenda be provided “in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public” of matters to be discussed at a meeting. The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require that advance notice be provided on an agenda for any item of discussion during the meeting, with the exception of “discussion and action on emergency items that are first ascertained at a meeting for which proper notice was given,” which cannot “be reasonably deferred to a later meeting.” KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 473 N.W.2d 171, 174 (Iowa 1991). The applicable standard is “whether the notice sufficiently apprised the public and gave full opportunity for public knowledge and participation,” considering “the public’s knowledge of an issue and actual participation in events in light of the history and background of that issue.” Id. at 173.

In this case, the matter concerning the permitting of the Upmeyer farmland appeared on the tentative agendas for both the May 21, 2025, and June 4, 2025, meetings. In addition to the item headings, a brief description of the item was included each time the matter appeared on the agendas.

Under Item 21 on the May 21 tentative agenda and Item 17 on the June 4 tentative agenda, the descriptions informed community members that matters related to the Upmeyer Farms permit would be discussed and potentially decided. For Item 18 on the June 4 tentative agenda, the language indicated that the Council would consider an amendment to the Fringe Area Agreement governing development in that area. These agenda items and their descriptions adequately informed the public and provided a full opportunity for public awareness and participation.

While the City Council did not provide the full Council packet or attachments in advance, Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) does not require such materials to be disclosed in order to meet notice requirements.

The Complainant also alleges that not providing materials in advance hindered transparency and public participation. However, Iowa Code § 21.7 establishes the minimum requirements for adequate notice and public meeting governance. Governmental entities are permitted, but not required, to go beyond these minimum requirements. While the statute requires that cameras and recording devices be allowed, it imposes no specific requirements for other forms of public participation. The public must be provided access to meetings held in open session; however, nothing in Chapter 21 requires an opportunity for public comment. Therefore, Chapter 21 does not require advance public access to attachments or board packets as a condition for participation in public meetings.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
2. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
3. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
4. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

Because the City of Solon provided tentative agendas items for the relevant matter, including a brief description of each agenda item, and the law does not require that the governmental body provide attachments or city council packets in advance to meet notice and participation requirements, it is recommended that the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation of Iowa Code § 21 has occurred.