Bangor committee recommends new sidewalk ordinance to replace construction-focused amendment

[0:13] Katie Brydon: Here, thank you and thank you everyone for making time again for this workshop to really work through this opportunity to look at the sidewalk ordinance chapter 257 section 4. So I really appreciate everyone's availability just so that we can have something to offer to counsel before the second reading. So this is a special workshop to discuss that. I will still do roll because we have Katie online. I will to like a vocal another call Katie Robinson here Adam Baker through the furrow here chain boy Hello Marilyn Burke here Mark Ross here know to read the balance here all right so I mean we also are joined this evening by our company manager and our city solicitor please have check is also here thanks for joining us. And so the only item of business this evening is to I also just want to recognize you're here hello thank you for being here we don't have public comments tonight but I definitely welcome you to share feedback so i'm thanks for being here we are going to revisit where we last were which is looking at the referral item to look at chapter 257 section four to require licenses to occupy block or obstruct the sidewalk esplanade or street as you may remember last week we went through all the different reasonings why this had come up what people's feedback was we were left with the inability to really make a decision on if we were going to either vote to approve the ordinance change as is and recommend that go through council if we were going to vote not to pass and ask council not to approve the ordinance change and then we determined that there were probably some lingering ideas that folks had on ways that can make adjustments so that we are touching upon equity for all and really making sure that it addresses the sidewalk issue while still touching upon the many different citizens that we had come to public comment and share with us. So I think in our time between last week and this week everyone looked at their own research their own gathering of feedback from individuals that they met with some have emailed that to the group thank you some have not so I wanted to present an opportunity for us to really look at what we thought might be the next best step if we were going to move forward like they left it as providing some recommended yes use that could I make a [3:11] Speaker B (unidentified): motion to approve the ordinance amending chapter 2 5 7 as written in cycle on section 257-4 require like the stock five block or obstruct the sidewalk as an outer street [3:22] Katie Brydon: Make a motion to approve it. You absolutely can make that motion. Okay, you will need a second. Okay, so this gives us the opportunity to vote yes to recommend the approval to council to cancel, or no. Correct, I'm not misrepresenting that, right? We'll vote yes and then we will recommend it as is to cancel, or we'll vote no and that will provide us continued opportunity. Yes, I [3:53] Speaker B (unidentified): would just mean that the motion would fail and that you can continue your discussion and somebody until somebody else makes a motion. All right, I brought like some changes so we can't even present that if we have this motion. We kind of have to. It would just suck to not hear everybody's feedback and to just jump right into it and discuss, but when it's on the table you kind [4:16] Katie Brydon: of can't make another motion. Is that correct? Or we could also vote to say no now and then have this session on additional options unless there are any discussion now that would pertain to a yes [4:29] Speaker B (unidentified): or no vote particularly. Well I mean so I made some changes that would remove for construction purposes but and then just I added a couple of things so I mean I wonder I just I'm not sure how to bring that up mm-hmm in this setting I guess yeah no [4:47] Katie Brydon: I think that is absolutely fair. I would also like further discussion and so I don't know I 'll just speak for myself. I thought that if I voted no that would give us an opportunity to discuss again. Is that appropriate [5:00] Speaker C (unidentified): it would be there's a number of different things you can do i mean if you're on formal rules but you don't have to but you know there could be the possibility of a motion to amend the motion okay let's say there were some changes that you know somebody would make a motion to amend to approve with the changes so you have discussion about that and then and then if there's that motion then if that gets a second then you vote on the motion to amend the motion and then my word [5:36] Speaker D (unidentified): the person who made the original motion have to approve or accept the amendments [5:50] Speaker C (unidentified): the if there's a motion to amend a motion you vote on that before you vote on the original motion so if the motion to amend the motion fails then the original motion is still [6:03] Speaker D (unidentified): pending okay [6:08] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah Suzanne I thought like I made the motion it was seconded in the next discussion and then don't [6:14] Speaker C (unidentified): we vote on it well there can be there can be but there can also just could be a motion to like I an amended motion which gets voted on first if it happens okay can [6:29] Speaker D (unidentified): i hear a repeat of the motion [6:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Please, okay, so a motion to accept the ordinance amending chapter 257 sidewalk section 257-4 to require licenses to occupy block or obstruct the sidewalk as to an honorable street. Thank you. Yeah, as presented. Correct, as presented. As good. Yeah, yes, and. [6:55] Katie Brydon: You seconded that, Mark, so it is on the table now. If there are no, if there is no discussion, then we would take a vote on that now, either to yes, accept it as is and we close up shop and move on, or no, and that would lead us to another opportunity to discuss further discussion about running anything further before we think about. Okay. [7:27] Speaker E (unidentified): Then we will move to a roll vote, Katie, so no means that we continue to discuss the whole point why we're coming here tonight, right? No, Shane, no, do that. Yes. [7:42] Katie Brydon: Yes, Adam, no, Mark, no, right, no, I'm also in that. All right, so the motion failed, so now we will, we can open it back up to discussion. If there were individuals that wanted to share recommendations, I know that Katie has sent out an email that I wanted the opportunity to discuss with us as well. Wow. Did anyone want to, Katie or Teresa, to either start that conversation? [8:12] Speaker E (unidentified): I would love Katie, if you could facilitate that at the moment. Is that OK? I have a really angry baby. I'm trying to also multitask. [8:22] Katie Brydon: It's fine. All right. So here are a couple of things. And I think just in the essence of time, you all received Katie's notes. These books currently for everybody, okay, you know, I'll take one and pass it on. Katie had made some recommendations on how to really implement some of the things that we had talked about, talking about an ADA compliant recommendation for all of the sidewalks, adding some civil first enforcement protocols which includes notice and race period for vacating the facility or excuse me, vacating the sidewalk, also what to do with personal belonging, more information about integrated outreach with our law. Enforcement about what those offerings could include, and then differentiating storage from occupancy, so really, and correct me if I'm wrong, Katie, but for me what this did is it took some of the elements of the original ordinance that we had feedback on, right, about like how much room should there be and what are we actually talking about when we're saying obstruction and are there ways that we can be incredibly precise and clear in language our concern and again please anyone interrupt me if I am. Representing this incorrectly, our concern was that if we were to add a couple words or add a couple language or remove something, then the actual enforcement, we did not feel comfortable with the way that might or may not be enforced in an equitable way. And so these were recommendations for ways that we could and how we could make additions to the sidewalk ordinance. After you sent this key, I looked at 257 for and you know the specifically the obstruction of sidewalk esplanade and streets and went through and included some of this language in a way that could be once again very clear what exactly do we mean, you know, when we are saying what is obstruction, what ADA access points are, what civil first enforcement actually looks like, you know, language that says like there are 24 hour notice, an opportunity to remove belongings prior to enforcement action whenever practicable, like we should be very clear about what practicable means so that we can have a very clear and we can feel really good about how this may be received and enforced. I did send that to you Courtney and I don't know if the best way if we want to look at that and it includes Katie's changes and recommendations or Teresa, there's elements that you can either say this is what I would like to discuss or we can put it up and you can see if what you had wanted to bring to the table concluded. How would you like to approach [11:38] Speaker B (unidentified): that? I think it's really similar. Yeah, it really is. Would it be appropriate to read off like what I thought of adding right now? I don't think so. You think it would be appropriate? Yeah, so I left it crossed off for construction purposes only and then I added a G and an H for like subsections. I also did not, I crossed off, I actually have copies, I could pass around if that's okay. Yeah. Or I can just not pass. [12:13] Katie Brydon: That would be really helpful if you could, thank you. [12:15] Speaker B (unidentified): I actually left it crossed off where the police department and co-enforcement division shall enforce this section. I just didn't think that was necessary. I left it crossed off the police department and co-enforcement division shall enforce this section. I think that they should be enforcing, you know, anyways if there's like a ordinance or wrong, I didn't think that was necessary. So I'll read off what I added for G was support-based [12:43] Katie Brydon: engagement. That seems like civil. It really does. Yeah, so the city shall prioritize support-based [12:49] Speaker B (unidentified): engagement prior to violations or penalties when feasible and appropriate including but not limited into communication outreach and connection to available services and resources such resources including without running to case management day programs and shelter services they shall be the preferred practice of the city prior punitive enforcement action so i think pretty similar i thought of yeah i added h as well accessibility during business hours during standard business hours especially in high pedestrian traffic and business areas. Public sidewalk shall remain reasonably clear, accessible for pedestrian passage and public use. So I thought that was kind of accessible to all and doesn't disclude anybody. [13:31] Katie Brydon: But I think we were kind of on the same path. I think that I fully agree with that. Thank you so much for playing that together and having some language outline. I think similarly the, because I'm so sorry I had to be so, I put it