at the podium and will begin the interview. Thank you for coming to interview with us for the Public Utilities Commission. Can you tell us do you have any personal or financial interest either direct or indirect with the Public Utilities Commission or are you engaged in any capacity whereby a conflict of interest may arise? Councilor Tomanic, thank you for having me, President Randolph or Council. At this time, I do not have any conflict of interest that would prevent me from. Okay. Would you give us a brief outline of your educational and work experience and tell us how your background experience will be a benefit to the Public Utilities Commission. Thank you, Councillor Tamanik. My background currently my day job, you know, I am an owner and operator of a chain of convenience stores in the Northland and surrounding areas. I believe that, you know, the tie-in that, you know, I kind of view it as, is underground infrastructure, right? So we deal with everyday regulations pertaining to underground tanks and piping and utilities. This would tie in with the water utility, whether it's the sewer, the gas, and the water. So very eager to look at and rejoin the PUC if accepted. And really dive into the ongoing issues that the PUC is facing and the projects and really bring that day-to-day work and knowledge that I utilize to the PUC. So. Thank you. I believe you touched on this. And I'll just give you an opportunity to expand of why you're interested in serving on this particular board. So as a lifelong Duluth resident, and I plan to stay here for the rest of my life, you know, I have a lot of interest in, you know, bringing that information and knowledge to the table and hopefully bettering it, you know, right, leave it better than you found it. Currently in Gary Newlooth, the federal grant money is being utilized for that lead water, you know, project. And so very exciting to say, hey, you know, we're at a turning point. You know we have a lot of exciting times ahead. You know what does it look like? What is the problem solving? What is going to be the collaboration with the PUC and Council and you know of course other government agencies to bring solutions to the table? I feel like you know the we can't tax our way out of this problem for replacing our aging infrastructure and we can't of course rate hike our way out of this problem. So I feel like there's going to be a lot of collaboration needed, and I'm excited to be that individual to bring maybe at least a perspective to the table to work with, again, council, local other agencies, and work towards some sort of solution to start replacing or saving for that catastrophic future failure. Hopefully we don't get to that point, but at least we can kind of have the conversation and start building a plan moving forward. Thank you. Do you foresee any personal or professional scheduling conflicts that might prevent you from attending regularly the meetings? Not at this time, no. Okay. And what do you consider your personal strengths that you would bring to the board, to the PUC? You know, again, kind of tying back to my day-to-day operations or my day job, you know, of course, budgeting, managing individuals, but I think, you know, mostly budgeting, you know, and really focusing on the future and, you know, planning for the day-to-day operations, but really, you know, looking to the future and focusing on, you know, what is the needs currently, but what are going to be the needs in the future. So currently with my day job, we plan and budget annually, but of course things change and things come up. And so I think that I would say it's a personal strength to say, hey, we're willing or in our day job, or my day job, I apologize, is willing to pivot in the event of an issue. And so I think that the problem solving aspect is a really big part I can bring to the table. Thank you. Are you present least serving on any other boards and commissions? Not at this time, no. Okay. And is there anything else you want to tell the council or people listening about your background, your experience, your interest in being on the Public Utilities Commission? You know, I guess I'll kind of go a little bit deeper on the previous serving on the PUC. When I was a council member, I think there was a lot on the plate at the time when we were going through COVID and a lot of things were changing, working virtually. I think a lot of that will change being here present with the other PUC members to be in person and share that ideas we have and really bring on zero in on the day-to-day concerns we have and things moving forward. So I think I look at that as a benefit that we're back in person and again we can focus or I can focus on exclusively the PUC and do the good work that I would hope to do. Thank you. I'll open it up for questions from Councillors. Councillor Render, President Render. Thank you so much Chair Tamanik. And thank you former Councillor Derrick Medvedd for your interest in serving on the PUC. We know boards and commissions take time, valuable time, people are busy. And so we want to thank you for your interest in serving. One of the biggest challenges we face with our commissions is making quorum and making the meetings. And so my question for you is we know PUC meets monthly, the calendar is published, you know, a year out. Do you see any problem with making any of these meetings since a quorum and a vote sometimes can happen on really important issues? Again at this time, President Randolph, I do not. You know I'm very excited to kind of get back into you know public service and you know take this on and really do good work and so I will make it and you know I am committing to make it a priority you know for these meetings. Sounds good thank you. Thank you so much. Next to you, Councillor Manning. Thank you Chair Tamanik and thank you Mr. Medved for applying. I've taken over as the council rep for public works and utilities essentially since you left the council so I've been deeply involved with the PUC and really appreciate your interest It's a very important commission as I'm sure you understand Right now we have just two questions the first around our water fund We are facing some challenges right now looking at kind of the status of where that fund is at and how we're gonna be funding it I know you talked a little bit specifically about we can't just tax our way out. We can't just implement more fees that maybe burden on the residents. Do you have any thoughts or are kind of going back to your time on the PUC if you remember were there any times like this where you had to deal with an issue that was kind of how do we do this, you know, burdening our residents too much? Well, I think, you know, there's a lot of, you know, I could answer that in many different ways. And so I think, you know, definitely looking at it and I think, you know, if I were to be, you know, pointed back to the PC. I kind of updated on what the current projects are. But as far as the budgeting aspect, I think it's a more in-depth conversation that I would love to have to understand, right? What does it look like as a whole if we were to add an increase to the residents of Duluth? What would it look like if we were to ask for any grant funds available? I think there's many different avenues we could take, but at this time I don't have one specific solution. So I think I would definitely love to work towards one or many solutions or different scenarios, but at this time I don't have one specific that I had on my months. It's more just to give you a heads up too. There's a lot of big discussions, and obviously we'll continue to have discussions moving forward on the water fund. Another big one, the second question if I may, was regarding lead lines are really getting replaced across the city now and Gary New Duluth out where you are was one of those neighborhoods that kind of got one of those first waves of replacements and just curious if you've hadn't heard any feedback or maybe you've experienced a lead line replacement yourself and how that went and if it was a positive experience that you could bring to the PUC. Well, thank you. And yep, I do often walk the neighborhood in Gary and there's a lot of 100 first currently is ongoing and our new office building is set for next Wednesday, you know, to take that replacement. So, very excited. A lot of the residents are very, you know, happy, you know, it's happening. You know, it takes a lot of burden off them, you know, and their pocketbook. So I think that's phenomenal, that it's a no cost, you know, to the residents. But, you know, the vendor is doing a phenomenal job, you know, very minimal damage to the current infrastructure, the impervious service, and the boulevard. So very happy with the technique they're using for the boring. But I guess the big picture is this one-time fund is amazing from the federal government, but how do we tap into more? So kind of back to your other question, is the federal government going to need to play a significant role in ongoing replacement of our infrastructure? I would say yes, and I would hope that would be something, but I believe we're in a really good position compared to other municipalities around the country. So I think just planning current, you know, where we're at, but looking to the future, saying, you know, what will the federal government, what will the state government, you know, I want us to bond our way out of this, but I would like to see, you know, other government agencies play a role in replacing. And then we can kind of set up ourselves in a good footing for replacement moving forward and replenishing that fund. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to Councillor Forzman. Thank you, Chair, geez. Thank you, Chair Tamanik. You threw me off with Councillor Presidentoresman. Thank you, Chair, geez, thank you, Chair Tamanik, you threw me off with Councillor President Randolph. I'm just throwing off because it's great to see you back in these chambers, Mr. Medved, we even redecorated for you, I see. So you know from your previous time on the council and from your service on this commission that there's a struggle to maintain our existing infrastructure without burdening our ratepayers and our customers, which are our citizens. So I personally subscribe to the idea that there's a link between infrastructure and economic development and bringing new industry here to help pay for some of those fixed costs. I just curious if you also share that philosophy and if you have any thoughts on the link maybe between those two things, economic development and our utilities. Councilor Forrestment, of course I would say yes, right, you know, I think we really need to get ourselves in a good position to promote Duluth, right? You know, of course Amazon is a phenomenal opportunity in the western part of Duluth and we've welcomed them with open arms in a Gary neighborhood. and we've welcomed them with open arms in the Gary neighborhood. But if we want to retain or bring, you know, larger industry to town, I agree, economic development is a part of, you know, we want to be attractive, you know, to big developments. Say, hey, we got great infrastructure already in place. We have a plan, but it doesn't mean it's a downfall for us, right? You know, we are actively looking and trying and approaching the problem. So unlike Minnesota Power, we have underground infrastructure out of sight out of mind. And so if we want to approach the comment or the conversation with Duluth residents about a rate increase or attacks increase to invest in our infrastructure, we're not thinking about it. I think it's a beautiful thing. I'm sure we have infrastructure, maybe the administration knows, what is our oldest, 1880? It could be a significant thing that, what a beautiful, they did it right when they put the infrastructure in. So if we can really focus on not a quick fix, if we can really focus on talking with the list residents and future industry to say, hey, we are working on it, we can really focus on, you know, talking with the list of the list residents and, you know, future industry to say, hey, you know, we are working on it. We want to really do it right. We don't have a plan, but we're working on it. And so I think it's great, right? When they put that, you know, the utilities in back in 1880 or whenever it was, they did it that is something I really want to commit to doing it right and really focusing on, you know, that one time fix for the next 110 years. So again, yes, it does tie in and I believe it's a great attractive thing to put out to current industry and future industry to say we're working on a long term solution for you to invest in our community. Awesome. Thank you. Good to see you here again. Thank you. We have about one or two minutes left. Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Medved for interviewing. Thank you so on. The first thing we'll do, a clerk, denim, is we've gotten a request to pull item 18 from consent. If we can pull item 18 from our consent agenda. Thank you for that. And we'll begin with item 4 under personnel. And that's Vice President Tamanik. Thank you, President Randolph. Resolution 495 confirming the appointment of Grand Prentice to the C-Wave Port Authority. Thank you, Vice President Tamanik. Any questions on item 4? Seeing none, we'll move on. We're on next is purchasing and licensing. Councillor Derroctor is not here. So I'll go ahead and ask Councillor Forrestment. Are you willing to read those in? Wonderful. Thank you for that. Absolutely. Thank you, President Randolph. Resolution 536, approving issuance of temporary on sale liquor licenses to various licensees. Resolution 537, approving the issuance of temporary on-sale liquor licenses to various licensees. Resolution 537, approving the issuance of a lawful gambling premises permit to the Irving Community Association. In Resolution 538, approving the temporary expansion of the designated serving areas associated with the on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses of various licensees. Thank you so much, Councillor Forzman. Any questions on items 5, 6, and 7? Seeing none, we'll move on. We're back to personnel. Vice President Tamanik. Thank you. Item number eight, resolution 509. Item number eight, Resolution 509. And moving on to item number nine, Resolution 530, confirming the appointment of Brookwright to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Thank you, Vice President Taman Amanek any questions on that item Seeing none we'll move on next is planning and economic development council nephew Number nine resolution five one nine resolution authorizing the city to enter into an agreement with the state of Minnesota Department of employment and economic economic development veteran services providing a staffing services at the Duluth Career Force Center for the period of March 1st 2024 through June 30th 2026. Item number 10 resolution 533 resolution reversing the planning commission's decision to deny a variance from a side yard setback for garage at 1231 West Forest Street. Item number 11, resolution 534, resolution affirming the planning commission's decision to deny a variance from a side yard setback for garage at 1231 West Forest Street. Thank you, Councillor Neff you. Any questions on those items? Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, President Randolph. I would like to take a moment for our point of clarification on item 8 resolution 509. Could you just let us know what the process will be on that because it has been out in the community and out in the public. So we want to maybe give an understanding of why it was not read in. Thank you so much, Councillor Kennedy. We've pulled Resolution 509, which is confirming the appointment of Derek Medved to the Duluth Public Utilities Commission. It's been decided by our personnel chair that we will have a two council buffer between interview time and when we actually take an action that gives counselors a chance to review resumes it gives the public a chance to weigh in so there has been a natural buffer so that item was pulled actually before the agenda so it should not even have appeared tonight so we didn't actually pull that off this evening it's just not on there. Thank you that clears up some transparency issues if they were any thank you you, President. Thank you so much, Councillor Kennedy. Okay, we're back. Any questions on planning and economic development items? Councillor Mayo. I just had a quick point of clarification. I don't know if we did this, but pulling 10 and 11 for Monday since they're affirming and reversing, since we'll need to prove I assume one of them and deny the other. I'm getting ahead not from attorney for it. Yes. Sounds great. We will go ahead and do that. Next up is council for us. Thank you, President. That was my question too. And if the councilors refresh your agenda because that will change the numbers on your list because of that one resolution being pulled. Excellent. Okay, now we are down to Committee of the Whole, Item 12, Resolution 529 is a resolution appointing election judges for the August 13th, 2024 primary election and for the August 13th, 2024 primary election and for the November 5th, 2024 general election. Pause there for any questions on item 12. Councillor Mayo. President Randolph, I'm wondering clerk Denham if you could just speak a little bit. We had a constituent reach out and we're very thorough with your response about what this kind of sets forward. It's not set in stone kind of from what I'm hearing. Could you just kind of confirm what this resolution does? Sure. Councilor Mayo, President Randolph, this resolution is required to get into an approved by Council on a certain amount of time before the end of July for Minnesota statutes. So we finalized the agenda to the best of our ability, but then in the resolution there's also a spot that clarifies that the clerk can continue to appoint judges to fill necessary roles after this has passed council. Thank you for the clarification. That was just because I think we were looking at precinct 10 was the concern of a low number of judges there for the UMD campus on a general election but I'm sure we'll have more prior to November so that's great. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Mayo. I have Mr. Montgomery in the queue. Thank you President Randolph and Councillor Maye, this is to your comment as well. Clerks are looking for additional judges across many of our precincts. So to the extent you have contacts out in your districts and in the community and can encourage folks that might be interested. We are certainly looking for additional judges to fill spots and kind of create a little more robust grouping there. So I just wanted to pass that on for you to pass on to folks that you might be in touch without in the community. Thank you so much, Mr. Montgomery. Next in the queue. I have Councillor Forzmann. Oh, you're good. Okay. Sounds good. We'll move on. Any further questions on item 12? Seeing none, we'll move on to public works and utilities, Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Randolph. Item 13, Resolution 497 is authorizing execution of United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 569, Project Partnership Agreement, and the amount of 288,000 for the Irving Park Biofilter Basin Project. Item 14, Resolution 526 is offering the temporary, ordering the temporary closure of West 5th Street and West 6th Street at West Skyline Parkway. Item 15, Resolution 528 is to designate and establish a one-way street from West 4 West Skyline Parkway between the Westerly Intersection with Hank Johnson Drive and the the T intersection at Twin Ponds. Resolution 16, item 16, Resolution 531 is accepting a permanent easement for street and utility purposes from the Duluth Clinic limited over under and across real property in the East Hillside neighborhood for nominal consideration and then do you want me to read 17 since I got pulled? Yes, please. Okay. Item 17, Resolution 532 is awarding a contract to Lake Head Constructors, incorporated for the Woodland Booster Station Improvement Project in the amount of $6,380,940. Thank you so much, Councillor Mayo. Any questions on it? I'm 13 through 17. Councillor Swenson. Thank you, President Randall. Councillor Swanson. With the West Skyline project, so is that 15, 14 and 15, is there an expected timeline for that I didn't see that in the resolution? President Randolph, Councillor Swanson, the first thing we need is council authorization for us to temporarily close as well as then to reroute the one way. As soon as council passes these two things will happen. We'll start working on the temporary striping and modification and signage that it takes to do the one way. And in terms of closure, we're looking at a couple of different options where we may be settling in towards guard rail approach. We utilize a guard rail company that works statewide and when they are up in this area we will be able to attack this on and we think that will still happen in the coming few months. In the meantime, we'll probably utilize some form of Jersey barrier plus protective edge guard rails to handle that closure in the meantime. But ultimately, we're looking at guard railing it across both of them. Why it's enough so you can't go around. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Swenson. both of them. Why it's enough so you can't go around them. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Swenson. Any further questions on items 13 through 17. And we did pull item 17. Councillor Swenson is recusing yourself from that item. So we'll go ahead and forward our process will be to pull those so that we pull them off consent. Seeing no other questions, we'll move on. Public safety. Councillor Swenson. Thank you, President Randolph. Number 18, 24-0-520 resolution approving agreement with the Duluth Transit Authority for the service and funding of one community-based canine officer for five years. Number 19 resolution 0523 resolution authorizing the Duluth Fire Department to accept a donation for fitness equipment from the Duluth Fire Foundation valued at 33,000. Number 20 resolution 525 resolution authorizing an amendment to the parking management agreement between the city of Duluth, the Duluth Economic Development Authority, and the Interstate Parking Company of Minnesota, LLC, to add two new parking facilities to Interstate Duluth facility inventory. Number 21, resolution 550 resolution authorizing the execution of a first amendment to the agreement for services between St. Louis County and the City of Duluth for fiscal year 2021 operation, stone garden providing for an additional allocation of funds to the city in the amount of $6,634 for law enforcement services under the grant from the US Department of Public Safety. Thank you so much, Councillor Swenson. Any questions on item 18 through 21? I have Vice President Tamanik in the queue. Thank you, President Render. If I have a question on item number 19, resolution 523, just wondering where that fitness equipment will be used. Thank you, President Randolph, Vice President Tamanik. It's a donation, so it's actually a community grant that we've got through Sinovus that then comes in as a donation through the Fire Foundation. It'll actually be dispersed through all eight of our fire stations. We upgrade our equipment every, you know, so often whenever it needs to happen. And then there's times where like the last time we focused on treadmills this time, there's gonna be exercise bikes. There's gonna be dumbbells and other, just other general equipment. And what this will do is it'll actually make all of our stations kind of equal. So they'll have the same fitness equipment at most of the stations. We do have some limitations depending on the size of the specific station. But in general, this will give us equal facilities at all of our stations and it'll be dispersed throughout all eight stations. That's great news. Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Tumanik. Any final questions on 18-21? Seeing none, we'll move on to recreation, libraries, and authorities. Councillor Ella. Thank you, President Randolph. Resolution item 22, resolution 524. Resolution authorizing the first amendment to agreement 24-, five with the Minnesota Historical Society to extend the term to April 30th, 2025 for the implementation of the Wabak-Kennish Wabak-Keg just cannot, cannot, I'm so sorry if I butcher it, I butcher, definitely butcher that. The Martin Trail Interpretive Plan. Thank you, Councillor Owl. Any questions? Seeing none, Thank you, Councillor Elle. Any questions? Seeing none, we move on. We're on intergovernmental with Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, President Randolph. I'm on item number 23. It is an actually an ordinance. An ordinance authorizing an access easement to the Duluth Seaway port authority over under and across real property and the O'Neill That neighborhood for nominal consideration Thank you counselor Kennedy any questions on item 23 Seeing none will move on to public safety counselor Swenson Thank you president Randor number 24 ordinance Thank you, President Randor. Number 24, ordinance 27, an ordinance of many in Article 1, Section 30-1 of Chapter 30 of the Duluth City Code to redefine abandoned property. 25 ordinance, or number 25, ordinance 28 and ordinance of many in Section 34-5 and 34-14 of Chapter 34 of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the second meeting of the41C of the chapter 34 of the Duluth City Code to amend the definition of graffiti stick and establish to basement and or possession of graffiti implements as a misdemeanor offense. Number 27, ordinance 30, and ordinance amending chapter 34 of the Duluth City Code to add section 34, dash 46, perhibiting campaign on city property. 28, ordinance 31, and ordinance amending chapter 35 of the Duluth City Code to make violations applicable on publicly owned property and make certain violations to misdemeanors. 29, number 29, 32 ordinance and ordinance amending Article 1 section, 44A-2 and 44A-3 of chapter 44A of the Duluth City Code making to facing the Skywalker misdemeanor offense in prohibiting smoking or vaping in the Skywalker system. Number 30, ordinance 33 and ordinance amending article one, section 45-a, and 45-6.3 of chapter 45 of the Duluth City Code to provide for Mr. Meanor offenses for blocking passage on streets and skywalks, as well as operating an ATV unlawfully on public land. 31, ordinance 34, and ordinance amendment in Article 1, section 49-8.2 of chapter 49 of the Duluth City Code to provide for Mr. Meanor penalty for unlawfully possessing a fire of an air gun or a gel soft gun. 32, ordinance 35, and ordinance amending Article 1, section 21-5, and section 21-8 of chapter 21 of the Blue City Code to update the city's open burning and 10 and members structures ordinance. 33, 36 ordinance, an ordinance amending section 34-38 of chapter 34 of the city code to private marketing or placing signs on Prylee fountain. Thank you so much Councillor Swenson. Okay. So we will open it up for questions on items 24 through 33, first in the queue, of Councillor Al. As an air rander, my question is I have questions regarding quite a few of these ordinances. Should we take them for clarity sake? One at a time. Perhaps all 10. I just don't want our questioning line of questioning to kind of get jumbled up because I have different questions but also similar questions for each one. Thank you for that. You know, I've been back and forth on the benefits of each one. Sometimes a question will then spring another question on another item. I don't want to move forward. So maybe we'll just right right now, we will limit it to one question for councillors so we can get through, address your priority or ordinance that you want to ask, but we'll kind of move through them unless does anyone else have a preference? Do we want to go one at a time or I think sometimes we want to pop around. So let's go ahead and just go ahead and ask one question and then we'll go to the next councillor and do the same throughout this. So I have questions regarding all of them. That's fine. That's fine. Take the first one. And then there you go. So with ordinance item 24, ordinance 27, redefining abandoned property. I just want to make it clear there's a lot of questions and community concern regarding these 10 ordinances. So I really want to give the option for's a lot of questions and community concern regarding these 10 ordinances So I really want to give the option for the public to understand where these ordinances are coming from and have a little bit of transparency Which is why I want to ask clarifying questions for each one With redefining public property. I guess my initial concerns come in from In the ordinance at states in line with the Minnesota definition. What has changed to request this ordinance change? My concerns come from if someone leaves. We'll keep it. Let's keep it just to questions. We won't get into concerns. So just ask the question. And then on Monday, you can talk about your concerns. So how is the definition changed from the, how is it changed changed and how is it in line with the Minnesota definition? President Randolph-Counselor, thank you for the question. I don't know that the definition per se has changed. This is something that we've worked on for years. When we've been going in with our team that's worked with unhoused individuals, it starts in life safety, and then we also have people from both parks and racks, property, we have a police officer there. So what we're looking for here is a tool that will actually help us sometimes speed up the cleanup process. We're not going to change the process. Right now we go in, if we have a complaint of a piece of property, and this doesn't just fall under encampments. There's oftentimes someone will dump a mattress at the end of a road and throughout the city, it could be in a park, it could just be anywhere throughout the city. It could be in a park, it could just be anywhere throughout the city. If the piece, whatever that is, if it has value, seem to have value, we need to then hold it. Usually then the police will have to take it in and hold it before we can remove it, dispose of it, whatever. So this will actually broaden our ability to essentially say something doesn't have actual value. So if someone takes a piece of equipment, takes it apart, takes a copper out of it, whatever it does, they're recycling, and then throws the rest of the shell of the item out. We won't have to actually say that that has value. We can actually clean it up immediately. We can move forward on things that are blight a little bit faster. It'll just help us kind of streamline our process a little bit. I don't know that there's an actual definition change. One of the things with a lot of these different ordinances changing to a misdemeanor might actually give us a lever to go after some kind of reimbursement or restitution. If we know who abandoned the property, who dumped the property illegally, we see that sometimes long skyline, I'm sorry, Parkway and some other areas. It also allows us to work with some other agencies