Working Session

Mayor and City Council Work Session
October 26, 2005 – 4:00 p.m.
A101

Council Members Present: Bob Brooks, Doug Christensen, Hal Gershman, Gerald Hamerlik, Curt Kreun.
Council Members Absent: Dorette Kerian.
Others Present: Mayor Brown, Bill Hutchison(Park Commission President), John Staley (Park District Director), Richard Duquette, Howard Swanson, Haley Wamstad, John Packett, Al Grasser, Pete Haga.

Mayor Brown called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Duquette commented that the hope is to keep the meeting to a 45 minute limit so as to allow the Council Members enough time to travel to the event at the Humane Society that begins at 5:00 p.m.

1) Park District Proposed Ordinance No. 101 related to Park Rules and Regulations with Regard to Alcohol.

Bill Hutchison, President of the Park Commission, stated that the Park District is considering passage of Ordinance No. 101 regulating the use of alcohol on in city parks. He stated that the reason for this proposed ordinance is due to concerns expressed by the public and that the issue has been discussed at length and this ordinance is proposed to give a means to deal with these concerns in the park. He stated that he has always felt that something like this is only needed due to one event one time a year that gets out of hand, but in listening to the comments from the Police Department and prosecutor in the meetings that were held has learned that we are the only larger city in North Dakota that does not have an ordinance like this and that there are other smaller incidents that occur in which this ordinance could assist the police department in dealing with the situation. Hutchison continued that the Commission still has concerns about passing an ordinance just to deal with a one day event, but are at a loss for other ways to try and handle the problem. He stated that the hope is that if the Park Commission passes this ordinance, then the City will pass it so that the governance is all in one place.

Gershman commented that his main concern has also been that the only reason we are even considering this event is because of Springfest and has a concern that we are affecting the whole community due to one problem day. He added that he has a concern with families who want to on the spur of the moment can no longer choose to go to the park and enjoy a legal beverage with their barbeque while the kids play. He asked how weekend spur of the moment permit requests would be handled. Hutchison stated that they have checked with the Police Department who has volunteered to make those available to people and to have officers on the street be willing to issue them on the spot to families in parks as needed, but ideally the people would get them ahead of time. The group discussed that both the Commission and the Council have some of the same concerns with making it harder for people to come out and enjoy the parks, but also have the right tools in place to deal with problems that occur. Gershman inquired whether it would be possible to modify it and make it for groups over a certain size.

Christensen commented that he also doesn’t want to place burdens on the entire community just because one time a year there is an event that is a problem. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance could just be for one period of time or for one park since there doesn’t appear to be any other major problems. Packett responded that the largest concern is the Springfest event, but occasionally there are complaint calls that officers respond to in a variety of parks throughout the year and that having an ordinance in place regulating alcohol use in the parks would be a good tool for them to have in their toolbox in addressing those calls. Christensen commented that when he has been in the parks throughout the course of the year he mostly sees young adults and families enjoying the facilities and has a large problem with preclude their enjoyment of all due to one event.

Hamerlik commented that all other cities of our size have similar ordinances to the one under consideration and they do not seem to have the problem that we do and that overall he does not have any problem with passing the ordinance proposed. He continued that most police calls come from complaints and he doesn’t understand why it would be necessary for people to have to have alcohol in the parks in order to enjoy them, but maybe going with a definition for a permit needed or maybe can’t have alcohol if group is a certain size then could avoid the normal family having a problem. He added that he has a concern if we narrow it to only a certain time or certain park how you get the word out about the rules and if you post it where or how. Hutchison agreed that had been a concern of the commission as well. Hamerlik commented that he also feels that the parks are under the control of the Park Commission and really like to see them make the rules that govern the parks not the Council doing it. Hutchison responded that since the Police Department enforces the park ordinances the Commission is looking for comments from the City on the proposed ordinances.

Kreun stated that at one time the Park Commission was very against passing any restrictions on the alcohol use in the parks and inquired what had happened to change the opinion. Hutchison stated that it was partly due to calls and e-mails from citizens with concerns on problems that were occurring in the parks with people using alcohol and the other reason was that they could not come up with any other options that would help them deal with those concerns. He added that they also looked at the fact that we are the only city our size without any regulations in this area.

Brooks stated that he agrees with Packett that this would be a help to them in responding to complaints for alcohol related problems in the parks and that in particular with Springfest the potential problems from that event are growing and we need to find a way to get it in control. He added that the only other option he can come up with is to find a promoter that will take on the event, but that will not happen until there are controls in place. Brooks commented that he still has some issues with implementing controls of this level when the only real problem is one day a year, but if we do this and it gets a promoter to come in and help alleviate the problem then maybe it’s what has to happen.

Hutchison responded that UND has contacted the park district that they would be willing to have a different type of event at that time if this ordinance is passed that will hopefully draw the students.

