Looks like they may only talk about 2 issues, but you just never know, but you just never know when the public might show up and force them to talk about one more! (Me, being “the public”) They refer the panhandling ordinance and pass the 10 year Narcotics and Drug Task Force Agreement – typically its only 5 years.
GETTING STARTED
Verveer starts to say Happy New Year. Mayor interrupts and talks about the 8 homicides in 2017, including the death of Alder Baldeh’s cousin, and he extends sympathies to the families and hopes for peace and the absence of violence in the new year. He says there have been two incidents where co-workers murdered each other and 3 where there was gang involvement and several others where there was domestic violence and he wants them to think about that.
Suspension of the rules to take things out of order and introduce items at the end of the meeting.
Honoring Resolution – thanking city staff member Mike O’Brien for his 31 years of service. Verveer speaks and says O’Brien will stay involved in his union and we will see him around city hall even after his retirement. We will continue to see him involved in Local 236. Verveer thanks him for his many years of service.
CONSENT AGENDA
Everything is adopted as is except:
Public Hearings – 2 – 19 – Public Hearings
21 – Committee appointments – there is a substitute
61 – Is at their desk, Eagle Crest Subdivision Improvements – strike item 5 in the resolution.
73 – Referred to the CCOC, ethics code item about referral to the mayor’s office
92 – New ordinnance prohibiting laying down on sidewalks – referred to City-County Homeless Issues Committee
Still need to be discussed by the council
74 – Separated (noxious weeds)
78 – Separated (panhandling)
79 – Separated (Narcotics and Gang Task Force)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
No discussion on any of these items and only one registrant who doesn’t speak.
Public hearings are opened and closed on plan commission items
2 – 700 E Johsnons – place on file without prejudice, no registrations
3 – 8102 Watts Road – no registrations – adopt with recommendations
Alder Skidmore recuses himself from item 4? (or 3?)
Public hearings are opened and closed (or held open if referred) on ALRC (alcohol) issues
4 – TGI Fridays – registration in support – recommendation is to grant
5 – 401 E Wash – re-refer
6 – 502 State St. – re-refer
7 – 602 S Park St – grant with conditions
8 – 222 W Washington – grant with condition
9 – Frank Productions – grant
10 – 1272 S Park – grant
11 – grant with condition
12 – Wonder Bar – grant
13 – Coliseum Bar – grant
They pass items 4 – 13 with recommendations
They open and close hearings on Board of Public Works items
14 – Change name of a street from Niblick Drive to Perfect Drive- Adopt
15 – Adopt under suspension – Grand Ave, Van His, Park Place and Masons St Assessments
16 – Adopt under suspension – Gregory, Knickerbocker, Sprague and Shelter St. Assessments
17 – Adopt under suspension – Resurfacing assessments
They pass the report of the Board of Public Works and adopt all 4 items
They open public hearings and and refer the following plan commission items
18 – 301 Cross Oaks Drive – re-refer
19 – 1004 S Park St – re-refer
Adopt report of Plan Commission
PANHANDLING ORDINANCE
Public Testimony
My comments tonight are mostly about how our equity reports are used, or not used in making decisions about ordinances. We clearly have an equity report here that says we need to get additional input, that we notice our meetings clearly and that we go above and beyond to get feedback and instead this ended up being a horrible example of how local government works.
1) The third substitute wasn’t available until today.
2) On November 7th when this was in front of the Homeless Issues Committee they were told that if they didn’t vote that night they would be by passed and this would go to Public Safety Review Committee without them. They were being told they had to vote, without seeing the newest draft of the ordinance or they weren’t going to get any input. They referred anyways and lo and behold, they were able to give input in December. But the mayor’s office was very clear that if they didn’t vote that night their input was going to be ignored.
3) Third, the Public Safety Review Committee was told that they couldn’t consider the aments of the Homeless Issues Committee because the amendments from the Homeless Issues Committee were not properly before them. I have no idea where that came from because the ordinance was before them and they should be able to consider and amendments that they want to propose.
4) The legistar notes are a mess, there is no dates on the substitutes so you can tell when they were introduced.
5) This meeting is being held and no one is here, we had 4 days notice. I was actually surprised when I looked at the agenda this morning, so partially it might be my fault, but this is being held with 4 days notice after a busy holiday weekend. This is very frustrating for members of the public, even those who think they are paying attention.
