§ 19-375. Findings and purpose.

(a)

The board of commissioners and staff have conducted an extensive review of available reports and studies concerning the detrimental secondary effects associated with adult businesses. The secondary effects reports and studies that have been reviewed include the following:

Summaries of Key Reports Concerning the Negative Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Louis F. Comus III; Adult Business Study, Phoenix, AZ (1979); Police Memorandum, Tucson, AZ (1990); Relationship Between Crime and Adult Business Operations, Garden Grove, CA (1991); Effects of the Concentration of Adult Entertainment Establishments, Los Angeles, CA (1977); Amendment to Zoning Regulations, Whittier, CA (1978); Adult Entertainment Business, Indianapolis, IN (1984); Relationship Between Adult Entertainment Establishments, Crime and Housing Values, Minneapolis, MN (1980); Adult Entertainment, Saint Paul, MN; City Commission Minutes, Las Vegas, NV; Police Department Report, Cleveland, OH (1977); A Survey of Real Estate Appraisers, Oklahoma City, OK (1986); Secondary Impacts of Sex Oriented Businesses, Philadelphia, PA (1996); A Report on Zoning and Other Methods of Regulating Adult Entertainment, Austin, TX (1986); Report on Adult Oriented Businesses, Austin, TX (1986); Report on the Regulation of Adult Uses, Beaumont, TX (1982); Why and How Our City Organized a Joint County-Wide Sexually Oriented Businesses Task Force, Cleburne, TX (1997); Effects of Adult Entertainment Businesses on Residential Neighborhoods, El Paso, TX (1986); Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance Revision Committee Legislative Report, Houston, TX (1997); Adult Use Study, Newport News, VI (1996); Proposed Land Use Code Text Amendment — Adult Cabarets, Seattle, WA (1989); Report on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S. (2001); An Insider's View of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Testimony of David Sherman (2000); Strip Clubs According to Strippers: Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence; Nude Entertainment Study, Adams County, CO (1988); Adult Entertainment Study, Manatee County, FL (1987); Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses, State of Minnesota (1989); A Report Prepared by the City of Las Vegas, NV (1978); Adult Business Study, Ellicottville, NY (1998); Study & Recommendations for Adult Entertainment Businesses, Islip, NY (1980); Adult Entertainment Study, New York, NY (1994); Secondary Effects of the Concentration of Adult Use Entertainments, Times Square, NY (1994); Regulation of Adult Entertainment Establishments, New Hanover County, NC (1989); Effects of Adult Entertainment Businesses on Residential Neighborhoods; An Anaysis of the Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses on the Surrounding Neighborhoods, Dallas, TX (1997); Adult Use Study, Des Moines, WA (1984); Regulation of Adult Entertainment Establishments, St. Croix County, WI (1993); Location of Adult Entertainment Uses, Bellevue, WA (1988); Quality of Life; A look at Successful Abatement of Adult Oriented Business Nuisances in Oklahoma City, OK (1992); Report to: The American Center for Law and Justice on the Secondary Impacts of Sex Oriented Business (1996); Adult Use Study, Kansas City, MO (1998).

(b)

The unified government legal department has reviewed court cases regarding the regulation of adult businesses that have discussed the detrimental secondary effects associated with such businesses. Among the court cases reviewed and relied upon in the enactment of this article are the following:

United States Supreme Court Cases: City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4 L.L.C. , 541 U.S. 774 (2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. , 535 U.S. 425 (2002); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. , 529 U.S. 277 (2000); 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island , 517 U.S. 484 (1996); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. , 501 U.S. 560 (1991); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas , 493 U.S. 215 (1990); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim , 452 U.S. 61 (1981); Young v. American Mini-Theatres , 427 U.S. 50 (1976); and California v. LaRue , 409 U.S. 109 (1972). Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Cases: Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Roy , 465 F.3d 1150 (10 ^th Cir. 2006); The Tool Box v. Ogden City Corporation , 355 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2004); Heideman v. South Salt Lake City , 348 F.3rd 1182 (10th Cir. 2003); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton , 311 F.3rd 1220 (10th Cir. 2002); Essence, Inc. v. City of Federal Heights , 285 F.3rd 1272 (10th Cir. 2002); Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora , 136 F.3rd 683 (10th Cir. 1998); Dodger's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners , 98 F.3 ^rd 1262 (10 ^th Cir. 1996); Doger's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners , 32 F.3 ^rd 1436 (10 ^th Cir. 1994); and M.S. News Company v. Casado , 721 F.2d 1281 (10 ^th Cir. 1983). United States District Court for the District of Kansas Case: Abilene Retail #30, Inc. v. Dickinson County Board of County Commissioners , 402 F.Supp.2d 1285 (D. Kan 2005). Other U.S. Circuit Court Cases: Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County , 466 F.3 ^rd 391 (6 ^th Cir. 2006) (Deja Vu III); Fantasy Ranch, Inc. v. City of Arlington , 459 F.3 ^rd 546 (5 ^th Cir. 2006); 181 South, Inc. v. Fischer , 454 F.3 ^rd 228 (3 ^rd Cir. 2006); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County , 421 F.3 ^rd 417 (6 ^th Cir. 2005) (Deja Vu II); Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Union Township Board of Trustees , 411 F.3 ^rd 777 (6 ^th Cir. 2006); Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa , 384 F.3 ^rd 990 (9 ^th Cir. 2004); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane , 368 F.3 ^rd 1186 (9 ^th Circ. 2004); G.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph , 350 F.3 ^rd 631 (7 ^th Cir. 2004); Center for Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County , 336 F.3 ^rd 1153 (9 ^th Cir. 2003); N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston , 352 F.3 ^rd 162 (5 ^th Cir. 2003); SOB, Inc. v. County of Benton , 317 F.3 ^rd 856 (8 ^th Cir. 2003); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset , 316 F.3 ^rd 702 (7 ^th Cir. 2003); Baby Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc. v. City of Dallas , 295 F.3 ^rd 471 (5 ^th Cir. 2002); LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County , 289 F.3 ^rd 358 (5 ^th Cir. 2002); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County , 274 F.3 ^rd 377 (6 ^th Cir. 2001) (Deja Vu I); BZAPS, Inc. v. City of Mankato , 268 F.3 ^rd 603 (8 ^th Cir. 2001); Allno Enterprises, Inc. v. Baltimore County , 10 Fed.Appx. 197, 2001 WL 589423 (4 ^th Cir. 2001) (unpublished opinion); Schultz v. City of Cumberland , 228 F.3 ^rd 831 (7 ^th Cir. 2000); Artistic Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Warner Robbins , 223 F.3 ^rd 1306 (11 ^th Cir. 2000); Wise Enterprises, Inc. v. Unified Government , 217 F.3 ^rd 1360 (11 ^th Cir. 2000); Diamond v. City of Taft , 215 F.3 ^rd 1052 (9 ^th Cir. 2000); Boss Capital, Inc. v. City of Casselberry , 187 F.3 ^rd 1251 (11 ^th Cir. 1999); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 176 F.3 ^rd 1358 (11 ^th Cir. 1999); Farkas v. Miller , 151 F.3 ^rd 900 (8 ^th Cir. 1998); Richland Bookmark, Inc. v. Nichols , 137 F.3 ^rd 435 (6 ^th Cir. 1998); Ben Rich Trading, Inc. v. City of Vineland , 126 F.3 ^rd 155 (3 ^rd Cir. 1997); DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga , 107 F.3 ^rd 403 (6 ^th Cir. 1997); TK's Video, Inc. v. Denton County , 24 F.3 ^rd 705 (5 ^th Cir. 1994); Mitchell v. Commission on Adult Entertainment Establishments , 10.F.3 ^rd 123 (3 ^rd Cir. 1993); Kev. Inc. v. Kitsap County , 793 F.2d 1053 (9 ^th Cir. 1986).

(c)

Legislative determination. The board of commissioners hereby declares as a matter of legislative determination that:

(1)

Adult businesses require special supervision from the public safety agencies of the city and the county in order to protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the patrons of such businesses as well as the citizens of the city and the county.

(2)

Adult businesses are frequently used for unlawful sexual activities, including prostitution and sexual liaisons of a casual nature.