in but I think it really matches this. Yeah, I think that we could just maybe look at because there are some elements that I want to be really clear on. Mm-hmm. I feel like and this is, this is what I, right, because I also put some ideas into it and I send it to work me if she wants to share. That's right. So I, what I did was I just went through pretty much to find everything so that we could have a really clear, thank you, view what this meant and just so Teresa, because this is in line with what you had said, I want to scroll down here because this is comparable, right? Hold on, hold on, I'm so sorry, the, oh yes, so my concern, hold on a second, was that this whole piece, right, that both you and Katie bring up about it being able to provide resources and education, here's my thing. I don't want anyone to look at the sidewalk ordinance and be like, why are you telling me how to give resources to somebody? That feels really confusing because it's really about a sidewalk and keeping the sidewalk clear. So I was like, how could we include opportunities for, like you said, connection to available services and resources, like Katie said, education and direction? So I tried to be, I tried, so this, I think addresses this piece here what both you and Katie had and it says, you know, that this When you know that these situations, you know, when you, when feasible and appropriate, you may provide information regarding available community resources, outreach services, storage options. And it says, you know, I wanted it to be clear and come out of nowhere, so I thought that maybe saying things like the city's encouraged to coordinate enforcement efforts with existing outreach community response programs, maybe we need something even clearer in here, you know, that says that, you know, why this section might exist in here. I thought it was clear, but I guess maybe I'm rereading this and thinking maybe it's not as clear as I want it to be, because I do just want it to be very clear if someone is being approached because of the sidewalk ordinance and does need resource outreach or education, here's that practice in here, because again, if we're, it feels weird to me to have education and outreach in a sidewalk, I know, so I think that we just, if it's going to be in there and it's come up three times now it feels like it's important i think we have to be really clear as to why that we would want that why that would be important another thing that came up in our last conversation too was the procedure right an actual procedure for storage and how we could actually address if someone had their items removed because it was on a sidewalk we should have really clear instructions on what is going to happen with that obviously i highlighted a lot of this because this is not something that we can say you know what's going to happen with it, where it can be retrieved, how it's even going to be left. If somebody leaves their stuff on a sidewalk and disappears, what are you going to do, like put a stake in the sidewalk with like a note on it and say your stuff used to be here, 's a note now? I think that we also have to look at this and be really clear about how, if things are removed, folks can find their stuff again. I think that's a really important piece of this. The other piece that I thought was important and I thought touched upon what we had talked about last time is we had all said this is a really great opportunity for the, you know, and again, them not, because the sidewalk ordinance needs to be solved with homelessness, that should not be the goal of this work, but I do know that it came up several times that we do have a, you know, a housing and homeless committee now, and so I think if we were able to have a review from the city personnel, you know, the officers that are enforcing this That could maintain records of the number of notices issues, number of removals conducted, you know, immediate safety hazard determination, number of belongings retrieved. That would help inform them about, you know, how is this sidewalk ordinance being used. I know, I think we all, I'm just going to speak for all of us, you know, I shouldn't, we all know that nobody's waiting to get this approved so that they can go arrest a bunch of people, right? And we might be able to see with this review like what you know nobody was actually removed this didn't actually enforce anything so and that 's just more information to have i don't know i don't know if any of this needs to be in there i just wanted to put all of it in there and i put this like grievance and appeals process just in case somebody were to say you took my stuff without telling me i didn't know where to find it or you removed me and i don't think that you did that correctly just as like a protection piece again i'm not a lawyer so dave that's, that's if we keep that, would definitely, I mean, all of this would have to go through you and your team, but I just thought that, you know, being able to look at this amendment and say very clearly for this section, this is what we need by obstruction, this is what pass and space actually means, this is what an immediate safety hazard is. I didn't know if this is honestly too on the nose and we maybe don't even need that line, right? We can definitely believe that folks are going to remove an obstruction based on public safety, but I thought, you know, we can, we can always take it out, prohibited obstructions, ADA access points, obviously keeping those clear, and these are the pieces that we just talked about with Katie and Teresa's additional thoughts. This is all the easier for you to look at independently. We have that G drive with all of our resources in it, and that's also in there if you want to pull it up on your own computer. Are there any other things besides what Teresa shared, what Katie shared, what I shared, any other folks that have gathered things that they think would be good to add or remove since we obviously came to this discussion and hoping to amend rewardments in some way? I just [20:51] Speaker F (unidentified): Had a good question. I know there was some concern originally, I think back when this was before council. People said, you know, what if I'm unloading groceries from the trunk of my car and I set my bag down in the middle of the sidewalk for five minutes? Do you think we need to add like any kind of exception to this to say, you know, like for brief period loading and unloading or something? I don't know if that's really going to be an issue, but someone asked about it, so I was thinking on [21:18] Katie Brydon: it. I mean, in, I remember that and I agree with that, and so I think that with this it would have to be, I mean, what I would look at that like, that's what I see when I see inconvenience right does not constitute an immediate hazard. I like that line. I do the highlighted, yeah. I mean, yeah, I don't know if it was like I said, I want to be very, I just want it to be very weak because they think that people had a lot of feedback because they were like, what if, what if, what if, what if? I know that we cannot operate from a place of what if. However, if we do are able to offer very clear language that would resolve that, maybe that's one way that we [22:06] Speaker B (unidentified): could advance. So I just want to be clear that some of you are saying that they should be allowed put things on the sidewalk that [22:18] Katie Brydon: is not, I mean, as long, I mean, they would have to ensure that there was at least a five foot by five foot passing space with ada accessibility guidance. If they're, you know, no person shall place store maintain omit materials objects belongings or structures that obstruct safe pedestrian travel. However, the presence of an individual does not alone constitute an obstruction unless their materials or activities block the path. So that means they have to move. Violations shall focus on whether materials objects or belongings obstruct state pedestrian travel rather than solely on the presence of a person in that public space. And then we obviously make sure that in addition to the sidewalk, the curb ramp, the turning spaces, all 88 access points are clear of obstructions at all times. And then if you were to remove someone for violating any of these definitions, then this is the recommended action that would happen. Katie, could you move it back to the obstruction [23:33] Speaker D (unidentified): instruction section? Yep. Okay, is [23:39] Speaker B (unidentified): that saying that someone could sleep on the sidewalk? Or I mean, I [23:44] Katie Brydon: see that it doesn't really. Do you think we need to put sleeping on the sidewalk? I mean, you think that, I mean, an obstruction that presents an immediate, I don't know if y'all just went by [23:55] Speaker B (unidentified): The sidewalk, but I did, and there's people playing. There's a lot of, there's a lot of debris on the sidewalk right now. There's tarps. I don't, I don't know. I've seen people are sitting under them. Were you able to pass? I didn't walk, I was in the car. I mean, I think it would be. [24:16] Katie Brydon: You know, hinder people from going to the library, but would they be able to pass? Because I don't want this to become like a state. I think it needs to be, can you actually move on the sidewalk? Well, I mean, I don't know, because what's the width of someone's wheelchair? It's right here, it's a five feet in width, a minimum of five foot by five foot passing. That's what the ABA says for wheelchair sizes. Are they even open right now? Because outside of business hours, is that correct? Oh, for the library, I. Don't, I think this just applies like, this is like library, this is for a sidewalk. I know, I'm just saying like it's outside of business hours. [24:57] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm not sure how that could be a concern if someone has a tarp and they're sleeping. I don't, I don't understand the point of business hours, because people live downtown, and you know, people live in the what used to be the bank or high school apartments. A lot of people walk. Oh, people will walk the sidewalk, no hours, sure. Today, I don't think you can restrict business hours. I do think, you know, we'd have to think about business owners and property values. [25:31] Katie Brydon: Which are flying, but this is where I get scared that by thinking about sidewalk being clear and being able to work person for that versus the property value, because there's a tarp on it, or we can't, we cannot resolve property values because of a tarp with this sidewalk working. So I just want to be clear that like, that's what we're trying to look at. Does this answer. [25:57] Speaker B (unidentified): Everybody's question? I think you're getting into very mighty waters though, because they're going to have someone's wealth measure all the time. There's this many feet when you're stopped, we've got a wheelchair is trying to get through. There is an ABA lawsuit addressing Regents homeless crisis. This is a city of Portland, Oregon. Ten residents filed a federal class action lawsuit in September against the city of Portland on behalf of all disabled Portland residents. They claim the city has been in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Rehabilitation Act by allowing tent encampments and associated debris to block city sidewalks. So that would give the city's failure to keep sidewalks fear of obstructions amounts to illegal discrimination against people with disabilities mm-hmm so I think you