Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City council tables first reading of ordinance restricting pedestrian use of medians
Summary
City council debated Ordinance No. 4252, which would bar people from standing, sitting or remaining on certain medians except to cross; after extensive debate over scope, enforceability and constitutional concerns the council voted to table the measure for further refinement.
The North Platte City Council on June 16 debated the first reading of Ordinance No. 4252, a proposed amendment to the city traffic code that would prohibit pedestrians from “standing, sitting, or staying on a median for any purpose other than lawfully crossing the street” in specified circumstances.
The text before the council would apply where either a median’s top surface is 6 feet wide or less, or where the pedestrian is on a median within 100 feet of an intersection limit line or marked crosswalk. Mayor (presiding) said the measure is driven by safety concerns after recent local crashes and gave examples of medians where standing pedestrians had created hazards.
Brent, a city staff member who presented map illustrations, showed a Halligan/Jeffers intersection example and said the areas marked in red on the map “would be the areas that pedestrians could occupy for longer periods of time that are within 100 feet of the crosswalks or the intersection.” He added that the intent is to prevent people from lingering on medians for extended periods, which staff has observed with people and dogs occupying those spaces.
Council discussion centered on two competing drafting approaches. Several council members urged specifying an explicit list of intersections so enforcement and prosecutions are clear; one council member said listing intersections reduces ambiguity when presenting evidence in court. Others favored a criteria-based approach (based on speed limits, median width or proximity to a crosswalk) to avoid missing medians that are not enumerated in a short list.
The council also addressed legal risks. One staff member cautioned that broader loitering or panhandling bans have faced court challenges and said the draft ordinance was crafted to be “very narrowly tailored” to safety concerns rather than to restrict speech or assembly.
No motion to adopt was completed. After debating whether to specify intersections, whether to keep a 25 miles-per-hour threshold, and whether to return with clearer map-based language, Councilmember Garrick moved to table the item; the motion was seconded and the council voted to table Ordinance No. 4252 to allow staff and council to refine the language and the list of applicable intersections.
The ordinance remains on the council’s docket for additional drafting; staff were asked to review other jurisdictions’ approaches and to provide clearer mapping or a specified intersections list at a future meeting.
