Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery police present first reading of public-camping ordinance; trustees raise enforcement and human-rights concerns
Summary
Chief introduced Ordinance 21-40, a first reading of a public-camping ordinance drawn from Illinois Municipal League guidance after state changes; discussion focused on time limits, criminal penalties, alternatives for people experiencing homelessness and whether the village should charge removal/storage costs.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police Chief presented Ordinance 21-40, a first reading of a village ordinance regulating public camping. Staff said state legislative changes prompted the update and that the draft largely follows an Illinois Municipal League model and was reviewed by legal counsel.
Chief said the ordinance addresses camping, sitting, sleeping or lying on public property during certain hours and includes a consecutive-time standard: the draft limits consecutive occupancy (examples in discussion ranged from two to four hours) without permission from the village administrator or designee between certain overnight hours. Chief and staff said the ordinance is not intended to prevent someone from sitting down briefly for rest or a picnic in the middle of the day.
Trustees raised concerns about criminalizing sleeping or sitting where people are in homeless situations. One trustee noted the draft provides the option of community service rather than monetary fines for persons experiencing homelessness, which they viewed as preferable because fines are impractical in that circumstance. Another trustee asked whether the village could charge the cost of removing and storing personal property left on public land; the chief and legal staff recommended against adding such charges because the ordinance is a legally sensitive subject in light of recent court decisions.
Staff said the draft is similar to the IML model and that only a small number of substantive changes had been made. Trustees treated the presentation as a first reading and asked staff to return with the ordinance on a future agenda for separate action.
The board did not vote; staff will refine the draft for future consideration.

