HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Safety (Committee) - 12/06/1993 �w
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1993
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mann, Chair
Jon Johnson
Leona Orr
STAFF PRESENT: Tony McCarthy, Tom Brubaker, Ed Allen,
Roger Lubovich, Chief Angelo, Mary Berg,
May Miller
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Rust, Don Rust, Russ Stringham, numerous
other unidentified citizens
The meeting was moved to the Police Department Conference Room due to construction noise
at City Hall. It was then called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman Mann.
BAGMAN CAFE FIRE INSPECTION ISSUES
Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy explained that this issue was discussed at the last Public
Works Committee meeting regarding fire inspections at the Bagman Cafe. Don Rust, owner of
Bagman Cafe, noted that the Fire Department is requesting installation of panic door hardware
on certain doors in the restaurant per violation of a fire code. He stated,that the City signed off
on a fire permit a few years ago when the restaurant first opened, and that the violation was
overlooked until now, but the City is requiring compliance as soon as possible. He opined that
the City should pay the bill because they originally approved the permit.
Assistant Chief Berg explained that the Uniform Fire Code is a consensus code written by fire
people, business people, and lobbyists hired by various special interest groups. He noted that
the fire code is adopted by the State and cities within the State; and that the Code states "when
the occupancy load exceeds 50, two exits shall be required." He explained that exit doors
cannot be equipped with dead bolt locks, but must be equipped with panic hardware. Berg noted
that the Bagman Cafe has three doors - a front, back and patio door; and that Mr. Rust was
given two options as follows: 1) a secondary door is needed for egression and equipped with
panic hardware; or 2) reduction of the occupancy load below 50. Mann expressed concern about
the inspector overlooking such an important safety issue, as safety should be paramount; and he
requested that the Department Head inform the inspector of the inefficiency concerning this
issue. He noted, however, that the City must abide by the law and cannot bend the rules to
make accommodations for special situations. Upon Mann's question, Rust noted that a variance
on the panic hardware is requested because both the front and bank, doors are opened for
business during the day. Lubovich clarified that the City cannot amend the Code to make excep-
tions, and that he recommends against it because of the liability exposure. Chief Angelo
explained that each year numerous buildings have to be inspected with limited staffing and that
firefighters, with limited knowledge, are sent out with check lists to do basic inspections. He
further explained that when the inspector eventually goes through a building, he may spot a
violation. He noted that the only other choice would be to discontinue inspections by firefighters
creating a greater liability to the City because of the vast territory fire inspectors would have to
1
cover as well as code violations. Mann stated that there is no resolution to this problem because
the fire codes and State law cannot be changed.
SOAP ORDINANCE
Chief Crawford explained that the SOAP Ordinance is meant to restrict prostitution and adopt
the same ordinance as surrounding jurisdictions. He noted that the ordinance is designed to give
offenders, guilty of prostitution, a warning that if caught on that stretch of the road they can be
arrested. He recommended that the City of Kent enact or begin to process a SOAP Ordinance
to join surrounding communities and keep prostitution on the move rather than allow them to
gather in Kent. Lubovich clarified that the ordinance covers anyone convicted of prostitution,
permitting prostitution, or patronizing a prostitute under Chapter 9.02 of the Kent City Code,
and can be used as a condition of probation.
Assistant City Attorney Allen noted that the SOAP Ordinance would allow police officers to
arrest the prostitute on site rather than have an offering agreement by an undercover officer, or
wait for some type of activity to occur before approaching or contacting them. He also noted
that as a condition of release or probation, for someone sentenced with prostitution, an individual
would not have any further violation or similar violation(s) to that which they were convicted
of previously. He explained that without this ordinance an officer would not have the authority
to arrest just for a probation violation. He explained that the ordinance specifies a misdemeanor
and gives a basis for an immediate solution to the problem of prostitution which would get them
off the street. He recommended approval of this ordinance. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Or
seconded and the motion carried 3-0. It was agreed to have this item placed under the Consent
Calendar for the January 4, 1994 Council Meeting.
CHURCH ALARM
ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR
Orr explained that a church alarm continually goes off, sometimes in the middle of the night,
and that it is a real nuisance to her neighborhood. She noted that it sounds like a siren which
goes on and on, 9-1-1 has been called, officers respond to the complaints, and meet with
neighbors, but that the problem still exists. Chief Crawford explained that alarms are very
functional and valid, but that the Police Department can control the alarms and sensitivity to the
alarms. He requested 10-15 days to work through and take care of this problem. Mann
requested two issues be looked into as follows: 1) 3 strikes and your out for car and building
alarms so if an individual does not repair the malfunctioning alarm, they would be fined, or if
it is a false alarm, they could be fined also; and 2) a possible tax on alarms to take care of a
police officer which is supposed to arrive at the scene within three minutes.
Chief Crawford requested some time to investigate what can be done, and what type of program
can be used to implement this type of ordinance.
PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT
Lubovich explained that the public defense contract has been bid out every other year because
of the cost and hassles of changing defense counsels each year. He noted that they recommend
staying with the same attorneys this year as last even though the City did not go out to bid this
year because they did not want it to interfere With a smooth transition into the new municipal
court. He pointed out that the City paid $116,000 last year for the full year and then appeals
2
were added onto the amount. He explained that this year it has gone up to $137,000 to include
all appeals, about $100 a case, but that the current attorneys have assumed the same volume of
cases as 1993. He noted, however, that because of the new court, it is anticipated a higher
volume of cases will be filed in 1994. He explained that the average fee per case usually runs
between $100 and $110 per case, and that Ellis, Li & McKinstry's proposal is not out of line
with the going rate for such cases. He clarified that the recommendation is to enter into a
contract similar to last year with Ellis, Li & McKinstry for the 1994 public defense contract for
$137,000, including all appeals and costs (as a cap not to exceed this amount). JOHNSON
MOVED to approve entering into an agreement for the public defense contract, as presented.
Orr seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
3