Zak Stone Photo
What do the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and a “lingerie party” have in common? They both require police overtime.
The Irish parade already pays the city for overtime costs. The city would like to see other party-throwers pony up, too. But “vague” terminology in a proposed new ordinance kept aldermen from approving new rules to do that, for now.
That was the verdict at a meeting of the Board of Aldermen’s Finance Committee Wednesday night at City Hall, after city Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts presented and fielded questions on the city’s proposed parade ordinance amendment. The city already charges major parades for police overtime costs; it would like amend the city’s ordinances to make that policy law, as well as to extend the policy to clubs that hold promoted events.
Committee members agreed that they would like to see the amendment approved, but they chose to pass on voting. They asked instead that officials return, with the city’s corporation counsel, to clarify legal definitions, and answer a host of questions.
Getting the definitions straight is crucial. For example, the amendment would enable the chief of police to require club owners to hire extra security, but only when clubs are having an entertainment-related “event.”
“What is considered an event?” wondered Downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark, who admitted that she doesn’t “hang out [on Crown Street] all the time” after midnight.
She pointed out that clubs like Toad’s Place regularly host parties and concerts that are 18+. Does that mean that “every time Toad’s opens up, is that an event?”
Technically, yes, said Smuts. A weekly dance party at Toad’s Place, for example, would fall under the definition of an “event.”
Most likely the city will opt for a “more conservative” definition and restrict parties “advertised and promoted” as special, he said.
Aldermanic President Carl Goldfield said that the amendment “seems badly drafted,” and agreed with Clark that it was unclear how to categorize certain nightlife events. What if a club has a “lingerie night and fliers are sent out on the day of?” he asked, referring to a downtown party that ended in a brawl last weekend.
Goldfield said that the city ought to seek a signed commitment from club owners agreeing to pay for extra security. It will “strengthen your case if you have to chase them” in court afterward, he told Smuts.
Rob Smuts (in tie)
Other confusion cropped up in the case of parades, another type of entertainment event whose security costs the city wants to have organizers cover.
Smuts said that parade organizers would have to sign an affidavit agreeing to make a “good faith effort to raise” the money, although the city will still cover security costs that community groups cannot. Smuts said that the city does not want to force community groups to give up throwing traditional events on account of new costs.
How would the city determine whether a community group actually made a “good faith effort” to fundraise? Hill Aldermen Jorge Perez asked.
He said that the language of the ordinance might enable parade organizers to get away without even trying to raise funds, if they simply do not feel like it. Why would someone bother to fund raise if the city is ultimately still willing to pay? he asked.
Smuts said in that scenario, it would be obvious when certain groups are lying. The city would know which parades cannot spare money for costs and which groups do not attempt to fund raise.
Perez also asked how the ordinance is “going to impact” religious groups. Perez said that it would be “inappropriate” to ask religious groups to fund raise. Smuts responded that the city would work with religious groups to save money by shortening their routes, if they cannot afford the high costs of closing busy roads.
He added that any form of congregation protected by the First Amendment – like a religious march or a protest – would be exempt from the new rules. In general, the point of the amendment is not to give the city an excuse to crack down on events but to encourage cooperation between police and organizers, he said.
In the case of nightlife, Smuts said that “it makes it a whole lot easier for us” if the police and clubs can “agree in advance” on what sort of policing is needed for an event and how much that will cost.
Smuts said that he would prefer to create an entertainment tax for downtown clubs to fund policing. Unfortunately the city lacks the authority to do that within the state statue, he said.
Smuts said that most clubs, like Toad’s, are pretty good about hiring officers. Only a few clubs “try to fly under the radar” and “skimp” on security. Smuts said that he looks forward to working with the responsible clubs, who contribute to a more “vibrant” city.
“If all the clubs closed tomorrow,” Goldfield responded, “I’d be more than happy.”
when did we become a Republican city???
Oh, and for the record, last year (as well as this year)the entire financial burden of hiring extra security forces was put onto St. Patrick's Day parade committee. This isn't something the city shouldered.