then to that might if it's on their property If it's on railroad property per se or min dot property or something like that so It allows us to have a few other just options on how we define Abandoned property and then how we can actually get rid of it. So that's the part of that abatement piece Thank you, councilor L. Next to the queue, Councillor Swanson. My question is, I see that many of the ordinances are moving the violation to a misdemeanor. Can you just help us understand why that is being done? President Randolph, Councillor Swanson, I think that's going to be a little bit specific to each individual ordinance. So for example, the fire ban, now this is to your point of popcorn around a little bit. But that open burning ban, that actually puts it in line with Minnesota State Statute, I believe it's chapter 88 in Minnesota Statute. That's a misdemeanor in their statute. This will change it from us from a city, just a violation, to a misdemeanor which follows along the same enforcement policies that the state would have, usually the DNR in this case. So, it also then adds to that reimbursement or restitution piece, similar to the ATV ordinance. So each one's a little specific in this case, in my example of the open burning. I had my staff look, we've never actually issued a citation for that in the last 10 years, but this is actual cleanup. I think it's good governance for our city ordinances and for the things that we would enforce in either the Life Safety Division and through our Fire Marshal's Office to be in line with other state pieces. And I can, if there's more questions on that open burning specific, I'll get to that later as we move down the list. I'll let you. Chiefs and O'anthra also. President Randolph, Councillor Swenson. Part of this is these are currently City violations. These are ordinance violations. They are it is a criminal charge with the only mechanism being up to a thousand dollar fine What we are asking to do is to change these existing ordinances to statically, Minnesota statically defined misdemeanors so that we cannot have to find people and make it a financial burden for them but use alternatives such as diversion projects, community service options, and maybe even some of those diversions are as simple as getting a behavioral health assessment in order to rectify these charges. Currently under our city ordinance, with our charter definition of ordinance, all we have is a payable fine, with a limited opportunity for any type of restitution for damage to trails or other things because it doesn't have the force of a court order behind it. Thank you, Councillor Swanson. Next is the Q's, Councillor Forzman. Thank you. President Randford. He was Councillor Forzman. Thank you. President Randford. Thank you. It's me, John. Can you check his mic? Let me check it on and off again. Do you want to use, yeah, okay, I'll put that one on. Yeah, testing testing anybody here. Let me let me let me clear the queue listen here. My question is more on the benchmarking. So I think it's helpful context. It's been referenced on other cities. And what they do and how they approach some of these topics that we learned and you could share a little more information about some of the details on that. Thank you so much, Councillor Forza. When the question is on benchmarking, but they do and have the efforts of these topics that we're going to be sharing a little more information about some of the details on that. Thank you so much, Councillor Forzman. The question is, unbenchmarking. Chief Snow, if you can tell us what's happening in other communities as this same change has been implemented. Yeah, President Randolph, Councillor Forzman. Duluth is one of the only cities in the state that does not have some level of state statute, Mr. Meener, not the only. But when we look at the cities of the first class, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Rochester, they all have misdemeanor ordinances defined by state statute. Most home rule charter cities are also have misdemeanor ordinances. We don't. I think there is one in its around a tax provision. Everything else is an ordinance violation, which only creates a financial burden to people. And that financial burden is up to $1,000. We have some that are defined by petty misdemeanor, which only puts it at a $300 fine. And there are some of our ordinances. I believe maybe even the use of cannabis, I have to go look to refresh my memory, but I believe that one has like a set fee of what that that first charge will be So our charter has allowed us to do that our charter also allows us to move things into Misdemeanors which would much put us in much better alignment with other communities across our state Thank you so much next to the Q was Councillor Mayo Thank you President Randolph Next to the Q is Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Randolph. I have questions about practically everything here, but since I know we have a lot of folks that are focused on the camping resolution in particular, I figure why not jump into that one right now since we've started talking about it already. My question is we received a letter from providers just within the last half a hour ago. Senator City, Minnesota Coalition for Homelessness, Chum, Union Gospel, One Ruff, Safehave, and Damiano, and the Center for Drug and Alcohol Treatment, along with the ARC, saying that they hadn't really been consulted. I'm curious who was consulted in this process as you move forward and how is that feedback accounted for? Sure. President Randolph, Councillor Mayo, while we didn't necessarily consult on the development of these ordinances, we did have a meeting on Monday with one of the providers in the community to discuss this process and what we were looking at. We met with them because they are one of our lead partners as we go out to our encampments. They are part of Chief Courgetes, team with life safety, PFM, and police department who does not take a forward- facing role in that activity. But over the course of the last several years, we have talked about a need for changes like this, openly in the community. A numerous public events, some of which have been hosted as public safety talks in our town on a way to try to address some of these issues. And so one of the things that we're looking at and what we keep telling everyone is that this is education, encouragement, diversion, enforcement. This is compassion with accountability because what we are seeing are very large encampments where public health and public safety are about most concern. Where there are needles, where our staffs are responding to people who have died in the encampments, where people have been assaulted physically and sexually, where our other constituents, our other neighbors, are calling us to say their children can't play outside because of the smell of burning plastics or burning railroad ties that they don't feel it's safe. We've seen damage, environmental damage to our designated trail streams. So this is an opportunity for us to try to address these by having other alternatives, other plate ways to defer these people through, like we keep saying, behavioral health assessments, maybe meeting with the housing counselor, trying to work within the community with our outreach staff that we have both in our behavioral health unit along with our life safety division and community partners. We do not see this this is not something we are ever going to jail our way out of. This is about trying to work with people to get them in better places and spaces. Thank you Councillor Mayo. Next to the queue is Councillor Owl. Can to the queue is Councillor Owl. Could I add to that, please? President Randolph Councillor Maye, I think part of the question that you're asking, you know, have we've got a lot of input from some of the outside agencies and people that we work with. We did meet on Monday, I think this is also part of the process. It wasn't public, it hadn't gone to the council yet. You hadn't seen the ordinance changes that we're requesting, and I think that's part of the point of first read, second read, 30 days is that gives people now time to see it for you to see it for us to then take that input and change it as we need to moving forward. But as we've been working on this for a few years and working with our teams, when we go out into the community, whether those are unhoused encampments or other things that we're working with the crisis response team or the core or the SIRC team, these are things that they've been asking us for as some other tools. What can we do besides just move people around? What can we do besides just tell people they can't be here and with that camping kind of specific ordinance in mind and some of the other ones with the baitment of property, whatever. This gives us some more tools, as Chief Sinoa said, as we move forward. But I think this is now the time to really start to get that input. We would have been putting some of the cart before the horse, I think if we would have tried to get that before this was actually made public and brought to you for your consideration. Thank you, Chief. Next to the queue, a councilor Owl. Thank you, President Render. What can we do? What else we can do is chart that particular line. Please explain to me why or how charging them with a misdemeanor, which is a criminal charge that will go on their criminal record with a 90-day jail time and a $1,000 fee is another option that you're viewing to get these individuals who, to get our neighbors the services they need. Why are you saying that this is the solution? How would they get the services by being charged and have a criminal record. I'm asking you specifically, or you either vote. President Randolph, Councillor, all, what we have seen be successful is having pieces of accountability for people who are going through some of these most trying times. Also, in my experience as a police officer for almost 27 years of the city and prior time in other places, I have not seen somebody who received $1,000 fine or 90 days of jail for misdemeanor ordinance violations. What we are saying is we are having an opportunity so that this does not go on to somebody's public record. By giving them opportunities towards diversion, by utilizing community service, by looking at ways to give incentives to try to go through a service provider to better their experience. What I could tell you is where we are doing that currently with this same population is leading to felonies. Because that's kind of the entry point where we get into our drug courts, our vet courts, our DWI courts. What we are trying to do is engage people at the lowest level of offense, give them opportunities before they even see a judge pretrial diversion. Work it out with the prosecutor's office, as well as with the city attorney's office, as well as their diversion provider, diversion solutions, where they can work through this process without having to go to court. In instances where it gets to the next point where we have run out of ability to do diversion or education or encouragement. And we have to go to the criminal justice system. We can utilize our mental or our Mr. Meener plus court to try to address same and similar issues by getting people the help they need, fast tracking them to services. We are talking about a relatively small group of people who are causing activities that are making every others in our community feel unsafe, feeling threatened, feeling scared. A most of our population who is on the margins is not engaging in these activities, not to a point where we are becoming involved. Thank you, Chief Sonoa. Next in the queue is Councillor Neffu. Thank you, President Randolph. So I do have a question, particularly if these are, if we do actually support and move these ordinance changes through, whether or something during the initial implementation, that if it does get to a place where you are going to chart or write someone a misdemeanor ticket or take them into custody for some reason, that there would be some sort of guardrails where it would maybe take a higher up approval or how would be the management of that initially. President Randolph, Councillor and FU, as a matter of practice for our agency, when we are going to take someone into physical custody, we need supervisory approval. That would be the same for these ordinance changes as we go as we go forward. Thank you so much. Next to the queue vice president Semonik. Can you tell me if the prosecutors office and the city attorney's office have received training if they're prepared to handle this change in and maybe this is a question for our city attorney. If they have been prepared to handle this change in how we are handling people? I'm going to go ahead and ask for your questions. The best president's mind was when I was working on your advice staff and I talked about these references. I also signed a team's case and started in a position that would be not a version for rounds, expanding expulsion and opportunity and continuing to move forward on alternatives versus resources which also include the employment of one of the age-per-days full-time to work at the top of the senior plus and four. Attorney Freilich, we're having a difficulty time hearing you. Can you take it the podium please? Thank you. Is this better? Yes. So what I can tell the council is that since I started with this agency, we have consistently worked on coming up with creative alternatives for what I would call the entry point to the criminal justice system, which is through our office generally, right? Because misdemeanor prosecution falls large or for the city of Duluth falls within that purview. So diversion options have always been some up program that we've been working on. It's been expanding. We are currently in the final stages of that and we'll be ready to go live with an expanded diversion program. Should these ordinances be passed? Additionally, we have talked about our encourage to work on expungement opportunities and expanding the role of agreeing to expungements for individuals with what I would consider to be misdemeanor life situation cases in order to not over criminalize populations in our community. Also, we have a prosecutor assigned to our misdemeanor mental health plus court. I, in fact, just had conversations with Judge Lucas Avitz today. We continue those communications with HURT and participation in that court with Judge Lucas Avitz today. We continue those communications with HRF and participation in that court to assist and further encourage individuals who are most vulnerable and most in need of services to connect with those services and achieve effectively stays of convictions so that it doesn't impact long-term records. As a follow-up to that attorney-free like, is what you're telling us that the $1000 fine in the 90 days when you say expunge means it can be wiped away upon some agreement where they go through some other service or connect with some kind of specialty court? Is that what you're telling us? Right, if there's a level of conviction, certainly an expungement is an opportunity, and that's not just limited to these ordinances, that's something that my office is working on in general, as an opportunity for first time offenders to maintain a clean record if they comply with probation terms or unsupervised probation options, things like that, right? Our job and our mission is to encourage rehabilitation and participation as contributing community members. I think the chief used the phrase compassionate accountability that is 100% the mission of our office. So I feel like that