CITY OF SPRINGFIELD LAW DEPARTMENT 36 COURT STREET, ROOM 210 SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01103-1699 (413) 787-6085 ___________________________________ In re:

) Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment ) To the Rules and Regulations governing ) Entertainment Licenses ) __________________________________ ) REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELDS RULES AND REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c. 140 181 AND 183A Background On or about December 8, 2011, per Mayor Domenic J. Sarnos (Mayor) request, a notice was published in The Springfield Republican for public hearing to be held on December 23, 2011. The purpose of the public hearing was to solicit public comments with respect to the Mayors proposed amendment of City of Springfield Rules and Regulation for Entertainment Licenses issued pursuant to M.G.L. 140, 181 and 183A that were promulgated on April 7, 2009, in the following manner: E. LATE NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT 1. Holders of an alcohol pouring license such as a restaurant, tavern, hotel, club and general-onpremises (M.G.L. c. 138, section 12) license and an entertainment license must provide the entertainment licensing authority a written request to offer entertainment pursuant to said license for any entertainment to be held after 1:00 a.m., otherwise all entertainment under said license must cease by 1:00 a.m. Licensees must seek a Special Late Night Entertainment Permit by submitting an Application (copy attached as Exhibit B) to the Office of the Mayor and provide the following details:
a. The type of entertainment to be offered;

b. Allowable capacity of the premises as referenced in the Certificate of Occupancy; c. The condition and set up of the premises;

d. Measures licensee will take to prevent the over service of patrons consuming alcoholic beverages; and e. Security measures to be taken in order to prevent danger to the public safety, health or order.

2. After reviewing the documentation submitted by the licensee, the Mayor or his agent may reject the licensees request for a special permit to offer late night entertainment if he/she finds that increasing the entertainment hours would adversely affect the public health, safety or order, in that the increase in entertainment hours cannot be conducted in a manner so as to: 1)prevent a public nuisance; and/or 2) (a) protect employees, patrons, and members of the public inside or outside the premises from disruptive conduct, from criminal activity, or from health, safety or fire hazards; (b) prevent an unreasonable increase in the level of noise in the area caused by the licensed activity or caused by patrons entering or leaving the premises; or (c) prevent an unreasonable increase in the level of pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the area of the premises or an unreasonable increase in the number of vehicles to be parked in the area of the premises. 3. If the Mayor at his discretion requires the licensee to hire a police officer and/or fire detail(s) during the operation of late night entertainment, the licensee shall be solely responsible for all costs of such detail(s). 4. This section shall not apply to licensees whose income from food is 40% or greater of its gross receipts (e.g. family restaurants). Procedural Posture On December 23, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. Attorney Alesia H. Days appeared as Hearing Officer by appointment of Mayor Domenic J. Sarno. Attorney Stephen J. Reilly, Assistant City Solicitor, and attorney for the Springfield License Commission, was also present. The following Exhibits were entered for consideration: Exhibit A: Notice of Hearing; Exhibit B: Proposed Amendment to City of Springfield Rules and Regulation for Entertainment Licenses; Exhibit C: Copy of Written Testimony given by Captain C. Lee Bennett of the Springfield Police Department; Exhibit D: Arrest Statistics for Sector E1-Metro/South End for the months of September December 2011 highlighting Out of Towners arrests (Entered by Captain C. Lee Bennett); Exhibit E: Spreadsheet of Incidents occurring at Bar/Night Clubs from January 1, 2011December 8, 2011;

Exhibit F: Letter requesting continuance of hearing authored by Attorney Daniel D. Kelly dated December 21, 2011; Exhibit G: Electronic Mail in opposition of proposed amendment received from Springfield resident, Kathleen M. Plante, dated December 22, 2011. Exhibit H: Letter in opposition of proposed amendment authored by Carlos Gonzalez, President/CEO, Latino Chamber of Commerce Exhibit I: Letter in opposition of proposed amendment authored by Ryan McCollumOwner, RMC Strategies dated December 23, 2011; Exhibit J: Letter in opposition of proposed amendment authored by Jeffrey S. Ciuffreda, Executive Director-Springfield Chamber of Commerce; Exhibit K: Electronic Mail in opposition of proposed amendment received from Licensee Victor Bruno dated December 27, 2011; Exhibit L: Special Late Night Entertainment Public Hearing-Sign in Sheet for speakers

Findings of Fact 1. The current City of Springfield Rules and Regulation for Entertainment Licenses issued pursuant to M.G.L. 140, 181 and 183A promulgated on April 7, 2009 provides in I (2) the authority for the Mayor to change or add to the terms and condition of a license, including times of operation, after notice to the licensee. 2. Commissioner William Fitchet of the Springfield Police Department testified that as a result of the disorder in the downtown Entertainment District, cruisers are routinely pulled out of their assigned sector to assist-leaving sections of the City without adequate police protection. 3. Commissioner Fitchet further testified that the disorder in the downtown Entertainment District puts an additional strain on an already strained budget. 4. Captain C. Lee Bennett testified that from September through December 23, 2011 over 50% of the related arrests made in the entire district between the hours of 10 p.m. -4:00 a.m. were in the Entertainment District; most arrests occurring between the hours of 12:00 a.m. 4:00 a.m. 5. Captain Cheryl Claprood testified that there is a heightened concern for officer safety within the Entertainment District because many of the arrests involve persons associated with gangs, involve weapons and violent offenses, including murder.

