Council committee advances ordinance barring highest‑risk registered sex offenders from parks; enforcement questions linger

A city council committee advanced proposed local legislation that would prohibit the presence of registered tier‑three sex offenders in city parks and park facilities, but members and the police chief spent extensive time at the meeting discussing how enforcement would work and how to avoid profiling.

The ordinance as drafted would add a new subsection to the city’s codified ordinances (proposed §533.05) limiting park access for people classified as tier three on the state registry. The author said drafters limited the prohibition to tier three—“the worst of the worst,” in the presenter’s words—and tried to mirror the schools’ existing restrictions while avoiding overly broad or unconstitutional language.

The draft includes exceptions and qualifying language: for example, the prohibition would not apply when a tier‑three offender is present with his or her own child or with permission from a child’s parent or guardian, and it contemplates allowances for people merely transiting through park property while en route to another destination, subject to factual assessment.

Council members raised concerns about profiling and subjectivity—how officers and the public would decide when to make contact, how the law would apply at multi‑access parks, and whether routine users (seniors, anglers, wedding guests at a park facility) could be subject to unnecessary scrutiny. One council member asked whether the provision would bar a tier‑three parent from attending a child’s birthday at a shelter; staff said the draft’s allowances were intended to preserve those family interactions.

Chief Campis described an education‑first enforcement approach: officers responding to a complaint would assess the totality of circumstances, identify the person and explain the local ordinance, and in most cases ask the person to leave rather than immediately arresting them. The chief said officers could validate identity via on‑system checks and that most initial contacts would be handled as an informational/education interaction unless there were additional aggravating facts.

Legal staff reviewed case law while drafting and told the committee they sought to limit constitutional risk by tailoring the prohibition to tier three and by building narrow exceptions. Council members discussed whether rental or event terms (for Arrowhead facilities, for example) should incorporate compliance statements.

The committee voted to move the ordinance (item 6A) to the council agenda for further readings; staff and council asked police and legal counsel to refine enforcement guidance and to consider signage, volunteer park watches and camera deterrents as nonlegislative measures to improve safety.

The committee’s debate highlights a common local tension: balancing preventive public‑safety measures for parks with concerns about over‑criminalizing or profiling individuals who might otherwise be lawfully present.