* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. ONE. [00:00:03] GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MAYOR APPROACHES. GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING OF THE ALPHARETTA CITY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 23RD, 2026. CALL THIS TO ORDER. LOOKS LIKE WE'RE STILL MISSING A FEW. PARDON? WE DON'T, WE GOT FOUR. WE CAN GO AHEAD, MERKEL. OKAY, WE'RE GOOD. WE'VE GOT FIVE OF US. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR MAYOR PROTON AND COUNCILMAN DORITO. WE SHOULD STILL HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE HERE. YES, WE SHOULD. AND, AND I JUST CHECKED BACK TO MY NOTES, MR. UH, DORITO INDICATES HE'LL BE HERE. SO THEY BOTH HAVE INDICATED TO BE HERE SHORTLY, SO, BUT YES, WE WOULD START WITH THE PLEDGE. IF YOU'RE WILLING AND ABLE, PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF PLEDGE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. [A. Text Amendment Discussion: Chapter 30, Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, and Chapter 10, Businesses and Business Regulations Discussion regarding text amendments to Chapter 30, Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, and Chapter 10, Businesses and Business Regulations, of the Code of the City of Alpharetta.] THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WILL BE THE WORK SESSION ITEMS. SHOULD I BEGIN WITH CHIEF LINGERING? IS THAT BETTER? WE HAVE A NEW, NEW AND UPDATED CITY ORDINANCES AND THESE ORDINANCES. THERE'S A FEW REASONS BEHIND THESE. ONE IS IT'S JUST BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT LOCAL ORDINANCES AND A LOT OF WHAT WE SEE IS WE'RE TRYING TO FILL GAPS WHERE WE FEEL LIKE THERE ARE SOME OTHER REASONS FOR THESE IS OBVIOUSLY WITH THE JAIL, HAVING LOCAL CONTROL, BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE THE JAIL MORE EFFECTIVELY, AND THEN ULTIMATELY AN ABILITY TO ADDRESS SOME UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESSED IN THE CITY ORDINANCES WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING TO GIVE SOMEBODY A PERMANENT CRIMINAL RECORD. UH, THE CITY ORDINANCES ALLOW US TO KEEP LOCAL CONTROL AND ALLOW US TO ADDRESS THESE BEHAVIORS, BUT USE THE, UH, SO THE ALPHA AT AWAY OR THE ALPHA A TOUCH IN ADDRESSING THEM. YOU HAVE A, A PACKET OF THOSE ORDINANCES BEFORE YOU, I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD TIME TO REVIEW THEM. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE OR DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY? THAT'S FINE. UM, I CAN JUST GIVE A BROAD OVERVIEW AND THEN, YEAH, I THINK HAVING SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS, IF YOU'LL HAVE ANY OR, OR DIRECTION IF YOU HAD CONCERNS, WOULD BE, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UM, GENERALLY I THINK WE ONLY AMENDED TO EXISTING PROVISIONS. SO, UH, THE VERY FIRST SLIDE IN YOUR PACKET PERTAINS TO FIREARMS. AND THIS IS ONE WHERE WE ARE SIMPLY CLEANING UP SECTION 30 DASH FIVE TO MEMORIALIZE THAT WHILE WE DON'T PERMIT THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS IN THE CITY LIMITS, UM, YOU CAN USE IT IN LAWFUL DEFENSIVE PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR, UM, FOR USE IN AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE. AND THAT CROSS REFERENCES TO OUR INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE ORDINANCE. WHILE WE DON'T HAVE AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SINCE WE WERE LOOKING AT THESE, THAT THAT WAS CLEANED UP AND CONSISTENT. UM, INTERNALLY, UM, ANOTHER SECTION THAT WAS AMENDED, UM, WAS THE SECTION 30 DASH SEVEN FOR URBAN CAMPING. UM, AND THIS ONE IN, IN MANY WAYS WAS SIMPLE, JUST CLEANED UP, UM, BUT JUST PROVIDED SOME MORE CLEARER, UM, REFERENCES. SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE THE URBAN CAMPING