Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Safety (Committee) - 03/15/1994: • 0 MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 15, 1994 PRESENT: Jim Bennett, Chair Tim Clark Judy Woods Arthur Martin Jon Johnson Roger Lubovich Chief Norm Angelo Chief Ed Crawford Meeting called to order by Chairman Bennett at 5:10 p.m. Captain Chuck Miller Russ Stringham Connie Epperly Bob Peterson Jane Peterson Jean Parietti Several unidentified citizens TRAFFIC CODE (.08 Drinking Driver Ordinance) I and I ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.38 RELATING TO PARKING RESERVED FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED (Monetary Penalty Increase) City Attorney Roger Lubovich indicated that item one, ordinance amending chapter 9.36 of the Kent City Code relating to the traffic code (.08 drinking driver ordinance) and item three, the ordinance amending Chapter 9.38 relating to parking reserved for the physically disabled (monetary penalty increase) go together, and is recommending that no action be taken on these issues at this time. Lubovich explained that the State Legislature has passed new provisions related to the model traffic code, putting it in the WAC's instead of the RCW's, which will take effect July 1, 1994. Since we will need to adopt the new WAC's and the model traffic code, Lubovich suggested that they be combined into the same ordinance. However, at this time the new model traffic code with all it's provisions are not totally printed in the model traffic ordinance form that needs to be attached to the ordinance. Lubovich further explained that there are currently some lawsuits on the .08 ordinances. The ordinances are being attacked on DWI prosecutions for not properly having them published and attached. So, we want to make sure we do it right and have the whole package together. And, if we choose not to go with the .08 ordinance, we still need to adopt the new model traffic code. In addition, the city has a code dealing with disabled parking with a 24-hour penalty provision. The model traffic code also includes the same language, however, with the recent updates the penalty has been changed to a flat $50. The old model traffic code had a penalty provision that said the penalty was between $15 and $50, and the City of Kent, by adopting the ordinance, established the penalty at $25. Therefore, it is also necessary to amend this section. Clark moved to table both issues until the completion of the model traffic code. Motion seconded by Woods. Clark requested, however, that when they are brought back, that the .08 be brought back as a separate issue. Lubovich indicated that he would draft them separately, one will include the .08 and one will be adoption of the model traffic code without the .08. Woods indicated that the one without the .08 should be taken forward first, because if there is controversy, it will be on the .08. Then if necessary, it can always be amended. Motion to table passed unanimously (3-0). PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR JUVENILES ORDINANCE Bennett explained that initially the request for a curfew ordinance was brought before the committee at the February 7, 1994, meeting. The City Attorney felt that a curfew ordinance was not constitutionally possible, and therefore, the parental responsibility ordinance was drafted. Bennett stated that he had personally talked to policemen on the street on up to the police chief, to human services people, to parents of kids with no problems, and to parents of kids with problems regarding this issue. Everybody wants to do something, but nobody wants to take the steps to do it, and the answer always comes back to enforcement. How do you implement it? How do you enforce it? Bennett indicated he had some ideas, but would like to let the other committee members speak to the issue, and then open it up for discussion. Lubovich explained that the issue was tabled at the last meeting was because he thought it would be easier if we had some authority from the state to enact a curfew and he wanted to wait to see what the state was going to do on the issue. He indicated that he had some constitutional and legal concerns with the curfew ordinance, and that's why we now have the parental responsibility ordinance. He further explained that Bellingham just amended their curfew ordinance to add the parental responsibility faction to it, and he had just received a copy today. In reading the ordinance, however, he's not sure how they are enforcing the curfew against the juvenile, and he has not be able to get more Information because Bellingham's attorney has been in court all day. Stringham indicated that according to newspaper reports, it was his understanding there will be no state-wide curfew. However, they did insert a provision in the bill that gives municipalities the authority to pass a curfew on an individual basis provided they have the housing available for those homeless that may be picked up during a sweep of the curfew. Stringham clarified that the constitutional provisions are nearly identical in the parental responsibility ordinance as they are in the teen curfew ordinance -- the problem was the statute because of a provision in the Revised Code of Washington in the Juvenile Justice Act. Lubovich indicated that was correct. Mr. and Mrs. Peterson stated that Saturday night somebody decided to pitch a rock through their front plate glass window. They don't know who it was or why they might have done it, other than just kids out on the loose at 2:15 on a Saturday night. When they found out the committee was talking about this type of issue, they decided to come to the meeting because they want to•do something. Mrs. Peterson stated that there's nothing wrong with Kent being the leader in this sort of thing, especially if it makes Kent a safer place to live. She further stated that she knows where her children are every minute of the day, and can't imagine why any parent would allow any child to be out at 2:00 in the morning. Stringham stated that what happened to the Petersons is a perfect example. If a curfew ordinance had been in place and a police officer had encountered those juveniles, the problem could have been prevented. But, right now we have to first have a victim before anything can be done. Mrs. Peterson also stated that a day before this happened, she had been at Easthill Elementary where her daughter attends school. The night before, graffiti had been sprayed all over the walls of the play area. The kids must