Public pushes back as Altoona City Council introduces urban camping, public-gathering and recovery-home ordinances

Altoona City residents packed a council chamber on March 9, urging the City Council to reconsider a package of measures that would add downtown event fees, regulate urban camping on public property and tighten licensing for recovery and boarding homes.

Many speakers framed their opposition around free-speech and civil-rights concerns. Devin Sailor, of 1515 25th Avenue, told the council the proposal to charge $50 per hour for each officer assigned to an event would chill First Amendment assemblies: “You can't burden people's rights because you don't feel like meeting that obligation,” he said, citing court decisions he said forbid charging fees tied to anticipated police costs. Carol Taylor, a retired attorney speaking for Indivisible, called the permit language vague and said it left too much discretion to assign higher police costs to certain events.

Speakers also pressed the council on homelessness policy. Sher L., who said she is currently unhoused, described losing housing to domestic violence and said she worried criminalizing sleeping in public would lead to arrests rather than help. Bridget Jackson (313 Grant Avenue) said the $50-per-officer charge and the proposed urban camping ordinance “effectively puts a price tag on free speech” and risks criminalizing poverty in a city she said has substantial rates of low-income residents.

Organizers of long-running downtown events warned the fee would make volunteer-run parades and charity fundraisers unaffordable. Paul R. Silvog and Nancy Spil Vogle, representing the Blair County Antique Auto Club, said their annual downtown cruise raises money for local charities and that new fees could end that tradition. Bob Kutz, speaking for the Bedford Labor Council, suggested revisiting auxiliary police or volunteer models rather than imposing large overtime charges on community events.

Speakers also raised concerns about a proposed ordinance that would set spacing requirements and licensing for halfway, recovery and boarding homes. Autumn Temple told the council the spacing provisions could single out protected classes and expose the city to Fair Housing Act challenges unless the rules were written and applied uniformly.

Council action and votes

At the meeting the council listed multiple consent and ordinance items and repeatedly discussed the relationship between a fee resolution (item B) and a forthcoming ordinance that would govern public gatherings. Councilman Butterb moved to pull and table resolution B — the item that would add public-event fees and law-enforcement traffic fees — and the motion passed 7–0. A separate pulled repository bid (item G) was considered for a separate vote and that approval motion failed. After those pulls the council approved the remaining consent items 7–0.

Councilmembers then introduced five ordinances that would return in April for adoption: a new urban camping chapter for public-property camping rules; amendments to police civil service physical testing; a license and spacing ordinance for halfway/recovery/rooming and boarding facilities (which would change a distance requirement from 1,500 feet to 300 feet); amendments to the public-gatherings chapter (updating insurance, deadlines and removing fee waivers); and an ordinance authorizing conveyance of city-owned land at 320 East Chestnut Avenue to the Redevelopment Authority for $1. These introductions do not constitute adoption; the measures will return for a vote in April.

Legal and staff context

A city attorney at the meeting summarized the legal framework the council must follow when imposing fees: charges must be actual cost-based, content-neutral and administered uniformly to avoid First Amendment and equal-protection problems. City staff and some councilmembers described ongoing coordination with social-service agencies, prior investments in shelter and housing efforts, and a proposed ‘homeless coordinator’ role to better connect people to services rather than relying solely on enforcement.

What happens next

The ordinances were introduced for formal consideration in April; resolution B (the fee resolution) was tabled. Community members and organizers said they expect litigation threats if the city moves forward with permit fees tied to anticipated policing costs. Council and staff said they will continue interagency discussions about homelessness services and fee implementation ahead of the next meeting.

(Reporting note: all quotes and attributions are drawn directly from the March 9 council meeting transcript.)