Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 08/31/1981 Kent, Washington August 31, 1981 A SPECIAL MEETING of the Kent City Council for which proper legal notice has been given, was called to order at 7:00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Councilpersons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Attorney Mirk and City Administrator Cushing. Also present: Police Chief Skewes, Police Captain Byerly, and Administrative Assistant Webby. Approximately 80 people were in attendance at the meeting. BUSINESS Mayor Hogan explained that the purpose of the LICENSE special meeting was to consider revocation of REVOCATION the business license of the Roadside Inn Tavern. The special meeting was declared open by the Mayor. Victor Hoff addressed the Council on behalf of his client, Patricia Chase, the licensee, and noted that he wished to make some preliminary objections to holding of the hearing. He noted that with a letter dated August 18, 1981, the City Clerk had provided the following documents to the licensee: - 1) A certified excerpt of the Council meeting of July 6, 1981. 2) Copies of petitions received on June 23, 1981 and July 6, 1981. 3) Copy of a letter from Mil Pennington to the Washington State Liquor Control Board dated June 20, 1981. • 4) Copy of Mil Pennington's letter to the Kent City Council dated June 20, 1981. 5) Copy of letter from the Kent Alliance Church to the Mayor and City Council dated July 21, 1981. He suggested that the petitions dated June 23, 1981 and July 6, 1981 together with the letter from Mil Pennington formed the basis for the Council to hold the hearing. He suggested that these materials re- fer to conduct of persons outside of the premises and do not provide a reasonable basis for any con- clusions showing violation of the Kent City Code, specifically those provided for under Section 5.02.42, as follows: - 1 - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS (1) That the business has engaged in a continuing LICENSE pattern of false and misleading advertising; REVOCATION (2) That the business has engaged in oppressive, harrassing bill collecting techniques which unreasonably interfere with the debtor's well-being; (3) That the business has engaged in conduct which is injurious to the citizens of Kent. Referring to the transaction of business, which trans- pired, he stated that the minutes of the July 6, 1981 Council meeting reflect that a public hearing would be held to consider revocation of the business license but do not reflect that there are reasonable grounds as listed in Section 5. 02 . 42. He stated that the licensee further objects to the hearing on the grounds that there are no Kent ordinances which set forth the manner in which the hearing is to be conducted. He further stated that the issue before the Council at this time was whether or not the business had in fact engaged in any of the activi- ties listed in Section 5. 02. 42 as shown above. He also stated that although his client was appearing at the hearing, they did not recognize the City ' s right to license the business--that this business was licensed by the State through the State Liquor Control Board. He stated that particip- ation in the hearing would not waive any of the objections mentioned and his advice to his client was to continue to operate pursuant to the license granted by the State. Captain Byerly of the Kent Police Department addressed the Council, noting that the Mayor and Council had been furnished with a copy of his five page memorandum dated August 13, 1981 regarding the Roadside Tavern. and asked that it be entered for the record. McCAUGHAN SO MOVED, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. After objections were raised by Mr. Hoff, Mirk stated that it was not required that witnesses be sworn but that it could be done. Captain Byerly was then placed under oath by the City Clerk. Mayor Hogan pointed out to Mr. Hoff that his objections could be intro- duced after Captain Byerly' s testimony. Referring to page 3 of the report, Captain Byerly made a recap of the investigation, noting that three Police officers had made 34 separate visits to the tavern, spending a total of 57. 6 hours in the tavern. 2 - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS It was determined that the licensee had been furnished LICENSE with a copy of Byerly ' s memorandum to the Council. REVOCATION Hoff objected to Bverly' s statements, maintaining that they were hearsay evidence. Reverend Gretz suggested that Hoff listen to the entire testimony and voice his objections at the conclusion. Mirk stated that Byerly was merely giving a recap of the activities observed and that the officers Boone, Goodman and Somers were in attendance and would be ready to answer questions . Captain Byerly noted that he had been the supervisor in charge of the investigation. Referring to page 3, B17erly noted further that during the visits, the officers received 133 $5. 00 dances from 21 different dancers and that 14 dancers offered and/or agreed to commit an act of sexual intercourse with the three officers on 20 separate occasions in return for fees which started at $50 . He stated that the normal range for each act of prostitution ranged from $100 to $150 for 1 to 1z hours. Officer Somers was then sworn in by the City Clerk. Hoff objected to introduction of any new evidence since the date of the complaint, June 20th. Somers stated that since the reopening of the tavern, the police had made a buy of cocaine in the tavern from a supervisory person, which event was witnessed by Officer Somers personally, and that there was infor- mation concerning the sale of other alleged controlled substances. He noted the alleged controlled sub- stances were offered for sale by an employee and that three dancers had been seen with controlled substances. Somers stated that six dancers were observed giving the $5. 