expungement option is certainly there and certainly would be used. And we did, again, just have our meeting today. We meet weekly as a criminal division. I have a group of four prosecutors with a fifth starting on Monday who are all committed to ensuring that we do our part to try to reduce recidivism and address individuals as human beings and ensure that we're providing access to resources. Do you think any of our judges would be open to coming, maybe on Monday and talking to us, educating us on how that process looks? So I certainly can't speak for the judges or the bench themselves. I would encourage the chiefs whose ordinance package this is reminding everyone that my role here even though as top prosecutor is not for policies that ain't that it would be up to the chiefs to make those invitations. Excellent, thank you so much. I have a follow-up question from Vice President Tumonic. Yes. Can you tell me if this level results in the automatic assignment of a public defender if a person needs representation? So Vice President Tumonic, President Randolph, as a former prosecutor, I guess I am probably more qualified to answer that question. Individuals who are in the courts with misdemeanor level charges do qualify for appointment of public defender upon financial demonstration of financial need. They have to fill out the application and it's appointed through a court. And is there a public defender's office staffed to handle this? Vice President, Tomanec, President Randolph, I've had that question a few times as to even whether my staff feels that we'll be able to handle that what is a perceived influx of volume, I. What is a perceived influx of volume? I don't foresee a mass influx of volume from these ordinance changes. Our office will also be involved in training, law enforcement and life safety if they want it on the ordinance packages. And it's not a change in really what we've been doing. This is, as I understand it, having met with the chiefs, And it's not a change in really what we've been doing. This is, as I understand it, having met with the chiefs, the intention here is rather than get to a point with individuals who we are at a no other option with and walking away from them. It's providing an additional tool. I don't know that there's going to be an influx of volume. I also will tell you that our office is engaged with and will be communicating ongoing with Public Defender's Office, hopefully, to help develop more restorative programs as part of this. We're looking at expanding community service programs, community reinvestment programs, and engaging in other alternatives to keep people out of punitive situations. As a follow up to that, Attorney Freyleg, is there a method in which we can help someone get to their court hearing? If they otherwise wouldn't be able to do that is there is a method or some process in place for that? Well, President Randolph, I can tell you that there are still a significant number of these matters that are being held by Zoom in order to ensure accessibility, right? So Zoom court is still a real thing. As far as the other specialty courts, I'm not sure if there are transportation services being provided. I'm not I Haven't been in that world for some time. Perhaps the chief has some additional information. Thank you so much President Randolph Yes, there are opportunities to make that happen. Our professionals who are in our cert team, as well as our core team have provided rides for people to get documents and driver's licenses and other things. I am sure they would also ensure to help them get to a court date. How this has worked in the past when we had community intervention group, days of old, but it's all hands on deck approach. All of us trying to work together to ensure people are making their court appearances successfully. Thank you so much. Next to the queue is Councillor Neff you. Councillor Neff you effect could real quick before President Randolph, I wanted to follow up on both Councilor Al and Vice President Tamanik's questions on the finding, the $1,000 fine and the attorneys, public defenders. What we sometimes see in life safety because right now, the only thing that we have are these administrative citations and they escalate. the only thing that we have are these administrative citations and they escalate. Oftentimes if we're dealing with a blight situation or some other property issue, where a person also has a subsequent mental health issue going along with that. So maybe it's a hoarding type situation or something like that. Currently we don't really have a way other than the escalating fines to just we keep going, we send them letters, we try to make contact with our staff, people may or may not be open to that contact. Then what we see happening is when it gets to about the five year mark where that has escalated up to five, six, seven thousand dollars, it goes on a person's taxes at the end of the season every year and then they get into a place where they're Possibly going to lose their home that usually kicks in legal aid and then we'll get a call from an attorney And then we can actually start working with this person and of course we can wave fees That misdemeanor sealing of a thousand dollars doesn't mean they're going to get a thousand dollar fine. It actually of $1,000 doesn't mean they're going to get $1,000 fine. It actually is a little bit more flexible than our current fee schedule that's this dollar amount on year one, this dollar amount on year two, this dollar amount on year three, until it gets to a point where the person really just can't figure it out. Then they get help from someone. It usually goes to legal aid and then now we're starting kind of really four or five steps behind where we could be with something like this where it could go to diversion. Judge could then waive the the misdemeanor fee if they follow whatever that program is so I so that hopefully that answer. Thank you Chief Pregin. Next to the queue I didn't make a mistake it's councilor we're back at councilor Al. Thank you President Rand Pregnant next to the queue. I didn't make a mistake. It's councilor We're back at council. I'll thank you president Randolph chief just as you were talking about diversion I Feel like there needs to be some establishment on what these terms even mean for the public Can you explain what the diversion program is and how it works? I'm gonna pass that over to chief senoe because most of these are more on the law enforcement side President Randolph, Councilor All, diversion programs are usually a set of steps that people need to take in order to have this not show up on their criminal record. These could be as simple as, like I have said a few times here, if you go to this behavioral health assessment appointment, As simple as, like I've said a few times here, if you go to this behavioral health assessment appointment, we will remove this citation. That can be more complex as, hey, you have put graffiti on multiple buildings, we need you to go and be part of this cleanup day or cleaning up these specific places and ensuring that that occurs. Those are how diversions work. There are other diversions, you know, an example where this happens a lot is first time offenses with like disorderly conduct, underage consumption, speeding. If you agree to pay this fine, right, so some people have the financial needs to be able to pay the fine, this will go off of your record as long as there is no same or similar incident within 12 months. So the version could be a wide variety of activities and opportunities to avoid having that charge on your record. And to follow up with that, could a Mr. Beener, if someone does not show up for court, because there needs to be consent to even go through the diversion program from the individual who was cited or had the Mr. Beener, if they choose not to go through that, that would go into their record. Yes, eventually it would, they would have to make a court appearance in order to go through that process, that trial process of pleading to guilt or innocence. Has there been data that shows that these courts, I would just love to see some data on how these have worked with other cases so far. It sounds like a great program, the diversion program, and I heard from, and I had questions about the Mr. Meener plus courts regarding, I had asked questions through the previous city attorney Rebecca St. George when she was in the role on how she was starting up the program. So it's good to hear that it sounds like the program is up in a way. I would love a report from the attorney as to where, like, how that program is currently standing and if it can take on this influx. But I'm curious if individuals need a show up to court. And if there's already individuals who are experiencing so much trauma, so much lack of resources where they can't get to court, then how does that reflect on their record? Or if they're not showing up, are these misdemeanors piling up, just like how the other city citations were piling up? President Randolph comes her all, if they have future criminal activity before resolving the one prior, then yes, they could. They could start to pile up for a lack of a better term using your words. But often times when that happens, those are then packaged and handled by the judge. And it doesn't go to this level of $1,000, 90 days in jail. Often times there are still opportunities to deal with some sort of diversion process, some sort of specially court process because there's a lot of leeway within those spectrums and what we're dealing with are individuals. Individuals with different needs, different traumas, different experiences that we need to get to and try to move towards towards some sort of measure that may lift them up from where they are. But what we are doing currently of leaving people in trauma-based situations and allowing that trauma to continue can also not happen. That is not healthy for the individual, nor for the people who live in our community. So thank you chief So now we'll have to move on to the next question. They'll come back to you. Councillor Elll next is Councillor male Thank you president Randolph so My question kind of centers around the actual text of the resolution and just seeing that there is no mention of diversion rehab or expungement in the ordinance here and of diversion, rehab or expungement in the ordinance here. And thinking about how ordinance changes obviously as we know are these permanent larger changes that we make as a city and they can transcend leadership, they can transcend administrations, they can transcend us as policymakers for sure. Really, you know, am I reading it correctly? Are those three things not baked into this ordinance? And would there be potential then for, say, different leadership or even a change in policy that could internal policy, that could result in a different enforcement of this, besides kind of those diversion programs you were mentioning? President Randolph, counselor, me, they are not baked in. You are correct. That is prosecutorial discretion as well as judicial discretion. But in my 27 years, or almost 27 years of working for the city of Duluth under several city attorneys, three different county attorneys, numerous different judges, everyone looks to keep people out of the criminal justice system. They're always looking for opportunities to try to divert lower level offenses, try to work with people to reestablish themselves within community, to include even with our youngest offenders, right? There is the County Attorney's Office has a diversion program with Family Freedom Center and men as peacemakers to work with our youth who run a fall sometimes of these ordinances you know and I think what we need to remember is in the criminal justice hierarchy of really bad crimes to lower level crimes these are all property related offenses. These are not the things that people end up in jail for, but they are things that we can utilize to help connect people with services, with kind of a caretling and out there if they are willing to do these things. And if I can follow up really quick, I just, so just to clarify, and I appreciate, you know, trying to get people services and everything, but you or whoever's enforcing under this ordinance, if it were to pass, as it's written, would still have the latitude to say just charge a misdemeanor and not offer those other things. That would still be within their latitude, correct? President Randolph-Pronzor-May, it would not be in the line of a law enforcement officer's latitude. Our job is to gather the facts to build to take those facts and present a statement of probable cause to a prosecutor and to have enough within that that it ensures a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. From there, that is left to a prosecutor's discretion on which road they're going to take, based on an offender's previous criminal history, based on the level of the offense, based on how much time in distance has occurred between the first offense or the last offense and the latest offense. Are they working through a program and they have had a run, dripper, and error as to whether that would still be the effective tool? And I think that I understand that this is difficult, because not a lot of people are involved in the criminal justice system in general, right? It's not something that a lot of us have, a lot of knowledge about, unless we're intimately involved, or have loved ones who've gone through the process or other things. But that's what I could tell you, that my experience is all those factors gone through the process or other things. But that's what I could tell you, that my experience is all those factors get kind of baked in to see where do we go from here. And that includes also the public defender or a defense attorney in those situations. Thank you, Chief Sonoma. Next to the queue is Vice President Tamanik. Thank you, President Randolph. Going back to what Councilor Mayo was referring to in Italy, he read the list of agencies that were concerned about not having met with either the administration or with the chiefs. I'm wondering you may not have had a chance to look at those that letter, but I'm wondering if that kind of a meeting might be scheduled in the future. President Randolph, Vice President Tomonik, I was just made aware of that letter approximately 10 minutes to five tonight. So I did see it. I believe it was always our intent to move as we move forward to meet with all sorts of stakeholders, not just the ones on that list, but also Chamber Commerce, Downtown Council, Downtown Duluth. Of course, the advocacy groups that are listed there. Like I said, we met with some of them on Monday with just kind of a brief overview. We have always intended, and we, I believe at least to my recollection, we did say that in our meeting on Monday that we would continue this conversation. This was the start of it. And of course, we need to get more of those details out to you, see what your opinions are, and then more feedback from them. I will say that it was a positive meeting. Certainly there were concerns that they raised for sure, but it was a positive meeting as a starting point, I think, in my opinion. So. Thank you, Chief. I feel like you follow up with that. President Ren, Ren, or Vice President Tvonic. He has a good. I would say that we, there is a public safety meeting scheduled on the 16th with downtown Duluth, where they are gonna announce where St. Louis County Social Services will talk about the new behavioral health urgent care that is set to open this Friday. And we will also be there to talk about