Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-13-2007 workshop agenda — reading text

t~' within the state who have addressed these issues ( including Coral Springs, Delray Beach, Destin, Gainesville, Hollywood, Milton, Ocala, Brevard County, and Volusia County) were examined. Particular attention was given to applicable classes of offender exceptions, specified distances, applicable property types, application as to residence and/ or presence, and applicability to Landlords renting to offenders.. Much of this. research was conducted by Captain Tony Taylor. He organized the varied data into a matrix for easier comparison. ( A copy of this matrix is attached hereto as Addenda # 1). The research was extensive and comprehensive, but it certainly cannot be considered exhaustive. Public Works Engineering Staff prepared maps, each reflecting prohibited areas for individuals to live, based on the alternatively listed distances and specified pivotal properties. Sample maps are attached hereto as Addendum # 2, # 3, and # 4. Discussion: Most of the researched ordinances are applicable to both sexual offenders and sexual predators. Again, all sexual predators are sexual offenders, but not all sexual offenders are sexual predators. An explanation of the difference, published by FDLE, is attached as Addendum # 5 for reference. Some jurisdictions make the applicability of their ordinance relative to the age of the victim at the time of occurrence. Commonly, the ordinances exclude those offenders/ predators to whom it otherwise applies, if their permanent residences were established prior to the effective date of the ordinance; some also exclude those whose permanent residences were established prior to their designation as a predator/ offender; and they typically exclude the individual who was convicted as a minor. Distances typically vary by 500 foot increments, and range from 1, 000 to 2, 500 feet. The property types, to which they apply, generally include some or all of the following: day care centers, schools,churches, public parks, playgrounds, libraries, dedicated recreational areas and places, and designated public school bus stops. Distances are commonly measured from the outer property line of the residence to the outer property line of nearest the pivotal facility. Considerations to be made regarding the other side of this issue, involve constitution8;1 rights, including but not limited to: freedom, equal protection, and due process. Those who have been convicted of crimes, even sexual offenders and predators, are entitled to certain constitutional protections. The courts will especially scrutinize any law, or ordinance, which infringes on constitutionally protected rights to life and liberty and will strike down those which are found to be overly restrictive and thus unconstitutional. It is extremely important for legislative bodies, like the City Council, to make every effort to ensure that the legislative measures they pass are constitutional. To our knowledge, none of the ordinances, which comprise the research basis for this study, have yet withstood a legal challenge. There are advocates who will rally to the aid of those who they feel suffer injustice. When such is the case with one of the City' s ordinances, of course, the City bears the expense of defending its ordinance - regardless of outcome regarding the challenge, and potentially greater expense if the challenge is successful. f~ 2 Various alternatives exist within each particular requirement/prohibition area for the ordinance, from among which the Council may pick and choose - if the Council elects to enact an ordinance. A matrix, identifying some alternatives for each portion, is provided as Addendum # 6 to this Staff Report. Certainly, the alternatives contained therein are not all inclusive, but are fairly representative. of those used in the ordinances of others jurisdictions. Conclusion: A number of communities have enacted ordinances that further restrict the residency options of sexual predators and/or sexual predators & sexual offenders. Citizens of Fort Walton Beach, through their neighborhood meetings and other communications, have made known to some or all of their elected officials that they would be interested in a similar ordinance. Sexual predators, and to a lesser extent sexual offenders, are considered to be a threat to public safety. Our children are our most precious resource and the aforementioned threat to public safety most concerns them. Enforcement of such an ordinance would require use of additional investigative resources to monitor those who move to and/ or within our community and to determine whether they are sexual predators and/ or offenders to which such an ordinance might apply. A draft template for a potential ordinance is attached hereto as Addendum # 7, for reference only; it has not been reviewed by the City Attorney regarding form, substance, or sufficiency; indeed, it reflects that several determinations would be required before an ordinance could be drafted for Council. Several issues are germane to the discussion of this matter. They include: 1. Consideration of the level of public interest in this matter and the expectations regarding enforcement of such an ordinance, as well as the practical ability to do so. 2. Consideration of legal issues, particularly the restrictiveness of any selected prohibitions contained within the ordinance. 3. Resolution as .to what is reasonable, considering the above, especially with regard to the determinations of: a. To whom the ordinance should apply ( sexual predators alone, or sexual predators and sexual offenders). b. The types of properties for which the distance requirement will apply. c. The distance to be prohibited. d. What exceptions, if any, will be made regarding prior residency status. Recommendation: If the Council is interested in proceeding with this issue, direct staff to prepare an ordinance which prohibits certain designated sexual predators and/or offenders, from the selected types of pivotal properties, for a buffer distance of 1, 000, 1, 500, or 2, 000 feet. 3  Addendum # 1 c: o i e D. Applicable to Sexual Predators as Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes defined in FSS 775.21 Applicable to Sexual Offenders as Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes defined in FSS 944.606 Provides Applicability If VIctim Is Under Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NlA No No Yes 16 Years of Age E~ P~ nnClD!nt.R.e~ident Prior to ExePtio...:.... Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/ A Yes YeS Yes tv~ DClte( . 9fOI'~ inaJlce ; c;tpti~n: ft~ fdel1tPri.()r to .., '" No.,' -, No N/ A No Yes No No NO N/A Ignation as Pr8d~tor'Qffender Exception: JI1~ IVi~ Ual) or "" hen Y~ sa"' i~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NlA Yes '. yes Yes se "" C1~ COml11itted CIa.-d was Not I., .> as an Ac:hiit Convicted Exc~l) tion: I...diyicluali$ a ....inor Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye$ NIP. - ye$ '. No Yes IFa.cil~ wasOpened Exception: PJv()~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NlA ..' Yes Yes Yes After ReSidence ed Establis"- Distance In Feet from Day Care Centers 2, 500 1, 500 2, 000 2, 500 1, 000 N/ A 1, 500 1, 000 2,500 Distance in Feet from Church No No No No No NlA No No 2,500 Distance in Feet from any School 2, 500 1, 500 2, 000 2, 500 1, 000 NIA 1, 500 1, 000 2, 500 Distance in Feet from Public Parks