6) There is a memo from Attorney May that was written 5 days ago that has new information in it.
If we’re going to have equity analyses and give them any weight at all we need to take them seriously and I don’t think in this case it was taken very seriously. As a result you don’t have any input tonight. I know people are kind of burned out on these issues being reintroduced and reintroduced and reintroduced and there being a 3rd substitute after the 4th introduction and that is part of the confusion here. I think if you guys are doing your jobs, seriously, you should take a step backwards and look at how the public is being treated in this way and what is the point of the equity analysis if you’re not going to follow it.
Questions of the Public
Barbara McKinney asks after that analysis, what do you see that would make it more equitable.
I say that I think the biggest issue is that when it comes to homeless issues, the people that are stakeholders are not being invited to the table, they are not asked their opinions, they are told what is going to happen. And that’s not just people who are homeless on the street, but its also the homeless advocates and to some extent the Homeless Services Consortium – we have a group of 60 providers that get together on the first Tuesday of every month. This is an issue that could have been brought to that group and we could have brainstormed solutions and we could have come up with something that worked for the community, but we don’t get asked what our opinion is. It’s getting a little better, but mostly, when there are conversations about homelessness in our community we talk completely past each other. We don’t talk to each other and we definitely don’t talk to people who are experiencing homelessness or who were previously homeless. The Homeless Issues Committee gets ignored, why do you have to separate something (the laying on the sidewalks ordinance) and have them added as a referral when it’s a homelessness issue. How does that happen? That’s the whole point, they’re supposed to be giving input on homeless issues and they’re just completely forgotten to be referred to? We’re talking past each other, we need to find a way to have a community conversation about homelessness that isn’t so polarized.
McKinney also says the ordinance as presented addresses public safety and that is what is your response to that. I directed them to look at the equity analysis and the comments about criminalizing homelessness as well as who has been issued tickets in the past, that over 50% of the people getting the tickets are homeless and again this is a small population and there is a disparity that they get a large proportion of the tickets. As the ordinance is written, it is hard to be able to explain to someone where they can panhandle, because of that 200 foot rule where you could be on a street that is not on this list and still get ticket, I think it will be hard to educate the public about this, especially without signs.
(Sigh, people ask me why I record everything . . . well, because I can’t always type fast enough or blog while I’m doing the talking or someone is talking to me. Today, on my Mac the video is all glitchy and every time I stop the video recording I have to reload. On my laptop the video sounds like R2-D2 or CP3O is talking, so I have to use my back up audio to finish this)
Mark Clear says that there is a story, a conventional wisdom, perhaps hypocritical that the folks who are panhandling in the medians are not in fact homeless, that they are part of a network of people, or a loose association, that it is essentially a racket to generate revenue for some kind of organization, criminal or otherwise. He wants my opinion on that. Have people done outreach to people to get an understanding of their stories and who they are and how they fit in to the continuum of people who ask for money on the streets.
I say that its hard to tell. The previous ordinance the tickets were issued to a certain group of people, it does seem like there is a newer group of people who have been panhandling. I don’t think anyone went out and nailed it down specifically, but if you look at who the tickets were given to previously a large percentage of them had no permanent address and even many of them who have an address, if you look at what is written down, it usually is not where they live, its just whatever is on their drivers license or whatever they tell the police officer. I have several people who use my address as their address so they can get their mail and they have an address but they certainly don’t live at my house. Its hard to know for sure because it hard to nail all those specifics down, especially because they don’t have phones or are out of minutes, but there is a significant amount of the population doing the panhandling that is homeless. There may be others as well, I didn’t investigate.