this ordinance package with members of our community. Thank you, Chief Senoa. Next I'll go to Councilor Neffu. Thank you, President Randolph. This might be more of a question for Attorney Freilich. Sorry, I know you just sat down. It's been some years since I did work a bit in the system, but in my experience, and correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't typically, we don't typically put in ordinances, like a diversion program should be required for ascendancy and everything is up to discretion. It's going back to something that Councillor Mayo had alluded to. Can you clarify that, but the process for that? Councillor, now if you present a random vote. Yeah, I typically, and it goes back to some division of a whole hour. I want you to like put me in. Yeah, you gotta go to podium. Sorry. That's okay. Getting my sense. So Councillor Neufy, President Randolph, this goes back a bit to a bit of the division of authority, right? You have your executive legislative branches, et cetera, the judicial branch. So we can't dictate to the judiciary what they can do. We can set parameters for sentences, certainly, which is why we have maximums up to 90 days, up to $1,000. Ultimately, becomes the judiciary's determination as to what that particular sentence is and what's appropriate for the individual. As far as diversion programs and policies those are internal working policies within the agencies and every every agency has a diversion policy every prosecutor authority has a diversion program in place a lot of statutes do authorize under certain circumstances, diversion, for various crimes that's specified in state statute, but it is not something that we would typically put as a requirement for in an ordinance. It is something where I'm thinking of the low level, like fifth degree of state crimes for fifth degree drug offenses, where there is a state of adjudication that is mandated under certain circumstances and in certain situations. So there are some that certainly have some, there are some offenses that have some direction or instruction, but generally prosecutorial discretion on diversion is left up to exactly that. The prosecutor handling the case in order to evaluate and assess the specific situation. I do have a quick follow-up since you're there. And I know your history of being a prosecutor and going back to the old question of fines and maximum jail time as a prosecutor, how often, if ever, was that something that you saw just to hear from a different voice? So, Councillor Neufy, President Randolph, I worked in two different jurisdictions as a prosecutor. I was a municipal prosecutor in, well, two counties actually there for Sartel and Salk Rapids for our time and then came into the County Attorney's Office here in Duluth. And I will tell you there was a vast difference. In my time in Sartel and Sack Rapids, it was a bit more of a fine driven system. In Duluth and St. Louis County, I think the values here over the entirety of my years starting in 2008 demonstrate that we are not about financially in pinging on individuals. It is not about their money. I frequently heard judges say it's not about the money. It's about trying to ensure that we give you what you need to come back into the community and be a participating member of the community and be your best self. I will tell you as a misdemeanor prosecutor for the county for the first two years I was there. I think, unless requested, I can't think of an executed sentence that was given at a rainman on some type of a property offense unless it was requested by the offender. Generally those cases were went through diversion. Typically we were talking about some type of unsupervised probationary term, if not eligible for probation, that's my experience. And again, when we talk about my office now and the city attorney's office specifically, I have a group of prosecutors who are definitely aware of the fact that our experiences are not the same as those who we serve, that we have to be mindful and approach each case individually to understand what trauma brings people to our doorstep. And it's about making sure that we aren't adding to that or piling on. Thank you so much. Next to the queue is Councillor L. Thank you, President Render. Restitution was another thing that was brought up. Can you please define what restitution is and how that would be collected? And if that restitution was given to someone that is not able to pay the restitution, what does that look like? Yeah, President Randolph, Councilor L. I don't see restitution being a part of this, what we're kind of calling the camping ordinance. That is for some of the other ordinances that are in there, like the ATV ordinance, for example. We have places throughout town. It seems to be a little bit more of an issue in West Duluth, but we also see it on the east side, kind of in the northern woodland area, where people are illegally using ATVs on park trails. They could be bike trails, they could be walking trails, they could be horse trails, whatever the case may be, multi-use trails. If a person goes in and does damage with an ATV, it can be thousands of dollars worth of damage to our trail system and our recreation system. This would be a trigger then where we could get restitution or reimbursement for those repairs. Go ahead. You didn't define the word restitution for me for the public. How do you define the restitution? I did not. Okay, sorry, President Randolph Councilor, I guess I would personally define it as a reimbursement to the city for funds that we've used to fix damage property. Primarily, that's, I don't know if that's exactly the Webster definition, but that's just wanting to make sure the public's clear what that term was used for and that restitution is on top of the the Or the fee the misdemeanor the jail time the possible thousand dollar the restitution is on top of that Again President Randolph comes for all I think this is what we were talking about with Attorney Frey like that That could be set up as the diversion you pay but we were talking about with Attorney Frey like that. That could be set up as the diversion. You pay the restitution for the trail damage and then you don't get the misdemeanor charge or you don't spend jail time. I can't ever think of a time and I'm not in law enforcement specifically but where anyone's been arrested for driving of ATV down a trail, you know. But we're also talking about like open fires, graffiti, cracking the sidewalk. Correct. How would there be restitution for like say, blocking a sidewalk? I don't think that restitution would be used in that specific ordinance. Like I said, we're doing some things where we're talking about all 10 at the same time and then we also have some things that are narrowly focused to each specific ordinance in the sidewalk. Specifically one, I don't see where that would be used unless chiefs know as a different opinion. The open burning specifically to that question where we've seen it, people sometimes they burn their lawn off or something which is illegal. That could catch the neighbor's garage on fire or something. We see it sometimes with invasive species. They look up, they Google it, and it says, how to get rid of invasive bamboo is to burn it. So they burn it, and then they accidentally burn on their neighbor's garage. Or they do something, again, under a power line where then there's city damage. Potentially, we could use restitution there. That falls under the DNR also. They'll come in and if the DNR comes in and finds you, they will find their definition of restitution is different. They will charge you for staff hours, equipment hours, damage to whatever property there is. This gives us more flexibility to just deal with the specific issues. So thank you, Councilor Hell. Question for you on ordinance 30 Chief Sonoa on in the body of the ordinance, and it's under section E, and it's actually you got an AV and a C, and I'm gonna talk about C, and it says during nighttime hours 10 PM.m. to 6 a.m., law enforcement personnel have confirmed and informed the person that some form of overnight shelter is available that person and documented the same. So does that mean we wouldn't talk about shelter services in times up beyond 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.? No, that is, I had to find the ordinance. I'm sorry. No, we would still discuss those things. But the issue would be between those hours of 10 and 6, our ability to enforce that, part of the or to enforce that ordinance, would be limited by the availability of a shelter facility. Okay, so the reason why we're identifying the nighttime hours is we would only enforce it if we knew there was shelter capacity. Correct, and I, President Randolph, I truly see that as only an emergent situation. We have had incidents where we've had a assault happen in our encampments or fires break out in our encampments. And now that's no longer a safe place and we are going, you know, if they have been previously warned because that's also part of this They've been educated. They've been encouraged those maybe times where we would have to do a midnight enforcement but from a city perspective and process perspective We will still utilize life safety P.F.A.M. to go out and do the camps where we have received complaints that are dangerous, you know, that are causing public health and safety issues. Placard allow people to gather their belongings and move on, come back at a reasonable period of time. Where this would come more into play in the places where we really do need to move people more quick place but making sure that there's a place for them to go. Thank you, Chief. Next to the Q is Councillor Meil. Thank you, President Randolph. I have a two-part question about the facility capacity. The first is so when we had met there was kind of a tiered warning system where there would be one, two, three potential warnings. From what I read in this in this text though, it appears that all of those don't really have a timeline with them. It could just be your warned second warning and then the third and then my second part of the question is as far as the facility capacity goes, I'm just kind of curious like how we're going to determine that given how many resources we have, but there are a lot of them are at capacity or even over capacity, what is that defined as, and how are we, you know, we're notifying them that there may be capacity available, but what if that's not the truth? And that's not the current status as things can practically change overnight with some of those facilities. President Randolph, Councilor Mayu, on your first question, are you asking about the entire package? Or are we asking about camping specifically? A camping specifically, thank you. Camping specifically? Yes, there would be It is not spelled out what that means, but people have to be advised that it is illegal to camp on city property This is where we go back to continue to educate people encourage people utilizing our team to Work on those sites where we have had a problem. Because what we're trying to avoid is behaviors, right? Not individuals, behaviors that are problematic to our community. In talking to the chief and Rochester, they have issued zero citations in their first 60-day report. I actually see them tomorrow to see if that information has changed in the last month or so. But they didn't see also a reduction in their camps. They actually had approached us originally based on what our process has been as a city and what our ordinance was, which was only restricted to parks. They then took that ordinance and changed it to add some of these same levels of or tiers to avoid those charges. And that is our plan. It increases our same process that we've done. As far as your capacity question, I agree with you. There are often times where they are made not be beds available at Chum parking spaces at Safe Bay or the warming shelter. But in our talk on Monday with representatives from Chum as well as the warming shelter, they also said that they wouldn't turn someone away. Now we have a responsibility as an agency to make sure that we are calling them, advising them of who we have, and to find out if there are any other complications that may not allow for that person to stay there. Maybe their victim is there, maybe there is a perpetrator there, maybe there has been an altercation and then we would not be able to enforce that statute after these warnings and these educations and this encouragement to use facilities. We'd have to leave them there. But if this individual's behaviors have caused them to be trespassed from that facility or those facilities, knowing that we have a few, then we could have that option to go down an enforcement road which may need to be done because the person it may not be safe for the person to be out in the condition that they're in right we always have that duty to protect people from themselves and others. Right? So that is where that kind of falls into play. So just to follow up to, given we do have a lot of service providers that I mentioned before to, you know, would you see any, first see any complications with, it's not just charm you're calling safe haven and all and all these other, salvation army, and all these other places that can provide that emergency shelter housing. The warming center could be another one in certain seasons. You know, that could become quite a complicated, daily potential kind of check-in, is that something that you're thinking about? Councillor Maye, I do not foresee this wave of these situations happening. It doesn't happen currently and we are often going to CADT. We're often going to the warming shelter. We're often going to Chum or we're responding to those places because they have had issues pop up with some of their guests and clients. So those are, you know, will still occur. I don't see us inundating these locations with people seeking shelter because what we're really are talking about are large encampments that have become dangerous to public health and safety. We know and I'm sure our advocates could speak to this that there are several other individuals who we as police as law enforcement as life safety Do not have contact with in the places that they are camping or that they have shelter Outdoors within inside our our city limits Thank you. Thank you. Next to the Q was councilor owl. Thank you, President Render Chief just to clarify your previous Stammer that you made if an individual has been trespassed from these services, who is now being educated about the services that they can't access, you are saying that the route for them is to charge? President Randolph, counsel, I'll know. What I was saying is, if they have previously been educated, they have previously been encouraged to go elsewhere. And now we are at that enforcement kind of decision within that matrix. If they have been trespassed from a service provider, then they could face a charge. Because there is not a safe place for them to go to that the service provider because of disruptive behavior within that community standard. And at that point you're saying the best option here is to charge. Councilor Al, I will never say the best option is to charge when we are dealing with people who are on the margins, who are struggling, who are having a difficult time getting back on their feet or getting through their struggle. And we keep saying compassion with accountability. But if it's the safest place for that individual to be for that evening, that might be where they need to be for that evening, that might be where they need to be. And then we have options