Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance & Admin - 1997-04-22 SFAC\1997 -04-22 -S P E SPECIAL FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1997 CITY OF KITCHENER The special meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee was held this date commencing at 6:30 p.m. under the Chairmanship of Councillor J. Ziegler with the following members present: Mayor R. Christy, Councillors T. Galloway, G. Lorentz, K. Redman, John Smola, B. Vrbanovic, M. Wagner, C. Weylie and M. Yantzi. Others present: Mrs. J. Koppeser, Messrs. J. Gazzola, J. Shivas, R. W. Pritchard, L. F .Parkhouse, G. Sosnoski. The purpose of the meeting was to hear public input on the possible amending, or repeal and replacement, of Chapter 560 (Massagists and Body-Rub Parlours) of the Municipal Code. 1. MASSAGISTS AND BODY RUB PARLOURS The Committee was in receipt of a report from L. Pasternak dated April 14, 1997 recommending that Chapter 560 be repealed and two separate by-laws enacted governing erotic/sexual Body Rub Parlours as a class of Adult Entertainment, and non-erotic/non-sexual Body Rub Parlours as massage establishments. Copies of the report and recommendations were also made available to Massagists and Body Rub Parlours as well as any interested member of the public. The Committee was also in receipt this date of additional reports from J. Shivas and J. Koppeser dated April 22, 1997 as well as a summary sheet outlining the general licencing authority and regulations applicable to Massagists and Body Rub Parlours. Mr. Shivas provided background on the issue of licencing Massagists and Body Rub Parlours and referred to both his previous report and the summary sheet circulated this date. He stressed that Council cannot prohibit or create a monopoly as regards Body Rub Parlours; however, it can limit the number of locations to a minimum of two. The proposed by-law would retain the five existing locations, but reduce these to two through attrition. He also pointed out that the by-law would make provision to add new locations or change locations subject to a report from the Manager of Licencing and subsequent Council approval. Mr. Shivas then reviewed the regulations which are included in the draft by-laws and those which could be added. He noted that the former include: the requirement to licence operators and attendants; the investigation of applications and a subsequent review by Council; the option to refuse, revoke or suspend a licence subsequent to a conviction under a Municipal, Provincial or Federal statute; a prohibition on nudity; and, restricting access to premises to persons 18 years of age and over. Mr. Shivas added that should Council wish, the draft by-law could also include: a minimum room size where services are provided; restriction of the hours of operation; minimum separation distances from other adult entertainment parlours or from churches, residence and schools. Mr. James Hammer, a registered Massage Therapist, appeared in his capacity as a practitioner as well as a member of the Waterloo Regional Association of Registered Massage Therapists and the Ontario Association of Massage Therapists. Mr. Hammer provided information to distinguish the practices of massage therapists from those relating to attendants in body rub parlours. He pointed out that the designation of "Massage Therapist" is a registered name and it is illegal to use this title unless the practitioner is a licensed registered Massage Therapist. He noted that Massage Therapists are governed by a College of peers and members of the public which exercises a regulatory role over the profession. Mr. Hammer referred to concerns regarding non- qualified, unregulated businesses performing erotic massage and outlined a number of medical scenarios wherein the absence of a registered practitioner could result in injury or death. Mr. Hammer outlined a number of areas for consideration by Council including: increasing the licencing fee for unregulated, untrained workers in body rub parlours; requiring liability insurance certification, training in C.P.R. and First Aid; posting of signs that state no receipts will be issued for refunds of money from extended health care insurance; the posting of a health warning sign outlining health risks and advising where staff are not qualified to deal with health related circumstances. In closing, Mr. Hammer advised that Massage Therapists are highly trained and ensure high standards of health care, and in addition are regulated by a professional body, maintain a licence and liability insurance and pay applicable business taxes. 1. MASSAGISTS AND BODY RUB PARLOURS - CONT'D In response to questions from Councillor Redman, Mr. Hammer further advised that any improper conduct by a registered Massage Therapist would be prosecuted by the College of Massage Therapists, and in this regard there is zero tolerance. He further advised that there are approximately 50 licensed Massage Therapists in Kitchener and that it takes approximately two to three years and between $15,000.00 and $17,000.00 to train in this area. Ms. Nancy Brawley appeared on behalf of the Kitchener Downtown Business Association, and suggested that its preferred option would be to not allow any body rub parlours in the City, especially in the Downtown. However, she noted that the proposed by-laws before the Committee this date appear to be workable. Ms. Brawley asked that neither of the two body rub parlours recognized by the by-law be located in the Downtown as this is not the type of business identified in the Retail Action Plan and is counter-productive in terms of revitalization initiatives. She also expressed agreement with separation distances and restricting the hours of business. In closing, Ms. Brawley advised that the Association generally supports the draft by-laws. Ms. Rita Delaney appeared on behalf of the Cedar Hills Neighbourhood Association and referred to the group's statement which was previously circulated to members of Council. She