Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Safety (Committee) - 10/18/1994MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1994 Present: Jim Bennett Ed Allen Christi Houser Ed White Tim Clark Darin Westover Roger Lubovich Several unidentified citizens Meeting called to order 5:08 p.m. by Chairman Jim Bennett. ADDED ITEMS: Handicapped Parkin Sq talls Ed White explained that due to recent requests, they were looking at the possibility of providing a little bit more in the area of handicapped parking. Rather than adding more handicapped parking stalls, they were looking at eliminating the two -parking limit on handicapped stalls so that a handicapped person could park anywhere In the downtown area for an Indefinite period of time. They would, however, still be competing for the same stalls. Christi Houser asked how we would let people know, and Roger Lubovich indicated that appropriate signage would have to be posted. Bennett asked if a resolution would allow more flexibility as the downtown changes. Lubovich stated that it would have to be an ordinance. Lubovich reiterated that this is just an idea and if there is an interest, it can be brought back to the committee at a future date. Bennett advised that he would like for them to come up with something to be brought back. Anti -Theft Camlaign Houser explained that she had received information on an anti -theft campaign being conducted in other areas. Vehicle owners register their cars and they are given a sticker to place on the vehicle. This gives police officers permission to stop these cars, without question, for verification when operating between the hours of 1:00 and 5:00 a.m. Houser indicated that they are apparently doing this in Miami, Dallas, and New York, and it has been very successful. Houser asked that the information be forwarded to Chief Crawford. AMENDMENTS TO THE PENAL CODE Lubovich explained that there has been an increase in prostitution activity on Pacific Highway. It seems that every time officers refocus on something else for a moNh or two, prostitution activity increases and its hard to get a handle on it. The business cxmunity in the area is getting very concerned as the activity has become very aggressive and,di6ruptive, and they have approached the police department with questions about it. On Monday night, October 24th, at 6:00 p.m. at the West Hill Fire Station, a community meeting has been scheduled to answer their questions and talk about what can be done and what is being done. Lubovich indicated that they have looked at several different avenues, but one thing that can be done rather quickly is to pass an ordinance dealing with prostitution loitering. MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1994 Page 2of3 Ed Allen explained that currently what the officers do is either target the customers (who are primarily men) or the prostitutes themselves (who are primarily female). They can either have a female decoy be approached by male patrons, converse with them and see if they can engage them in an offer and agreement which under the patronizing a prostitute ordinance is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. Or they can have undercover men approach the females and try to do the same thing. The females are generally repeat offenders and they have grown wise to what it is they need to do, or NOT do, to keep from violating the ordinance. The Prostitution Loitering Ordinance, however, will actually target the loitering activity. It makes persons guilty of prostitution loitering if he or she is in, or remains in a public place, and intentionally solicits, induces, entices, or procures another to commit prostitution. Allen indicated that an ordinance quite identical to this was enacted by Seattle some time ago. It has been challenged up to the Washington Supreme Court and was upheld, so they are confident in it's constitutionality. Allen stated that the police department is confident that this would give them an additional tool; it would give them a reason to approach particular people, get their identification, run them for warrants, and see if they have been given a previous court order to stay out of that particular area of prostitution. Lubovich further explained that they have also amended the SOAP provisions to allow for prostitution loitering to be an item for issuing a SOAP order. Lubovich advised that other additions/changes to the penal code are: ► Making it a gross misdemeanor for violation of a civil anti -harassment order. This will allow for the officer to cite in-house, keeping It in Kent Municipal Court rather than through the State Prosecutor. ► Correction to Public Disturbance section. The code was recently amended and there was an error in drafting. ► Adoption of state statute regarding cheating. Allen explained that there is a code in the state gambling statute that is basically aimed at people who get pull tab cards in restaurants, etc., alter them, and then turn them in and collect more than they should. This change will adopt the state statute by reference, which again allows police to cite through Kent Municipal Court. Bennett advised that he is in favor of the language, but because they were still working on the ordinance and because of the meeting on Monday, he could not vote for something that was going to change. Lubovich advised that there would be no further changes, this was it. Houser stated that she felt it would be nice if staff could take this to the meeting on Monday, and then if necessary, come back with any modifications. Bennett advised that he is aware of the situation and the need to move forward as quickly as possible. Lubovich clarified that there would not be any changes to the loitering provisions because it pretty much is tailored to case law and they want to keep it that way. He explained that tyre might be other avenues to pursue or other tools that can be used, but he doubts it would Involve the penal code. Houser moved to approve amendments to the penal code as presented and modified this date; Seconded by Tim Clark. Motion passed 3-0. MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1994 Page 3 of 3 TATOO ORDINANCE Bennett advised that he would like to open by saying that five minutes would not be enough time to address the issue as this is the first time they have seen it, and recommended that it be brought back at another time. Lubovich indicated that he could introduce it so they would know what its about and then bring it back to the next meeting. Lubovich advised that this issue originated as a result of calls the city has received regarding juveniles being tattooed, allegedly by an establishment in Kent. The obvious issues of concern are related to sanitation and getting the consent of the parents of minors. Lubovich has found that there are no laws in the State of Washington regulating the tattooing of Individuals, except with regard to animals such as with exotic pets. King County has nothing on it, and Kent has nothing. Seattle does have an ordinance dealing with these issues and the ordinance presented today is basically modeled after Seattle's. Seattle's ordinance, however, is much more comprehensive to include the color of dye mixes, etc., which are areas Kent probably does not want to deal with because we don't have the expertise. Houser asked what happens under this ordinance if an establishment tattoos somebody under 18 without consent. Lubovich explained that it would violate their license,} and they could lose their business license. Houser asked how many calls have actually been received on this. Lubovich advised that there hasn't been that many, but he has had two in the last month or two concerning minors being tattooed. Lubovich advised that he had invited Darin Westover, who operates a tattoo parlor in Kent, to today's meeting and advised that Westover had actually expressed support for this type of measure. Houser asked if Westover would be willing to look through the ordinance and provide input; see if there is anything he feels is not right, is unfair, or too burdensome. Westover advised that he would be glad to review the ordinance and would provide something back to the committee prior to the November 15th meeting. Westover also passed out a copy of the document they have signed when dealing with a minor. Lubovich again stated that this is a concern that has been raised, however, he doesn't know if its something that needs to be dealt with or not. Bennett said he felt that 9 a child wants to get tattooed, they can get it done whether they go through the front door of a tattoo parlor or through the back door of somebody's house doing it outside the business community. Houser asked if there were any other tattoo parlors in Kent, and Westover advised that he did not believe there were any others in Kent, however, there is one right on the border in Renton. Meeting adjourned at 5:32 p.m.