Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 16, 2022 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Russell Edwards, Chair Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Carol Myers Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspection Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney John Spagna, Building Permits & Inspection Lisa Pappas, Assistant Attorney Judge Ryan Hope, Municipal Court Deputy Chief Keith Kelley, Police Department Commissioner Edwards called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: The October 13, 2022 minutes were approved with unanimous consent. B. Public Input: No public input was received. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Investigate the noise ordinance, specifically machines, vehicles, and amplified noises Commissioner Edwards shared that Judge Ryan Hope was in attendance to discuss noise ordinance tickets for repeat offenders and their interaction in the court system. Assistant Manager Jones also noted that staff was asked at the October committee meeting to come back to the Committee with a policy, and he explained that he would also like to discuss policies compared to standard operating procedures and what may work best for the organization in the long run. Commissioner Edwards explained that, at the last meeting, the Committee discussed a situation in which specific properties are receiving multiple noise ordinance violation citations, and they continue to violate it after paying the citation. Commissioner Edwards asked Judge Hope to share what happens with citations for repeat offenders of the noise ordinance. Judge Hope summarized the process by which a complaint originates. He noted that a police officer would likely respond to noise complaints. The officer would determine if they believe there is probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, and they would cite the individual for a noise violation. He explained that this is not the type of violation that people would be arrested for violating; it is a citable offense. The tickets are set up much like traffic tickets; most traffic tickets have a preset payable fine that, if the individual wants to accept responsibility for that behavior, they can pay the fine and never even have to come to their court date. They do, however, have a designated court date on their citation. This is the same for a noise ordinance violation citation. If the individual would like to challenge it, they would be required to come to court on that date. He noted that he believes $250 is the preset fine for a first violation; there is an escalator for the second violation, and the fine escalates to $350. He explained this is the only  escalator that exists right now. He explained that the one thing that will get a citation out of the category of payable ticket is if the officer writes on the ticket “court only”. The people that do come to court will first come to court at arraignment, during which the individual is informed of their rights. He explained that this is where all of these cases are getting resolved if they are not paid before their court date, and he noted that he is not getting a single plea that actually comes before Judge Hope. The individual may request to speak with the prosecutor, and the prosecutor may determine that the individual has a reasonable defense and that it cannot be proven; these cases are almost always being dismissed or there may be a reduction in the fine. If the fine is reduced, it is usually due to a financial hardship for the individual. He also explained that he has never once had a blind plea or a trial on a noise ordinance citation. Commissioner Edwards inquired about whether or not there was a period of time when the fine would restart or if it would be in perpetuity. Judge Hope explained that the policy was changed about three years ago to focus on the address for the fine escalator rather than the person cited; this was implemented to address the concern that a location that repeatedly offends could have different people cited and not experience the escalation in the fine. He also explained that the fine escalation would be in perpetuity. If there is repeat behavior that needs to be addressed, the officer would need to write “court only” on the citation to ensure the case goes to court to address the case. If they are in court, the court could use their discretion to determine a fair penalty up to the maximum penalty, depending on the case. Commissioner Edwards requested clarification from the Deputy Chief Kelley on when the officer’s discretion to write “court only” on a noise ordinance citation would possibly be triggered. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that there is no specific direction that has been given to write “court only” on specific instances; however, if the officer determines that there is a significant measure, they will mark “court only” on the citation. The Police Department operates under a process by which they inform, educate, warn, and then cite; typically, the officer makes contact with the individual and first educates them on the noise ordinance. If there is a subsequent complaint, the officer would then warn them; if it continues, it would then move to a citation. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that the challenge for the Police Department is that this oftentimes happens at different times with different officers and sometimes on different days. There is not always an understanding of the history of those locations, though the more prolific locations tend to be more known. He shared that they will need to do a better job of coordinating that communication on their end; they have told the officers that now they need to make sure to check the history of the location when they respond, and they are also logging who they had contact with on the call. Specifically, he explained that the Police Department is interested in logging whether a violation did in fact occur and keeping better track of them to use for future responses. Commissioner Edwards inquired as to whether or not Deputy Chief Kelley envisions a standard operating procedure that would direct to officers to write “court only” on a citation after a specific number of violations have occurred. Assistant Manager Jones explained that, in speaking with the Police Department, it appears the department has already implemented that new standard operating procedure with officers. Deputy Chief Kelley confirmed that they have recently explained the expectation and shared that they have also explained to officers that any warnings need to be in writing, so they can have that documented as well. He also cautioned the Committee that he would not advise that the officers be locked into any kind of hardline policy, because there are some situations that require a level of discretion; however, he does want to ensure that we communicate expectations. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 11162022  Commissioner Thornton inquired about whether or not it would be possible to send the owner of a property a letter or notice in writing prior to the citation being issued. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that they could add that in the process, but they typically would do that at the warning stage of the process. Commissioner Thornton expressed concern that there may be different individuals that receive the education or warning, and the owner may not be aware. She expressed interest in including a written component to notify the owner. Assistant Manager Jones also shared that Building Permits & Inspection Department also has the potential to implement a similar system to track violations when they occur. Doug Hansford that construction noise violations are often tracked in the permit file, which are isolated, and staff may not be aware that a violation had occurred previously. With their new software system, he explained that they have both permit files and contact files; they can now attach the complaint to the contact file rather than the permit file to ensure that staff is aware of the history of complaints. Commissioner Houle requested clarification on whether or not a standard operating procedure was a policy that is not in writing. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that a standard operating procedure is in writing. Commissioner Houle expressed interest in receiving a copy of the standard operating procedure in writing to capture the daily operating procedure. They also inquired about whether or not the violations were being tracked by individual, location, or both. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that officers are checking the location and then the individual that they had contact with noted in their call. He shared that they have now established a practice of how they are handling these calls. Commissioner Houle explained that they support the idea of writing “court only” to address the concerns; however, they hope that they find ways to identify an escalation for accountability that seems necessary but that does not involve jail. Judge Hope clarified that while that is a maximum possible penalty, it is not a frequent, very likely outcome; he explained that this would not typically result in jail. Deputy Chief Keith Kelley explained that the Police Department would also create a training bulletin that staff signs off on to acknowledge that they have read the training bulletin; this has not been done yet, but it would be done. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on whether or not the standard operating procedure was in writing. She also noted that she would appreciate being able to see a written copy of the standard operating procedure. Commissioner Wright explained that she had reviewed the addresses of top repeat noise ordinance violators following the last meeting. One example from her district was an address that appeared twice on the graph due to one of the addresses showing a unit number; however, if those instances were combined, the location would have tied for the top noise ordinance violator with one other address. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that these discrepancies are due to how the complaint was called in and that there may be some instances when a unit number is shared and others that the unit number is unknown. If the officer arrives and the noise has ceased, the officer would be unable to locate the unit and would not be able to update the address. He explained that they have asked their staff to make sure that the location is correct when they respond. Commissioner Wright expressed interest in having “court only” written on citations at a strategic point consistently and that includes some kind of written notice to the landlord or property owner, given that the individual contacted by the officer upon arrival may vary. She recalled that a similar written notification to the property owner had been included in the unruly gatherings ordinance. Commissioner Thornton explained that she had concerns about one particular club in her district, but she now understands that the club changes ownership. She inquired about whether or not the location being tracked rather than just the individual would help address this issue. Judge Hope explained that if, under the officer’s discretion, the officer issues a “court only” citation, and Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 11162022  the owner would then go to court to address the case. The new owner could then explain to the court about how they plan to mitigate it in the future, and the Judge could then be aware in case future cases are brought forward. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not there was any legal concern associated with citing a property owner that may not be aware of an issue. Deputy Chief Attorney Sherrie Hines explained that there is not a concern with citing a property owner, and there is history of doing that in a code enforcement context. Assistant Attorney Lisa Pappas clarified that the officer provides the citation to the individual on site. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not Code Enforcement could be notified when citations are issued to then have them issue the property owner an additional citation. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that it would likely be dependent on how the ordinance is worded to include the owner or the responsible party. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines explained that, if the language of the ordinance was clarified to allow the owner or responsible party to be cited, there would need to be clarification on how it would work logistically, since it is not a system that exists currently. Deputy Chief Kelley explained that the Police Department would need to understand the threshold by which they would notify Code Enforcement and then build a system around it. If it is a low level of interaction or recurrence, it may be a matter of the Police Department notifying Code Enforcement directly; alternatively, if it is more common, then system integration would need to be considered and it would be more complex. Assistant Attorney Pappas also advised that, if both the property owner and tenant are cited and go to court, there will likely be situations where both parties blame the other. In those situations, it would be an issue for the prosecutor to determine who would be ultimately held responsible. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines also explained that it is very rare for these cases to go to trial. Assistant Manager Jones also noted that, if we put so much on staff to do, it may actually inadvertently disincentivize staff from writing “court only”. Commissioner Edwards expressed interest in obtaining documentation from the Police Department regarding the standard operating procedures prior to the next meeting. He shared that his inclination is to see how the changes play out and determine if anything additional is needed after six months. Commissioner Wright agreed. She explained that it was helpful learning from the discussion, and she noted that the commissioners could use that information on process when they hear of noise complaint issues. She also noted that the address in her district with the most repeat noise ordinance violations is also noted as having suspected gang activity; she shared that she would prefer police resources be dedicated more to the addressing the gang activity than noise ordinance violations. Additionally, she explained that many of the addresses were apartment complexes or hotels, so notifying the landlord may not sufficiently address the issue. She explained that she believes the improvements implemented by staff are good for the topic at hand from her perspective. Commissioner Thornton agreed. She also explained that it would be interesting to see how the data changes on noise ordinance violations in six months to determine if there has been any change. She suggested it continue to be monitored. Commissioner Houle suggested possibly putting the item on hold for six months and then revisit it in Committee. They also requested clarification as to whether or not there was a way that this can be structured to require the property owner and tenant to attend mediation to help determine how it could prevent it in the future. Assistant Attorney Pappas expressed concern that it might interfere with their private regular contract as far as who they allow to be their tenant; she noted that she does not know of a way to force two parties who were facing the same potential fine to come to some sort of agreement, even with a pending criminal charge. Commissioner Edwards also added that in that instance we would also be charging two people with the same fine. Commissioner Myers inquired about whether or not there was a way to communicate that these noise violations are occurring to help the property owner be aware of the issue to address it with the tenant. Commissioner Wright also noted that forcing a landlord to come in to court because Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 11162022  of a tenant noise violation may create more of an adversarial dynamic that could result in the tenant’s lease not being renewed. She also explained that it would be helpful to have a community flyer, similar to the litter flyer, in order to educate and inform the residents on noise ordinances. Assistant Manager Jones explained that he could ask the Public Information Office to work with Building Permits & Inspection on creating something similar, but he is not sure how quickly it could be turned around. Commissioner Edwards shared that he does not believe that anything further is needed, and the Committee would hold on the issue. D. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 2:01 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 11162022