WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Sabatino called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sabatino were present. No members were absent. Others present were Jeff Fix, Brian Wisniewski, Lynda Yartin, Tim Hansley, Chief Mike Taylor, Ed Drobina, Steve Carr, Brenda VanCleave, Paul Lane, Don Phillips, Andrea Kelly, Tim Kelly, Gerard Valentino, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 1, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Sanders moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer abstaining, and Mrs. Sanders and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:

A. Mr. Tim Kelly stated he would just like to address the committee this evening regarding the disturbing the peace ordinance. Mr. Kelly stated he is very frustrated because he has had to deal with this for a year and a half without knowing what is going on. He stated he has been coming to these meetings for months and he still does not know where this is going. He stated this is something that needs to be taken care of and have some kind of deadline. He stated he does not know what he needs to do, what this Committee needs to do, he just needs to know something is going to happen or not happen so he can move on to the next step. He stated it does not seem that anything is being accomplished and people just don’t understand how excessive noise can affect your life, you family, your way of life, until you experience it. He stated it seems like no-one will address it and he feels duped into moving into this city. He stated he thought there were standards and that he was moving into a residential area where there were restrictions. He stated it does not seem like those are being applied. Mr. Kelly stated he felt like he needed some answers and he just wanted the Committee to tell him what they wanted him to do. He stated he has avoided getting an attorney and he was trying to let the process take its course, but he does not know that is happening.

Mrs. Sanders stated she would like to let Mr. and Mrs. Kelly know that she appreciates their coming to these meetings every month and she can only imagine their frustration. She stated the Committee has another copy of the draft ordinance with more changes and she realizes this is a lengthy process. She stated she does appreciate their frustration and they have done everything that has been asked of them.

Mr. Kelly stated it just does not seem that there is any communication and he feels like he is just being ignored.

4. COMMUNITY SAFETY CONCERNS: Mr. Sabatino ascertained there were no community safety concerns this evening.

5. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

A. Parks and Recreation:

(1) Director’s Report. Mr. Carr stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Carr stated with regard to the mowing contract, the bids will be opened on January 26^th, and Safety Committee does not meet again until February 18^th. He stated he would like to have the Committee either entertain doing three readings on the contract on March 3^rd so mowing can begin the first week in April, or if this Committee would like to do a waiver of committee action then he could send the legislation for the contract directly at Council on February 3^rd for a first reading. Mr. Sabatino stated Mr. Carr was just trying to keep the timeline so the contract is in place in April, and Mr. Carr stated historically our contactors have started mowing the first week in April, weather contingent. He stated with the next Safety meeting being February 18^th, in order to have time for the contract to be effective by the first week in April he would need three readings at the March 3^rd Council meeting or a Committee Waiver so the item could be on Council’s agenda starting February 3^rd. Mr. Sabatino stated he would urge his fellow Committee members to request multiple readings at Council, but he did not feel it was good practice to waive action on something the Committee has not seen. Mr. Carr stated after the bid opening he would review the bids and prepare his recommendation for the Committee at the February meeting. Mr. Carr stated with regard to the community pool, we have sold 672 season passes with our residents purchasing 42 percent of those passes. He stated this is an increase of fifteen percent over the previous year. Mr. Carr stated after operating expenses and reinvesting over $80,000 on new equipment and major facility improvements the pool netted a $43,000 surplus. Mr. Carr stated the pool passes will go on sale starting March 16^th and something should be on the City’s web site about this.

B. Code Enforcement:

(1) Code Enforcement Officer’s Report. Mr. Sabatino stated the Committee had received a written report from the Code Enforcement Officer and ascertained there were no questions regarding this report.

C. Building Regulations Department:

(1) Building Department Report (Mr. Lane) Mr. Lane stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions anyone might have. Mr. Sabatino ascertained there were no questions for Mr. Lane.

(2) Chief Building Official’s Report (Mr. Phillips) Mr. Phillips stated he also had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Sabatino ascertained there were no questions for Mr. Phillips.

D. Service Department:

(1) Review and discussion regarding restricting right turns on red at S.R. 256 and S.R. 204. Mr. Sabatino stated this is still being addressed by ODOT and he hoped there would be more information on this issue by next month.

6. POLICE:

A. Chief’s Report. Chief Taylor stated he had provided his report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions. Chief Taylor stated he would have the Police Department’s annual report for the next Safety meeting.

7. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review and discussion regarding proposed amendments to Disturbing the Peace ordinance. Mr. Sabatino stated Mrs. Yartin had provided copies of the current ordinance and a draft ordinance that the City Manager and law director have been working on. Mrs. Sanders stated when the Committee first started looking at the current ordinance they realized that it was very vague and was a lot more work than anticipated. She stated there were several areas that could be, should be, or might be addressed and that is what they have been working on. Mr. Sauer inquired how this is currently enforced, and how would it be enforced under the proposed ordinance? He questioned if the police just respond to a complaint and then determine whether or not there is actually a disturbance of the peace. Mr. Hansley stated the current ordinance is very vague and almost unenforceable because it really does not define “clamor” or “noise” other than emanating from a vehicle. Mr. Hansley stated the proposed ordinance makes an attempt at defining this more and giving some guidelines to the officer who may be called to the scene. He stated in his few the proposed ordinances gives a standard or a matrix that the officer can go through and look at things like the time of day, number of complaints, what day of the week it is, is it a school night, etc. Mr. Hansley stated he felt this would allow the officer some discretion on whether to issue a citation or not. Mr. Hansley stated typically the officer would rather issue a warning and get the noise to stop to solve the complaint that was received. Mr. Hansley further stated in one sense, ordinances like this are typically civil matters where you are trying to legislate people behaving well to each other and we typically try to get them to work it out between themselves. He stated when that does not happen we end up having an officer trying to mediate that on the scene. Mr. Hansley stated in the draft ordinance he felt the law director has tried to give the officer some guidelines to follow. He further stated should the officer determine this ordinance is being violated, he will issue a citation and they will be cited into Mayor’s Court. Mr. Sauer inquired how this compared to other communities around Columbus and is this similar to what other communities are doing. Mr. Hansley stated the instructions to the law director was that our current ordinance doesn’t give much guidance, could they check with other communities and see how this fits in with what the norm is. Mr. Hansley stated the other way to go would be to put a standard in that is measured by a device that you have equipped either the supervisor’s car with, have one on station that can be picked up when they go to the scene, and set a community standard of sound. He stated then with that device if the sound exceeded that reading they would receive a citation with no negotiation. Mr. Hansley stated that would be more enforceable in a court because it is not subject to any determination, it would be a standard they are either violating or not. He stated further we would need to have someone trained in the use of that device and this is the next step below that, but it is still what is called a “reasonable man standard” in that the officer will use his reason to evaluate the situation to determine if it is disturbing the public’s peace given the criteria listed in the ordinance. Mr. Hansley stated this is better than what we have, but it is not as good as having a measurement device. Mr. Sabatino questioned what would happen in a situation where there is a continuing complaint about a specific situation, the officer responds and determines there are not grounds to issue a citation, and the complaining party continues to complain. Mr. Hansley stated again, it would be up to the individual to complain again and maybe the next time the intensity is worse, the time is different, and it would still be the officer’s determination. Mr. Sabatino stated if we decide to construct another ordinance he felt the problem was not favoring one party or another in the situation. Mr. Sabatino stated further you cannot legislate being a good neighbor. Mr. Sabatino inquired of Chief Taylor, outside of this situation, how many noise complaints the police department receives. Chief Taylor stated the primary noise complaint they receive is about construction workers starting too early in the morning and that restriction is they are not to start work until one-half hour before sun up. Chief Taylor stated they also receive barking dog complaints and loud parties. Mr. Wisniewski stated he still felt the proposed ordinance was extremely vague because it was being left up to each individual officer’s interpretation. He stated one officer might respond and not feel it was a big deal, while another officer might think it is an issue. Mr. Hansley stated that is why the matrix was included about looking at things like the time of day, other complainants, how long has it been going on, etc. Mr. Sabatino stated unless we go to a sound-measuring device it would still be a judgment call. Mr. Sabatino stated if we did decide to go with a sound measuring device we would have to buy the equipment, have all the officers trained on the equipment, have the equipment calibrated, and all of that. Mr. Sabatino stated his question would be outside of this situation, what frequency of calls do we get for disturbing the peace, noise, or whatever? Chief Taylor stated the only ones they really get are about barking dogs and loud parties. Mr. Sauer stated Planning and Zoning Commission had issued a conditional use permit to a business near a residential neighborhood restricting sound that would be audible from that business to the nearest residential property line. Mr. Wisniewski clarified there is only one neighbor complaining in this issue. Mr. Kelly stated the distance from his house to the noise is 60 to 70 feet as opposed to the next nearest neighbor, which is 800 to 1,000 feet. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know if Chief Taylor felt this was a better ordinance than what we currently have. Chief Taylor stated it is somewhat better than what we have, but it was still not something that he could enforce. Mr. Sabatino stated he hoped this Committee was not trying to write an ordinance for this specific problem because that is above and beyond what they should be doing. He stated a noise ordinance for the community is one thing, but an ordinance should not be written that will pick sides on a neighbor dispute. Mr. Wisniewski stated his point was if this complaint is what brought about reviewing the ordinance, is it even solving the issue. Mr. Sabatino stated this is what brought the question to the forefront and it was his understanding the Committee would look at the disturbing the peace ordinance in general, not to try and deal with one specific situation. Mr. Fix stated he would question why we would have any ordinance on the books that is not enforceable. Chief Taylor stated he would not feel comfortable issuing a citation on the proposed ordinance because it is still subjective. Mr. Hansley stated he would disagree with the Chief because the law director wrote this to be enforceable through our Mayor’s Court and to withstand an appeal to a higher court that if an officer writes a citation after going through these steps, our law director believes that a citation would be upheld. Mr. Fix stated it just seemed like if we had a sound measuring device, we had a standard, and the noise was either over the limit or it wasn’t. He stated that would be much easier to enforce, easier to prosecute, and it was not subjective to someone’s opinion. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct, however, you would have to purchase the equipment, it would have to be calibrated for each shift, all officers would have to be trained on it. He stated the judge’s first question would be to see the training log. Mr. Fix asked if it would cost more than $5,000 to do that and Mr. Hansley stated it would. Chief Taylor stated another action would be that the judge would have to receive judicial notice as well, and someone would have to be able to explain technically how the equipment works when a case would go to court and none of his people would be capable of doing that. Mr. Fix clarified that Chief Taylor’s preference of these two options would be and Chief Taylor stated the problem is what constitutes “unreasonably” disturbing the peace. He stated one officer’s level of unreasonable may be different from another one, and he felt this was too subjective to determine what is unreasonable. Mr. Wisniewski inquired what community this was modeled after and Mr. Hansley stated he was not sure what communities she reviewed in writing this ordinance. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this was better than what we have right now and this at least cleans it up to a certain extent. He stated, however, he still felt that it could be cleaned up a little more. Mr. Fix stated this has been in this committee for six months and the “what ifs” on this kind of ordinance are extreme – what about a lawnmower, what about an airplane. He stated as it states in the first sentence you can’t legislate being a good neighbor and you can’t come up with something that covers everything. He stated this is at least a step in the right direction. Mr. Sabatino stated he is not comfortable moving this out of Committee as yet. He stated he would like all the committee members to review this, get any questions answered by the law director, and then be ready to deal with it at the next meeting. Mr. Sauer clarified this will go to Council as either recommended or not recommended by this Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see a synopsis from the law director as to where she got this from, who follows this same type of code, and what was the basis of this. He stated he would like to get this information so he can formulate his questions before it goes to Council for a first reading.

Mr. Kelly stated he would like to make a point to the Committee. He stated the word at the very beginning of disorderly conduct is “recklessly,” and Chief Taylor stated would not enforce that because of that word. He stated it appears now that the wording from disorderly conduct has been taken and transferred to disturbing the peace, and if the Chief would not enforce the one because of that word, why would he enforce disturbing the peace with that word in it. Mr. Kelly stated the Chief had said he could not decide who was being reckless and who was not so he could not enforce it.

Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to have the law director provide a memorandum on the proposed changes to the disturbing the peace ordinance and also answer Mr. Wisniewski’s questions regarding if this is modeled after another community, what they do for enforcement, and the enforceability of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Sabatino further stated he would like to have the law director attend the next Safety Committee meeting for further discussion on this issue. Mr. Fix stated it might be beneficial to have the prosecutor attend the meeting as well and Mr. Sabatino asked Mr. Hansley to invite the prosecutor to the February Safety meeting.

8. OTHER BUSINESS. No other business was brought forward.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sabatino voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Safety Committee adjourned at 7:55 P.M., January 21, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk