Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Space Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee directs staff to refine draft busker ordinance after questions about locations, signage and amplified sound
Summary
Staff presented a draft street-performers (busker) ordinance and asked whether permitted locations should be mapped, whether busking can occur in parks, and whether an annual fee of $50–$100 is appropriate; council members asked for smaller signs, clarity on amplified sound and business-owner conflicts and directed staff to revise the draft for council consideration.
Get email alerts on the Public Space Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works presented a draft ordinance to regulate street performers (buskers) downtown and asked the committee for guidance on three central issues: whether permitted locations should be defined by a specific map or by general setback rules (for example a required distance from entrances), whether busking should be allowed in city parks, and whether an annual permit fee should be $50 or $100.
"There are three main areas that I would like to have direction on and that is should buskers be allowed in specific locations in the downtown area or just be sort of generic ... should busking be allowed in parks and ... the annual fee $50 $100," the Public Works director said. The draft also includes signage recommendations and general disturbance language that some council members found ambiguous.
Council members asked clarifying questions about whether the permit covers performers initiated by businesses or only independent performers, and whether a business owner could block a performer who had a permit to perform in front of their business. Staff said the ordinance distinguishes indoor/private performances (left to the business owner) from public sidewalk performances, and asked whether the committee preferred a mapped approach for clarity.
One council member raised concern over a signage size option (24x18 inches versus a smaller 12x18) and advocated for a smaller sign for pedestrian areas. Another member pointed out that the draft did not explicitly prohibit amplified sound and suggested clarity on the point; staff indicated amplified sound was not currently authorized in the draft.
The committee voted to direct staff to modify the draft ordinance based on council comments and submit a finalized ordinance for approval at the next council meeting. Staff will return with the revised language and options for mapped locations, park permissions, fee level, sign size and amplified-sound rules.