suggested that body rub parlours are an obvious front for those engaged in what are likely illegal aspects of the sex industry. Ms. Delaney advised that the Association's position would be that the City not licence this type of business; however, as this is not legally possible, body rub parlours should exist only under strictly enforced conditions. In this regard Ms. Delaney suggested that a requirement be put in place whereby a licence applicant would deliver a letter of intent to obtain a record check through the Police and this letter would be accompanied by a third photograph which would remain on file with them. She further suggested that the total number of individuals licensed to provide body rubs at one location should be limited to three in number. Finally, Ms. Delaney suggested that the licence fee for body rub parlours be substantially increased to as much as $25,000.00 a year, with a portion of this set aside to compensate the Waterloo Regional Police for the direct increase in policing that will inevitably result from additional body rub parlours in the community. Mr. Shivas commented that under Bill 26 the City is no longer permitted to use licencing to raise revenue and that any amount charged must be equal or equivalent to cost recovery, which would disallow the licence fee increase proposed. Councillor Galloway argued that there will be increased costs to enforce this by-law and it is only a question of who should pay for these. He suggested an arrangement similar to that pertaining to the sign by-law as a method of ensuring cost recovery. Mr. Shivas replied that the City is at liberty to recover staff costs, a component of which could be by-law enforcement. He noted that the Licencing section has looked at this and has suggested an increase in fees from $50.00 to $75.00 for attendents and from $250.00 to $470.00 for operators. Mrs. Koppeser clarified that Police clearance costs were considered but were not factored into the proposed fees, and enforcement costs were not considered at all. Mr. Shivas added that in his view Police costs could not be claimed, though the City could recover its own enforcement costs. Councillor Galloway enquired whether the Police can levy a licence fee in this regard and Mr. Shivas advised that he would prefer that their lawyers look into this matter. Councillor Ziegler suggested that a letter be sent by Mr. Shivas to the Waterloo Regional Police Services enquiring as to whether they have the authority to levy a licence related fee. Councillor Wagner suggested that in addition, a brief report be prepared on the nature and extent of the current Police check for licence applicants and what is being done to monitor and enforce unlawful activity in body rub parlours. He also expressed an interest in knowing about past occurrences with regard to body rub parlours presently in operation. Ms. Mary Ann Wasilka appeared and advised that she is on the executive of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Association, but that the Association has no official position on body rub parlours. She questioned the appropriateness of using a licencing mechanism to deal with a moral issue and suggested that it was unclear as to whether body rub parlours are being dealt with in the proper forum. Ms. Wasilka expressed her concern that the Downtown would become a catchment area for activities which are not desirable in other areas of the City and asked Council to take a strong position on the body rub parlour issue. 1. MASSAGISTS AND BODY RUB PARLOURS - CONT'D Councillor Ziegler questioned how the City would move existing legal businesses out of the Downtown area if this were deemed appropriate. Ms. Wasilka answered that though it is a fact body rub parlours exist, they are in inappropriate locations and referred to actions taken by the City of Cambridge of locate them in the same geographic area as establishments employing erotic FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1997 - 72 - CITY OF KITCHENER dancers. In response to a further question from Councillor Redman, Ms. Wasilka clarified that in her view, Council is trying to regulate something through the licencing process which it is uncomfortable with and that if body rub parlours are a moral issue then they are as a result a legal issue. Mr. Brad Baumbach, appeared as the owner of Phoenix, a business located on Moyer Place and which offers erotic massage. Mr. Baumbach took offence to the inferences made by previous delegations that there is illegal activity at body rub parlours. He stated that nothing illegal is going on and that attendants are required to sign a contract stating they will not appear in the nude and are dismissed if they do not comply. He pointed out that it is as much the owner's responsibility to regulate the premises as the City's. Mr. Baumbach questioned the cause for the concerns expressed by the Kitchener Downtown Business Association, and noted that there have been no problems at his premises to date involving the Police. He suggested that it is wrong to stereotype this type of business as a front for criminal activity, and stressed that anyone is innocent until they have committed a crime and been proven guilty. Mr. Baumbach acknowledged that the assistance of the City is required to regulate this type of business and further noted that he has put thousands of dollars into his business and has instantly employed six people. Councillor Ziegler clarified that the proposed by-laws do not envision closing existing body rub parlours, but does make provision for reducing their number through attrition. Mr. Baumbach expressed concern that he may be denied a licence in future, noting that he has entered into a three year lease for the premises he currently occupies at Moyer Place, in the Market Village. Councillor Redman referred to earlier comments by the delegation from the Cedar Hills Community Association that all body rub parlours should be owner-operated and Mr. Baumbach concurred, noting that