Item B: Ordinance on Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

Speaking to Ms. Seese Green’s concerns, Ms. Zimmer noted the full range of the staff recommendation was reflected in the suggested motions continued onto the last page of the Agenda Item Summary. Ms. Zimmer noted that Ms. Conover and Mr. Travis were excused from the meeting. IV. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC SAFETY EXCLUSION ZONE ORDINANCE Ms. Miller reported that the statistical report on the DPSZ zone was posted on the Police Commission’s Web site. Ms. Phelps reported on the results of the City’s institution of the DPSZ ordinance, noting the department had collected 20 months of data. She first clarified that the statistical report mentioned by Ms. Miller was an activity report rather than an in-depth analysis of the DPSZ. She briefly noted the geographic scope of the DPSZ and reported the DPSZ was an alternative to incarceration and an attempt to displace chronic violators from the downtown to improve safety and the perception of safety in the downtown core. In sum, Ms. Phelps reported that 96 exclusions were requested by the department and the courts approved 93 percent of those requests. The average exclusion involved three violations. Judges granted seven variances to individuals with a need to enter the DPSZ. Liquor violations and criminal trespass, two significantly disruptive minor offenses, far exceeded other violations. Ms. Phelps reported that there were 4,180 total charges involved in the exclusions issued; 377 were felonies and 2,872 were misdemeanors. Of the misdemeanor charges, 856 were for criminal trespass and 810 were for liquor violations or driving under the influence. A small group of chronic, multiple offenders who self-reported as homeless, contributed significantly to the crime occurring downtown. Enforcement downtown had displaced some criminal activity to nearby downtown neighborhoods, such as the West University Neighborhood. The EPD was working with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) and local merchants on a voluntary ban on malt liquor sales in that area. Ms. Phelps shared information on the demographics of those who committed offenses in the DPSZ and the larger downtown area. She noted that of the 94 people subject to exclusion, 59 had 734 charges against them in the previous 46 months; 35 had no prior criminal offenses. Ms. Phelps emphasized that the issues involved were not just police issues, but were social issues and included addiction and mental health issues not being addressed in the community. She said that was significant in regard to who was offending downtown and what resources they had available to them. Ms. Miller solicited commission questions and comments. Mr. Valle questioned how staff would analyze the data in the future given changing circumstances, such as the increase in officers serving downtown. Ms. Phelps agreed that things did not remain constant. She believed staff would be able to track patterns and noted that new officers would not be on the street until 2012, so the EPD would have three years of comparable data to review in terms of staffing levels. Mr. Mueller asked if the DPSZ ordinance or the increased police staffing downtown was responsible for the safer feeling downtown. Lt. Mozan believed no single thing led to the safer feeling. He said EPD’s increased presence downtown led to increased enforcement but officers also had the DPSZ as a tool, which allowed them to remove a core group of chronic offenders from downtown. The EPD had also spread officers out on different watches. Lt. Mozan also emphasized the importance of increased communication between downtown stakeholders, including police officers and security personnel, and said stakeholders compared notes on trends and issues, which led to improved outcomes. Lt. Mozan suggested the question to consider was what would happen if staffing was reduced and the ordinance eliminated. Although he believed improvements to the ordinance could be made, Mr. Clark said he had seen a real difference in downtown as result of the City’s extra efforts. At Mr. Clark’s request, Sgt. Fitzpatrick provided an example of a typical case that led to exclusion.