Mayor’s Testimony
Verveer says the Mayor asked to lead off the discussion tonight as the lead sponsor of the ordinance. Mayor Paul Soglin says that until we ran into the court rulings we had laws like this in place for 20 years. It didn’t need signs or explanation. When it occurred, police would inform people. With the exception of one person who was not homeless there was no confusion and no problem. Let’s get that straight. Over 20 years, there were virtually no citations issued for panhandling in medians. We’re not talking about on the public sidewalk or downtown, we’re talking about the medians. As to homeless. The woman who spent most of the summer at Midvale and University Avenue is not homeless. The woman who has been establishing a place at the Speedway gas station at Verona Rd and Raymond Road boasts when she goes to Bennetts about how much money she is making as she shares some of her revenue with other customers at that establishment. The individual who at times will be found at the median at the entrance way to the Ho Chunk Casino, and then is seen inside the casino afterwards is most likely not homeless, but I gotta admire a person who is capable of doing that and then showing up at the casino and not being afraid of running into people who may have seen him at the entrance. Two of the individuals, one working Whitney Way and one at Odana and Gammon and have signs about being homeless veterans are neither homeless nor veterans. I can’t account for every individual who has been in the medians panhandling, but I do know that in those specific instances, those are abbreviated accounts of people who have been making a lot of money in the medians and doing it in a very dangerous manner. Our job is health and safety, that is our principle responsibility. So if someone is in a median and asking for money, is it the ultimate in political correctness to say we are going to give up that responsibility, because we know from coast to coast not only have we seen people in the medians collecting money, hit and in some cases killed. But, in addition, they are causing accidents which may not involve them. Now, I didn’t bring it down tonight, but we’ve got a few seconds of video from University and Midvale showing people dashing into the street, showing the cars, making manuevers that are dangerous to avoid them. Eventually we are going to have a serious accident or a fatality. It’s been said by the Director of Porchlight and other institutions that if you want to provide funds, put it into an agency that provides direct service. And lets see some headlines, not about this being, as it is fraudulently put, as an attack on the homeless but lets see some headlines about the truth and the danger about the cities where accidents and tragedies have come about. And lets see some headlines about the tens of millions of dollars this city has invested or continues to invest in providing permanent shelter and supportive case management. I think the people of the city are getting a little sick and tired that every time there is an issue in this community that involves health and safety, that someone comes out and trots out homeless, and says the whole world has to stop. This ordinance in one form or another has been around for month, everybody has known for months it was coming up at this meeting. We’ve got a responsibility and I’m sick and tired of the smears and the paintbrushes that take an issue like this out of proportion to what it really does and yes, as I have said in the past, high school kids should not be doing this for the car washes, and our firefighters should not be doing it. I was on E. Washington a few years ago and saw one of our firefighters nearly get run over near Blair St. Is there a person in this room that by the time they were 5 years old weren’t taught you don’t play in the streets, its that simple, I don’t think that is an alien concept.
Questions of Staff
Shiva Bidar asks for the history of the ordinance, some of us were here when the previous version was before us and many of our friends from 311 were here, what makes this legally sound. May says that in addition to this ordinance there was one that coered the whole city. That would have covered most of these issues and then there was a second ordinance about soliciting on a highway. The analysis was done on the general panhandling ordinance. Court cases came out saying you can’t outlaw panhandling, that is free speech prohibition. We also suspsended this ordinance and then we sat down and looked at ways we could address not panhandling, but the safety concerns to meet the new requirements under the court cases. It has to be nuetral about the message the person is giving, we can’t allow some on the highway and not others. We think this coveres Fill-the-Boot as well as homeless people asking for money. In the past we thought Fill-the-Boot was covered but there were some who wanted to allow it. Our advice had always been do Fill-the-Boot on the sidewalk and let someone pull in to a driveway. Anyone else can also do that, but you can’t have people stopping in the street. Bidar asks if there are similar ordinances to this that this mirrors so we know if it has been tested. May says that they did not model it on any ordinance, its sort of like Milwaukee, they are identifying streets where there is the most dangerous, here we limited streets with the most volume. There was a court case out east where they prohibited it in all medians. They tried to narrowly tailor this. Bidar asks if this is an issue happening across the nation but there isn’t alot of ordinances that have been adopted. May says they tailored it for what would work for Madison and the court cases they were aware of.
Bidar asks Chief Koval about the demographics of the panhandlers, have there been conversations with your officers and these folks, is it an organized ring of people. Koval says it spans the spectrum, there are some NPA (No Permanent Addresses) and some have said they want to work there instead of a conventional job and some live in homes and get rides there, but there is no singular motive. Bidar asks if there has been an investigation about an organized ring of people doing this. NO there has not been an investigation.
Bidar asks Jim O’Keefe about this being addressed at the Homeless Services Consortium. O’Keefe says that part of the discussion was a request to have outreach workers reach out and the reports he got back were that a good number of people were not homeless or refused offers of services from the agencies that contacted them, including Porchlight and the Veteran’s Administration.
Larry Palm asks about the Equity Tool, on page 4 it specifically goes into details about the tickets, can you confirm if this information is correct. 35 citations is a tool that has been used. May says to rely on what is in the report, it was his mistake. The report should be accurate. Palms points out that 31% of the citations were for people with No Permanent Address.