know [26:47] Katie Brydon: That's why that poll there's like you all are gonna get on this I think you're open in the lawsuit well that's why we wanted to be very clear that this matches the ADA access points it says ADA in here several times and we name it several times what that passing point should look like so that there could be no lawsuit because it says right in here that if you are 24 hours if you are obstructing the sidewalk then you open yourself up to violence chain and then mark in c for prohibited [27:25] Speaker F (unidentified): Obstructions that the concern is you know people are laying or sleeping the way that I interpret the statement the presence of an individual in public space shall not alone constitute an obstruction unless materials or activity block the required clear path of travel I would say sleeping is an activity therefore that would be prohibited so I think this does actually prohibit people from sleeping laying dancing break dancing you know whatever if it obstructs the ADA pathway [27:57] Katie Brydon: Way and we could I mean we could put like for example if that would again I want it to be as clear as possible thank you so to your point unless materials or activity such as sleeping [28:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Would that address your concerns to that no I would also like about the whole you know Bangor is a livable community it was the hundreds that I just asked before we [28:28] Katie Brydon: Move on to the whole community I had market with you and then yeah okay but you tell me if you want me to put in that was exactly the point that I was [28:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Going to raise as well and I wonder whether or activity is specific enough to give credence to this particular experience a person sleeping on the sidewalk would be an activity that we need obstruction we need to be more specific than that [29:03] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I'll throw a little clarity that might help a little bit. So there is a lawyer order ordinance that we talked about last time that applies to people on sidewalks. This sidewalks ordinance, even though it starts out no person shall occupy block, etc., if you read the whole sentence, it says for the storage of materials or the erection of staging letters. So this ordinance that we're working on only deals with objects. It doesn't deal with parent. So I don't know that you need, you don't want to put something in there that conflicts with the loitering ordinance, but it's clear that to me that this ordinance doesn't apply to people. Okay, it just, it's just talking about objects and material. Okay, thank you very much. Mark, did you have another question? [30:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, question and then how do you like the people as well? That's my question. Well, my fear [30:09] Speaker C (unidentified): is that if you put something in it that conflicts with the lowering partners, then you have two ordinances that conflict each other. Yeah, and the lowering ordinance is not, has not been a subject of any referral or anything. That makes sense. Okay, thank you. Okay, I want to make sure [30:25] Katie Brydon: that we are moving in any in the orderly fashion, so see that we had put it in you and then Adam [30:32] Speaker B (unidentified): an inch. Okay, so what about how we have the snow removal, you know, that people are supposed to remove snow? I remember former chair Pelletier saying that, you know, to clear the sidewalks of your snow, and then they find, started finding people, and she said, well, you know, if it's not, if you can't do it for the sake of your neighbors, then do it for the sake of the wallet, so to enforce those funds, right? So, I mean, if you all want to say these things, then I just think it opens it up for the whole city, leaving things on the side, and snow and objects and blocking sidewalks and taking tape measures out and, you know, how are the police going to enforce that with the measuring, you know, just a sidewalk is a sidewalk and it's supposed to be accessible to all. I don't, I just don't get the point of saying, you know, they can obstruct part of the sidewalk. [31:32] Katie Brydon: But if you said you move through there, then is it obstructing? [31:39] Speaker B (unidentified): Well, it's the purpose, what's the purpose of the sidewalk, I guess. We go back to that for the purpose of a sidewalk. Walk, that's defined here, so I just think a sidewalk is a sidewalk and that's the purpose [31:53] Katie Brydon: of it, so you'll be able to walk, but if you can walk, okay, if you can walk and somebody is standing on side bed, okay, it's still a sidewalk, it's [32:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Still a sidewalk if someone's just standing there, but if there's a, if there's things there, property items there, then that's obstructing sidewalk. [32:13] Katie Brydon: Block if it is obstructed, but if you can still move on it, this is, this is where we need to be. [32:20] Speaker B (unidentified): Really clear in our language. Well, sidewalks for walking, it's in the word. What [32:29] Katie Brydon: about people who can't walk in their wheelchairs from us? Like, that's when you're not walking. Well, they're rolling. I mean, could be rolling and walking, but I don't want to get into the nuance of like, it's not [32:39] Speaker B (unidentified): a side girl, they're rolling and walking, you know, they actually, they're rolling and walking, study right, walkable, walkability, walking backwards started that. Yeah, and I was worried about losing the designation as a beautiful community because that builds up the funding through AARP and World Health Organization, which is about walkville. So really a resident could say it's not walkable, but there's things blocking the sidewalk, and then lose the livability status of [33:13] Katie Brydon: the city. What that entails, I don't know, it's quite so weird. Okay, we can definitely keep that in [33:21] Speaker D (unidentified): mind. And yeah, well, we kind of took the words. All right, we already have a ordinance, right, the just like gathering on people on sidewalks, and just to reiterate, just storage for people again. Yeah, I want to make sure that there's like language or storage for these people, because it's their entire lives. Yeah, I do that. I believe that does fall under like materials for this [33:52] Katie Brydon: ordinance. So that I definitely see that, and I think that this is like a good sort of spaghetti wall we have here with all of our things, and then you can really look at it and be like, yeah, to the city's point, which thank you very much, like we are talking a lot about people in this, so we can remove all the pieces about people, right, and how we would enforce that, what that would look like, as long as we're obviously maintaining our commitment to thinking about the materials. Thank you for pointing to that. Did you have something saying yeah, and that [34:24] Speaker F (unidentified): actually aligned really well, because I was just going to ask if it would be appropriate to like at the beginning of the ordinance just add a line that says this applies to physical objects, not people or conserves without people, please see wherever it lives in the code. [34:43] Katie Brydon: Yeah, I don't know about our ability to like, oh no, yeah, okay, you're saying to change the equipment, the sidewalk ordinance for that. I was like, we're not opening a lawyer in ordinance. [34:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Just recognizing that this is about objects, and I know that even personally, I felt like it's a little people-y, but I do feel like at least for G I'm not super fond of H, but I think that I don't think that this specifically sounds like this is about two days. The amendment that I made was a support-based engagement, because if there is like a person's belongings, I think that feeds into like the storage. I didn't get into that, although I breathe there should be some kind of storage. It just felt much bigger than this, and I wasn't sure [35:33] Katie Brydon: like what we could even do about that. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think that is a really big piece of it, and I don't think that we are equipped to say this is what this is going to do with stuff, but I do think that moving forward this ordinance would help kind of leaves that gap of what we had been. We can start sharing after you. I did have one more thing to [36:03] Speaker B (unidentified): finish. I'm just gonna open up a few words more. That's okay, but sure. Yeah, thank you. Do I have something else, or did I forget? It's been a long day. I don't know, just putting emphasis on what you said, like about what an obstruction is. I don't think it, I don't think necessarily anybody's gonna be out with like measuring tapes, but I think that what matters is if somebody can get by, especially like in a wheelchair or walker or such, and I think, I think I'm not sure how to word it or any of that, but I even think that like what I added with the support-based engagement should be before E. I really worry that although this is for materials and objects, that if we do leave like the police department of the code enforcement division shall enforce this section, yes, they already can enforce this section, but I really think that we need to talk about support-based enforcement before we get into the penalties, because we're, I really do see how things could snowball if we do start giving out fines one after another and then you know someone can't pay and they go to jail and they get out and we still have a fine and then they're just in and out of the jail which would be awful for the city yeah so i just think putting an emphasis on and but yeah the support-based engagement that i wrote up does sound more like to a person but it's a person's objects so yeah i'm not sure how i even changed my wording but i just think that 's really important to put before the penalty okay i definitely understand [37:44] Katie Brydon: what you're saying. Okay, yeah, absolutely, and I have a question for you to be closer about [37:49] Speaker B (unidentified): I see that, I know that you have your hand back, so we're talking about people just leave their items on the sidewalk, like a bag of stuff, that's what we're saying, people just leave things on the [38:01] Katie Brydon: sidewalk. See, that's not what this seems to be. This seems to be like if you leave your stuff, we are going to take it. Don't leave your stuff because it is blocking, it is blocking. Then here's what happened, we're just trying to make it so that this, and again, like I'm misreading this, but I think that if there is an opportunity to look at this and identify what that process would look [38:28] Speaker B (unidentified): like for, so my question is like, when you go to the airport you have an independent, an unintended back, so say you're on the sidewalk, there's a bag, okay, so what's in the bag? I don't know, maybe it's something dangerous, you know, your kids walking on sidewalks and maybe there's a bag full of needles, there's HIV, and maybe there's a bad, maybe it's a gun, maybe it's a bomb, I mean, what, you know, the people, you can't just throw a bag, leave it on the fender, on the sidewalk, and nobody knows what it is, I mean you don't dare to touch it, and you know if you can't move it, and if it is obstructing your way, you have to think about that too, the legality of all that, and