have been there for at least an hour for the amount of graffiti that was on the wall, and they weren't there at 4:00 in the afternoon, it was during the middle of the night. �: Epperly stated that anyone who gets into the car at 3:00 in the morning can encounter kids on the streets. When she used to deliver papers, every morning without fail, there were kids out. When she worked graveyard for 7 -Eleven, they would come in at all hours of the night on school nights, and maybe these parents need to be made aware and made to be responsible. Kids do have constitutional rights -- they have the constitutional right to be safe and to be taken care of, but they don't have the constitutional right to be heathens. Stringham asked Lubovich for clarification on the Bellingham issue, and whether he is recommending that a combination parental responsibility and curfew as the way to go. Lubovich stated that he is for a curfew ordinance. He doesn't see any reason why children should be out in the middle of the night unless they've got some good reason. But, to insure that it was passable, he went to the parental responsibility, which is what Bellingham did. However, he's interested to see how they deal with it. It's clear that they're going to cite as a civil infraction the parent, but what are they going to do with the juvenile. Under the curfew, the juvenile is violating the ordinance, but under parental responsibility ordinance, it's the parent who is violating it. Lubovich stated to have more effective enforcement, he would have preferred the curfew ordinance. Again, the problem with the parental responsibility ordinance is that if the juvenile is not violating the ordinance, you really can't detain that person unless he or she is doing something else or is in danger. But on the other side, what do you do with the juvenile once you detain them. Stringham asked if it's necessary have to write an ordinance requiring the officer to pick them up and domicile them. Lubovich indicated that right now they don't pick them up, they can stop and ask questions, but they can't do any more than that, and if the kid wants to run away, they can. Stringham indicated that in most circumstances, the parents are ultimately accountable anyway, so if fines are to be levied, they should be levied agiinst the parents. Bennett indicated that one solution he came up with in talking to several people, including the ministerial association, was that a proviso be included that states the first tiff they're picked up, their parents are issued a letter telling of various programs that are available, whether it be parental counseling, drug counseling, or whatever. The second time they're picked up, if would be mandatory that the parents attend those programs and they pay their own fees. And, the third time would be the fine that is being proposed. Bennett stated doing nothing is sending the wrong message. If they can't parent, then somebody needs to kick them in the butt and get them to learn how to. Woods asked when Bellingham acted on this issue, and Lubovich advised that apparently they had just done it, and he had just gotten of their ordinance today. Woods.asked if it was timed to coincide with what was happening in the Legislature. Lubovich advised that they had some problems with it, and they were in a hurry to redo the ordinance, so they didn't necessarily wait for the Legislature to act. There was apparently some pressure to get=the ordinance done quickly, so they drafted it and added the parental responsibility portion. Lubovich explained that under the family reconciliation act, there are provisions that if the juvenile is in clear danger, you can take them down to the station, or if they are committing some other crime, you've got reason to hold them. With a parental responsibility ordinance, you can stop and ask questions of juveniles just walking down the street, but you don't take them in. Under the curfew, the juvenile is in violation and they are the one that is respon'sibile, and you can take them down to juvenile detention or wherever. DISCUSSION ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF DIFFERENT ORDINANCES, THE WAY THEY WERE AND HOW THEY ARE NOW IN VARIOUS AREAS. 3 Chuck Miller asked how do you deal with parents that live outside the city limits -- a good portion, if not the majority, are actually kids from outside the city limits. Lubovich advised that , it could be subject to a good challenge. Where does the violation occur? is it occurring in Kent, in unincorporated King County where the parent lives, or Tacoma, or Seattle, or wherever. We don't have control outside our borders and we can't cite for violations without interlocal agreements. Lubovich stated that it's really complicated to get through all these little hoops to try to make something work, and it can be very frustrating. Epperly indicated that if one city would put something like this forward, then maybe the others would do the same thing. She indicated that she had talked to Chris Vance, and he said that the consensus of the county is that they're waiting for the municipalities to do something. Stringham expressed his concern that everybody is waiting for somebody else to do something. Meanwhile, teen violent crime has doubled In the last 10 years, kids are dying in the streets, women can't feel comfortable walking in the park, and people are getting rocks thrown through their windows, while everybody sits and waits for somebody else to do something. Lubovich stated that it's his recommendation that he be allowed another couple weeks to look at the issue. He would like see the state bill and would also like to talk to the attorney in Bellingham. Woods stated that there is no question that there is support from the council to do something, and asked this be done as quickly possible. Bennett indicated that he'd like to see the issue come back to a special meeting, and after some discussion it was decided that all the appropriate people would be notified of the meeting once the specifics were established. From the police department's standpoint, Chief Crawford asked that conalderation be given to the paperwork, the people power, and other factors that will be required to enforce a curfew. Crawford stated that it's very easy for us to put ordinances on the books;, yet give no teeth to the police officer to try to enforce it. Everyone probably remembers what curfews were in 50's and 60's, how we had the authority to enforce ft. Today the laws are much different and the kids themselves