ORDINANCE WHERE IT WAS ALREADY UNLAWFUL TO STORE YOUR PERSONAL BELONGINGS OR TO CAMP IN THE CITY. IT STILL IS. SO THIS ONE, UM, WE WERE JUST MAKING SURE THE LANGUAGE WAS TIGHT AND CLEANED UP FOR, FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. UM, AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, ALL OF THE OTHER CHANGES OR PROPOSALS IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE NEW ADDITIONS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, UM, STARTING WITH SECTION 30 DASH NINE, WHICH IS FOR THE DISCHARGE OF BOSE AND CROSS B WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SO WHILE 30 DASH FIVE ADDRESSES THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE DISCHARGE OF BOWS OR CROSSBOWS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS CLOSE TO A TRAIL LIKE THE GREENWAY. UM, [00:05:01] AND SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE BASICALLY THAT THERE IS A, UM, A PERMIT TO DISCHARGE A BOW OR A CROSSBOW WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND SOME SAFEGUARDS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, IF THAT IS TO HAPPEN, THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A STRAY ARROW GOING OFF OF A PROPERTY. SO THE PERSON WHO GETS THE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO SHOOT ONLY ON THEIR PROPERTY. UM, IF THE LIMITS OF THE PROPERTY ARE SMALL ENOUGH, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER PROVIDE A BACKDROP TO PREVENT A BOW, UM, TO PREVENT AN ARROW FROM LEAVING THE PROPERTY, OR DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL AND THE SETBACKS INVOLVED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOOT INTERIOR TO YOUR PROPERTY RATHER THAN TO THE EXTERIOR. UM, AND THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE CHIEF JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING SOME SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE FOR THAT. AND WITH PERMITTING PROCESS, WE WOULD KNOW WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IT. SO IF WE WERE TO GET A COMPLAINT, WE WOULD KNOW, OKAY, THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO HAS THE PERMIT, WE CAN GO CHECK IT OUT. OR IF IT'S SOMEONE WHO COMPLETELY OPERATING WITHOUT REGARD TO THIS CODE SECTION. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT COUNCILMAN RES? THERE ARE SOME LARGER PARCELS STILL IN ALPHARETTA, AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD, IF IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO TRY PUTTING THE RESTRICTIONS ON, BUT NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT, NOT A GUN. SO I WAS, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF ANYBODY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN TAKING IT PARTWAY, BUT JUST SAYING A PERMIT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BOW. I I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO EITHER PROCESS. THE, THE, THE GOAL HERE FOR US IS JUST TO ENSURE SAFETY REALLY. SO HOWEVER WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE, IT'S JUST GIVE CURRENTLY. UM, WHEN WE GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT PEOPLE FIRING ARROWS ON THEIR PROPERTY OR USING A BOW ON THEIR PROPERTY, THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN DO ABOUT IT. IT'S THAT ULTIMATELY RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST WHEREVER THE ARROW GOES, THIS JUST GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE PROTECTION AND ALLOWS US TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE BEHAVIORS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY SKIRTING THE ENDS OF LIKE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD JUDGMENT. UM, SO IF I'M UNDER, YOU'RE SAYING JUST TO PUT IT, IF IT'S A LIKE AN AGRICULTURAL PIECE OF PROPERTY AT SOME SIZE AND LARGER OR WHAT, WHAT