what is in the, you can't just abandon your, it's trash. Don't we have a gordon? What's the difference between, I guess what's the difference between leaving something on a sidewalk, littering? That's what I don't think that's clear either, because there is a littering ordinance, state and city safety. So I mean, we have to have some type of rules for our society, and ordinances that follow that, you know, if we want it to be livable, and walkable, and safe, safety, you know, we're supposed to maintain safe streets. That's another eight points of the World Health Organization. [39:59] Katie Brydon: Right. So I think that I'm so sorry, I mean, where that was [40:03] Speaker B (unidentified): That one's Teresa's, that one's Catherine's. Oh, it's, sorry. Yeah, I'll show you. Okay. [40:13] Katie Brydon: Yes. So, safety. So I think that is like, that's why we need these definitions, right? Oh my word, come on. These definitions. Oh my God, your mouse. All right. That, by looking at this, we could say, you know, obstruct, so okay, obstruction. This is what exactly it means. Materials, objects, belongings, activities, right? You need to make sure that it's clear. And I think that this is what we're talking about. We are all like, what does this mean? What do we mean by safety? Like this to me addresses safety hazards. This is exactly what it means if there's an immediate factor called the safety, emergency access, conditions, endangering life or limb, like absolutely positive, but no one's saying that. I don't know who that belongs to. I wanna be gracious. I think that we just have to be really mindful about how that is going to be perceived and I want to be, I think that again the reason that this feels like a very, I'm sorry, cannot think of anything besides the am spaghetti on the wall is that we need to put all of it out there to address the questions that we thought and then we can pull back what doesn't make sense, right. I think a lot of the things that we heard from folks last week in leading up to our conversation with like how can this objectively be enforced, right, and so that's why we're trying to be as clear as possible. I'm thinking about when I'm at an airport somebody sends a bag an officer says whose bag is this in a really loud voice and everyone gets scared and you're like that's not the way, right, you run over and you grab it like that's what will happen there's if there's an unattended and if it's nobody's then it's seen as an immediate [42:04] Speaker B (unidentified): safety hazard because there's no belongings and it's removed. So what if you have a sidewalk comfort in your house and someone needs something on the sidewalk and they're not there, right. [42:18] Katie Brydon: Do you think people would remove it? I don't know, would you have the right to remove that [42:25] Speaker C (unidentified): under this your proposal, okay. Could I perhaps offer some clarification there is a, an internal policy that's in place already management of temporary shelters and personal belongings of people who are unhoused on public and private property that has a procedure depending on where personal belongings are found. There's a section for if they're found in a city-owned park or the city-owned waterfront area, the section if it's on city-owned property, but not in a park or the waterfront. And then there's, if it's found on private property, the procedure that's used in those procedures, it does take precautions about it says no reasonable attempt to connect the occupant to necessary social or housing services we've made and so I didn't want to point that out. I don't know that you, I mean you can do what you want but there is a procedure already in place that's really helpful. You do not need to read them and the other thing I just wanted to look at was on your definition of obstruction in the current ordinance it's it talks about it uses the words it uses the word obstruct block you know and it does not it doesn't try to define what those mean or define materials that definition that you have up there that it yeah oh you had it just a moment not if you're here where it says activities that sounds like people yeah i mean it could be something that's not people things but it seems like it's starting to put into the definition of things that people are doing which again that you know the loitering [44:25] Katie Brydon: ordinance i just play a lawyer on tv you are absolutely so i have a quick question because i think that what you're bringing up is obviously super important and i really want to make sure or not reinventing the wheel is it ever appropriate in an ordinance like this to say to sort of link back to the loitering sure because i don't this feels silly it feels like should have been done weeks ago but can't we just say like in the event of loitering see this [44:58] Speaker C (unidentified): in the event of materials left right the only the only problem with putting too many links is that when you change one and then you forget to change the other then the ordinance gets all messed up and then you can do that there are also if there are also like too many links like kind of there are in our land development code right it ends up being big scavenger hunt every time we try to do it yeah so if you just limit this to materials or objects you don't necessarily have to point back to the other ordinance it would just be there and be applicable I mean but that's I'm not saying that you can't link it but and there's lots of links in the ordinances but you want to be careful of those two things yeah that's fair that's what we're doing Mark and then Shane and then to that Katie would you bring back the previous screen [45:55] Speaker D (unidentified): with the highlighted area thank you i think that highlighted area is not completely clear when it's referring to the mere presence of personal belongings shall not constitute immediate hazard i think it should be added near presence of personal belongings that do not obstruct passage shall not constitute an immediate hazard [46:34] Katie Brydon: thank you katie [46:39] Speaker C (unidentified): i'm sorry you know [46:41] Katie Brydon: this is a workshop right so yeah we don't have thank you [46:47] Speaker F (unidentified): I was just going to suggest now that we've identified that we're going to remove people from this, if we can start at the top and just go like line by line and decide what is going to be cut, it is no, our current one, or the, sorry, the one that you proposed, well, or does it make sense [47:05] Katie Brydon: Like because my thought is like would be like copy and paste this and then just because the only thing that's, there's only one thing being removed and that's what we're supposed to be looking at, we would edit this and add in pieces on, did that make sense, you [47:25] Speaker C (unidentified): might want to add separate paragraphs because some of those paragraphs are applicable to the, oh yeah, I want to just try something construction that might project [47:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, sure. [Katie Brydon: Sure.] Yep, the highlighted one, if you go up, that is the organ, oh all right, is there another way to do this [48:02] Katie Brydon: Apparently it's big of your own, that's great, thank you, okay so and this is, yes this is what we're talking, yeah, are these the places that we could ask, okay so what is your recommendation [48:22] Speaker F (unidentified): Because we did agree that, yes, sorry, just to walk through like line by line and determine what needs to be cut and maybe where we need to add in some from your suggestion, yeah that's fine [48:35] Katie Brydon: Should we say like, yeah necessarily, yeah, I feel like you had language around the shame [48:47] Speaker D (unidentified): No person, okay. [48:52] Speaker F (unidentified): In this context person is appropriate with the full context of the sentence, shell obstruct for the storage of materials or the erection of staging, oh yeah right, so I think it makes sense there because literally just saying no one will be able to do this, it's not like a person cannot be here, so the person cannot create the situation. So I think it's appropriate there. I do, if we're gonna add some definitions maybe about like what is obstruction, what is passing space, where, city solicitor, do you think it would be most appropriate to do that? Like after we say, after we use the terms the first time, or maybe down at the bottom to have just like a definition section? [49:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Definitions are usually put toward the beginning of an ordinance so that you can see what you're talking about before you get into the substance, gotcha and [49:48] Katie Brydon: like I said I'm just going to pace this here but it is not, let's see, it does not have to be this right, we can all agree on what the definitions should be and what's appropriate, thoughts [Speaker B (unidentified): on this, that's] pretty or we said activities, no because that's a [50:14] Speaker C (unidentified): Person, I can I share one more thing? If you change the definition of obstruct and then it's also applied in the construction context, I don't know if you want that. In other words, it would be a, yeah, so that's, you don't want, let's say a company is going to put all our construction materials on the sidewalk. I don't know if you want to have them putting it partially on the sidewalk, okay, because you've defined it that way, okay, would [51:03] Katie Brydon: it be weird to say like, if I can't have that, I don't want to be like, [51:06] Speaker B (unidentified): this applies to personal, you know, along and don't. [51:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Would they effectively have that in the comments beforehand? [51:13] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes. But if you define it in that manner, they could perhaps get a permit while they say, and we intend to block half of this sidewalk because it's not an obstruction. [51:28] Speaker F (unidentified): So do we even need an obstruction? Of instruction, I mean, I also think that's like a pretty like universally understood term, right? [51:37] Katie Brydon: Yeah, put the ADA, like this is important stuff that we can have in another, that space that was [51:44] Speaker B (unidentified): kind of what I was thinking. While I appreciate the definitions, I don't know that they're like necessary, and that brings me to like where we were going to add in the police department and code enforcement division shall enforce this. I like, I just feel like it's a little silly that they would need that added to know that they can enforce that, you know what I mean? I just think these are giving them like, we all should know, but I think the ADA specific specifications are important. I just don't know that the definitions are okay. Can I make a point of order to appeal to my previous motion that I made before the motion to approve that one of the awards I commend in chapter 257 inside sidewalk section 257 dashboard require license to occupy walk or obstruct the sidewalk as Canada Street? I missed that point of order to appeal my previous motion. [52:44] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm not calling it back up. Yeah, I don't [52:52] Speaker C (unidentified): know that 's the thing in robert's rules i'm not i'm sure i'm not i'm sure i'm not clear what you're [52:58] Speaker F (unidentified): what did she want to say is all of her previous questions [53:04] Speaker C (unidentified): again? Yeah, we're [53:09] Speaker B (unidentified): really like trying to make it so like all of the ideas are involved. We, I don't think anything's changed their mind though. [Speaker D (unidentified): Scary because there's] a lot of things like I said, what about your sidewalk in front of your house? You're saying you could just throw it out? No, we have to hear that, but then you're going on [53:35] Katie Brydon: about other things. No, we can remove this if you don't think we need this, because Dave brought that [53:39] Speaker D (unidentified): up. Yeah, and [53:43] Speaker F (unidentified): This might be silly, but maybe we just incorporate that definition into the text of the thing, so we're going to have a definition section. Yeah, what's the difference about this? [53:55] Katie Brydon: What's making it different? There's nothing about ADA and clients in here, so I do think that we would have to be really clear about what we think is important in terms of what's blocking that. [54:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Sidewalk, but you're still trying to say that people can put things on the sidewalk, I think. [54:12] Speaker F (unidentified): This ordinance just that just applies to construction materials, right? Like even in the I don't remember what line it is, and but she scrolled up a little bit, no, it's not even this one, it was in the close on where the line was about belongings are individual items, right? If this is literally just about construction materials or but it's not, etc, that's. [54:39] Katie Brydon: That's the thing, yeah, it's no longer about construction purposes, so that was the that was the whole feedback that we got, it was like what, oh sorry, I am, I think that was really. [54:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Important is that we're agreeing to get rid of for construction purposes, that's agreed, like we're oh I think yeah I want to speak early, but we're agreeing for anything, for anything, regardless of what it's just construction purposes, yeah, just in general, so we want to get rid of the construction so that it's just for daily, for everyone, yeah, so that these rules apply to everyone, right, but they don't, I think what we're trying to do is make it so it doesn't exclude specific populations of people, so. It's inclusive, which is kind of what ADA is, so just well I don't think anyone's trying to say like the people should be able to have their stuff all over the sidewalk so no one can ever pass, that's the complete opposite, it's just inclusivity and accessibility for everyone, I think that's what we're trying, right, and I think what we heard. [55:44] Katie Brydon: Last week was that folks were like, you know, how do we make sure that if you are, if you do have something on the sidewalk and it's not blocking someone, right, and that you have full accessibility to move through, but there is still something on the sidewalk, I want to be really clear for our are law enforcement too, right, that is that if we were this is like an enforceable feature, correct? [56:15] Speaker C (unidentified): Right, yeah, what if you introduced the things that you want to talk about with in the non-construction context or something like that, okay, say more about that in not involving construction projects, comma, yeah, the sidewalk, would it be appropriate to say like. [56:40] Katie Brydon: An instance is not so much better, but in instances not including construction purposes, the sidewalk must maintain AVA compliance. Like, is that what you're saying? [56:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, that way you would not be, it sounds like you are contemplating putting in language that would allow a certain amount of obstruction, and I don't know whether that's wise. Now, that's up to all of you on what you want to do for your advice, but I, if you don't, if you want to exclude construction projects because you're not talking about construction materials, you're talking about personal belongings, you could just say that. You can say if we're not talking about a construction project and then go on with what you want to say, or something. I didn't say it as well that time, but [57:42] Speaker D (unidentified): but I think you get what I'm trying. Yeah, where is that? I'm confused. I was just speaking at home. What I'm saying here is 274, license required to occupy right-of-way for constructive purpose. [58:01] Speaker C (unidentified): Scores through, right, so that it would have applicability to everyone, but this committee, he was talking about putting in some parameters that they didn't necessarily want to put in perhaps in the construction project context, so it wouldn't, they wouldn't apply to construction materials, but they might apply to, I don't know, personal belongings. So at this point of order again, [58:30] Katie Brydon: because I did have an appeal for my previous motion, so but you would need a second, correct? Out, yeah. Can I get a second for Suzette appeals of her first motion? I didn't do that. So Suzette wants to bring up the motion once again to just move it through as is. We would need a second to move forward with her motion, or we can just continue this conversation. Is there a second? Seeing none, do you have any additional comments? Do that before I go to Mark's question. [59:10] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm still hung up on this for construction purposes, that sentence 257, or it is a license required, is that something that's going to be required? That's [59:26] Katie Brydon: kind of why we got here. We're like, oh my gosh, I have to bring in a bunch of water to my fifth school, and I unload, load my car, and there's so much water I can't do it all at once. I grab a thing of water and I walk it inside, and a police officer comes by and says there's no license and there's water in the street, a bunch of heavy waters. I am allowed to ticket this person because they do not have a license, and now they get a penalty, and I just want to say on the record for anyone who says that Will never happen. That happened to me on April 7th, almost 265 dollars. So I would be very clear that this is being enforced, and I think that it is important to look at this and say that's why we need to be really clear with us. I saw Sheen's hand, and then Suzanne, just a question about the [1:00:20] Speaker F (unidentified): language. So in that first paragraph, no person shall occupy pocket circle blah for the storage of material. Storage indicates long-term existence in a space, right? So wouldn't it be appropriate to say if you're not intending to permanently store something there, this doesn't apply, right? If you're literally just unloading something from your car, even if you're blocking the sidewalk, right, this doesn't apply to you because you're not, it's not [1:00:50] Katie Brydon: into the storage. I guess my question to that is, Mr. Lawyer, would that need to be clarified? Could somebody go to court and say I'm not going to pay this ticket because I wasn't exploring my materials? Is that something that needs to be as clear [1:01:07] Speaker C (unidentified): I think the plain language of that paragraph is pretty straightforward and clear, and I think that if somebody has a stroller, I don't, well, I should use that example because there are shopping carts that are, yeah, but I actually had something else on my mind that I wanted to just throw out there, and remember the stand alone that I, you know, that I, there's a sentence in there that I, when you're talking about people getting fine, yeah, there's a sentence in here that I'm not suggesting that you take and use, but it says the first and preferred method of enforcing a violation of this section is for the police department to direct the materials be moved from the sidewalks or esplanades by the individual who placed the materials, if that individual can be readily identified. And when you're talking about a license, really, when you go to real life, what's going on, people that are storing their personal belongings because they're unhoused, they're not going to go get a license. I mean, they could, they can apply for one, but not going to in reality. What is going to happen is that the police officer would come and say, see this ordinance, you have to move those materials off the side, so that body. So the fact that there's a fine in there doesn't mean that the fine is going to be imposed. I think if you want some sort of clarity that the first and preferred method is something other than a fine, you could add a sentence in that section right there at E. [1:02:58] Katie Brydon: Yeah, where did you have it in yours? I'm not looking at yours. Well, you don't want to have [1:03:02] Speaker C (unidentified): where I had it. Well, I had it in a section in a paragraph called enforcement, which is what that penalty is, the same idea. Okay, well, you could change the word penalty to enforcement fund, you know, suggest a change. Okay, oh yeah, penalty to enforcement, and then you could throw a sentence like that in there at the beginning, and then the fines are only there if you have somebody who has the whole sidewalk blocked and they ask the person to move it and they say no, there's no way up with that. Yeah, forget it. I mean, that's, you have to have something more than just ask them to move it in case there's a situation. Yeah, I like that. I think that's smart. [1:03:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, go ahead Shane. So you ever have those full circle moments where you come back to something you're like, oh, the first option really was a pretty good option after overthinking a bunch? I'm just looking at the legal department's proposed change, which was in our packet from last meeting, and honestly I think that might be a better place to start, because it takes out a bunch of the stuff that we would be attempting to walk through right now. It literally just has an A and a B, and it makes very clear. I mean, maybe we have some tweaks to that language, but that I think would be easier than walking through the whole thing now. I'm in the last packet. I have some [1:04:22] Speaker D (unidentified): papers. Thanks. Thank [1:04:27] Katie Brydon: you. There's a secret. Yeah, let's do that. I believe your hand is [1:04:32] Speaker B (unidentified): how is this that fine that you said Jordan's subscribe dollars, is that in Bangalore, and then we don't have to get into that? Yeah, I was wondering. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And I just, I just don't understand how we just like, snow removal is one thing and obstructing the sidewalk with another. How is the, because you get a notice of a fine I think if you have snow obstructing sidewalks, but then this is different. David was listening. Yeah, that feels right there. Yeah, let me just, and this would replace [1:05:18] Speaker C (unidentified): place 257 before? No, this would not. This would leave 277 forward the way it is, and it would [1:05:24] Speaker F (unidentified): just be a new section 257-7. So we wouldn't actually be amending, we wouldn't be removing for construction purposes. I would say as is, this would then be a separate. Yes, great, thank [1:05:38] Katie Brydon: you. So these are the elements that we could add on to. [1:05:44] Speaker B (unidentified): And we add on to this, because I think that this is a good way to go. I would really like though, to add another subsection C for support, or it should be before enforcement. And although this is occupying, blocking, obstructing, or partially obstructing, I'm glad it says partially obstructing because is it really obstructing if someone because then you could say like if someone's walking on this standing for a minute that they're obstructing. I would like to add on the support-based enforcement or engagement however we want to word that before enforcement and then I like it. I was gonna suggest the same thing either adding another [1:06:29] Katie Brydon: or four you know that's my basically you have to change your screen okay let me just I just [1:06:35] Speaker B (unidentified): oh yes I agree with the word over the state program one [1:06:55] Katie Brydon: and the piece that we are oh, but I can't. [1:07:00] Speaker F (unidentified): No, we'd have to copy that into a new document. And then share that. So many documents. [1:07:08] Katie Brydon: But Katie can't see it, I put it on a workbook, right? [1:07:10] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, she can't see it. [1:07:12] Speaker C (unidentified): You can, she can see highlighted. Can you see it highlighted? [1:07:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah. But as soon as you move off the screen, [1:07:17] Katie Brydon: she won't be able to, so we'll just have to fix what we're sharing, that's all. Okay. All right, then. Okay. [1:07:26] Speaker B (unidentified): If you don't mind, your camera so this adds a completely new yeah this is the background all right [1:07:31] Speaker C (unidentified): and then I don't know if you don't remove the words for construction purposes from the title go and then because 257-7 does not involve construction projects so we might want right yeah no to continue to grind it out but then just add this section leave the rest of it to be used for construction projects and then just add this so that you don't have to worry about distinguishing one from the other if I can give a little context [1:08:30] Michael Beck: those words were added in 2019 because they were concerned that there was confusion with the utility part so that people would know okay you want to do one block but if the sidewalk construction this is the policy you follow and you want to block it from utility or use the utility permit this is the affection wow so I guess I'm worried I don't need to say [1:08:51] Speaker C (unidentified): remove it might bring back that original computer well it just seems like there's a way to clarify that leave these here for construction and this one's not for construction I don't know I'm not saying the exact wording but it seems like it's I thought that maybe line those three words out would do it because you still have this one that says for storage of materials or the erection of staging gladiator scaffolding or other building you know and we know that has been used for construction Projects, and then this one is a new one that doesn't have to do with construction, and it has its own enforcement section, so it's separate and apart from the penalty section on the construction. But if you leave for construction purposes in there, and then you have 257-7 in there which is not construction, it's a little confusing, perhaps. [1:10:01] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, I can go after. Was there someone else? Okay. I think we have to change the wording in B if we're going to add, and I think that my G should be the B. If that makes sense. Yeah, I think that should go before enforcement. [1:10:18] Speaker C (unidentified): Your G should be inside the B? [1:10:20] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't know, I think that this part that I supposed to add should be here as B, and this should be C, and instead of the person, maybe remove the personal preferred method well, because I don't want to like repeat if we do put that in, or for enforcement we might need to change the enforcement word a little bit. The first improved method of enforcement should be support-based engagement, and then do you mean make C B and B C? Yes, yeah, and then we would probably have to change enforcement a little bit. Where that says the first and preferred method of enforcing should be support based engagement, or is that what they feel like the first and preferred [1:11:23] Katie Brydon: method of enforcement following? Yeah, whatever following one C, okay, would be [1:11:29] Speaker C (unidentified): to direct materials, you know, whatever it is, like if the individual, what about saying putting this, what was that called, the paragraph, a support based engagement paragraph is as B, and then in under enforcement just make a little clause that refers to it where it says the first preferred method of enforcement by us this section is to direct the materials be moved, the technical identified, and you know, and engage in the support-based enforcement, something like that from B, just kind of sure you write in there like, and I know it's already a long sentence [1:12:15] Katie Brydon: and access support based engagement, then you could say like parentheses like C [1:12:21] Speaker F (unidentified): one B or whatever, I don't, whatever it is, and access blue, gosh, you know, I thought I was going [1:12:28] Speaker B (unidentified): to drive and I would say oh yeah get your SOS, I can drive me too, no I'm good, I'm good, I'm good [1:12:35] Katie Brydon: I type all day, I've still warm up, do that, so what is support based engagement and where is [1:12:44] Speaker B (unidentified): That coming from, I don't, I don't know where that is. I should answer to my moment. It's exactly what it is, support based engagement. I was going to use enforcement, but I just feel like engagement sounds so much more human. And so we're not asking police to be social workers, although they have mental health liaison, they have the Banker City Action Team. I believe they partner a little bit with CHCS for case management or specific homeless case management. So we would just be prioritizing available resources over fines that will just cause more jail volume, which we can't take right now. So instead of just, we're going to impose a fine, it would be, why are you here all day with your belongings? Can I help you get into the shelter? Can I connect you to the day program? Do you know about these resources? So just trying to offer us a solution that, yeah, just a solution, oh yeah, an alternative to what is not going to work in my opinion is the fines. It will only cause more disruption into their lives, and we will be paying more money. If we're worried about tax dollars, that's more tax dollars. If we don't use support based engagement sources, that could take a long time. It sounds like you have to, you know, like instead of, okay, these are your things here on the sidewalk, and now we need to get an agency involved, and then we move all of. [1:14:18] Katie Brydon: These things, but I could see the way that I saw this, and I think I put it, or Katie had it, was like resource distribution, right? Like we could actually, and I don't know if that would make it too long, if we need to be as specific as what support may contribute, but you're, you're you. [1:14:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Know, can I make one tiny little point on that paragraph where it says, sorry, where it says prior to violations or penalties? I understand the prior to penalties, but you might want to consider that word violations or being removed, because a violation occurs when somebody puts all the materials all over the sidewalk and blocks it. So you want that engagement before anybody imposes any kind of penalty, right? But you, the violation doesn't make it, 's a little confusing, the word violations are there to. Me sure, that's fair. Okay, can I try? I don't think that this will take. [1:15:30] Speaker B (unidentified): A lot more time. There are many of us, I'll say, in the city that work 40 hours a week to reduce homelessness, hunger, so much more, to connect resources. There's a lot of people, and including, you know, in the within the Bengal police system, the BCAT, the liaison for mental health was amazing. There's a few of them. It's as quick as making a phone call, crisis maybe. So I'm just wondering then why are, why then, I know there's like 1200 non-profits in Bangor supposedly helping with this homelessness, but then why aren't people going there and talk and, you know, like Ben Treat says, whatever, why, perhaps a question should be asked why are they putting things on the sidewalk now, this fairly new development, and then if there are all these people and outreach, then why aren't they going up to them now? Why is it going to take a police officer to go up and then say here's some resources? Why aren't the people that provide the resources already going up and engaging with them? Has anybody talk to them? Why do you need a police officer to do that? Why don't you just, that's their job. Why aren't they doing that? Why is letting this happen and then warning the police? It seems like maybe it's on purpose. I'd love to respond if I can. There are many outreach workers. The purpose of this though is not to solve world peace and homelessness in Baylor. So yeah, that'd be ideal, right, is to have an outreach worker there that takes care of it all when it magically disappears, but the purpose of adding support-based engagement would be they that it should be prioritized that the officer who is going to impose this penalty first uses connection and resource engagement with for the first time. So it's not right. I think that's something in reality, like why don't [1:17:34] Katie Brydon: we need any of this? Like I need to go play in a sidewalk, someone they're in the sidewalk like [1:17:40] Speaker B (unidentified): social work is readily available. Why aren't they ready of readily available right now on the sidewalk? Because you can't make someone do anything, unfortunately, mental health. How would this possibly help putting that in there? Because I think we have it in writing that the expectation [1:17:55] Katie Brydon: is that before we penalize you and criminalize this activity, there have been outreach opportunities. We have it in writing. We have the expectation very clear. [1:18:04] Speaker D (unidentified): Mark, I think the question of why properties on the sidewalk is really not relevant. I think that what is relevant is that property is observed to be on the sidewalk is obstructing. So let's have somebody come and say what can we do to help and as what Theresa has been saying I think the answer to the question why it's fairly obvious [1:18:36] Speaker B (unidentified): Well that's what I find myself I will say the director of the library said perhaps the question should be asked why are they on the sidewalk now this didn't used to happen it seems like there might be a motive here I don't understand why are they putting themselves like both now and [1:18:53] Katie Brydon: During the outreach yeah unfortunately I don't think it will be able to address that just [1:19:01] Speaker D (unidentified): I know the warming shelters recently closed like he needs to go and have that's not kick also I mean this is a little weird but I mean these people also don't have a place to go know. So it's very slim picking school and you have to go and you're just trying to survive. So that's just bonus on note. But I do agree with what you guys are asking. [1:19:26] Speaker B (unidentified): Would it be appropriate to make a motion? Are we there yet? [1:19:31] Katie Brydon: I have another thing I want to ask