(3)

Allowing or providing such activities creates conditions that generate prostitution, disorderly conduct, fights, drug dealing and usage, infiltration of other criminal activities into the premises, and adversely affects public health by the transfer of contagious or communicable diseases, all of which require a significant and disproportionate allocation of law enforcement resources.

(4)

The concern over sexually transmitted diseases is a legitimate health concern of the city and the county which demands reasonable regulation of adult businesses in order to protect the health and well-being of the citizens.

(5)

Employees of adult businesses have been convicted of prostitution and other crimes against public morals and crimes involving moral turpitude in adult businesses.

(6)

Motels which permit rental of rooms for ten hours or less foster and facilitate prostitution and increase the likelihood of the proliferation of contagious and communicable diseases.

(7)

Permitting and/or licensing is a legitimate and reasonable means of accountability to ensure that operators of adult businesses comply with reasonable regulations and to ensure that operators do not knowingly allow their establishments to be used as places of illegal sexual activity or solicitation.

(8)

There is convincing documented evidence that adult businesses, because of their very nature, have a deleterious effect on both the existing businesses around them and the surrounding residential areas adjacent to them, causing increased crime and downgrading of property values.

(9)

It is recognized that adult businesses, due to their nature, have operational characteristics which contribute to urban blight and downgrade the quality of life in the adjacent area.

(10)

Except for adult cabarets, in those types of adult businesses in which patrons, seminude or scantily clad employees, other entertainers, models, masseurs or masseuses come in actual or close contact with patrons and with one another, the sale and consumption of cereal malt beverages and alcoholic liquor should be prohibited since the number and degree of crime and activities set out in subsections (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(5) of this section increase and further endanger public health, safety, and welfare and require increased law enforcement and an even greater disproportion of law enforcement and administrative inspections and resources.

(11)

The board of commissioners desires to minimize and control these adverse effects and thereby protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry; protect the citizens from increased crime; preserve the quality of life; preserve the property values and character of surrounding neighborhoods and deter the spread of urban blight.

(12)

Because of increased administrative costs incurred by the clerk's office, the police department, license division, and because of the building and health inspections required by the licensing and enforcement processes, the license fees for such establishments and for the entertainers and employees must be set in a reasonable amount to offset the cost to the unified government so that as far as reasonably possible the costs incurred are borne by the adult businesses, entertainers, and employees and not subsidized by the taxpayers.

(13)

Police records establish that businesses allowing the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages on the premises frequently are the scene of disturbances, disorderly conduct and other criminal activity. Furthermore, case law and studies have established that the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages on the premises of an adult business will increase criminal behavior on the premises and create undesirable community conditions, including depression of property values in the surrounding neighborhood, increased expenditures for the allocation of law enforcement personnel to preserve law and order, an increased burden on the judicial system as a consequence of the criminal behavior and the acceleration of community blight, thereby exacerbating the adverse secondary effects associated with such businesses.

(14)

The harmful secondary effects of adult businesses are more pronounced when conducted continuously or during late night hours, and limiting the hours of operation of such businesses will enable law enforcement to concentrate its limited resources for those business hours.

(15)

Certain employees of unregulated adult businesses engage in a higher incidence of illicit sexual behavior than employees of other establishments; further, an applicant for an adult business or employee license that has been convicted of a sexually-related crime is likely to engage in that behavior again in the future, and preventing such a person from opening or working at an adult business for a specified period of time will help to reduce the chance that such crimes will occur at the business.

(d)

It is therefore the purpose of the board of commissioners to establish reasonable regulations governing such businesses which may properly inform potential applicants of the unified government's requirements.

(e)

It is the purpose of this article to promote, protect, and secure the general welfare, health, and safety of the citizens of the city and the county and to preserve and protect the quality of life by all citizens and especially minors by regulating the secondary effects of such businesses. It is not the intent of this article to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but to enact a content neutral ordinance which addresses the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. Finally, it is not the intent of this article to legislate with respect to matters of obscenity. These matters are regulated by state law.

(Ord. No. O-01-07(Res. No. R-01-07), § 1(2.5-1), 1-4-2007)