it is wrong for the owner to be away from such a business and stressing that he is usually there on a continual basis. Councillor Redman voiced her concern over the proliferation of massage parlours in the City and the perception that Kitchener is an open market in this regard. She also noted that all of the body rub parlour licences issued to date are for premises in the Ward she represents. She also pointed out that the business owned by Mr. Baumbach is very close to a residential area. Mr. Baumbach responded that the City's Planning Department told him that he must locate in the Downtown core, and noted that his business is a quiet one which does not create problems for neighbours. He also pointed out that currently there is a division between the services provided by registered massage therapists and body rub parlours as the two do not advertise in the same way or even in the same part of the telephone book. He concurred with the suggestion that the number of body rub parlours should be limited. Councillor Galloway asked Mr. Baumbach whether he would be amenable to relocating his business to another location such as an industrial mall, and he replied that he would consider this provided the issue of his lease could be dealt with, noting that he has already spent thousands of dollars on renovations at the current address. Mr. Baumbach later indicated that he would be prepared to consider this option once his lease expires. Councillor Galloway noted concerns expressed by the commercial and residential neighbours, and Mr. Baumbach replied that he has not received any complaints to date, and that no one has expressed any concerns which he can address. Councillor Yantzi enquired as to whether Mr. Baumbach saw how the presence of a body rub parlour could be detrimental to surrounding businesses, and Mr. Baumbach replied in the negative, again noting that no one had spoken to him in this regard. Councillor Yantzi referred to the concerns expressed earlier about the inability of body rub parlour attendants to administer to clients in the event of a medical emergency, and Mr. Baumbach replied that a person could have a seizure anywhere and at any time and that this was as likely to happen at a convenience store as at a body rub parlour. In response to a question from Councillor Yantzi as to the purpose of his business, Mr. Baumbach replied that it offers adult entertainment. In closing, he invited members of Council to attend at his premises during off hours to view the operation first hand. MASSAGISTS AND BODY RUB PARLOURS - CONT'D Mr. Paul Hoffman appeared as a co-owner of the Siesta Massage Studio, proposing to locate at 32 Ontario Street North, and outlined his situation in regard to Council's recent freeze on body rub parlour licences. He stated that in his opinion the draft by-law is a good one, but unfortunately did not exist at the time he made his initial application, and prior to the moratorium on body rub parlours. Mr. Hoffman explained the sequence of events which prevented him from making a formal application prior to Council directing that no further body rub parlour licences were to be issued. He stated that Licencing staff told him on February 24 that he would have two additional FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1997 - 73 - CITY OF KITCHENER days to complete and submit his application, and as a result of this misinformation his licence was not submitted prior to the prohibition on new body rub parlours. In responding to comments made at a previous meeting, Mr. Hoffman advised that it is unlikely that there are any other applicants in a similar position, as they would have come forward if similar circumstances prevailed. He further noted that Section 27 of the draft by-law gives Council the authority to consider his request for a body rub parlour licence. Mr. Hoffman stated that his application was completed before the freeze on body rub parlour licences and would have been submitted had he known of Council's intention to limit the number of such licences. He stressed that his case in unique and that no one else has come forward. He further suggested that the concerns of Council are addressed within the by-law and that granting his request for a licence will not effect these concerns. In closing, Mr. Hoffman suggested that he and his co-owners are the type of people the City would want to operate a body rub parlour, noting that they have invested a lot of money to date and are only seeking a fair solution. In response to a further question from Councillor Wagner, Mr. Hoffman advised that he has signed a lease and has obtained an occupancy permit for 32 Ontario Street North. Councillor Galloway enquired whether Mr. Hoffman had considered purchasing one of the existing locations, and he replied that based on expenditures to date it is unlikely he would have the capital to do this. Mr. Shivas clarified that the licence at another location would have to be discontinued and Mr. Hoffman would have to apply for that location. Ms. Erika Kubassek, Cambridge, appeared on behalf of the Womens Christian Temperance Union and the Moral Support Movement to request that body rub parlours be prohibited within the City of Kitchener. Ms. Kubassek read from a prepared statement and reminded Council of its responsibility to show the same degree of tolerance for erotic sexual body rub parlours as is shown for prostitution. She suggested that such parlours demean women and are a threat to both health and civic pride. Ms. Kubassek suggested that Canada is in a steep, moral decline and that war is being waged against the family unit which is deteriorating as a result of selfishness and apathy. She suggested that the City does not need erotic body rub parlours and that Council is supporting evil if it supports this type of establishment. Ms. Valerie Golder appeared and advised that she lives adjacent to the body rub parlour located at Moyer Place and circulated photographs showing the juxtaposition of the two