Gershman inquired as to the extent of other problems that occur with alcohol in the parks that are not related to Springfest and the times. Packett stated that they are smaller in nature and also have some problems on greenway and right-of-way areas and that generally after dark, but not always. Gershman commented that for some of the parks, use the closing gates then if people go around those to get in we already have the means in ordinance to deal with them. The group discussed that there are some parks where there are not gates, such as University, and need a way to deal with those too. They also discussed that not all problems occur after the park closing time and need to have something in place to assist the police department at all times of the day.

Christensen inquired from Swanson whether if the Park Commission passes an ordinance there is enough in code for the Police Department to be able to enforce it. Swanson stated that under the existing ordinances, it states that all citations for violation of Park Commission ordinances would go to Municipal Court and any new ordinances passed by the Park Commission would be covered by those. Christensen commented that the Park District could even hire their own security to enforce their ordinances and the offenders would still go to Municipal Court and that since no action on the City’s part is needed to allow for enforcement, did not see why the Council should be involved. Gershman stated that he appreciated being able to offer input, but agreed that the Park Commission should be the one to make the final decision in this matter as to what happens in their parks.

Christensen commented that it shows a maximum fine of $1,000 for violating the proposed alcohol ordinance and questioned whether that amount could be used. Swanson responded that he has some problems with the penalties as proposed. He continued that the ordinance lists a potential for jail time and when that happens, the offense becomes criminal and could be removed to District Court and then the jail cost goes to the citing body, in this case that would be the Park District. He added that those potential costs would also include any court appointed attorney costs. Swanson stated that if the offense is left with a fine only the potential for those other costs is eliminated, however the officer also loses the right to remove the offending party from the scene and can only cite them. Christensen inquired whether if a park security person were being used and was not listened to by the offender if that would constitute disorderly conduct and they could then be removed. Swanson stated that the police department could take over then or that the appointed security officer could make a citizen’s arrest and that individual would actually sign the complaint form against the offender.

Kreun inquired of Packett whether there was a number of people that were typically involved in the cases other than springfest that the police department gets called and if there were a common size of group, maybe using that as a guide in the ordinance could eliminate the effect on the average family that wants to have alcohol at their picnic. Packett stated that they would prefer to have a seamless enforcement of these ordinances and pointed out situations where it can be confusing both for responding officers as well as the public on determining who should respond. One example given is in the Lincoln Park area where there is park land which would be controllable by the Park District, but also dike, greenway and right-of-way areas that are City controlled. He reiterated that having one enforcing entity eliminates the time taken to determine who goes and sidebars once everyone arrives on the scene.

Christensen commented that if our police department can already enforce the park ordinances then he doesn’t see a need for any further involvement of the Council.

Swanson stated that one thing the Council might want to consider is adding a section in Chapter 9 that would also state the authority of the police department to enforce the park district ordinances. He also noted that on the limit of the fines, he reviewed the code and legislation passed sets the limit at $1,000 for City ordinance violation, but limits the Park Commission to $500 for a violation.

Hamerlik stated that while some feel that there are no problems in our parks and no reason for any ordinances, he has seen and can get videos showing some of the conduct that has occurred that show the necessity for some type of regulation in this area. He stated that gates can possibly take care of some of the problem, but not on University Park. He continued that there is also another problem that occurs as we try to take control of the use of alcohol in the parks and that is that there will begin to be subparties on nearby private property, as was discussed at the meeting last night. He cautioned that if the ordinance is limited to a particular day, the event will move and still occur and maybe then a block of time would be more appropriate. He added that he also thinks that adding a limit for maximum group size to get a permit or not allow use of alcohol would help. Christensen reiterated that since the City does not have to take action in this area in order for the Park Commission to put something in place that the City should not get involved.

Hutchison stated that his purpose in bringing this item to the Council for discussion is to learn and get feedback to bring back to the Park Commission. Staley commented that they do not want to put something in place that will be burdensome on citizens, City or Park District, but that they are trying to listen to groups and citizens that have been contacting them and expressing that there is a need for control in this area and to ensure that they have everything in place to allow the police department to solve problems that do arise whether it’s a group of two individuals or more.

Kreun commented that he would defer to the Park Commission’s decision and concurs that the parks are under the Commission’s control and if this ordinance is the way they feel best to proceed then do it and the City will back up if necessary. Christensen stated that he agrees with that sentiment.

Gershman stated that he has no problem with the ordinance, but rather a concern that we don’t make honest citizens into dishonest. Hamerlik added that this is a tough situation to solve and maybe see if there is one other step that could be tried first and then if still not able to control the situation then go to no drinking. Gershman stated that if could find a way to let those who use a legal item in moderation be able to so in parks would be his preference, but realizes there are some concerns that also need addressing.


2) Adjourn.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sherie Lundmark
Admin Specialist Sr.