07/26/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Gly e 7/26/71 0 II II " I I, There was further discussion__.oL the . frequency .of.dances..and..bow ..the....dec$sion was 'I !I made to allow one every three.weeks. . In answer. to .the Mayor,. Ci.ty Manager said the frequency of dances was considered to be somewhat of a compromdse. ""- In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Smdth said dances are held at. various park centers. He said any.of these dances. is.always.well~attended. . ../ 2. CLEAN UP DEPOSIT Co~ncilman Mohr entered the meeting. ~ Manager read the positions of the dance corrmrittee and staff. The corrmri ttee felt the deposit should be changed to $20.00 - up to %30.00 additional charge to I) be levied ifacti vi ty area requires clean-up by ci ty personnel. The commi ttee felt that young peopihe were being discrimdnated against, since this was the highest fee charged in the schedule. John Norem, member of the dance committee, suggested that it mdght be helpful to e , those cleaning up if they could get ci ty brooms. As long as people know a fee ., will be assessed, he was sure they would clean up. Laura Towle felt this charge was unfair, and said this was really a lot of money i to the young people. She quoted amounts charged other activities and stated that the amount charged for dances was discrimdnation. Others were charged only 1/5 I,. as much. LaVern Krause objected to the charge, and felt it was part of the city function to clean up after such an acti vi ty. !: Paul Bessler felt that dances were a type activity shared by all, and that they '. .: all shared in clean up after it was over. He felt $20~00 was certain a sufficient fee. : ~ Mr. Mohr pointed out that the city budgets a great deal of money for normal clean up of streets, but that this would be beyond.normal clean up and be the responsibility.of. those putting on the dance. Mr. Bessler pointed out he was not opposed to the concept of the responsibility for the clean up, but for the deposit of $50.00, particularly in advance. In answer to. Mr. .Teague,. manager said that .the fee. could be waived, and if it was found.the. clean up was not properly done, the city could collect. However, unless i: it was.an organization with an identity and. treasyry, it would. probably prove difficult to collect. At the present time, according to the regulations, the amount could be increased or decreased, or the fee could be waived. There is some lever- age necessary to assure the area will be cleaned up. After the first dances the cost of combined clean up .and replacement of vandalism was over $200 in each case. Since the c~ean up fee has been in effect, there has been no problem. I ,. 3. POLICE COSTS il Manager read the dance corrmri ttee s ugges ti on tha t, unless an organization specifically requests addiLional police, there would be no justification for the requirement to pay in advance. for extra police deemed necessary by. the city admdnistra'tion. The committee suggested that, in some cases, thismdght create a'prior restraint on the constitutionally guaranteed right. to assemb~e, if it precluded assemblies or activities by those unable to pay. They felt the mall was a public place, e regularly patrolled by police that there was no precedence for this requirement. Staff reaction to these comments was that increased police service necessitated by crowds and to keep individual conduct at an acceptable level at dances, has resulted in extra expense and that not enough experience has been gained to anti- cipate crowd reaction to special activities. This will be evaluated as the various events occur. Laura Towle 'felt the issue was being skirted, and that other organizations were not required to pay for police protection. She felt certain citizens were discriminated against because of their inability to pay, and that use of the mall was therefore limi ted to those who could pay. Unemployed young people could not use the mall. She asked the City Attorney about constitutionality requirements of the regulations. " I' .. ,. " City Attorney was not sure he could answer Miss Towle's questions specifically, but he did say that it was not generally a violation of constitutional rights to I place certain conditions on public assembly. He did. not believe this was uncon- 1 s.titutional "prior restraint." As far as the reasonableness of'the conditions, he , would try to give a more definitive answer to the Council on this question. Mayor Anderson said the Council was not at this time debating the constitutionality of this issue, and if'Miss Tow)e:cwished further information, she could speak to indi:viduals after the meeting. - - ----"'"'''' -_. - -.- . - 7/26/71 - 2 ~