you. Sure. But thank you [1:19:34] Speaker C (unidentified): For asking. It's another tiny thing. [1:19:36] Katie Brydon: You are, you do not have to please validate. [1:19:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah paragraph B where it says support based engagement the city shall prioritize support based engagement prior to could I ask you to consider adding the word civil in front of penalties because I don't want anybody to think that a penalty would be the police officer asking people to move their stuff off the sidewalk yeah sure may I just before we move on I do think [1:20:09] Katie Brydon: it's really important that we are very clear about what obstruction means in terms of ada access i don't know if that goes here or that if we add that to 257 or if i'm the only one that cares about the actual expectation for maybe we don't need it maybe again you don't need to say out loud like you should be able to move your wheelchair through a sidewalk i just think that 's also i see that there's ada plans out on the sidewalk now so i know that 's happening so should we put it in writing What that expectation is I don't know I might have [1:20:43] Speaker F (unidentified): A solution and Dave I'd love your thoughts on this just in this first paragraph as the sidewalks are intended for free blah and as the ADA dictates and then literally just copy paste that it fits in we've covered that [1:21:01] Speaker C (unidentified): Well when that was drafted, the partially obstruct struct was put in there, and it's very simple there. And if you start, you certainly do not want to put the ADA stuff in 257-4 because that one deals with construction projects materials, and I would just leave that alone except for perhaps removing those three words from the title. But you don't even, it's you don't have to remove them. But wait, sorry, I just wanted to 277 clearly does not apply to just construction just by its own words right now, but You said 57 sports doesn't either [1:21:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Anymore, right, because it didn't mean that. I think we'd be leaving it and adding this. Well, I guess technically we could do this, right, it's already been there for decades, and oh yeah, no, it [1:21:58] Speaker B (unidentified): Applies to construction projects. Yeah, your recommendation would likely be to pass this instead of what was originally correct, and if that's the case, then that language should stay [1:22:10] Katie Brydon: And just to be clear, because I am now down at the bottom of this graphical the cross off that we were just looking at of for construction purposes, if we recommended that say as is, does that include the cross, the strike out of construction? Do you remember what I'm saying? It is still up there, it didn't, not that one, not that one, the cross office in the time the [1:22:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Proposed cross office in the title. Yeah, if you go to the left one and then scroll to the top [1:22:46] Katie Brydon: That's right, yeah, is this, is this, did we do that? No, that is what was proposed, that was [1:22:53] Speaker C (unidentified): Proposed, that's what it's before three were eliminating three words, but it was also adding a sentence, it was adding, but that sentence down below wouldn't need to be added if because this, that part wouldn't apply when you're talking about just obstructing a sidewalk and it's not during a construction project, but 257 7 would apply. So just to be clear, it sounds like what the [1:23:23] Speaker B (unidentified): Committee would be doing is recommending instead of passing the ordinance that's currently before council adding the section subsection seven, yes, which would be more specific to what you [1:23:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Guys are trying to thrive at around personal funding. Yep, this is another tiny thing in the section in on enforcement, I think, where we change the wording to enforcement [1:23:56] Speaker C (unidentified): Oh, that was on the other section, the other section, the other section, none of the changes are, just it'll just stay the way it is. Oh okay, this section was always, this is just a new thing [1:24:07] Speaker D (unidentified): This is brand new, yeah, okay, and the old one remains would in theory [1:24:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, I see Katie Pan and then Teresa Courtney. I don't know if you can show everybody. Just an idea at first, a letter C. After you put in C above in the parentheses, I put in the chat an additional sentence, and again that's just up into people think, but for to add the sentence for non-emergency obstructions, those not immediately endangering life or limb and not violating ADA compliance, provide a 24-hour notice to vacate or remove personal belongings. Is that allowed? Because it says personal, just throwing that out there and this section [1:24:59] Katie Brydon: does have that first mobile and we're no longer in the construction section. That's right, so that [1:25:05] Speaker E (unidentified): was great because it doesn't have anything in this part about a timeline before they give a via of the civil penis, civil penalty, so it almost kind of sounds like they can just walk up and give it to them. There's no, so we say first and preferred method of enforcing, but we don't really have like a timeline to look into it. I [1:25:30] Speaker B (unidentified): like that idea. I was also going to, I like that she mentioned, I also think we should reconsider the fine amounts, but I think that's important that it's not just like, oh, you're here. I think a 24 hour is important to put in there [1:25:49] Speaker E (unidentified): and then less than five in my opinion, again this is for those that are obstructions that are not violating ADA compliance, so it's still in the sidewalk but it's not a hat, it's not considered immediate threat or safety hazard, so there's that differentiation too. Yeah, [1:26:11] Katie Brydon: okay, thank you. [1:26:16] Speaker B (unidentified): I just think there should probably be a police officer here because I think that they're pretty busy and this is all going to be too complicated for them rather than just, you know, I mean littering is against an ordinance, this is an effect littering, we do have an HIV crisis, biohazard needles. I just think that you all are making this into something much more complicated and making it very difficult for law enforcement and I think it's totally unnecessary. I mean a 24-hour, what they supposed to do? They're supposed to measure things, they're supposed to have a time stamp on everything and then go back and check and it's adding too many layers. We already have an or, you know, let's just enforce orange scale, simplify it, not complicate it with all this other language. [1:27:11] Speaker E (unidentified): How about instead of the 24 hour some type of verbal notice? I don't know how else to say it. I do agree with you that they're very busy and how would they track that it's been 24 hours and then another police officer has possibly already said something. But for whenever you're giving a fine in any situation, like you have 30-day fine, you have a two-day, like they're, they give you notice before they give you a fine. You don't pay your water bill, they tell you have 30 days notice, you have 30 days to pay the fine, like so with this there needs to be some sort of equity to that. So if you want to 24 hour I get, but I don't know how else to say it. [1:27:55] Speaker B (unidentified): If you put something in front of your house on the sidewalk you're going to get a notice, they're [1:27:59] Speaker E (unidentified): not going to give you 24. So no, but they do though, they do, you if they tell you they give you an actual time when to remove it. Even in Bangor there's a law about your grass can't go above 11 inches, they give you time to mow your lawn before they give you a fine. What a littering [1:28:19] Katie Brydon: law because there is no more than eight and I mean if but like if how do people enforce that? [1:28:28] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah well it should be important. Can I have a couple questions? [1:28:32] Speaker C (unidentified): The word vacate, what is the purpose of having that word in that sentence? Oh right because it's [1:28:40] Speaker F (unidentified): about people, it's about belongs right. I think okay but the construction one without materials [1:28:53] Speaker B (unidentified): no now that old one is just about construction, this is all other sorts of belongings. Okay we're still ordering, still covers people. No it's a good clarification. Yeah and then I have a second [1:29:05] Speaker C (unidentified): question. So that what that sentence is saying is that if there is a partial obstruction of, well I guess my next question is how is a police officer supposed to know if a backpack or some other personal belonging is or is not immediately endanger? Michael I mean you know what can be in backpacks. Yeah you shouldn't go to someone else's backpack though. I know I know. How are you, how are you gonna know? Well you just don't [1:29:52] Speaker B (unidentified): go in there right. I mentioned earlier about kids but like they shouldn't be going into people's [1:29:57] Speaker C (unidentified): things but my point is this, if you don't have that sentence in there and you have a partial obstruction will up with materials of a sidewalk, a police officer can go and say you cannot start sidewalk, please move the materials off the sidewalk, but with that sentence in there, the police officer is going to have to know what ad a compliance is the measure, and the police officer would also have to know whether it is immediately endangering life or limb. I don't know how police [1:30:29] Speaker F (unidentified): actually would know them. I mean, I would argue that they should know the ADA, so there's the law. [1:30:35] Speaker B (unidentified): You have an HIV, we have more HIV cases than anywhere in the state, and what if it's a bag full of needles, like you get a hundred needles and then someone gets injured by them and gets HIV? I mean, if I may, I mean, to be honest, that concern exists across the city anyway, I think at the transit center and whatnot, and so I mean, whether you're talking sidewalk ordinance or something else, that I'm not sure we can avoid them. I think Katie's point here is the grace period. [1:31:06] Speaker E (unidentified): I don't think that you're necessarily married to this language. Not at all. No, you're right, it's [1:31:13] Katie Brydon: more of the grace period. They're even something that maybe would be more readily welcomed and understood by a lawyer or by a police officer that understands, like, how can I enforce this without saying I asked you to move, not fast enough, here's your ticket, right? Like, how do we... Well, I see two [1:31:35] Speaker C (unidentified): possible scenarios. One is the person is there with the materials, and if the person is there with the materials, I don't see why they need a grace period to move them off the sidewalk walk. The second scenario would be the materials are there and there's no person there, right? And currently, if that's the case, the policy kicks in because it's materials that are on public property, right? And so that they would put a 24-hour notice under that policy. So how [1:32:13] Katie Brydon: How could we reference that policy in here? [1:32:16] Speaker C (unidentified): It is referenced already in