A new compromise has been reached in regard to an ordinance regulating 5 a.m. clubs in Little Rock, but some city directors said Tuesday that there's still more work to do before they could support the proposal.
Ward 4 City Director Brad Cazort and At-large City Director Gene Fortson announced that they would withdraw their former proposal that was set for a vote next week and instead suggest another to which the club industry has agreed.
The two have been working together for months to address crime at late-night clubs that hold a special state permit allowing alcohol to be served until 5 a.m. There are nine such active establishments in the city.
Cazort and Fortson originally suggested an ordinance before the Board of Directors that would have mandated a 2 a.m. closure on weekdays and 3 a.m. closure on weekends and federal holidays. Other board members elected to leave a competing proposal on the agenda suggested by City Manager Bruce Moore that didn't limit hours but mandated certain security measures at the clubs.
The new proposal announced Tuesday was billed as a compromise between the two. It sets a pathway for clubs to be declared a nuisance, have their alcohol-serving licenses suspended and be put on probation. It also mandates certain lighting and surveillance requirements.
"This essentially follows the Jonesboro [Police Department] pattern of having the option of placing clubs on a probationary period for certain instances that happen there," Cazort said. "The one big plus in this agreement is that if we have a problem club or two, we are not punishing all of them for sins of one or two."
At-large City Director Joan Adcock asked that more regulations be put into the ordinance. She asked that the clubs be required to install "No Loitering" signs in parking lots. She also wants the security-staffing requirements in Moore's ordinance to be added to the new one. Moore's ordinance required a minimum of two off-duty police officers at all 5 a.m. clubs and also had language that didn't allow clubs to reduce the number of officers they employ if they currently use more than two now.
"I cannot support this unless we have the additional police officers [requirement] in there," Adcock said.
She commended the city directors on their negotiations with the club industry to reach a supported agreement, but suggested that they now may need to start negotiations with Moore.
Moore asked that the vote and discussion on a 5 a.m. club ordinance be deferred from next week's board meeting since he won't be present. The board agreed to move the issue to the Sept. 30 agenda-setting meeting. That would schedule it for a vote at the Oct. 6 board meeting, which is a Monday instead of the normal Tuesday.
"It appears some things were negotiated out" of Cazort and Fortson's new proposed ordinance, Moore said. "I think it's important that we compare both and see where we are."
Cazort and Fortson had been meeting with Justin Allen, an attorney for five of the 5 a.m. clubs, to work out a compromise. The two city directors have asked the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance that accommodates the new agreement.
The terms include:
• Clubs can be declared a nuisance or have their alcohol-serving licenses suspended if "numerous incidents" occur in or outside the bars or on adjacent property controlled by the establishment through an agreement.
• Numerous violent felonies could result in the police chief placing the club on probation and requiring it to close earlier than 5 a.m., but no earlier than 3 a.m., for a period of time not to exceed two months.
• If a club is on probation twice in a one-year period, the probation shall be two months minimum with no maximum. Club owners can appeal the chief's decision to the city manager and appeal the city manager's decision to the Board of Directors, which will have the final say.
• Clubs will be required to install or maintain "adequate" lighting and video surveillance on property owned or controlled by it. The police chief will determine what is adequate.
Ward 1 City Director Erma Hendrix asked Tuesday why Police Chief Kenton Buckner wasn't included in the negotiations. Buckner has yet to make a public statement on 5 a.m. clubs.
Cazort didn't answer why Buckner wasn't included. He said he didn't think the off-duty officer requirement in Moore's ordinance needed to be included because the clubs would have an incentive to have adequate security if probation was at stake.
"My position is there's enough financial incentive to club owners to avoid being placed on probation and made to close early that they will want to have off-duty officers there to cut down the incidents in their parking lots," Cazort said.
Moore told the board that he wanted time to review Cazort and Fortson's suggestion with Buckner and that he would pull his ordinance from consideration if the new proposal is something he and the chief support.
Metro on 09/10/2014