6. Councilor Amaad Rivera testified that small businesses shouldnt be lumped together and is concerned that the reduction in hours could limit the ability for young professionals to go out and socialize. As a result, young professionals will leave the City in search of a more vibrant social life. 7. Councilor Thomas Ashe testified that actions of a few should not equal reality of all. He expressed concern that the reduction in hours could adversely affect tourism in the City. 8. Attorney Frank Caruso testified that the economic effect on businesses in the Entertainment District could be devastating because 40% of the businesses revenue is earned between the hours of 1:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. 9. Attorney Caruso suggested that the Code of Conduct that was developed by business owners and the Mayors office should be signed off on by business owners, instituted and enforced. 10. Mr. Carlos Gonzalez testified that a reduction could affect economic development in the City and that additional dialogue is needed before the amendment is acted on by the Mayor. 11. Attorney Daniel Kelly testified that the perceived solution of the reduction in entertainment hours is not supported by statistical data. He stated that in other areas, such as Lawrence, MA, there was not a reduction in crime as a result of earlier closing hours. 12. Mr. Jose Claudio testified that the reduction in entertainment hours will likely result in more after hours house parties. He further suggested that a committee of business owners and law enforcement be formed to determine the best strategies to deter crime in the Entertainment District. 13. Ms. Jillian Marcadante (sp?) testified that a reduction in entertainment hours would cause employees to lose wages. She further expressed concern there will be an opportunity for more fights and disturbances because patrons will have the ability to drink for an hour without the benefit of being entertained. 14. Mr. William Rivera testified that he is considering opening a business in Springfield, but a 1:00 entertainment hour closing will be a deterrent. 15. Mr. Vincent Santaniello testified that he owns a number of establishments in Springfield and that it is a battle to keep businesses in Springfield. He testified that he and other business owners want to work with the Springfield Police Department to come up with an alternative to a 1:00 a.m. entertainment shutdown. 16. Mr. Angus Brewer testified that a reduction in entertainment hours would further burden his already endangered occupation as a disc jockey. 4

Conclusions of Law The City of Springfield Rules and Regulations for Entertainment Licenses (Regulations) issued pursuant to M.G.L. 140 Secs 181 and 183A that were promulgated on April 7, 2009, states in pertinent part: I. APPLICATION AND LICENSE REVIEW

2. The Mayor reserves the right to change or add to the terms and conditions of a license including times of operation, after notice to the licensee. It is explicit in the Regulation that the Mayor has the authority to amend the times of operation of the entertainment hours in the City of Springfield. The amendment of the Regulations would not apply to holders of entertainment licenses whose income from food is 40% or greater of its gross receipts (e.g. family restaurants) (See Regulations, D, Paragraph 4). Further, the Regulation is only applicable to the entertainment hours offered, and does not alter the 2:00 a.m. closing time of a licensed establishment. Although not required, the Mayor opted to hold a hearing to gather public input on the proposed change of ceasing entertainment hours from 2:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Additionally, interested persons who were unable to attend were afforded the opportunity to submit written testimony until December 30, 2011. The Mayor, as granting authority for Entertainment License pursuant to City of Springfield Rules and Regulations for Entertainment Licenses issued pursuant to M.G.L. 140 181 and 183A, shall also consider the following: a. The type of entertainment to be offered; b. The number of persons expected to attend; 5

c. The conditions and setup of the premises; d. Security measures to be taken in order to prevent danger to the public safety, health or order; e. Whether the special event, taken alone or in combination with other licensed activities on the premises, would adversely affect the public health, safety or order, in that the concert, dance, exhibition, cabaret, or public show cannot be conducted in a manner so as to: 1) prevent a public nuisance; and/or 2) (a) protect employees, patrons, and members of the public inside or outside the premises from disruptive conduct, from criminal activity, or from health, safety or fire hazards; (b) prevent an unreasonable increase in the level of noise in the area caused by the licensed activity or caused by patrons entering or leaving the premises; or (c) prevent an unreasonable increase in the level of pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the area of the premises or an unreasonable increase in the number of vehicles to be parked in the area of the premises; and, f. Whether the licensee, or the owner of the real estate upon which the business operates, have neglected or refused to pay local taxes, fees, assessments, betterments, and or any other municipal charges (herein referred to as municipal debt). Respectfully Submitted, this 6th day of February, 2012.

Alesia H. Days, Esq. Hearing Officer