Council begins review of loitering, prowling and panhandling ordinance; counsel urges narrow drafting

City of Fairbanks legal counsel, Mister Chard, opened a discussion of a draft ordinance that would add language to Fairbanks General Code chapter 46 covering loitering, prowling and panhandling and recommended separating loitering/prowling from panhandling for clarity. He warned that “you can't just simply outlaw loitering” because courts have invalidated vague statutes and said the city must provide “clear and objective standards” to avoid constitutional problems.

Council members described recurring public‑space issues the ordinance is intended to address. Council member Sprinkle said groups sitting and yelling at Golden Heart Plaza during an evening market made the space “unpleasant” and asked whether the city could trespass repeat offenders. Council member Therian flagged routine panhandling at grocery store exits as “passive hand‑handling.” Several council members said private property owners have used trespass authority on stairs and storefronts, producing local improvements, but that public property raises different legal questions.

Police Chief Toopy told the council that FPD is short staffed and response to non‑priority calls is delayed, meaning code enforcement often cannot be proactive. “When we get calls like that, it goes to the bottom of the list,” he said, arguing that effective enforcement would require more officers. Council member Marney and others noted that fines are often ineffectual for chronically homeless individuals and questioned whether jail or escalating penalties work as deterrents.

Counsel listed existing criminal prohibitions already on the books and urged Council to identify the behavior it wants to prohibit. He suggested focusing on conduct—such as intoxication plus remaining in a park after refusing transport—rather than criminalizing mere presence or sleeping when no lawful alternative exists. He noted some Alaska municipalities define loitering as “loitering plus” (for example, loitering while intoxicated or interfering with reasonable use of a public space) and cited Anchorage and Utqiagvik as models for targeted language.

Council asked staff and legal counsel to research narrower statutory language, potential penalty limits under state law, and whether the city can expand diversion options (fines payable via community service, referral to sobering or social services). Chief Toopy and other administration staff said they would examine operational alternatives and staffing implications.

Next steps: counsel will return with targeted problem definitions and draft ordinance language for Council review; members requested data and specific threshold options to guide narrow drafting and to avoid exposure to civil‑rights challenges.