NO, I, I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING THAT'S LISTED RESTRICTION WISE. THE 150 FEET, ALL OF THAT MAKES, ALL, ALL OF THAT IS, AS YOU MENTIONED CHIEF, IT MAKES JUST REALLY GOOD COMMON SENSE. I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE EXTRA STEP OF GOING TO GET THE PERMIT. COULD WE HAVE IT AS A REQUIREMENT MS WAY, IF SOMEBODY COMPLAINS AND THEY, THEY VIOLATED THAT, THEN YOU STILL HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT ABILITY WITH OR WITHOUT A PERMIT? I'M JUST SAYING THE EXTRA STEP OF A PERMIT, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT EXTRA STEP IS NECESSARY AT THIS POINT, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS, THESE, THESE REGULATIONS OUTLINED BEFORE. CORRECT. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, UM, WHAT KIND OF GUIDANCE THEY WILL PROVIDE FOR FOLKS. CORRECT. THE ONE THING I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, UM, WITHOUT A DOUBT. THE ONE THING I'D LIKE TO WHERE WE TALK THROUGH, I THINK THE 150 FEET, UM, WITHIN A PROPERTY LINE REALLY HELPS YOU IDENTIFY THAT YOU'RE INSIDE YOUR PROPERTY AND BEING, BEING RESPONSIBLE. UM, BUT ON SOME PROPERTIES THERE AS WELL AS LOOKING AT RELATIONSHIP TO A DWELLING THAT HAS SOMEONE LIVING IN IT, WORKING IN IT. SO ANY, ANY, ANY KIND OF LIVING DWELLING, UM, YOU KNOW, STATE LAW'S PRETTY CLEAR A HUNDRED FEET WITHIN A, YOU KNOW, A CITY ROAD OR A COUNTY ROAD AND TO COME BACK IN TO JUST, JUST TO KEEP THOSE THAT ARE SAFE, YOU'RE SITTING ON YOUR BACK PORCH, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DOING. 150 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE IS, IS STILL PRETTY. IF WE'RE TALKING OLD SCHOOL, RECURVES IS ONE THING. WHEN SOMETHING'S RUNNING 450, 4 20 FEET PER SECOND, UM, 150 FEET IS NOT THAT TERRIBLY FAR. SO LOOK TO SEE MAYBE FROM A FINISHED DWELLING OR PROPERTY LINE THAT IT CAN BE DISCHARGED THERE AND LET IT'S BACK TO THE INTERIOR. BUT, UH, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL TAKING A, TAKING A LOOK AT IT. SO IF I CAN, UM, ANSWER MS UH, COUNCILMAN EVE'S QUESTION. SO THE, THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WOULD REALLY MATTER WITH RESPECT TO REMOVING THE PERMIT, WHICH IS PERFECTLY FINE IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANNA DO. THE VERY LAST SECTION SAYS THAT IF SOMEONE HAS VIOLATED THE CODE SECTION, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR A PERMIT TO DISCHARGE A BOW CROSSBOW WITHIN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. AND THAT'S, FRANKLY, THAT'S BASED OFF OF, I THINK ROSWELL IS WHERE I BORROWED THIS FROM. UM, IT'S NOT A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT I WAS, YOU KNOW, PIGGYBACK OFFING OF IT. UM, AND SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO VIOLATE AND WE JUST HAD THE REGULATIONS IN PLACE, IT WOULD STRICTLY BE A [00:10:01] CITATION WITH A PUNISHMENT, BUT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCHARGE A BOW, WHICH THAT'S A POLICY QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. UM, IF WE LEFT THE PERMITTING PROCESS IN, WE DECIDED, OKAY, THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A PERMIT ANYMORE AND THEY DID IT AGAIN, THAT WOULD JUST BE A DIFFERENT VIOLATION. SO ANY QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THIS? CHIEF? MY ONLY QUESTION IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASON FOR PERMITTING IS IF YOU HAVE A BAD ACTOR AND THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THAT BAD ACTOR MAY HAVE BEEN. SO IF WE HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE PERMITTED, AT LEAST WE KNOW WHO TO GO LOOK FOR. IF SOMETHING TRAGIC WERE TO HAPPEN, IT, IT ALSO GIVES US, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, MR. MAYOR. IT ALSO GIVES US JUST THE ABILITY OF, OF HAVING A PLACE TO START IF WE GET A