Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates enforcement and protections in draft ordinance regulating use of city property; staff to refine
Summary
Council reviewed a draft use‑of‑city‑property ordinance that addresses trespass, camping, storage of confiscated property and enforcement. Members debated whether state law should govern property storage and whether violations should be civil infractions or misdemeanors; council directed staff to reference state procedures for inventory and to add 'good‑faith effort' language requiring referral offers to services before fines are imposed.
The council reviewed a draft ordinance that would clarify permitted and prohibited conduct on city‑owned property, including camping, trespassing, storage of materials collected by staff, and enforcement protocols. The draft prompted robust discussion on two topics in particular: how the city inventories and stores property taken during enforcement actions, and the level of penalty for violations (civil infraction vs. misdemeanor and the maximum fine amount).
Council members asked staff to confirm and, where appropriate, reference state law provisions that require an inventory and retention period for items confiscated during trespass enforcement and to avoid creating a conflicting local standard. Several council members expressed particular concern that certain items — prescribed medications, identity documents, mobility aids — should be explicitly protected and returned quickly. City staff and the city attorney said state law requires an inventory, notification and a minimum holding period (generally 30 days) and that staff would incorporate a cross‑reference and operational policy to ensure safe handling and notice.
On enforcement, council debated a graduated approach. Members discussed a sequence of steps: (1) an initial outreach and offer of services or a referral; (2) a 24‑hour correction/warning period for removal or relocation; (3) a civil infraction if the issue persists; and (4) escalation to higher penalties only for repeat noncompliance. Council weighed a top‑end penalty figure — some members argued for retaining a $1,000 maximum fine while others preferred a lower $250 maximum to avoid causing unpayable debt for vulnerable people.
Council also asked staff to add language that defines a “good‑faith effort” to engage available services (shelter referral, outreach teams) and to return with a cross‑reference to the state statutory requirements and an operational property‑inventory policy in Title 9 or a clearly accessible administrative directive.
Staff will return with revised language that references state law for property handling, adds good‑faith effort language, clarifies the 24‑hour warning and proposes a graduated enforcement schedule tied to outreach efforts.