are a little bit more manipulative -- more willing to challenge the authority of society. Crawford stated that if we're going to have something, then it should be the law and we should be able to enforce it -- we can't tiptoe around it. Martin indicated that in his sense of the legislative process on this issue, the biggest concern that they had was if this was put on the books and the officers arrest children, there's got to be some safe, accountable system for taking care of them. That's why they threw it back to the cities. Stringham indicated that earlier the idea of some kind of mandate for seeking counsel came up and asked if there was some way that this type of thing could be incorporated as one of the steps in the process to offer the family/parents the opportunity to avail themselves of services that may solve the problem without punitive measures. Bennett thanked everybody for their input, and again advised that there would be notification sent out as soon as a meeting date and time had been set. REPORT REGARDING PLANNING COMMUS ION'S REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT CLUBS AND CLOSING HOURS FOR ALCOHOL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Bennett indicated that this issue was before Public Safety last year, it got passed on to Planning, and now they're handing it back. Crawford commented that it may no longer be an issue. The issue came up because of a temporary after-hours permit given to the Cafe Avanti by the Liquor 4 s Control Board, and the Choice Lodge and other residential areas were impacted. The temporary •, ' permit has been rescinded, so the establishment now falls under the same rules as other establishments with Class H licenses. Lubovich advised that this might be the time to consider it since it would not impact any existing facility. Lubovich stated that he had drafted both the teen club closure at midnight and the after- hours ordinance that was turned down by the committee last year. The issue then turned to whether or not it should be zoned for distance, etc. The Planning Commission determined it was more a of regulatory matter than a land -use or zoning issue, and it didn't belong in the zoning code, so that's why it's back here. Lubovich further stated that he also feels it's a regulatory matter, and whether or not the committee wants to do anything with it is the question. To provide a little history on the issue, Crawford advised that the liquor board asks the city for their recommendation before they will authorize the temporary permit. In this case, the Mayor stated that he would allow it as long as the laws were adhered to. It is a decision that was made by the city that can be made or rescinded at any time depending on who the mayor and council are, so it may not be necessary to have an ordinance. Bennett asked that the information be brought to the next regular meeting. UPDATE ON REPORT FROM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS Captain Chuck Miller advised that the police department had asked the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to provide a technical systems review of the Kent Corrdctions Facility. This would provide a review, according to American Corrections Association (AICA) standards, of the physical plant security, how the corrections officers conduct business and policies and procedures. NIC helped when the plans for the existing facility were first formed in 1985, and did an on-site review prior to it's opening. In addition, the consultant that was selected had been involved in those processes, so they already had some familiarity with the facility. The review process was provided at no cost to the City by NIC. The consultant met with staff, she reviewed upgrades that had been made to the facility itself, and internal operational procedures. She gave staff and their attitude towards doing their job a very high rating. She felt they displayed the "Kent Cares" motto. She looked at things like the alarms, voice activated alarms, camera alarms, etc., and found them to be very modern, but not user friendly. Some of the recommendations she made will be implemented, however some were very pricey and will probably not be pursued for some time. The area she spent the most time on was the review of operations. She advised that operations -wise, Corrections was doing a good job. They are probably 90% there as far as ACA standards are concerned. The problem, however, is with the documentation, which they are meeting by only about 50% according to ACA standards. Captain Miller advised that they have some very good procedures, and they have implemented some changes since he has been there. However, the procedures manual has not been updated to include some of the changes, and they are not documenting some of the work they are doing. Captain Miller advised that he recognized that they were behind in their policy and procedures manual, and has assigned Corrections Lieutenant George Burke to that project. Captain Miller explained that the consultant made recommendations with an eye towards reducing liability. That's why they will be putting a lot of weight in what she said and will try to implement as many of the non -cost items that they can. Captain Miller further advised that the consultant indicated that she has reviewed a lot of facilities throughout the United States, and 5 the City of Kent's facility, procedural -wise and operational -wise, is head and shoulders above the vast majority of those facilities. Captain Miller invited the committee to stop by any time, and if they would like a copy of the report, he would be happy to provide it. Bennett advised that it is his understanding that with the new Regional Justice Center there will be no allocation for either a juvenile court or holding facility, and he would like to see the police department, in concert with administration, address this issue during mitigation. Epperly advised that about a year and a half ago she had talked with Art Waliestein about these issues, and they basically said that King County was not interested in our juvenile problem. Epperly also advised the community center is coming up for a vote in the next few months, and maybe that would be a facility we might be able to work with. Crawford clarified that due to the Juvenile Justice Act, it's an impossibility to house juveniles within adult correctional facilities, and it would be like going up against a brick wall. NO ACTION TAKEN/NO DIRECTION GIVEN MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M.