CC Minutes - 03/15/99 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4684, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4684 by number only. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4684 be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. Mr. Kelly said that he supported a strong and vibrant downtown. He believed the exclusion ordinance had addressed some crowd control and safety problems and he had a good impression of staff enforcing the law. However, he was troubled by the lack of separation between the duties of law enforcement and the duties of the judicial system. Mr. Kelly said that although the ordinance included an appeal process, it constituted punishment at arrest rather than punishment at conviction, which he believed moved the City "down a slippery slope." He indicated that he would oppose the motion. Mr. Lee said he also opposed the motion. He acknowledged his decision was based on emotion and his belief the community must realize that the way to improve downtown was by helping the youth who were there. He said that the ordinance had displaced the problems that existed on the mall to other locations, creating conflict between merchants in the core. Mr. Lee said that the City must take a comprehensive approach to the problems downtown. He added that many laws already exist to address the problems identified by staff. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the ordinance. He said that it did not create or continue identifying a single area in the city where notices of exclusion could be issued; such notices could be issued in every City park and the library. Based on the record, exclusions in the parks had worked well, and there was a ten percent recidivism rate. Regarding Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the separation of powers, Mr. Meisner said he understood the concern but police already send people to jail upon arrest and prior to a judicial arraignment, which may or may not be speedy. In this case, there was an opportunity for an appeal that precluded the enforcement of the notice and people received information about that process. Mr. Johnson noted that it would require six affirmative votes for the motion to implement the emergency provision. In the absence of six affirmative votes, the old ordinance would expire March 31 and the new ordinance would be implemented on April 15. Mr. Pap~ noted his constituents' support for the ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Klein confirmed that a decision of the Municipal Court judge to sustain an exclusion could be appealed to Circuit Court. Mr. Pap~ called for the question. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion to call the question passed unanimously, 8:0.