Palm asks about the email from David Blaska about using speed limits instead of arterial streets, has that been used or not? Did we consider it? David Dryer, Traffic Engineer says that he didn’t consider it until he got the email and he thought that if they look at 30 miles per hour, it would leave some streets out. Palm says that speed is a part of safety, the slower the safer, so are you saying that an arterial street less than 30 miles per hour is still dangerous and still needs the ordinance and that others that are higher than 30 miles are safe? David Dryer says that speed it a factor but with higher volumes – he says volume was a better nexus than speed.
Palm asks about signage and its incompatibility with our budget would be mitigated if we chose the streets based on speed, since enforcement and persecution is challenge. May says that they also need to prove it when they write the ticket so that is also an issue. If you put up more signs more people will be informed, he doesn’t think that if they did it based on speed would help, the plan they have to make pamphlets and maps and hand them out, he thinks that is a better plan. He doesn’t think 30 miles and hour wouldn’t improve the knowledge of the ordinance. Koval says that writing the tickets without conspicuous notice would be a problem if they needed to have a sign.
Barbara McKinney says the ordinance has been tracked from targeting homeless to public safety. She says that the Homeless Issues Committee sent several recommendations and they would have been considered but they were told they couldn’t. She would have wanted the warning before a ticket is given and a report be done. Those recommendations were not tacked on because they didn’t think they could add them. What is the process where we are now with adding those recommendations I just cited. What is that process? May says to offer an amendment tonight, that would be in order, it could be debated and taken up. He is not certain how they were told, I said they could take up what they want when his assistant city attorney emailed him. They didn’t have an alternate with no language, but the city could consider amendments. If you wanted to bring those up tonight individual amendments from the floor would be the way to go. McKinney is asking how to make the amendments. May says that they could make an amendment at any time and it doesn’t need to be a substitute.
McKinney asked about these educational materials. Koval says they would give a grace period of 2 – 3 weeks to warn them and let them know what they can and can’t do, they wouldn’t start with just enforcement. McKinney asks about the materials. Has there been a discussion about the materials, who is designing it. Koval says they haven’t gotten down to the specifics, they will need to work with the city attorney to make sure it is clear and readily understood and then in terms of printing and educating the officers they haven’t gotten into the specifics.
Denise DeMarb asks if this was one or two committees if they were told they couldn’t make amendments. Rummel holds up her 2 fingers. May says that he doesn’t know. DeMarb asks about the HIC being told they had to vote. The reason is that this council relies on city committees to vet information at a different level than we do, many things get put on a consent agenda and we see what is done and it informs us to vote without putting it on the agenda. WE were told that that process did not take place, I think there was a break in the process. It’s not that she is questioning former Alder Konkel’s honesty. O’Keefe says that he attended two meetings, at the first, there was interest in amendment the resolution but they wanted more information, they specifically wanted to hear from staff on the equity report that had been issues but there was concerned that if the resolution was referred to the next meeting the council would act before they could bring it back, they opted to refer and trusted that council would not finalize until they weighed in and that is what happened. DeMarb says it was referred and they did meet. Anne Monks presented information and answered questions and then they proceeded to make recommendations to amend and passed it along.
Mark Clear asks about sidewalks vs. medians. Is there something less safe on a median than a sidewalk. May says that people don’t hang out on medians, they do hang out on sidewalks. Drivers are more distracted when people are on the medians, not so much on sidewalks. Sidewalks are legally more protected, and we didn’t want to limit that. Dryer might say more about the safety. Clear says that sidewalks have more of a public square. May says it depends upon what court you talk to. Dryer says that we lose alot of signs and lights etc. in the medians, the medians are more visible. Clear says we have a state statute or restriction on pedestrian sudden movement, how does that not cover this. Dryer says that they don’t dart out, they are just standing there and not making sudden movements and people might stop and that impacts the intersection. Koval says that when we talk about the potentiality of traffic accidents, it hasn’t happened here yet, but we do need to worry about road rage. Clear says that is an element that he has heard from his constituents.
