Council backs ordinance changes to consolidate camping rules, clarify ‘authorized resting sites’ and prepare resolution for sites

Stephanie (City Attorney) presented proposed municipal code revisions to consolidate city rules on sleeping, camping and personal property in public spaces. The changes were offered to address court concerns and to align local rules with state time‑place‑manner requirements discussed earlier in litigation.

“Part 3 was to look at some revision to the Grants Pass Municipal Code in order to clarify and address some of the judges' concerns,” Stephanie said, explaining that most camping‑related language in Chapter 5.61 would be moved into Chapter 6.46 and that Chapter 5.61 would be retained only to prohibit sleeping on sidewalks and in doorways.

Key elements of the proposed code revisions

- Consolidation: Move most camping/resting definitions and rules from chapter 5.61 into chapter 6.46 for single‑point clarity. - Authorized resting sites: New definition enabling council (or, in emergencies, the city manager) to designate finite‑duration resting sites by resolution; any authorization must include a length‑of‑stay limit (for example, 96 hours was the example used during discussion). - Spatial restrictions: Authorized resting site occupants would be limited to a single 8‑by‑8‑foot spatial footprint with a buffer between footprints (proposal reduced the buffer to three feet based on operational experience). - Prohibitions and attachments: New language would prohibit attaching or hanging personal items from city property (fences, sanitation facilities, vegetation) and would allow portable structures only within defined buffers subject to approval. - Notice and removal: After a length‑of‑stay period expires at an authorized site, removal procedures and notice requirements under state statute would apply; property found overnight in parks other than authorized resting sites could be removed immediately. - Limited exceptions: The proposal tentatively allows temporary waivers (for example, protection for athletes/spectators during events) with managerial approval.

Council input and clarifications

Councilmembers asked whether the ordinance requires the city to have authorized resting sites (it does not) and whether the emergency manager authority would affect the current injunction process (the emergency authority is separate from the court process). Stephanie said the ordinance amendments are intended to address objections raised by Disability Rights Oregon and by the court and that a companion resolution identifying any authorized resting sites would use the same mechanism the council previously used.

Council direction and next steps

Council members indicated support for the ordinance amendments and the companion resolution; Stephanie said the ordinance is on the packet for the next regular meeting (Wednesday night) and would be presented with a resolution that lists the authorized resting sites (the resolution had been added to the packet late but was available at the back of the packet). Council indicated a preference for moving forward quickly; staff said adopting emergency language would allow the ordinance to take effect upon adoption.

Questions the council raised included how the 96‑hour stay interacts with required 72‑hour notice periods under state law and whether personal property storage timelines could be changed (Stephanie noted statutory constraints). The council asked staff to proceed and to provide any requested clarifications before Wednesday night’s meeting.

Ending

Council agreed by general consensus to move the ordinance and companion resolution forward to the regular council meeting for consideration. Several councilmembers requested additional clarifications in advance of the formal vote.