| 1 | Discussion of Camping Ordinance | ||||||
|
Interim Police Chief Dan Musselman mentioned that there were two representatives—Duane Tewa and Andy Peterson—from the U.S. Forest Service in attendance if Council had any questions for them. Chief Musselman provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: DISCUSSION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CAMPING ORDINANCE HOW WE GOT HERE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE 6-01-001-0022 WILDLAND FIRES BY YEAR 1991-2017 ARRESTS BY YEAR Senior Assistant Attorney Marianne Sullivan continued the presentation: SAFEGUARDS ALREADY WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE Chief Musselman continued the presentation: CONCERNS WITH AMENDMENT OR REPEAL Councilmember Odegaard commented that there were people sleeping in their vehicles and asked if there were safeguards in the ordinance concerning that. Ms. Sullivan responded that it was in the ordinance under section B5. Activities that constituted camping took various circumstances into consideration, such as whether the area was being used for living accommodation purposes or distinguished from short-term uses such as napping, picnicking, or intermittent recreational purposes during daylight hours. Someone sleeping in their car during daylight hours and not using their car for living purposes would not necessarily constitute a violation. Councilmember Odegaard inquired if that applied to someone passing through town that pulled over to sleep in the car for eight hours. Ms. Sullivan responded that would depend; the eight hours would factor into whether it was for living accommodation purposes or intermittent use for napping. Councilmember Odegaard mentioned he had seen parked RVs on the street and asked if that could be an offense. Ms. Sullivan indicated that it could be if they were being used for living accommodation purposes, but she believed there were other ordinances that covered RV parking when it was not being used for those purposes. Interim Deputy City Manager Treadway reminded Council that a warning was built into the ordinance, so there would initially be a discussion and a warning, and not necessarily an immediate enforcement issue. Councilmember McCarthy asked for clarification about someone sleeping in their car during the day and whether that it was a violation. Ms. Sullivan responded that it depended on circumstances and whether it met the definition of camping for the purposes of living accommodations. Councilmember McCarthy asked if that was defined in the City Code. Ms. Sullivan read the section from the ordinance. Deputy Police Chief Frank Higgins continued the presentation: OTHER CITY ORDINANCES SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES PORTLAND, OREGON COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO BOULDER, COLORADO UNIQUE IDEAS ROTATING PARKING LOTS – EUREKA, CALIFORNIA 30 HOMELESS IN 60 DAYS – EUREKA, CALIFORNIA GREATER EUREKA COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROJECT’S (GECOP) SHIPPING CONTAINER VILLAGE Mayor Evans inquired about the blue angel container village. Chief Musselman responded that activist Betty Kwan Chinn had Connex boxes cut into apartments to house people. Chief Musselman continued the presentation: MAYOR HALE’S HOMELESS EXPERIMENT – PORTLAND, OREGON JOINT INTERVENTION PROGRAM – FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER TENTS, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SERIAL INEBRIATE PROGRAM – SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Deputy Chief Higgins continued the presentation: LOCAL INITIATIVES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING SECTION – CITY OF FLAGSTAFF SUNSHINE RESCUE MISSION FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES THE FRONT DOOR PROGRAM ANEW LIVING (NOW A PART OF FRONT DOOR) OTHER AVAILABLE SERVICES (NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE) Councilmember Putzova stated that in the past she had heard that camping on Forest Service land was limited to approximately two weeks and then a person had to leave. She asked for clarification. Mr. Higgins responded that there was no residential camping. People were not allowed to permanently camp anywhere on U.S. Forest Service lands or State Trust property. There was a 14-day camping limit on all Forest Service lands nationwide. Councilmember Putzova then asked where they could go from there. Mr. Higgins responded that when officers encountered them, they provided a list of social service agencies in the area that could assist them, and depending on their needs at that time, they could point them in the right direction. Individuals were typically referred to Flagstaff Shelter Services; families were usually sent to Catholic Charities. The Front Door Program gave them one point of contact to hopefully get them the help they needed in a faster manner. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Councilmember Odegaard thanked staff and said the presentation was thorough. The following individuals addressed Council in opposition of the camping ordinance:
Councilmember McCarthy mentioned that camping was a Class 3 misdemeanor. He asked if there was another class that was a petty offense. Ms. Sullivan responded that a petty offense was a civil offense. Councilmember McCarthy asked if there was a $300 max fine for a petty offense. Mr. Solomon indicated that was correct. Councilmember McCarthy stated that he understood that sleeping should not be a crime. He had empathy for people who have a hard time finding a place to sleep. He would support the City doing more for that population. However, he had other people talk to him about people sleeping in their cars or on the ground around their homes and using their side yard for a bathroom, so he is torn on this issue. He thought it might be a good idea to reduce the penalty to a civil petty offense. Vice Mayor Whelan commented that over the past five years, 23 arrests were made under the ordinance, and 266 warnings were given. She thought the CIty could do better at their programs, along with figuring out what needs to be done, but did no’t think taking away the camping ordinance was part of that. She thanked staff for the work they had done and commented that the list of services for Flagstaff was amazing, but if it was not enough, then the Council needs to know where to focus. Council took a break from 9:03 p.m. through 9:09 p.m. Vice Mayor Whelan commented that in her short time on the Council, she had witnessed people coming together and trying to figure things out. She had seen the Police Department go to great lengths to address chronic recidivism. She asked what it would cost, what was need, and what options should be considered. She suggested maybe creating a forum for everyone to come together and discuss options. She supported the ordinance staying as is and supported the City being teachable and looking at as many options as possible. Councilmember Putzova commented that she saw this as a huge disconnect. On one hand, Council was not willing to change the ordinance to make it easier for people who lived in cars. If someone only made $10,000 a year, there were no housing options available, and if Council was not discussing the creation of some kind of program or situation where people could park their RVs and be safe, there was a disconnect. No one was coming to the table to invest in programs to address homelessness; those programs were minimal. No one is willing to put money behind sentiments to do better nor to decriminalize sleeping. It seemed to her that the Council did not want to do anything about this. She hoped Council was not done talking and would be open to discuss designating a parking lot where people could park their cars and RVs and live there and be assured they would not be harassed, fined, or chased out. City property is used for staging construction companies for months and months at no cost; there is something that can be done and many cities had designated places where people could live without being harassed. Vice Mayor Whelan requested a future work session to discuss the services that are being provided in the community and how they might be improved. Councilmember Overton stated he was comfortable with the efforts that have been provided through CDBG funding and the additional housing assistance this year. He would prefer to leave the ordinance as it stands. A majority of Council was supportive of keeping the ordinance as is. Ms. Goodrich stated that she thought at the top of the list was to talk to the community service providers to understand what services were being requested that they could not fulfill or what gaps in services might exist. She could work with Housing staff to coordinate with the City's partners and perhaps they could identify individuals that could assist in preparation for a work session. Councilmember Putzova suggested a meeting to understand the issues that people without shelter encountered. People on the street are approached by police and the dynamic of policing poverty needs to be changed. The City needs a culturally sensitive approach to homelessness and to shelters, and maybe some kind of roundtable where indigenous people could come to the table including those at different levels of homelessness. Mayor Evans stated the community discussion needed to have three parts. The first part was to hear from a broader representation of people who were homeless. The second part was to determine how to address this and talk to the broader community about how to deal with the situation. Then third was the current process and what to do going forward. This would take a community conversation on a broader level. A majority of Council were in favor of moving forward with that type of discussion. |
|||||||
| Moved by Councilmember Charlie Odegaard, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to continue the meeting, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. | |||||||
| Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously | |||||||