Rummel says she is struggling with this. She has fear for people who are doing this, she has seen this with Fill-the-Boot. But on the other hand she has questions. We have an adopt a median program to beautify medians and we give you traffic vests and cones and we let you go weed them. Does that become illegal? STaff and vendors might do E. Washington, but Winnebago might be done by volunteers. NOt all these arterials have medians. Willy St. has one, Winnebago doesn’t have one. EAstwood and Atwood, none. Blair has none. So there aren’t medians, it would make sense if it was highway only, that might make sense. It seems that there are so many things I don’t get. No more GOTV? CAn you do GOTV if you have a vest, Attorney says no, do we just look the other way when its middle class white people standing in the median. May says we don’t want people in the median saying people can vote. ONe of the exceptions is for people engaged in repair or maintenance under the government’s direction – that should cover the adopt-a-median program. This also says you can’t be on a highway and approach a vehicle in operation. We don’t want people approaching a car even if there is no median. I think that problem is much less, but we have seen it in other cities.
Palm says he missed the first meeting, Rummel missed the second. The second was where we had discussions about amendments. The reason the committee voted was because of those amendments and he did ask for the substitute to be drafted with the changes but he also gave me a draft of the memo about why he didn’t think it was a good idea. He thinks that some of the ideas were valid but we were going to be in a difficult position if that was part of what was on the table. He asks why some streets say north and south or east and west. Palm asks about Dayton St Dryer ways that was corrected.
Sheri Carter asks about an incident where there was an accident because someone stopped to give money that they sued the city. May and Koval say no. May says he is not aware of any claim against the city.
Clear asks about the terrace, can someone stand at the curb edge. May says no. THe sidewalks you can stand on, but not the terrace (space between sidewalk and street). What about the curb ramp. May says the curb ramp is part of the sidewalk leading into the crosswalk. WE can’t cover all possibilities but we are trying our best to improve safety.
Tim Gruber asks about people jaywalking, is that included. May says yes, if you are in the middle of the block, you would be in violation if you cross the median.
Sara Eskrich asks about “temporary” signage. You mentioned the Homeless Issues Committee asked about signage, there will be weeks of education, could we put up signs for a set period of time. May says that is a suggestion he’d want to talk to the police and traffic engineering about, he wouldn’t want it in the ordinance. He hadn’t thought about that and he’d want to check with the police. David Dryer says we would like to avoid installing signs, permanent or temporary, we already have alot of signs and he would prefer not to have to do that – and especially if enforcement is contingent on it. It would be costly, I don’t htink people realize the number of locations we would need to do. Eskrich says that she would like to be clear that they are looking for education and wants the temporary signage but they – they council – don’t have many ways to make that happen. Koval says he will give a bona fide assurance that for a certain time period they won’t issue tickets. May says they can put that in a memo to the alders and htat would provide you with that assurance.
Rummel meant to answer DeMarb’s question and it was indicated that if we didn’t vote on it that night we’d miss the vote, but we did learn there was a second subsittute and they felt comfortable referring.
DEMarb asks about the dfinition of the hightway. May says its in teh drafters analysis. A highway is any road – as defined in state statutes, so that is every street in the city.
Carter asks Koval about the education period, is there a possiblity to provide the pamphlets to the agencies. Koval says yes, once the city attorney gives us clearance on the language
Mayor says we had an ordinance on the books for 20 years, with the exception of 2 individuals who were making too much money to abide by the ordinances. Occassionally someon new would show up and the officer would notify the individual. As you know, we didn’t have the probelm we have today. When the courts made the ruling, everyone found out. There is probably no more than 8 or 10 truly lucarative locations in the City of Madison. There are some he has a hard time people are beliving – espeically on highway 51 – but there are only a dozen or so main areas. And there is probably not more than 20 or 30 people who are regulars. THey know when it changed and they will know when this is adopted. He says there will be 2 weeks after its adopted, the officers can give thme the piece of paper and unless they decide to disregard that, we will be back where we were with one wrinkle, just one or two people who find it too lucrative and the safety involved and then people new to the city. He imagines that some of this activity will move outside the City of Madison. That will then leave it up to Middleton, Town of Madison, Fitchburg, Town of Burke and Blooming Grove. WE will be confident we reduced the risks involved with this. He can’t get over making the point that 1) most of those medians where citizens particpate in maintenance are in little circles on streets not impacted by these ordinances. The second point that is relevant is that we don’t have a history of serious accidents in this regard because we have been so good at enforcing the old rodinance and because of our efforts on public safety. He talks about a guy in New YOrk in a wheel chair and the woman in Californai who got a donation and stepped out to get another and the first donor hit the person. Why are we so concerned with this ordinance out of the 1,000s that we have. Where we don’t set these incredible standards for notificaiton, we will do what is necessary – we will go to the places people are and counsel people and very frankly, it is something that youc an take satisfaction in – that we made this a safer and healthier community.
