08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

188652v1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 13 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart, JML Planning Soren Mattick Title Community Development Director, City Attorney Item Description: Sex Offender Issue Application Summary Information presented for information and Council direction only. Issue The Council has recently questioned the regulation of released sex offenders into the City of Orono. Minnesota Law defines “predatory offenders” to include individuals convicted of murder, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, indecent exposure, abuse of a vulnerable adult, false imprisonment, prostitution offenses, and sex crimes involving a minor. Predatory Offenders include both offenders whose victims were children and offenders whose victims were adults. Before a predatory offenders’ release, a Corrections committee applies a risk level: • A predatory offender whose risk assessment score indicates a low risk of re-offense is a Level I • An offender whose risk assessment score indicates a moderate risk of re-offense is a Level II • An offender whose risk assessment score indicates a high risk of re-offense is a Level III The Council has questioned whether it would be appropriate and enforceable to regulate the dwelling locations of these offenders. There is some concern that these released sex offenders may re-offend, impacting the public’s health, safety and general welfare. Some communities have enacted ordinances that restrict the dwelling locations of level 3 offenders to a specific minimum distance from schools, parks, and day care centers. The intent with these regulations is to keep sex offenders away from areas where children congregate. Big Lake has an ordinance (Exhibit A) which applies to all Level III predatory offenders, regardless of victim age or type of predatory offense. Lindstrom has an ordinance (Exhibit B) which applies to Level III predatory offenders who have been convicted of certain sex offenses, regardless of victim age. The state of Iowa passed a statute (Exhibit C) which applies to all offenders who committed a sex offense in which the victim was a child. Those in support of residency restrictions argue that sexual interest in children and access to victims increase the likelihood of recidivism. One study (Exhibit E) of Arkansas sex offenders found that a larger portion of offenders with child victims chose to reside in close proximity to schools, day care centers, or parks. Opponents of sex offender residency restrictions argue that research shows that sex offenders are unlikely to reoffend close to their homes and that residency restrictions create a false sense of security within a community. A 2008 study of recidivism by Minnesota sex offenders (Exhibit D) found no