00 table dances with contact being made with the genital area of the customers. Somers noted that all of these activities ocurred since the tavern reopened. Upon Mirk' s question, Somers stated that he personally had purchased cocaine, valium and marijuana, had received many table dances and had experienced personal contact through his clothing by a dancer. __ - 3 - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS Officer Boone was then sworn by the City Clerk. LICENSE He testified that during the course of the invest- REVOCATION igation he personnally made 17 trips to the tavern, that approximately 65-70 table dances were performed for him and that he had received offers of sexual intercourse from seven different dancers . Hoff objected to the testimony on the grounds that it was not within the scope of the compliant. Boone described the physcial contact involved in the $5. 00 table dances, as shown in Byerly' s August 18th report. He also noted that the customers were observed touching the dancers' bodies. Boone referred to the acts of prostitution which were offered and/or agreed to by various dancers, with prices ranging from $50 to $500 . He stated that the investigation resulted in citations for 20 counts of offering and/or agreeing to acts of prostitution, that one count of theft was filed, that six dancers were charged with selling or posession of con- trolled substances, plus charges for sale of other narcotics, cocaine, counterfeit percodan, counterfeit amphetamines, counterfeit valium, actual valium and marijuana. He noted that a heroin transaction had been completed. Boone stated that 128 separate charges were filed with the Aukeen District Court and that two of the persons involved had pleaded guilty. In response to Mooney' s question regarding the theft, Boone noted that it involved the mis- delivering of a wallet and explained the cir- cumstances, noting that he believed that the person in charge at the time was Terry Mossler. Boone clarified for Masters that all of the testimony he had given was the result of his personal experiences during the investigation. - 4 - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS Byerly noted that Mel Journey of the Washington LICENSE State Liquor Control Board was in attendance, REVOCATION and noted that a 29 day suspension of the Road- side' s license, by the State, had just expired. McCaughan asked Journey if the testimony heard tonight coincided with the S tate' s information. Journey noted that the Board' s emergency 29 day closure of the tavern had been on the strength of the Kent Police Department report and that the hearing had been held and the matter was now before the Board for final determination. Masters noted that the Board grants the liquor license, and asked if such license would be withdrawn if the City busi- ness license was revoked. Journey noted that the Board had never issued a liquor license to any business which did not have a City business license, but that he didn' t know if the Board would revoke a liquor license immediately upon the City' s revoca- tion of a business license. He stated that the Board would probably not renew a liquor license for a business which did not have a City business license. Mooney asked Journey if there had been a previous occasion when the Board had suspended the license of the Roadside Inn. Journey stated that there had been suspensions for violations of the type mentioned tonight but that the tavern had not been closed. He noted that the licensee had petitioned for a review and that the reviews were still pending. Upon Bailey' s question, he noted further that some of the reviews had been pending for two or three years. Byerly noted that alleged criminal activity had been filed under the court and that the Police Department was purposely staying away from allega- tions against specific individuals so as not to endanger any of the cases which would be coming up in court. Mayor Hogan noted that the petitions from the residents of the Bonel Mobile Park and the letter from the Kent Alliance Church had already been made a part of the official record. The Clerk read a letter from John Gretz, Rector of St. James Episcopal Parish requesting immediate action tb terminate the operation of the Roadside Inn. It 5 - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS was noted that Hoff objected to the reading of the LICENSE letter. MASTERS MOVED to accept the letter as a REVOCATION part of the official record. McCaughan seconded, motion carried. Fanny Alverson, a resident of Bonel Mobile Park, upon being sworn, stated that her testimony was the truth, but that she had no way to prove it. Hoff objected to the testimony. Mrs. Alverson stated that she lived within a stone' s throw of the tavern, that she saw men running, and heard the shots on the night a man was killed outside the tavern. She said she had seen fights outside the tavern, that unmentionable objects had been thrown from the parking lot into her yard and that the park residents should not be subjected to this type of treatment. Upon Mooney' s questions, Mrs. Alverson stated that her sleep was disturbed and she was forced to leave her bedroom to sleep in another room. Ray Brown, a resident of the Park, having been sworn, stated that he had heard the shots also and noted that mobile homes were not constructed to stop bullets. He further noted that the white lights on the tavern had been changed to