COMPLAINT. SO WE, WE WOULD HAVE A PLACE TO START, BUT WE ALSO JUST THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A PERMIT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADDRESS IF WE COME ACROSS IT OR IF DNR COMES ACROSS IT WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP US IN ENFORCING THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE. THAT WAS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING. I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD HEARD THAT OR ANYONE HAD DISCUSSED THAT WITH YOU, BUT AT LEAST THAT GIVES US SOME WAY TO FIND OUT, OKAY, IF SOMETHING BAD WERE TO HAPPEN, WE CAN START WITH LIST OF PEOPLE THAT PERMITS IF THEY DON'T HAVE ONE, THEN THAT THEY'VE ALREADY VIOLATED ANY OTHER CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ITEM. OKAY. UM, IF YOU'D WANT ME TO MOVE ON. SO THERE ARE A, FRANKLY, A GARDEN VARIETY OF OTHER MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES THAT, UH, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD ASKED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS. UM, CAN GO THROUGH THEM, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY, SOME OF THEM ARE JUST GONNA LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU FROM WHETHER IT'S OTHER JURISDICTIONS OR SIMILAR PROVISIONS TO STATE LAW. UM, SO YOU HAVE INTERFERENCE WITH A CITY OFFICER, IT WOULD MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO INTERFERE WITH A CITY POLICE OFFICER OR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. UM, FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO, UM, CITY OFFICERS WOULD BE ANOTHER VIOLATION AS WELL AS LOITERING OR PROWLING. UM, SO FOR INSTANCE, WITH THE LOITERING TRIALING LANGUAGE, I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL SEEN THAT BEFORE. UM, STATE LAW AUTHORIZES CITIES TO HAVE A LOITERING ORDINANCE AND THIS LANGUAGE IS TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM STATE LAW. SO STATE LAW AUTHORIZES A LOITERING ORDINANCE. THIS LANGUAGE IS STRAIGHT FROM, UH, STATE LAW. UM, THEN YOU HAVE A TRESPASS ORDINANCE, UM, AS WELL AS A STREET RACING AND RECKLESS DRIVING EXHIBITION ORDINANCE. THIS WOULD MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANYONE NOT ONLY TO PARTICIPATE AS A, UM, IN, IN A RACE FOR INSTANCE, BUT, UM, PARTICIPATE IS DEFINED. SO ANYONE WHO KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN ANY WAY, NOT NECESSARILY JUST DRIVING, UM, WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE. A BLUE COUNCILMAN DORITO HAD A QUESTION. YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE RUNNING THROUGH THEM, BUT MM-HMM . I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND OF COURSE WHY WE'RE PUTTING THE, CONSIDERING PUTTING THESE IN PLACE JUST BECAUSE I KNOW IT PROBABLY HAS TO DO WITH LIKE, YOU ALREADY SPOKE TO THE, UH, THE BOW THING, CHIEF OF COURSE REGARDING, REGARDING THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANCE TO OUR POLICING IN THE CITY AND ENFORCING LAWS. THIS GIVES OUR POLICE A A LOT OF THESE THINGS WILL GIVE OUR POLICE A LITTLE BIT MORE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS, RIGHT? YES SIR. ABSOLUTELY. MAYBE BE ADJUDICATED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL VERSUS A STATE CHARGE OR WHATEVER. I, I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL IF THE COUNCIL HAD UNDERSTOOD WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT IT TO THESE SPECIFICALLY VERSUS JUST RUNNING THROUGH THEM BECAUSE THAT WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE A WORKSHOP IF WE'RE GONNA JUST THAT'S FINE. AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WERE GONNA HAVE QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC ONES OR IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR THE LIST AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS. NO. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO GO. UH, COUNSEL, I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. I JUST, FOR MY OWN BENEFIT, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF COUNCILMAN HEIGHTS LIKE MOST EVERYONE UP HERE. I DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT AND THE TIME SPENT TO PUT THIS TOGETHER AND HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREVIEW IT. AND WHEN I DID PREVIEW IT UNDER URBAN CAP CAMPING 30 DASH SEVEN, UM, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A VIOLATION, UH, TO SPECIFICALLY LIE DOWN. AND I SEE THAT IN THE SLIDE. IT'S REPACKAGED FROM AN EARLIER VERSION OF WHAT I HAD SEEN, BUT I SEE UNDER A TWO DEFINITIONS, UH, INTERFERENCE MEANS STANDING, SITTING, LYING DOWN. UM, ANY OTHER ACTIVITY IN A PUBLIC PARK, DID WE ADDRESS THE LYING DOWN PARK? I THINK WE DID. AND SO THE, IF YOU [00:15:01] CONTINUE READING, IT'S WHERE IT MATERIALLY INTERFERES WITH EGRESS AND EGRESS FROM BUILDINGS, DRIVEWAYS, STREETS, ALLEYS, OR ANY OTHER REAL PROPERTY. UM, UNDER THAT DEFINITION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH INGRESS AND EGRESS, THAT'S WHERE THE LYING DOWN IS, IS REFERENCED. AND SO IT WOULDN'T BE A VIOLATION SIMPLY TO LIE DOWN IN A PUBLIC PARK. IT WOULD HAVE TO INTERFERE WITH INGRESS AND EGRESS. I THINK THERE WAS AN EARLIER VERSION WHERE SOMEBODY MIGHT BE ABLE TO, WITH A STRAINED INTERPRETATION TO SAY, WE'RE CRIMINALIZING LYING DOWN IN A PARK. RIGHT. AND I I AND I DON'T WANT THAT. OF COURSE NOT. YES. AND I DID TAKE THAT OUT. SO THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. OKAY. YES IT HAS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN BRADING. YEAH, CHIEF, JUST SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, FOR GOING THROUGH THIS AND PUTTING THE TIME TO PUT IT TOGETHER AND THE TIME TO KIND OF PREVIEW IT. I, UH, AT THE TIME I MENTIONED SOMETHING ON THE STREET RACING KIND OF PART OF IT, AND THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED THE OTHER NIGHT. ON TOP OF THAT IS RACING'S ONE THING, BUT IT'S ALMOST THE, THE NOISE AND THE THREAT OF OTHER VEHICLES. 'CAUSE YOU HAVE THE, THE, I'LL CALL IT THE COOKOUT CLUB, RIGHT? UH, AND WHEN THEY LEAVE THERE OR OTHER THINGS, THEY MIGHT NOT BE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. BUT HERE'S WHAT I KIND OF NOTICED THE OTHER NIGHT, IS IT SCARED THE BEJESUS OUTTA ANYBODY ON THE SIDEWALKS IS YOU HAVE THESE MUFFLERS THAT ARE JUST OBNOXIOUSLY LOUD AND THEY ACCELERATE REALLY FAST AND EVERYONE THINKS SOMETHING IS HAPPENING AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S AT YOU. IT'S A VIOLENT STREET RACE THAT'S GOING ON, BUT IT MIGHT BE THE SMALLEST CAR WITH THE BIGGEST MUFFLER, BUT THE AMOUNT OF NOISE THAT COMES OFF THIS MUFFLER, IT JUST SCARES EVERYBODY. AND IT HAPPENED, UH, ON HAYNES BRIDGE AND THEN ON HIGHWAY NINE IT DID THE SAME THING WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE BEAUTIFUL EVENINGS LIKE THIS OVER THE WEEKEND, PEOPLE WERE, AND LITERALLY PEOPLE WERE, WERE, WERE DUCKING FOR COVER ON THE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE THE MUFFLER WAS THAT LOUD. SO IT REALLY MADE ME GIVE ANOTHER THOUGHT INTO THIS, THIS WORKSHOP A LITTLE BIT, TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE HISTORY HAS BEEN OR, OR I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT, BUT I WANTED TO BRING IT UP. IS THERE SOMETHING MAYBE WE CAN, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND MAYBE PUT IT INTO THE STREET RACING. THAT NOISE IS ANOTHER PART OF THAT NECESSARILY, NOT NECESSARILY SPEED. THERE, THERE ARE STATE LAWS THAT ADDRESS THE, THE, THE NOISE OF THE MU THE MUFFLERS WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS. BUT ULTIMATELY WHAT, WHAT YOU SEE MOSTLY WITH THESE, THESE EXHIBITIONS IS THE REASON THEY'RE DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE REASON THEY'RE REVVING 'EM UP IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AUDIENCE. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE AUDIENCE WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S JUST NOT FUN TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ACTIVITY. WHICH ULTIMATELY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS WE'VE SEEN BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF THE STUFF THAT'S HAPPENED IN SANDY SPRINGS AND BUCKHEAD AND SOME OF THOSE AREAS WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING RUN OVER BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DOING DONUTS AND THEIR CARS ARE OUT OF CONTROL. UM, WE'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE UP HERE NOT TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF AGGRESSION, BUT WE STILL HAVE CREATED THIS JUST SORT OF DISORDERLY ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING UP TO WATCH AND SHOW WHAT THEIR CAR CAN DO AND SHOW HOW MUCH NOISE THEIR CAR CAN MAKE. AND WE'RE JUST BASICALLY TRYING TO MAKE IT SO THAT THAT'S NOT COMFORTABLE ACTIVITY ANYMORE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO THIS POINT, COUNCILMAN? HE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORTH GOING OVER THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT, UH, FROM EARLIER VERSIONS THAT WE WERE EVALUATING, BUT ANYTHING ABOUT BICYCLES OR ELECTRIC BICYCLES IN TERMS OF WHY THAT WOULD BE NOT A PART OF THIS VERSUS MAYBE SHOULD BE? I CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS THAT. UH, SO WHAT COUNCILMAN HYPES IS REFERRING TO IS THAT WE HAD LOOKED AT PUTTING IN PLACE AN E-BIKE ORDINANCE, AND AS I WAS GOING THROUGH WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WHAT WAS EXISTING IN STATE LAWS, HOW E-BIKES ARE ALREADY TREATED UNDER OUR, PARTICULARLY OUR PARKS, ORDINANCE AND TRAILS, AS WELL AS THE ISSUES THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ENCOUNTERING. UM, WE HAVE DECIDED TO ONE, REVISIT THAT AND REPACKAGE IT. BUT THE E-BIKES FREQUENTLY, THE, THE BIKES THAT HAVE A PEDAL ASSIST, UM, THEY'RE DEFINED INTO THREE DIFFERENT CLASSES. AND THE PRIMARY WAY, SAY A CLASS ONE OPERATES AND FUNCTIONS IS THAT THE PEDAL ASSIST, UH, WORKS UNTIL THE BIKE HITS 20 MILES PER HOUR. UM, BUT WHAT OUR PARKS ORDINANCE HAS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR OUR TRAILS IS A 15 MILE PER HOUR LIMIT. AND SO IT EXPRESSLY ACTUALLY ADDRESSES E-BIKES IN OUR PARKS, IN OUR TRAILS. AND SO THAT IS ALREADY THERE. SO WHAT, UM, THE CHIEF AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IS TIGHTENING UP THE PARKS ORDINANCE RATHER THAN PUTTING IT IN CHAPTER 30. UM, AS TO THOSE. AND THEN HE HAD, UM, OFFICER MALONEY, UM, WHO HAS BEEN DOING TRAINING WITH THE OFFICER, PROVIDE ME WITH HIS TRAINING PRESENTATION. AND FREQUENTLY THE ISSUES THAT THEY ARE ENCOUNTERING ARE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF SOMETHING IS NOT AN E-BIKE. ULTIMATELY IT, IT ENDS UP BEING CLASSIFIED AS A MOTORCYCLE. MOTORCYCLES HAVE TO BE REGISTERED. IF IT'S [00:20:01] NOT AN E-BIKE AND IT'S NOT REGISTERED, THEN IT'S AN UNREGISTERED MOTORCYCLE. AND SO I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT THAT IN OUR ORDINANCES, BUT I'M STILL EXPLORING THAT. AND SO BEFORE WE BRING IT PARTICULARLY AS PART OF A CHAPTER 30 REVISION, I THINK IT HONESTLY PROBABLY IF WE DO ANYTHING, IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE TO TWEAK SOMETHING IN THE PARKS ORDINANCE, WHICH I ACTUALLY THINK IS PRETTY WELL ADDRESSED AND OTHERWISE TO ADD IT TO OUR STREETS SECTION OF THE CODE RATHER THAN CHAPTER 30. WELL, TO THAT END, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF OUR EVER-GROWING TRAIL SYSTEM AND, UH, THE E-BIKES CAN BE PROBLEMATIC IF THEY'RE