Item B: Ordinance on Unruly Gatherings

Home Browse Search

This has also been the experience in St. Cloud, Minnesota, which recently implemented a similar ordinance and presented their findings at the 2011 International Town and Gown Association Conference attended by staff. Stakeholder Perspectives The NLWG includes a diversity of interests and perspectives on how best to combat the impacts to livability in the campus area neighborhoods. While many in the group strongly support a social host ordinance, others have expressed reservations about this strategy. Although consensus was not reached, there is strong support in the group for this proposal. Staff has done their best to respond to all input received. The following is a summary of the main concerns raised within the group followed by any staff response. The UO expressed concern that any legislation be scheduled to allow full input and discussion by the students. The schedule has been created to coincide with times when UO students are present. Additionally, representatives from UO Community Relations and UO Public Information are involved in crafting a communication strategy, with City staff. The president of the Associated Students of the UO (ASUO) attended the last working group meeting, and provided comments and student representatives have had an open invitation to participate in the work of the NLWG since its inception. Neighbors and property owners expressed concern that existing regulations are not fully enforced, and that additional regulations are not needed until existing regulations are fully enforced. There is a list of violations that will continue to be used, including noise, and violations of liquor laws. Related to unruly gatherings, these violations are symptoms of the underlying unruly gathering. The City will continue to address the symptoms. This ordinance is focused on the underlying cause of the negative impacts – the unruly gathering. As a separate tool, the First Response Ordinance includes several provisions which render it ineffective for improving livability. First, it applies only to gatherings of 25 people or more. The second problem is that the same person must be cited to result in graduated penalties. The third, and most significant problem, is that the current first response legislation does not address property owner responsibility, which, according to best practices throughout the country, is a key component to effective social host legislation. This proposed ordinance addresses the problems contained in the First Response Ordinance, and supplements existing violations which will continue to be enforced. Property owners expressed concern that the timeline in the appeal process was inconsistent with the requirements for notice provided in landlord-tenant laws. The timelines were adjusted to provide ample opportunity for the property owner to be in full compliance with landlord-tenant laws. Students expressed concerns that the ordinance prohibited anyone from organizing, hosting, facilitating or encouraging an unruly gathering, stating that “encouraging” is broad and difficult to define. In response to their concerns, the word “encouraging” was struck from the definition. The president of the ASUO attended the last working group meeting, and provided comments. Property owners have expressed concerns about assessment of “response costs” feeling that it is uncapped, and unknown. A response cost is not calculated in the ordinance, since it will be based on the true costs of responding to each incident. Using the existing party-patrol staffing model and response times, the police response cost would be approximately $864 for a 1.5 hour response involving five officers and one sergeant. This cost includes salary, benefits, overtime, and vehicle costs. If the services S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120423\S120423B.doc