of diversion and other solutions. You know, ideally what we see is more opportunities for people to have safe space. So my final question with that line is why was the requirement to check if shelter space is available, not reflected in the resolution text. I think both Chief Sonoa, Chief Kroge, the City Attorney's, you all have spoken from your hearts and provided your intentions on wanting to support and provide wraparound services. We might disagree on how those wraparound services comes to an individual facing homelessness in our community. But if that truly is, we want to keep people out of the jails, we can jail our way out of this. Why is your intentionality of wanting to make sure we get folks to the services they need? Why is that not enforcement have confirmed and informed the person that some form of overnight shelter is available to that person and documented the same. So you have open the full text. Chief, could you cite the paragraph and citation of where that, I see the language. Could you read where and what ordinance and what paragraph that's in? City administrative Montgomery absolutely. So this is in section 34-46, Camping or Establish a cap site on city property. It is in paragraph E sub C. Criminal dependency? Paragraph E. Yeah, it starts during nighttime hours 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. I see. And how is it determined that shelter options is available 6 a.m. I see. And how is it determined that shelter options is available when you just told me that chum or other service providers do take in individuals even when they're at capacity? Say they're over capacity but they can't turn away someone. Is it not putting the burden on the service provider? Councillor Aul, all I could speak to is what they said that they have not turned someone away. So if we call and they say they have space and that person chooses not to utilize that option, then we would have a different option, potentially. But like I said, this goal of this is not to take enforcement action. This is about getting people to voluntarily make a better choice or to take action towards the service knowing that there may be a consequence. So it's again compassion with accountability. Thank you, Chief. Next to the Q, Councillor Mayo. Thank you, next to the Q council mail Thank you president Randolph. Can you chief describe for me? So 9.59 p.m. versus 10.01 p.m Seems like to completely different fields minutes apart of what type of actions can be happening and why that time and I understand it's an overnight kind of a thing but it to me seems kind of like if an officer spots me at 1001, and I'm camping in a spot versus 959, I don't know, to me, it just seems really like that 10 o'clock timeframe is kind of strange in what can happen on either side. President Randolph, Counselor Mayhew, our parks, a majority of our parks unless signed otherwise, close at 10 PM. And don't open again until 6 a.m. So that was the language that we chose based on. That is uniformly knowing throughout our community and with people that we have interacted with when we've had to give people out of even say, skyline parkway on the overloads. So those are where those time frames come from. And so can you describe for me then, like 959, no sort of enforcement can happen is their conversation of you know those warnings do they only take place in the 10 to 6 time frame where they warn them and say you're you're available options or those happening throughout the day I didn't quite understand from the text of the ordinance here. President Randolph, Councilor Mayo, we're talking now at this 10 o'clock. This would be like a really specific complaint that came in about a person or a group of persons at a specific place. We're still going to be following the policy that we've been doing for years, which is going out to known encampments, which still come in usually by complaint driven things or whether that's citizens or just sometimes we see unsafe behavior if it's under a free way or something like that. But we still go out on Thursdays. We meet on Mondays with our group, our whole group, the life safety group, the property, group, sometimes parks, depending if it's in park property. Part of this thing is it's broadening the actual language where it was only specific to designated park property. Now this broadens it to city owned property, which then we kept that time frame consistent with park property. But we're not out at 10 p.m. Shuing people out of the parks or the properties as it is. So we're making these contacts, part of this educate, communicate, educate, and getting people with services. That's happening all the time during the day when we go out with our community groups. We have people with charm that go out with us. We have people from other groups that go out with us. Make these contacts. It's usually it happens on a Tuesday or Thursday, depending on what we're doing. So they have warning that we're coming in to clean it up. We very rarely go in unless it's a really immediate life safety issue and get someone, pick someone up, clean out their stuff. Oftentimes that's because there was a fire, possibly there was an overdose possible. There was some other thing that's created our response to escalate to a to a higher level than just that initial talking, giving a warning, giving a time frame on one we'll be back to clean up the property. So I don't see this, like I said, we don't have the staff. Nobody here has the staff to be just out at 10 p.m. looking for someone in a tent. It's not really happening unless it's a really high visible place, like I said, sometimes along the freeways, sometimes in other areas. If there was a fire there, of course, then we have to come in, we do our thing, extinguish it, and then we need to find a safer place for that person to be. Thank you, Councilor Mell. Question on ordinance 29. That's our graffiti ordinance. We had a request from the HRA asking if we could add, or amend it to add, biohazardous graffiti. Apparently what's happening in a lot of our scattered sites and a lot of our housing development is fixing needles, injurious materials being placed on hand railings, tuck behind door handles, those kinds of things, is there something we can do along those lines or is that not in the scope of that ordinance? or is that not in the scope of that ordinance? President Randolph, it wouldn't be within the scope of that ordinance, but there is another ordinance that talks about discarding needles, which is something we could, you know, this is an initial package, there may be other ordinances down the line that we would still explore and that would be one worth noting in our community. Thank you so much. The next to the queue is Councillor Al. Thank you, President Randolph. I just want to clarify my previous line of questioning. Thank you for pointing out that paragraph where it states, inform the person that some form of overnight shelter is available to that person and documented the same. A person who has been trespassed from otherwise available shelter services is deemed as having shelter services available to them. So if no shelter is available, what happens? Is it not enforceable? Like at that point, if no shelter service is available, we cannot charge or enforce at that period, we're just requesting that they move away from public property, what happens when there's no shelter service available. And because some of our neighbors who are facing homelessness might not have transportation available to them to get to services, is there an option for transportation to be available? Is there transportation assistance? President Randolph, Councilor Aul, if there's no shelter space available and the person has not been trespassed, it is not enforceable. Okay. To your other question about transportation, to your other question about transportation. We routinely transport people to C80T, Chum, the warming shelter routinely to give them to services. Thank you for that service to our community. Why are both of those things, could it be possible that both of that is added into the language? Because as it stands now, it's not in the language of the test. President Randolph council all that would be more of a procedural piece policy piece standard operating procedure and not really valid within inside of a city ordinance. Councillor I'll will if I if I can jump in is my mic working now Council are all present rander for just if I could jump in, I just want to clarify the text of that second, that criminal penalty provision, the way that it is written, our office would not prosecute unless law enforcement can provide all three of those conditions have been met, right? So if the enforcement officer has not provided a warning, and this is not going to happen, boom, boom, boom, right, we've got to have reasonable opportunity to comply for it to be enforceable and prosecutable. So the enforcement officer has informed about services and they've been warned about this ongoing behavior as being subject to criminal prosecution. And there is no space available. That is, all those conditions have to be met. Like space has to be available. You're choosing not to utilize it. It is not during nighttime hours. It is not. You've got to be available, you're choosing not to utilize it. It is not during nighttime hours. It is not, you've got to be warned and you've got to be encouraged. If those factors aren't met, the way this is written, it would not be able to be enforced. Okay. Thank you. That provides a lot of clarity. Thank you, Councillor Elton. Next to the Q, Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Randolph. And if I may, since we do this sometimes, I know we have a lot of service providers in the audience, and I just was curious if Mr. Kilgore, I know, was part of that meeting on Monday, just had a couple questions about kind of that capacity and best practices and how that's defined from a service provider lens as well as if there's been any conversation amongst service providers with Duluth and then comparing to Rochester and kind of how that's gone for them, I don't know. Mr. Kilwell or any service provider if. I think that's a good question. There's an Randolph and Councillor Mayue, you might need to repeat the questions that were a few of them. Thank you. Yeah. So first, just kind of best practices and how Chum kind of operates, I guess, from your perspective around that capacity of your shelter and what that looks like, as well as if you've had any conversations with how service providers and Rochester have been doing after their similar ordinances passed. Well, let me answer about Rochester. I actually was really, we've only had a few days to digest this, so I've been doing a lot of research and reading the ordinances and reaching out to other providers and other parts of the country. Can you lift the podium up? We need to have you closer to that microphone. Oh, that's right. I'm pretty about this. There you go. Perfect. How's that? Nice. Okay, good. So, I did have some conversations with providers and Rochester and their experiences, probably not surprisingly, a bit different than law enforcement's experience. They did also note that there haven't been citations issued, but the director of one of the largest drop-in centers there did say that, well, it's really hard. It's new. It's only been a few months. There isn't a lot of data, but there have been some noticeable shifts in movement, in people being willing to access services. There hasn't been a change in the number of people experiencing homelessness, they're just not in city property anymore. So we talked about their outreach workers and their mobile services having a much more difficult time finding people. They're moving more frequently, they're more often establishing a camp and some private property. At the edges of the city there have been more people moving into abandoned buildings and they seem to be moving quite a lot and it's hard to contact them. They've had fewer people coming into the drop-in center. They've had fewer people engaging with their mobile services. So if the intention was to help people access service, at least in their community and their initial experiences that that hasn't happened and it may have had the opposite effect, which I think is understandable. You know, if people are worried about being arrested and cited and you're already living with a lot of trauma, sometimes that lack of trust can spread system wide, including to providers. And so that's been some of the stories that we've heard. On the capacity question, this is one of the questions that we have as providers and why we'd like to have for their conversation is how we define capacity. Yes, it is true that, Jim does not turn people away for lack of space. It is also true that our beds are full. So the option of space is on the floor in a crowded room that's beyond full capacity. And I can't speak for other providers, but I do look at the numbers a lot. And I'd say most every night, all of our actual shelter beds and dilute our full. So there are a lot of complex dynamics at play with people experiencing homelessness and living with trauma. We know that people who experience homelessness are very high rate of being victims of physical assault and sexual assault nationwide. That number is actually around 30% of women experiencing homelessness, about 25% of men experiencing homelessness that will experience physical or sexual assault in the past year. So that's another factor that we need among many that we need to consider when thinking about capacity and availability. So of shelter beds. So yes, there might be a room at Chum, um, for someone who's a survivor of intimate partner violence that might not be a safe place to be, even if there is a space. Um, and there are many other factors that go into that. And so I think, um, what the ordinance as it's written currently doesn't provide for those very, very, very, very human contingencies. Thank you, appreciate it. Councillor Elton, thank you, President Randolph. I see Deb Holman is also in the audience today. I was curious as someone who works closely with our life safety team and is a homeless advocate, individuals experiencing homelessness is an advocate, a staunch advocate of housing. I was wondering that home and if you would willing to share your perspective. I am ready. Councilor. Councilors. I will agree with these guys we had a good meeting on Monday. However, we all left, you know, after leaving and processing it, there are some concerns. My first question is going to be where there is no housing for people. So we can have the best diversion programs, the best plans in place. Mr. Meanor Court, which is voluntary, by the way, we have a very good team in Duluth that works together and helps people. We have like 20 agencies that meet once a month and work together all month on getting people to help they need, people need to want to help. That sometimes doesn't happen for years. You know, I can take a few years. So it's not just something that happens overnight. We encourage give resources, take people to detox, get people in treatment, get them mental health assessments every day. And these are our folks that are living outside. So one of my frustrations is, yes, people can't. If they have trauma, a lot of different areas of trauma for people, maybe they're in sobriety too, they don't want to come to shelter because people are using. So we need to look at different kinds of places where people can stay. But one thing that concerns me also is that we're so close possibly to something positive with those of you that have been