Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naloxone Dispensing On Public Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews draft ban on dispensing Narcan on city property; library director urges continued access
Summary
The council received a first draft ordinance aimed at prohibiting public dispensing or dispensing machines for naloxone (Narcan) on city property. Library leaders and public commenters urged the council not to restrict access to life‑saving naloxone; council asked staff for further research and to return with options at a later meeting.
City Attorney Catherine Kennison presented a first draft ordinance that would prohibit “dispensing” and “distribution” of naloxone (Narcan) on city property while allowing administration of naloxone by an individual to another person in a remedial situation and other limited exceptions.
Kennison’s draft defined distribution and dispensing as different from administration and included exceptions for emergency staff, first responders and exceptions approved by the city manager. She told council the ordinance was written narrowly to address the Narcan vending machine at the public library and similar on‑site dispensing arrangements.
Library executive director Barbara Walters addressed council during public comment, saying the library’s Narcan vending machine had dispensed 819 boxes and the library had reports of 24 lives saved. “Those are our neighbors,” Walters said. She urged the council not to make a decision based on “optics, stigma, or fear” and asked for direct dialogue between the city and the library before restricting access.
Council members probed legal and practical limits. Several asked whether the ordinance should cover a broader class of drugs or pharmaceuticals; Kennison advised that a workable prohibition would require a clear statutory definition (for example, whether over‑the‑counter items such as aspirin would be included). Kennison noted there is little case law specifically governing public dispensing of lawful pharmaceuticals and that enforcement would depend on precise statutory language.
Council also debated a licensing approach that would allow exceptions by written agreement if a third party installs equipment on city property. Kennison explained that license agreements are the standard tool for permitting parties to use city property and can include indemnity and operational conditions; some council members questioned whether a manager‑level approval for exceptions should be retained.
After discussion, members asked staff to research options and statutory risks, including the recreational‑use immunity statute referenced in the meeting, and to return with draft alternatives and legal analysis. Council agreed to bring the item back for further study at a later meeting (staff suggested the second regular meeting in June). No ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
