By Patricia A. Scheyer
NKyTribune reporter
The city of Florence held a special meeting this week to start the process of updating their ordinance dealing with sexually oriented businesses and their employees.
Back in July the Boone County Fiscal Court updated their ordinances to include updates from federal law and other changes, and Florence likes to keep laws that affect the county and the city to be as similar as possible.
“As you know, prior to 2007 zoning regulations in the city of Florence’s code of ordinances did not allow in any form a sexually oriented business to operate in the city or the county,” said Administration Director and CAO Joshua Hunt. “In 2007, the city, in conjunction with Boone County Fiscal Court, passed the first sexually oriented business license requirements and zoning regulations. Most of the council members were a part of those original discussions which included in depth analysis, that occurred during that time, and they put out a well thought out licensing and zoning procedure. So what we’re discussing tonight is nothing more than a housekeeping measure.”
He said since 2007 the nature of sexually oriented businesses, specifically definitions and numerous lawsuits, have evolved rendering many of the definitions in lawsuits outdated. Since the county updated their laws, Hunt said the city will be doing their updates.
He agreed that it was a long ordinance and not easy to follow, but in addition to the red line version, where the old parts are red-lined to show they are no longer effective, councilmembers received a clean ordinance showing clearly what the updated law is. He asked the council members to follow along in the ordinance as he walked them through the changes.
The biggest changes, he told them, are the court cases that were cited, throughout the document.
“The definitions are more clearly defined and expanded,” he said. “New definitions are added to reflect evolving nomenclature of the SOB industry. Hearing officers are now appointed by city council and not the mayor. There have been multiple definitions expanded, most of those were for the definition of nudity, operator, shopping mall, sexual device, and sexual device shop.
Licensing requirements have been tightened, or proposed to be tightened, and that’s mostly just the disclosure of past criminal activity involving sexually oriented businesses, and/ or if the applicant has been convicted of any sex crimes.”
More specific time requirements are proposed for the issuance of licenses, and a new fee schedule for licenses is proposed. Language has been added to grant the city of Florence Code Enforcement Department the ability to conduct routine inspections and issue citations, and penalties are more clearly defined.
“So while they seem like a substantial overhaul, there are a lot of words changed in there,” Hunt said. “The fact is the way that we have addressed sexually oriented businesses since 2007 will be the same but our ordinance will now be in compliance with all these changes.”
Councilmember Lesley Chambers was uncomfortable with the scope and the depth of the entire issue.
“I’m looking at this part where if I am an employee of a cabaret sexually oriented business, that I have to apply for a license,” she said. “And that I can be denied that license if I have former convictions for various crimes. Is that right? I guess my concern is if you have someone who is wanting to work a legitimate job, and in the past they have had run-ins with the law, but we’re not giving them that second chance to go straight with their working record because of things they have done in the past. I just don’t see a reason why if someone has a conviction for something they did in the last five years they would not be allowed to apply.”
Hunt said each application is handled separately and they would take everything under consideration. He said there is an appeal process, where they could come before a committee, and plead their case.
Chambers went on to ask if it was true that these businesses are not allowed to sell alcohol of any type. Hunt confirmed that, saying that they are also not able to be located within 1000 feet of any establishment that does sell alcohol.
Chambers asked if Hunt thought the $100 fee that the city is charging for a license is excessive, considering the person might be trying to turn their life around.
Hunt said he didn’t think so, and added that to be clear, there aren’t any cabaret establishments in the city. He said that the only sexually oriented business in the city is the Larry Flynt store near Walmart.
Mayor Julie Aubuchon said currently when there is a circus that comes to the Florence Mall, all of their employees have to have the same license. She said if they performed at a circus somewhere else in the city, they would have to purchase an additional license for each site performance. So if the person would be putting on a show at one cabaret, that person could perform at another cabaret but they would have to have a license for each location.
“This is a lot of information, and we are given these packets at 4 p.m. on Friday, and no one at the city is available until 8 a.m. Monday to discuss this,” Chambers said. “Am I allowed to make a motion? I would like to postpone any action on this?”
Hunt clarified that the things she is questioning were already a part of the ordinance, and not part of the changes that are being proposed. They are already an established part of the licensing procedure. He said there is no motion in its current form to amend or make any of these changes she has been alluding to.
Mayor Aubuchon said there was already a motion and a second on the table, so that motion would have to pass or fail before another motion was introduced, unless the councilmembers who made the motion would rescind their motion.
Councilmember Jenna Kemper said there were a few things in the ordinance that were confusing her, also, so she wanted to pause the issue.
Councilmember Patricia Wingo said she worked with this ordinance back in 2007, and that was an in depth study of what stipulations to put into the ordinance, and she understood that the current changes were more housekeeping measures to keep the city’s law current and fair.
“It’s probably easier for me; when I look at this and I read all the changes, I understood it all, because I’m familiar with this,” she said. “You just have to read it and understand it. I don’t know what else I can say.”
Attorney Thomas Nienaber related that back when Boone County set their ordinance in place they consulted a well know authority on these types of ordinances, and when it came time to update the ordinance, the county engaged the services of that same authority to make sure they were compliant. Florence’s ordinance is still modeled after the Boone County ordinance.
“This ordinance isn’t prohibiting sexually oriented businesses,” said Hunt. “It does identify and acknowledge the fact that it is a use category, it says okay, this is where it’s appropriate and these are the rules you have to follow to get the licensing and zoning.”
Mayor Aubuchon added that if they prohibited the businesses, that would be unconstitutional, and the city is not permitted to do that.
Hunt said he spent a lot of time working with Attorney Nienaber and he feels like it is in the best interest of the city, and it matches the county.
The vote was 3 to 1, with one abstention, so the ordinance passed. Chambers explained her no vote, saying she was not disagreeing with anything Josh Hunt said, but she did not feel that she has done enough research to be able to vote yes. Councilmember Jenna Kemper was the abstention.