Taft council approves first reading of ordinance 854-25 to expand public‑space prohibitions and streamline enforcement

Mayor Pro Tem Josh Bryant opened a public hearing Tuesday and the Taft City Council approved first reading, by a 4‑0 vote with one member absent, of Ordinance No. 854‑25, a package of municipal‑code updates that adds prohibitions (including camping on public property, aggressive panhandling, certain loitering, public urination/defecation and misuse of fireworks) and streamlines enforcement across code chapters.

The ordinance, introduced by outside counsel Valerie Escalante Troche of Civica Law, is intended to clarify prohibited conduct in parks, public buildings and other public spaces and to provide both administrative and criminal enforcement options for police, code enforcement and building officials. "This ordinance ensures that you have those tools now available," Escalante Troche told the council, describing the draft as "a beautiful clean package." The council waived full reading and approved the ordinance for first reading by title only; the council also found the action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, citing CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378.

Why it matters: Council members and Taft Police Department leaders framed the changes as tools to address persistent quality‑of‑life problems downtown and on city property while trying to avoid legal exposure. City staff said the edits follow state and federal developments that, in their view, allow stronger local action in certain public‑space camping and disorderly‑conduct matters; the draft seeks consistent definitions and penalties across multiple chapters to make enforcement more administrable.

What the ordinance does: According to the presentation, the ordinance package: - Adds or clarifies prohibitions related to camping on public property, loitering after hours in parks and public facilities, and certain types of disorderly conduct and aggressive loitering; - Expands definitions of "facility" to include parks and public buildings and clarifies exemptions for pedestrians and cyclists in transit corridors; - Prohibits aggressive panhandling and updates door‑to‑door commercial solicitation rules while exempting protected political, religious and certain nonprofit solicitation; - Tightens rules on loud/offensive noises, parties, criminal gang activity, graffiti sale/purchase, improper removal/possession of shopping carts, and improper use of fireworks; and - Standardizes enforcement options across code titles, including administrative notices and citations and, where appropriate, referral to criminal prosecution or court remedies (such as receivership) described in earlier council actions.

Council and enforcement comments: Councilman Kreider said the city has to proceed carefully to avoid legal pitfalls but called the ordinance a way to give the city and police "more teeth" to address recurring problems. Police Chief McMinn told the council the department has been constrained by recent legal changes and local practice, and said the new language could help address repeat offenders and reduce recidivism. "We're here now with, an epidemic that, in my opinion, almost 90 percent of the homeless have some sort of addiction," Chief McMinn said, arguing enforcement tied to services could reduce repeat crimes; the transcript shows he advocated pairing enforcement with programs to get people into treatment rather than arrest alone.

Votes and next steps: A motion to adopt the ordinance for first reading (title only) was made and seconded; a roll call vote recorded councilmembers Scribe, Mayor Pro Tem Bryant, Waldrop and Shavira voting yes. The motion passed 4‑0 with one absence. The council adopted the ordinance for first reading; additional readings or administrative steps required for final adoption were not taken at the meeting.

Clarifying details: The ordinance is identified in the staff presentation as "Ordinance No. 854‑25." The staff presentation referenced recent federal and state legal developments and prior council steps (including administrative code amendments and court avenues such as receivership) as background. The draft ordinance’s proposed text and a staff table of definitions and enforcement options were part of the staff packet (the meeting transcript notes the table but does not print full fare or penalty tables). The council also determined the proposed action is not a CEQA project under CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378.

Context and implementation considerations: Councilmembers and the police chief emphasized that enforcement resources, interagency coordination with Kern County agencies, and available treatment or housing programs will affect how often and where the city can apply the new prohibitions. Council discussion included concerns about differential enforcement in areas outside city limits and the limited size of the city's police force; Chief McMinn noted constraints in county jail and court processes that affect outcomes after arrests. The ordinance clarifies optional enforcement paths — administrative citation, criminal prosecution, or court remedies — to let staff choose the tool best suited to a situation.

The council’s action advances the ordinance to the next procedural step with first reading completed; additional council action is required before final adoption.