properties and the proximity of the parlour to the backyard where children play. She advised that she had witnessed an improvement in the Market Village area and had assumed that the proposed body rub business would be that of a registered Massage Therapist. She stated that she could not conceive how Council could approve a body rub parlour in that location, noting that it is 20 feet from her daughter's swing set and that common sense would indicate that such a business is inappropriate next to someone's home. Ms. Golder also expressed concern that the location of the business may effect the re-sale value of her home. Councillor Redman acknowledged that Ms. Golder has put up with a lot in regard to the Moyer Place location and that she personally feels badly that it was approved in the first place. Ms. Golder commented that there is not a lot of noise involved and that she can cope with the activity surrounding a commercial property; however, it makes her feel very uncomfortable being located next to a body rub parlour. She also pointed out that over the past two years four houses in the neighbourhood have been purchased by families and that the proximity of the body rub parlour is having a negative impact on the neighbourhood. Mr. James Harrison appeared and indicated that he sees no problem with relaxation massage, noting that there should be room for such a business between the extremes of a registered Massage Therapist and an erotic body rub parlour. MASSAGISTS AND BODY RUB PARLOURS - CONT'D Ms. Cheryl Edwards appeared as the owner of Pleasures, an establishment offering erotic massage, and stated that it is ridiculous to suggest that body rub parlours are a front for prostitution. She suggested that if the City has a concern about prostitution, it should be investigating local escort services. Ms. Edward stated that there is no nudity allowed at her body rub parlour and questioned why the City requires that she keep a registry book of clients. She noted that her business is private in nature and that clients do not use their real names, nor is such a registry required at other adult entertainment establishments. Mr. Shivas replied that the purpose of the register is to act as a possible resource to assist in enforcement, noting that it is a potential source of witnesses where evidence of an impropriety is required. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1997 - 74 - CITY OF KITCHENER Ms. Edwards stated that the women she employs work for her to make extra money and they sign a waiver which prohibits nudity. She also pointed out that her business has its own personal contracts and that she is trying to do everything she can to run it properly and within the limit of the law. She also confirmed that the proper address for her business is 10 Duke Street East, Unit #5, and acknowledged that she employs a registered Massage Therapist. Ms. Edwards characterized her business as one big counselling session where there is as much conversation as massage. Ms. Jeanette Aubin, a certified Reflexologist, appeared and questioned where Reflexologists and other natural health practitioners would be included in the proposed by-law. Mr. Shivas replied that two separate by-laws are proposed, and that not being a registered Massage Therapist, a Reflexologist would be accommodated under the massagist by-law. Mr. Baumbach again appeared and questioned whether it would be possible to delegate responsibility for issuing body rub parlour massagists licences to staff in order to expedite the hiring of replacement employees during the summer months when Council meets infrequently. Mr. Shivas suggested that this could be done if Council wished; however, if the results of a Police check were positive Council should review the application. Mayor Christy questioned Mr. Baumbach as to the value to date of his investment in the Moyer Street property, and Mr. Baumbach advised that he would be willing to discuss this privately but would not indicate the amount in a public forum. Councillor Redman stated that she has a problem with the specific locations of existing body rub parlours as well as the number that are concentrated in the Downtown. She indicted her expectation that this landscape would change as a result of the proposed by-law. She suggested a group problem solving exercise to identify appropriate alternate locations. Councillor Yantzi advised that he has a particular problem with the Moyer Place location, and Councillor Redman added that other businesses in the area have similar concerns and she does not see the body rub parlour as compatible with its Market Village location. On a motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic, it was resolved: "That further consideration of the draft by-laws before the Committee this date with respect to massagists and body rub parlours be deferred and referred to the May 5, 1997 meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee pending receipt of a staff report to include, but not be limited to: the nature and extent of the check performed by the Waterloo Regional Police on body rub parlour licence applicants; an indication of what is being done by Police to monitor unlawful activity and enforce existing laws relating to body rub parlours; comment on the statement that the owner of the body rub parlour at Moyer Place was told by Planning staff that such establishments must locate in the Downtown; an indication of appropriate distance separations between body rub parlours and churches, schools and residences which could be included in the draft by-law; comment by staff on the feasibility of a group problem solving exercise to determine appropriate body rub parlour locations and a strategy to re-locate existing parlours where appropriate; and, the suggested changes to the draft by-law presented by the delegations this date." 2. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 22, 1997 - 75 - CITY OF KITCHENER G. Sosnoski Manager of Corporate Records/Assistant City Clerk