Kemble had a question about the terraces. If my daughter calls, and she needs to pick something up, would I be in violation if I stand by the side of the road for her to pick this up. Kemble says this ordinance was cursed, there was a procedural error and she was prohibited from participating. THey called the quesiton and adjourned hte meeting and she was sick and she couldn’t reconsider. She was actually going to be in favor of this because of her work as a taxi driver, she agrees its a serious public safety hazard, she has seen close calls (vehicle on vehicle, not the pedestrians) Conceptually she is in favor of not allowing people to hang out on medians. But it didn’t happen. I objected, but that’s history and leaderhsip has been corrected on that point. But the terrace issue. ONe of the points the EOC brought up is the police having discretion about who they will cite. I’m guessing you won’t cite people in the situation you describe – white lady talking to her daughter won’t be ticketed, but someone else might be. She can’t vote for this with the terraces language. May says he would have to look at how terrace is defined. May says that in individual instances it won’t come to the police attention, its just going to be when people are standing there for a long period of time. Mayor is now whispering in Attorney May’s ear . . . no clue what they are saying . . .. May says that the mayor suggested it might not apply to parked cars. If its one off incident, police probably won’t know and its not a continuing danger. THat is the best I can tell you at this point in time. Kemble says that the terrace thing isn’t about safety, it is about panhandling. She cares about people not being in the median. If we said roadway instead of highway, would that exclude the terrace. No one seems to know. May is researching it.
McKinney asks if she can make an amendment. She says she is going to make an amendment because when the streets were icy and slippery and someone slipped. THe amdnments is that a first citation may not be issued unless htye have have been issed a warning and been provided education. THe second amdnemnts is to have a report done 3 months after adoption with the report going to HOmeless Issues Committee and Public Safety REview. Verveer says that an amendment needs to be done at the outset of she said, he says if there is no objection he will allow her to make her amendments again. Someone objects.
Clear defers to Wood.
Wood moves referral to FEb 7th Common Council meeting, there is a second. Simply put ther eis a whole hell of alot we need to work on, this is ugly sausage making and there is alot to be done before we vote on this.
Rummel urges the maker of the motion to work these things out with the city attorney, lets lower the number of the streets, this is overly broad and you should look at that.
Mayor doesn’t want to speak to it, but he’s mumbling something I can’t hear.
Bidar says that if there is a 4th substitute that is really narrow and clear, she will support it, but she needs answers to highway vs arterial and Alder Eskrich has loangage on reporting and education and if we can address the terrace issue, that would make me feel better about support. She hopes we can still hear from others – please make sure the 4th substitute is out early, not just the Friday before the 7th.
Matt Phair thanks Wood, he was leaning towards support and he is glad they will refine it, he thinks it would be a good idea to include stakeholders, that is probably one of the problems with this from the very beginning, and we could have refined this, and without such consternation had we been working together.
Mayor says this is not a homeless issue, it is manufactured as a homeless issue. Dramatic pause. Just because people have signs out there that say they are homeless, it does not mean they are homeless. Just because they have signs that say they are veterans it does not mean they are veterans. I will not work on any amendments to this ordinance that focus on a separate distinct purpose of targeting or not targeting folks who are homeless. If you’re going to say it is a homeless issue, you have to say more accurately that it is an issue involving substance abuse. He wants to address some of the issues coming up in terms of referral. In terms of the terrace issue by Alder Kemble, most areas are legal for parking or not. If they are not legal for parking they are probably not legal sor stopping or standing, he says they can work with that. SEcond, there is no probelm writing in that a first offense gets a wwarning citation, not a citation, hew ouldn’t want it to be more complicated than that. On the question of a report, he’s not sure they want that in an ordinance, btu we can do a compainion resolution with the necessary language on the data about how mamy contacts, what intersecitons, after that how many warnings and how many citations issued and what locations. He may not be here for the February 7th meeting, he doesn’t have his schedule.
The motion to refer passes.
And sadly, I have to go to work! I will finish the Narcotics and Drug Task Force portion (its brief) tomorrow, but I can’t be late for my own staff meeting!!!!! And last night I couldn’t blog myself speaking . . .