following stepping on up that why are we doing this now? I'm told things aren't going to really change that much. Well, are they going to change? Are people going to have to leave their tents? Or are they not going to really change that much? So I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. But folks don't have anywhere to go. So I would tend to agree that large encampments can become dangerous. Just from my experience doing this through the years, there's a lot of activity especially in the evenings. We saw that few years ago under the freeway here where you know the whole under every bridge there was a people camping so I tend to lose my trade of thought but yeah I'm just so another and then we've said for two summers now we can have sanctioned encampments. Where are they? Why don't we have them and why would we be kicking people out now if they're, you know, I just don't think that there's enough. I think there's good stuff to look forward to in the near future. And let's just keep doing what we're doing. Because we are doing, I mean, we're trying to get people in diversion programs like mental health, court, drug court, DWI court, misdemeanor court, which again is voluntary. So people are going to be getting misdemeanors and they're going to be asked, do you want to be getting misdemeanors and they're going to be asked, do you want to go to a misdemeanor court? And they're going to say, no, I don't want to go. Some are going to say, yes, I want to go. But the ones that I've asked, they don't want to go. So I think of course having some of the same issues. But yeah, I think people don't come to shelter for a lot of different reasons. And it can be a scary place for some people's family and in-chum shelter, it can be scary with the untreated mental health and things like that. So that's my thoughts on it. I mean. Thank you, Deb. Thanks. Thank you. That was helpful. Next in the queue, councilor Kennedy. Thank you, Deb. Thanks. Thank you. That was helpful. Next in the queue, Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, President Render. My question is a follow-up to that, the advocates that actually were just speaking. We need several strategies to make sure we're able to care for our members, our community members that we're speaking of today. Part of it is there's not a whole lot of them and so there's going to have to be several strategies if you stated. So my question would be to both of you, Mr. Kilgore and Ms. Holman, you mentioned a few of those strategies and so without those happening, how do we help folks? The city cannot pay for this and the city is not a nonprofit. We're not a health and human services organization. So until those other things can be in place, which I believe is on the nonprofits as a nonprofit founder, how do you see your ability to move forward in that this may be just a gap strategy until we get there. So when do we get there together? Because the city can't take all that on. So what are your plans to help this situation as well? Because this is a plan that I see fire and police have. They don't have any other recourse. What is your plan now if you don't want this? My plan is to keep doing what I do every day and try to motivate people to services It's not gonna happen in an hour. It's not going to happen in an hour, it's not going to happen maybe in six hours, but we just have to keep working on it. I'm going to just come out and say that I myself and I'm an addict, you wouldn't have been able to tell me Tuesday, go to treatment Friday. I had to make that decision for myself. So everyone out here needs to make their own decisions. And we are there to help that make those decisions. But and I understand the city can't keep paying for this. I think we have a lot of funding. Joel be able to talk more about that. But none of this stuff happens overnight. I mean, I've got one story. I've a guy who took four years and finally accepted housing. So he wasn't causing any problems out here, but that's how long it took to engage him. So, and then we have no housing. So where do they go? Where are they going? If I may follow up, so that's probably the exception. But for those who are creating some discourse between community members and our issue, what are we able to provide and how long do we wait until we finally just save, because we are able to make decisions to help community members who are maybe needing more help and that's our role. But we only have certain things we can really provide for that. So it sounds like we are providing what we can provide as a city. We need the housing advocates. And how long do you I heard four years? What is the recourse in the meantime? Because there are things happening that have to be taken care of. That person wasn't causing any problems. I was just giving an example of like how long it can take sometimes. Thank you for that. To get people housed. I mean, so right now you're looking at a two-year wait for Section 8, 2 and a half years, but there's no apartments. So Joel gets his voucher today. He spends four months looking for a place. Didn't find one. OK, now I got to sign up and wait two years again. So go ahead, Joel. I'm taking up too much. So there's no housing. We know that's an issue. That's something that we need to look at at the federal level, the state level, at the county level, and at the city level. But also our housing partners, we all have a stake in this, and we all have a role that we have to play. And we all probably need to do more, right? So what is the other step? I've heard of some satient on housing and cabinets. Where is that conversation? Because that's not the city doing that. Yeah, we were, this was two years ago, the city council passed. Was it Joel and you were here? I mean, just the act that we could have some sanctioning and gametes if we could find the land in Bayfort. Am I correct? This is his for Dana. Yes, Mr. Kilgo could you explain a little bit more about that because we have to do something. And I'm not sure how long you want us to wait if we don't do this. And when I say we, ask all together. Right. Yeah, I mean, I think that's okay. I do, I've been saying this every time I speak. It's important for us to remember that the current epidemic of homelessness is not again last year. It didn't begin 10 years ago, it began 40 years ago. And the trajectory has been upward since then with some dips in the numbers of people experiencing homelessness. And now we've got to kind of a point where things are boiling over. And we need to understand that context because it is not going to be fixed after 45 years overnight. That has been decades of neglect on a national down to a local level in both our housing stock and a lot of our important services, like mental health services and substance use recovery services. As far as addressing homelessness directly, we do have some really good local plans and we have, I can't think of a single provider here who isn't Indoleuth that isn't scaling up in really big ways with added outreach staff building extra shelter Chum will be undergoing major expansion a youth shelter will be open up this year We have pilot micro housing micro apartment Project that this council helped make happen. It was that partnership between our organizations that are building that and we're moving towards a much brighter future but it's going to take some time. And I know a lot of these things haven't moved as fast as we would like. There were a lot of complications with the outdoor living site, including some feedback from people living on the streets, sites that were determined to be good sites for some partners, and then we decided we're not good sites for other partners. They're staffing capacity issues. We're struggling, but I think we're trying. And we're going to see a completely revamped, homeless response system in the next couple of years based on all the efforts that we have put in together. And we really value the partnership. The partnership with the chiefs has been incredible. Over these years, and we'll continue. We may agree to disagree on the language of this, one particular ordinance, and the process behind it, but we will continue to be partners, and that's how we have to move forward together. So I think, you know, we understand the public safety concerns behind this. We understand that there's a political, not just a public safety but a political component to this. There's a lot of people in the community who are frustrated about encampments and the lack of action on those encampments. But this is a complicated issue. It's not easy. We want to make sure that there's a distinction between criminal activity and basic life-sustaining functions like sleeping. Sleeping itself doesn't require diversion, right? Some of these other activities might, but what sleeping outside requires is that we create more sheltering housing and that's not something that any of us can do together. Now that the city, nor the county, nor our nonprofit partners have the capacity and upon our own to address the depths of this problem. We had over 800 individuals utilize the warming center this past season. So the numbers are huge and if we don't address our housing crisis, there are more people that are going to be falling into homelessness. So we generally pose criminalization. We understand that diversion can work. It works when there's some some clear-headed conversation among partners and a real strategy behind it. And right now I don't know that we have the infrastructure for diversion to be particularly helpful. If that one one more follow up because this will probably be my only question. So I hear you saying that you'll continue to be a partner and that you feel like the diversion isn't going to work. But is that because you're in a different organization and you're not doing that work? Because I guess I feel like between what the city attorney had stated and even some of our county partners. I don't think that conversation has happened yet. So do you see that this could be a potential piece of that pie to get us where we want for our unhoused and some of the other issues that are on these ordinances? Yeah, yeah. I think that the issue right now is there's just a lot of those unanswered questions and we'll answer them better together. Yes, just a lot of those unanswered questions. And we'll answer them better together. Yes, and new strategies are always unanswered questions. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kennedy, thank you, Joel, and thank you, Deb. Yeah, I just want to make it clear to that. I mean, we feel like we're good partners with these guys. And all of you, too. I mean, we feel like we work together well. It's just we need more solutions, you know? And I'm definitely in favor of, I've seen many successes on a drug court, mental health court, veterans court, many successes, but you know, we need more capacity, I think, is what we need. So thank you, Deb Holmer. Thank you. Thank you. Next to the queue is what we need. So thank you, Deb Holmer. Thank you. Thank you. Next to the queue is a Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Randolph. I'm going to jump around a little bit because I had some questions on a few other ordinances. On ordinance 28, particularly, I have some questions really about both sections of this. The first part is disturbing the neighborhood. The second part is false soliciting. The false soliciting, one in particular, is really where I wanted to ask some questions around the potential for the city to be sued under ADA. I've, in conversations with you, Chief Sonoa, just knowing it's not cited often and wondering about the really relevance of even having this ordinance given lots of folks have invisible disabilities. My wife has an invisible disability. You would never know it if you saw her standing on a corner asking for money and I you know you could walk up in a police officer could cite that person and if they had a legitimate disability, I worry about what the city could be opened up to under that. So do you have any concerns or is there potential to strike or get rid of this if it's not really important? President Randolph, Councillor Mayhew, this is an existing ordinance, this is a new ordinance. What we did was clarify and clean up modernize language with that. In that ordinance, we did not move this one to a misdemeanor offense. And it is not something that is cited or dealt with often. But it does provide us an opportunity to have a conversation with someone who may be purporting to be something that they are not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mayo. Next in the queue is Councillor Swanson. With that statement that you just made and then reading in the title I believe it does say false solicitation as a misdemeanor in the statement of purpose but in the actual section it does not allude to that so we might need to make an amendment to that. If I can weigh in on that consular response and that's actually it's a clerical error that we can strike and fix it will be fixed for the next agenda. It's just removing that and to clarify the false soliciting is only applicable to those who are falsely rep, it's a modernization of language and making it gender neutral and eliminating language in order to only go or apply to individuals who are providing the false appearance of suffering from a physical disability and making other false representations for the purpose of soliciting such contribution or sale. So I just encourage you to read the actual text of it that we updated and modernized it to remove problematic language that existed. That's the only change that's happening to 34, 14 and the request of the chiefs. Thank you so much, Attorney Frey. Like next to the queue, Councillor El. Thank you, President Randolph. On the same resolution, 28 ordinance, the same, sorry, same ordinance, disturbing the neighborhood, that is something that is moved up to a misdemeanor, heard the language. We're disturbing the neighborhood. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor offense. And I guess what I wonder about this is that is there room for subject, like subjection? What is disturbing the neighborhood? Who gets to make that call? Just recently, within the last two years, I had a gathering of party at my house celebrating a cultural holiday and had police, had neighbors call the police. So it's like where are the guardrails to prevent racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic calls coming into the police department from individuals who might have bias that they're not recognizing against their neighbors. So who gets determined what disturbing the neighborhoods is? Or is? President Randolph-Council-O, what a community member calls in a complaint of something going on in their neighborhood that is dispatched through St. Louis County Sheriff's Office. They ask questions to try to clarify some things. Our officers then have the same obligation to follow up with that individual, find out what's going on, to make calls and inquiries into the behavior. I think earlier this spring, I had an email from Professor Mayo, along with one of his constituents, who was experiencing on college move out kind of weekend, starting at early in the morning through ladies and the hours of people urinating on their property coming out and throwing up and doing all of these things. That's the type of event we're talking about. Two last council meeting, we had residents come to this chambers to talk about what was going on in their neighborhood with ATV usage and constant people coming in going and following up on that, we recognize that there was an actual issue there to include a landlord who was trying to evict this person. This is when though this type of ordinance can come into play to give relief to neighbors and a neighborhood who are dealing with these types of activities. Thank you, Chief. Next is the Q, Councillor Amal. Thank you, President Randolph. Just a circle back to the false soliciting and understanding that it's from what you said, Chief, it's really to have a conversation, knowing that there are other ways that conversations can happen. And those circumstances would, you as the police chief see any problem if we were to say amend to strike this out of code just given that it's maybe not relevant since we're updating other code in general you know it would be one less tool potentially but really there are a lot of other tools that I think work a lot better to have a conversation with someone who may be soliciting in a way that is not good for the community. President Randolph, Councilor Bayou, I think this is something that we should leave in. Pope, because we do have repetitive people who continue this type of activity. And after education and after encouraging and asking them not to act in this manner, this does become an opportunity where we can issue an ordinance violation where they may have payable fine because at the same time they are taking advantage of unsuspecting community members who are giving up contributions that can create and encourage other type of disorderly or disturbing behaviors within our community. Okay. And then just a quick follow-up has this gone before the Disabilities Commission at all, some of these changes and just I didn't even know this false soliciting one existed in our current ordinance and I understand we're updating some of those, more technical terms making them gender neutral but has disabilities commissioned been consulted? President Randolph, Councilor Mayo, they have a nut. Okay. Thank you so much, Chief. Thank you, Councilor Mayo, Councilor Elle. Thank you, President Randolph. Going back to my disturbing the neighborhood. Thank you, Chief, for providing. I see how this can be helpful, but helpful in protecting a neighborhood, as you defined. But I'm still not seeing what I'm understanding is that your policy would make the call if this is a misdemeanor or not. So if my family comes in and are back yard, we are praying. We put down prayer roads and we're praying. And someone calls saying there's suspicious activity. What would happen? What would be the response? And would we get charged for a misdemeanor for our neighbors? And that is not my neighborhood, I love my neighborhood, but this has happened in the past. We're based on bias. And again, the structures of white supremacy that exists in our country, there's calls that can be made and I'm worried that on the other side there might be someone who's story who's is not heard. So with this language of this being a misdemeanor, what are the safeguards that are in policy? And what would happen if that policy were to change and that's not reflected back in the ordinance language? President Randolph, counsel, all we have an obligation to investigate things. We have to establish probable cause that it is actual crime occurred of people coming and going creating unreasonable disturbance or leaving activities or things that attract additional issues to the neighborhood. We have to establish those facts in order for that to move forward with the charge. Additionally, if it was going to go down this road of Mr. Meener, a supervisor needs to be consulted if they are going to a physically arrests this person and take them away. The safeguards in place are that we have to do a thorough investigation, no different than any other crime that we are called to. And I agree with you that there are people who have biases who make invalid complaints, invalid calls sometimes to 911. And in those situations, we do our best as a law enforcement agency to try to clarify before responding in a physical presence presence or arriving and noticing that this is not what is being reported returning back to the reporting party and saying hey we're not seeing what you are seeing. Those are the safeguards that I can tell you that I can give you and I know that it's not always perfect. I understand that and we have had incidents within our community where we have had to come up with an alternative response plan to addresses because of an ongoing neighbor issue of like of what you described. Thank you for the reassurance and the policy. Just a quick follow up. Can you answer how this would potentially affect college students? As you mentioned, college parties on college streets, if they're hosting a party, say it's say we're not going to talk about socials, right? They're hosting, they're all over 21. They're college students. They're all of legal age, of drinking age, and they're having a party. Could this be a potential reason why they would get a misdemeanor? Councilor, if I could step back to your other question too, with regards to specific religious ceremonies, there are times when we can work with other groups like the Indigenous Council, our commission I should say, we used to get calls all the time for funeral fires and people thinking that it was an illegal recreational fire. Well there's actual exceptions in the state fire code for religious ceremonies and that's any religious ceremony. I think originally it was put in for Christian candle light type ceremonies. My interpretation and how the State Fire Marshall Interpret's at now is widespread. I can't speak specifically to the ceremony that you had. But there's things that we can do and then progress when we see something that is a continuous issue where we're getting called for these types of things. And then we worked with the commission and then we worked with Deb Holman to create a, we call it a permit for lack of a better term but it's really it's not a permit but it's a notification to us so that we can then put that into our system we might still go out and check it and make you know just see what's going on but then that gives us okay you've got your three or four day window in this case we're not going to be harassing you if we get 10 other phone calls. And so sometimes, and again, I can't speak specifically to every situation is different. And I am not trying to say that there's not racism and every other ism that we see in the city. But sometimes that gives us a tool to actually fix some of the recurring issues that we see and come up with a better solution. And for open fires, going back to the open fire ordinance that we see before us, would spirit fires, would that be an exception to that? That's actually a different, this would be more, open fires is more of a like field burning, type yard burning. The spirit fires are, it's a different fire code piece. It would fall under the recreational fire Policies that we have you even though they're not recreational, but it falls into that category So this is a little different. This is a larger bigger fire That's what we're talking about in this ordinance, but thank you for the questions back to your question Thank you so much President Randolph comes all yes, it could be utilized You know in a on a college type situation if it was constantly disturbing or these parties are disturbing the neighborhood creating an unreasonable piece and quiet within that vicinity. Thank you Chief. Next question comes from councilor Mayo. Thank you, Chief. Next question comes from Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Randolph. I'm looking now at 33 and 36. 33, just really the first part of it. The second part pertains to ATVs and recreational vehicles on public land. But 33, the first part, talking about assembling, blocking, passage on streets and sidewalks. Just thinking about we have a large election cycle coming up, we have a lot of other activities that can cause for fast mobilization of groups that sometimes want to get out and exercise their first amendment rights. And really thinking about with this, making the blockage of sidewalks and streets of a misdemeanor versus a petty, it does seem that we're moving a direction where people could get easily cited for this kind of a thing. Wondering what the thought is behind that, and really if you can give maybe some examples of where you would be citing this. And the Pryley Fountain I is just a little more specific to Pryley. I probably won't touch that as much, but if you can kind of talk more about the ordinance 33 blocking streets and sidewalks and what the thought is behind that. President Randolph, Councillor Maye. Yes, and I have to find it because I'm looking at the actual ordinance and not what your number is. So 45-1. That's exactly that we're looking at? Yeah, this, you know, what we're talking about is where the potential, where some of these pop up events occur that it would give us an opportunity to enforce on groups or on organizers who have failed to get a permit because those events do sometimes cause other actions to occur. I mean, we've had people arrested for this sort of conduct during some of these events we've had. Damaged to property and other events, and it is an opportunity to hold an organizer accountable who's not put reasonable safeguards to make sure that the assembly remains peaceful. And this might be a clerk down on question but what is that timeline if you wanted to get a permit for this type of event? And what is the fee for it if someone wanted to obtain a permit? You might not have that on the top of your head, sorry. Okay. So it could be multiple week type of situation. Multiple weeks. Yeah. So, that's where, you know, factoring in that there's a lot of events that can happen within a day, less than a day, time frame. You know, where do those fit within this ordinance if say they didn't have a Permanor they possibly are pro or the actual protesters themselves or the organizers or who could be susceptible to misdemeanors President Randolph counselor Mayo. I mean, it's pretty the State statute around some of this now talks about targeting that you have to be specific on the people who are actively causing the issue. What this would allow us to do though is to deal with people who may have organized the event or even in the case of a business is decided to block off a sidewalk for something without going down that road of permanent. So it would largely target or be enforced on business owners and or protest organizers. There would potentially be other charges under state statute, not ordinance that we could enforce. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor L. Thank you, President Render. A question for Attorney Freylich. With section in the same resolution, or sorry, ordinance, ordinance 33, section 45-1 is talking about the sumbling, you know, blocking the streets in the passageway where section 45-6.3 is talking about the recreational vehicles use on public land, the ATVs. Could those split up into two separate ordinances? I feel like the subject matter of both is vastly different. So there is a process by which, sorry, Councillor all President Randolph, there is a process by which the council could move to separate those provisions. It's effectively a motion to separate and then those two would be considered separately. Okay. I asked because I wonder if blocking of the passages and the way it's designed here, would that come into individuals first-men, right of protest? If they decided to protest, it seems like like Councillor Mayo was saying, if someone decided wanting, I want to protest bananas all of a sudden today, but I need to, I don't want to go through this process and I just decided today I wanted to protest bananas. And they're, you know, with pickets, with bananas, like, no bananas here. Would that not infringe on their first amendment, right? With having, having listening this as a misdemeanor? So, Councillor O'Reilly, President Randolph, what I can tell you is that the city adheres to and reviews our policies and ordinances for constitutional compliance, compliance with federal and state law, and to ensure that we are not in violation. relative to First Amendment expression and the limitation or regulation here from the city is to request that individuals obtain a permit in order to engage in this particular activity. It's not saying that you can't do it at all, but we're asking that you follow proper processes. So that regulation as it stands from at least the legal standpoint would be a reasonable time place or manner restriction. Thank you for that clarification. For the chiefs, why was this not considered as a penny? So originally this was a penny, and now it's moving up to a misdemeanor. Am I correct on that? Why move it up to a misdemeanor? President Randolph-Council Hall, you are incorrect on that. It originally was an ordinance, $1,000 fine. An ordinance violation. Sitation. City citation, which is still an ordinance violation of up to $8,000. It was not a petty. This does provide that opportunity again for Restitution or issues should a Business nephew of the opener function during an event But citing a misdemeanor still goes into the criminal record and I understand there's process for diversion Why not have this out of petty misdemeanor and then still have the fees upwards of a thousand if you choose But that way with the petty mis Mr. Meener, it wouldn't be criminal. Petting Mr. Meener only allows for a fine up to $300 and offers no recourse as far as restitution or other opportunities for diversion after the for argument. for a government. All right, thank you Chief final questions on items 24 through 33 we're rounding into our two hours of questioning looking for final questions Seeing none. Thank you both chiefs and everyone on that battery of questions. We have a couple more I've lost Councillor Neffi, so I'll read in for her. On item 34, ordinance 25, is an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of Duluth to reclassify six acres from mixed use business park MUB to AP airport on land currently used for airport operations at Duluth International Airport. Item 35, ordinance 23 is an ordinance amending chapter 10 of the Duluth City Code to make language gender neutral. Update building code references and correct terminology. And finally, item 36, ordinance 24 is an ordinance amending section 10-5 of chapter 10 of the Duluth City Code to reduce the membership of the building appeal board to nine members. Opening it up for questions on items 34 through 36. Seeing none that ends our agenda session tonight I want to thank everyone for coming especially thank Joel Kilgore and Deb Holman for answering the questions and everyone for coming. See you Monday. I'm going to have to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. I'm going to talk to you. Oh, back to the front. Oh, there's mine. Here it's table right here. See, we've got a third of these tables. It's the way I reside on. Oh, that's not too cool. It says my boat on there. It's present. Oh, it's a nice, nice little one. That is the RL boat. It's a nice chair. I'm going to go into the first meet. I was going to go into the first meet. I was going to go into the first meet. I was just on the team building. I was going to go you a few. Yeah, I'm going to give you five. Give me five. Give me five. Give me five. Yeah, absolutely. I hope I got one. I think you have to give me five. Do you have to give me five? Do you have to give me five? One is 20. One is 20. And the whole staff will start to take the assistance. Right. So, why do you sell cash? I don't know. I don't know. I think that's good.