the final sentence. [1:32:22] Katie Brydon: You made me read all the way down here. Yeah. [1:32:26] Speaker F (unidentified): Any applicable city policy pertain chemical. Yeah. [1:32:31] Speaker C (unidentified): And that policy has a 24-hour notice provision in it. [1:32:35] Katie Brydon: How does that feel, Katie? [1:32:37] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, no, that's completely fine as long as we just... That was my biggest part was the grace period. So yeah, you can just take out that sentence. Again, it was just to discuss as a group and see what we [1:32:47] Katie Brydon: wanted to do. Yeah, thank you. I think it's a really thoughtful point to bring up, so thank you for [1:32:54] Speaker B (unidentified): That exactly. So if so, if you have a sidewalk in front of your house and someone leaves something there, can you just dispose of it? I don't know what the policy is. That this is very this kind. [1:33:07] Speaker C (unidentified): The policy about it does not say that. Under the policy, if the person who over there can't be identified, they post it. Now there may be some accepting for like obviously dangerous things. I haven't poured through the details of the policy today or recently, but generally speaking, there's a 24-hour notice for materials if you have a backpack on your on your sidewalk. [1:33:37] Speaker B (unidentified): In front of your house, what if there's a bomb? I mean, you have no idea what's in that backpack. [1:33:41] Speaker F (unidentified): And so I think you're asking if like the property owner could remove that, right? Or yeah, like if it's. [1:33:47] Speaker B (unidentified): In front of your house, but then they say that's not really your property, you know? There's this whole thing about oh, it's like well, that might have all of them, but I mean, what if you think like I don't know this person, you know, maybe there's something wrong with this person, they just thought this don't like my daughter, but then I didn't you all. [1:34:05] Katie Brydon: The police and the police would use this enforcement to take care of it, but they. [1:34:10] Speaker B (unidentified): Wouldn't they say well, we gotta leave with their 24 hours because they've got. [1:34:13] Katie Brydon: This new ordinance, but I'm not really on that part. Yeah, we did that's. [1:34:19] Speaker B (unidentified): My best week to set out. First thing I want to say there, first of all, it was mentioned earlier like there's kids and what if there's a back full of needles? It should be taught any regardless, don't touch other people's things, don't go in a strange backpack. If there's a concern of a bomb or a gun in something, police should be called immediately. Furthermore though, I would like to change the amount of the fines. I don't see there be a reason to be more than fifty dollars and I don't know that it. Should and then maybe a maximum of a hundredth of a second, but I think no less than 50, no more than 100. I think it should just be 50. Then I think it should be in the event of a second. Yeah, no less than a hundred, but no more than a hundred either. [1:35:06] Katie Brydon: So would it say the person is subject to civil penalty if not no more than 100? In the event of a second violation within a six month period, the civil penalty shall be no more than 100. So no more than 50. Yes, so I'm so sorry, the person is subject. [1:35:23] Speaker F (unidentified): To a civil penalty of fifty dollars period in the end, no more than fifty of no more than fifty. [1:35:31] Katie Brydon: I mean, are these numbers tied to five dollars? So that's typo ever. [1:35:48] Speaker C (unidentified): Are these tied to... Those numbers were put in because it was intended to keep the civil penalties small. Yeah. So would there be a problem with it going smaller? Not in my mind. [1:36:02] Speaker F (unidentified): So what I'm hearing is five times, okay. Yeah, I just want the cost, it's a huge barrier, I mean. [1:36:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Just actually thinking everybody, also the homeless people, they don't have anything, as well as a baby's life, I mean, I also feel like a global like person who had [1:36:29] Speaker F (unidentified): dollars isn't like it is a lot, but like it's not back. Yeah, I have a clarifying question, can you [1:36:37] Speaker B (unidentified): scroll back down? Did you want that to read for the second violation no more than a hundred dollars instead of no less than a hundred, because then it's a hundred or more. Hard, and I, but it could be between 50 and 100, right? I agree. I also think a second violation within six months period, do we want to change the six month period? No, I don't really know, I think that's reasonable. Yeah. [1:37:01] Katie Brydon: I just, you know, want to say the things that were brought to us today, right, that people had looked at research of, was, you know, are there ways that we can make this about more than just construction directions, which I think we addressed that with this edition. Is there some element of the civil right or civil or support-based engagement, which I believe that we included storage information occupancy, we know that isn't a policy, and that is linked in this edition, and then lastly really understanding what the space looks like if we wanted to include ADA a you realize that would not be in our best interest is there anything that somebody else has suggested or wanted to see included in this that has not been addressed [1:38:03] Speaker C (unidentified): if you go and look at paragraph b it says such resources including but not limited to can we just change that sentence so that it 's so that it's a sentence i mean it doesn't have like a verb or anything oh yeah maybe just change it to include but are not limited to or something [1:38:24] Speaker B (unidentified): like that. Yep, it was a really long sentence at first, like I'm kind of curious, I had to [1:38:29] Speaker C (unidentified): but are not limited to that. I told you it's tiny. Good job. [1:38:39] Speaker F (unidentified): I was just going to say I'll defer to that side, but how is this not littering? I [1:38:49] Speaker B (unidentified): feel like there's a stark difference between people's belongings and trash. It's not gonna go well. [1:38:55] Speaker C (unidentified): But what's the question? How is it not, how is this not, if someone is unhoused and they have their personal belongings with them and they're standing next to them, the purpose of this is to keep the sidewalks clear. It is, that would not be littering, having your personal ones with me. They're not intending to litter the sidewalk with it, they're just intending to keep them. But if they're, they in for [1:39:32] Speaker B (unidentified): a library, say there's the shopping cart, all kinds of things in it, there's no [1:39:35] Speaker C (unidentified): all around, how is that, you're saying when is the littering ordinance engaged? What? Yeah, I mean, that's really another question. Yeah, that doesn't really, it's not really addressed by what's been presented to this committee. I don't know, I haven't looked at the littering ordinance. [1:39:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, there is one, it's not enforced. I don't understand still why it's not enforced. It's a [1:40:00] Speaker C (unidentified): state watchman, so this is the state, and there's, there could be situations where the littering ordinance is engaged, but that's kind of not what we're dealing with. We're just talking about materials. If there's trash all over the sidewalk, let's say, let's say a person just creates trash that's all over the sidewalk, well maybe that could be both this and the littering courts, and then there'd be two different possibilities for enforcement. Thank you. [1:40:35] Speaker F (unidentified): If the chair will entertain it, I'd like to move that we recommend the, is it a substitution of the proposed amendment with this? I don't know. Yeah, good, okay, yes, I would move that we recommend a substitution of this, what we just wrote, with the proposed amendment before city council. Thank you. And there has been a second, correct? [1:41:12] Katie Brydon: Discussion, we do have a clarifying point, and I am so sorry, I cannot seem to wrap my head around me 257.4. We are, we voting on that at all right now? We're just voting on two. [1:41:25] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, there's a proposed amendment to 257.4, you're recommending that proposed amendment not happen, but instead a substitute should be made with this. Thank you, thank you so much, I [1:41:37] Katie Brydon: just needed that restated, and I appreciate the clarity very much. Are there any other questions or discussion? [Speaker F (unidentified): Seeing] none, we'll move to a roll vote. Katie, I [1:41:56] Speaker E (unidentified): move to move this motion forward with a yes. Did I get it right? Yeah, so that's yes for Katie, Shane, yeah, Suzette, no. [1:42:10] Katie Brydon: Adam yes Mark yes Teresa yes right yes so that is seven days one May my next question is this second reading on Mondays or if you yeah the 11th the 11th is this on me agenda word will be yes okay nope and am i correct in assuming that it we would present our recommendations in person or is that something that the liaison would prefer to do [1:42:55] Michael Beck: i mean i just assume that the recommendation would just come for us and like any other recommendation but yeah i [1:43:03] Katie Brydon: mean all of a sudden what any other like what do you say oh i was [1:43:08] Michael Beck: say if you give me the email what you've done here i can send it out with a report that doesn't [1:43:11] Speaker C (unidentified): know what was recommended 71 and there's always the potential for a motion to amend by substitution yeah i'll be happy to make that yeah so we would make sure that council had that document before [1:43:24] Speaker B (unidentified): them because they would be assuming that motion passes then that would be what they're [1:43:30] Katie Brydon: substituting for what was previously before them thank you may i be very personal and just say that is my daughter's birthday so will you need representation to answer [1:43:44] Speaker C (unidentified): questions would be helpful should we identify a person i mean the councils may have questions [1:43:51] Michael Beck: about the discussion and the things you know because i remember member of borough you mentioned that a police opinion might be needed yeah how would this affect them yeah you know i know well the council may have a question so you know the chief is usually there yeah which we'll [1:44:07] Speaker B (unidentified): make sure he gets this enough time so if he has if he's asked a question he'll be able to speak to it but yeah i don't think it would hurt to have somebody from the committee there just in case [1:44:18] Speaker F (unidentified): it could be remote as well i'll be there again i'll be there but i love the council [1:44:24] Speaker B (unidentified): council meeting council meeting thank you will we get this final language yes i can make sure that it is saved and sent out sure yep i can do that tomorrow i'd like it oh i'll send it to [1:44:47] Katie Brydon: everyone okay thank you my other children's birthday but she scares me okay we no longer have Katie on favor thank you all very much for this additional work i'm so very cool for everyone to be able to shine out. And Gabe, thank you so much for your expertise, if that is. Yeah, thank you so much.