red, that the loud noises of the patrons of the tavern and the noise of cars and motorcycles between 2: 00 and 3: 30 a.m. disturbed his sleep. He noted that when the tavern parking lot is washed, some of the debris is washed through the fence into the yards of the Park. He noted that only while the tavern was closed was he able to open his windows. Upon Mooney's question, Brown stated that the operation of the Roadside Inn Tavern was detrimental to his health. Mil Pennington, upon being sworn, stated that he had been manager of the Park for 12 years and that the tenants had reported that they had been complaining about the tavern since 1974 or 1975. He stated that based upon the testimony of the Police officers and the complaints of the citizens, the city should re- voke the license of the Roadside Inn. Upon Mooney's question, Pennington stated that he considered the conduct of tho tavern to be detrimental to both the residents and their guests . h - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS Victor Hoff stated that his clients did not wish to LICENSE make a statement, but that he would. He noted that REVOCATION he did not have to be sworn, since he was not giving testimony. He stated that much of the testimony given tonight was based upon heresay rather than on personal knowledge. Hoff objected to Journey's statement that two other charges were substantially the same as those presented tonight. He stated that this was not true, that one charge had to do with the way the performers were attired and that the other allegation was that a performer was doing something untoward, but that this allegation was thrown out. Hoff stated that the City was obliged to follow City law, and reiterated that the license could be revoked only under one of three conditions: one having to do with misleading advertising, one having to do with method of bill collecting, and that neither of those applied in this case. He noted that the third condition which states "That the business has engaged in conduct which is injurious to the citizens of Kent" is unconstitutionally vague. He further noted that the word "injurious" was used, not "disquieting" , or "noisy" and further stated that there was nothing in the testimony of tonight that showed that citizens were actually injured. He noted that the phrase "the citizens of Kent" means the citizens as a whole, not a few or several or even many citizens. Referring to the complaint about noise, he stated that this was outside the tavern and was not part of the busi- ness of the tavern, and further that it was not cer- tain that the noise was made by patrons of the tavern. Hoff noted that there was a large audience and that there had been applause and other indications of the feelings of the audience and stated that the "circus- like" atmosphere did not allow the licensee to receive the type of hearing that is required by due process of the law. Mooney noted that on three separate occa- sions the Mayor had rapped the gavel for order. Bailey asked Hoff if he had suggested that the Chases not present any questions for cross examination of any of the witnesses. Hoff stated that this was so, that it was his opinion that the evidence was not credible, that it consisted of heresay and innuendo. 7 - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS He stated that nothing the Police officers said LICENSE was an accusation against Mrs . Chase or against REVOCATION management personnel and that if such accusations are made in court, they will be decided in court. Masters suggested that perhaps the problem fell more properly under the heading of "public nuisance" and defined this from the City Code as "an act or omission to act, or a condition or use of property which either annoys, injures or endangers the com- fort, repose, health or safety of the public; offends public decency or in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property. " Hoff opined that this definition goes further than the reasons listed in the revocation ordinance, and that maybe these reasons would better suit the situation. He pointed out that the charges made were based on the provisions of the revocation ordinance, however. It was determined that there were no further comments from the audience and HAMILTON MOVED to close the public hearing. McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. Mirk suggested that if the Council wished to take some action on revocation, the Council could direct him to prepare a summary of findings based on the testimony heard tonight for consideration of the Council . Upon Bailey' s question, Mirk determined that there was no such thing as a permit to allow topless dancing, but that cabaret licenses were re- quired for any establishment which permitted dancing. He noted that the Roadside Inn did have a cabaret license. Mayor Hogan noted that if the City Attorney brought the information to the September 14 workshop meeting, the Council could possibly take action at the regular meeting of September 21, 1981. HAMILTON MOVED to direct the City Attorney to prepare a state- ment of facts and findings and to bring such report to the workshop of September 14 , 1981. J. Johnson seconded. Mooney suggested that Mirk also bring back information relating to public nuisances and that it appeared to him that this property is a public nuisance and is disturbing to the owners of property in that area . Motion carried. 8 - - August 31, 1981 BUSINESS Mirk asked that the Council remain for a five LICENSE minute executive session, on a matter not related REVOCATION to this hearing. Meeting adjourned at 8 : 10 p.m. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk 9 -