Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proposal allowing Park Board to declare park areas "nonpublic"; legal and public‑process concerns raised
Summary
City staff presented a draft ordinance that would let the Park Board designate parts of park property as "nonpublic" to limit warrantless federal actions during private events; councilmembers and the Park Board raised legal questions and called for fuller review and public input.
City staff briefed the committee on a draft ordinance that would allow the Park Board to designate portions of park property as nonpublic for limited purposes such as private events and to provide protections against warrantless federal entries, drawing immediate questions about legality, scope and public notice.
Why it matters: The proposal would change how the city and Park Board manage public access to parks, potentially restricting some agency actions in designated areas. Several council members and the Park Board liaison said the public should have more opportunity to review the idea before a vote.
Andres (city staff) said the ordinance is intended to provide a mechanism for the Park Board to designate parts of park property as nonpublic to support employee and resident safety, private events and asset security. “This ordinance would provide a mechanism for the park board to designate certain portions of park property as non public,” he said.
Councilmember McCaffrey and others raised legal doubts. McCaffrey urged a complete legal analysis and public airing before council action, noting several court cases touch on expectations of privacy and the “open fields” doctrine. “I hope we will get a full complete analysis,” he said, and suggested pausing related votes (he tied this to a recent levy vote that he said the public should know about).
Councilmember Bingle suggested removing the parks director’s unilateral authority from the draft language and leaving the power to the Park Board because policy traditionally rests with the board. Councilmember Dylan said the proposal grew from earlier efforts in 2018 to address warrantless immigration enforcement at the intermodal station and framed the draft as protecting attendees at ticketed events from warrantless federal searches; Dylan described the ordinance as intended to limit “warrantless searches on park property when there is a private event.”
Opposition from Park Board leadership was mentioned: the Park Board chair Jennifer Ogden sent committee members a written statement opposing the ordinance, and the Park Board’s liaison reiterated the board’s lack of support. City attorneys and staff acknowledged legal questions remain, including whether nonpublic designations would affect other park funding or statutory references that apply only to “public parks.”
Next steps: Councilmembers asked for more legal analysis and broader public notice. Several council members urged placing the proposal on a future agenda after fuller review rather than advancing it quickly.
Ending: Council members and Park Board representatives said they were open to amendments but that the public and the Park Board should have a clearer, earlier role in the decision.