NOT AT THE RIGHT SPEED. UM, UH, NOT TO MENTION ON STREETS AND SIDEWALKS RELATED AS SORT OF A COUSIN TO THE E-BIKES ARE ARE GOLF CARTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE TO ENABLE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE WHAT WE EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO DO ARE, ARE WE GOOD ON GOLF CARTS? THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE EXTENDED AND CONTINUED CONVERSATION THAT I'VE HAD WITH OFFICER MALONEY AND, AND THE CHIEF. UM, HE SENT ME HIS REQUESTED CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO GOLF CARTS AND PARENTAL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AS WELL. GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE. I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THE SAME THING. SO YOU'RE COMPLETELY ON POINT. IT'S JUST NOT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRESENTATION ANYMORE. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE E-BIKES. UM, I'M GLAD WE'RE WORKING ON IT. I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY GOT THE MEMO. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO AS A CITY TO INCREASE TRAINING FOR THE KIDS SO THAT THEY ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. I THINK A LOT OF THEM RECEIVED, UM, E-BIKE SLASH MOTORCYCLE FOR, UM, HOLIDAYS OR BIRTHDAYS BECAUSE AS THE WEATHER GETS BETTER, WE'RE SEEING HORDES OF MIDDLE SCHOOL BOYS. SO A LOT OF, AND IT SCARES ME 'CAUSE I WORRY THAT I HAVEN'T LIKE CAUGHT ALL OF THEM IN MY EYE. AND SO TO THAT END, AND IT'S NOT FOR TONIGHT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RADAR THAT I THINK IT'S PART OF OUR OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INFORM THE PUBLIC OF WHAT'S EXPECTED ON OUR PARKS CENTER AND OUR TRAILS. AND PARENTS, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR CHILDREN ALLOWED TO BE DRIVING DRIVING AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE REGISTERED AND WHAT DOESN'T? AND I, I THINK THERE'S, I THINK THERE'S A BIG GAP BETWEEN, IT DOESN'T MEAN WHATEVER WE DO HERE, WE HAVE TO GET THAT OUT AND GET THAT COMMUNICATED TO PEOPLE REALLY EFFECTIVELY. SO THAT'S, I HOPE WE FOLLOW UP ON THAT. IS THERE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS POINT? IS THIS ONE ALRIGHT. UH, SO AFTER THE STREET RACING ORDINANCE, UM, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD ASKED FOR A VANDALISM ORDINANCE. UM, THIS IN CERTAIN WAYS IS ADDRESSED IN STATE LAW. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BROADER. IT JUST GIVES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH TO DEAL WITH ISSUES INVOLVING BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. UM, AGAIN, MOST OF THESE ARE ABOUT BOLSTERING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S TOOLBOX FOR WHAT THEY HAVE FOR ENFORCING ISSUES THAT THEY ARE SEEING ACROSS THE CITY. SO IF THERE ARE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT BE UTILIZED, I WOULD DEFER TO THE CHIEF. UM, BUT THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ONE IS AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING. UM, THIS ACTUALLY SPANS SEVERAL SLIDES AND, UM, ULTIMATELY YOU ALL KNOW I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE RESTRAINED IN HOW WE HANDLE PANHANDLING FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE PANHANDLING IS PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY. IS IT POSSIBLE TO SHOW THESE ON THE SCREEN SO THAT IF ANY OF THE PUBLIC IS LOOKING IN, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THAT'S GOING TO BE OF ANY BENEFIT TO ANYBODY WATCHING, BUT AT LEAST THEY'VE GOT A FRAME OF REFERENCE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. DO Y'ALL WANT ME TO CONTINUE WHILE WE GET IT UP? OKAY. SO FOR AGGRESSIVE PAN, WELL, FOR PANHANDLING, JUST AS A REFRESHER, AS I WAS SAYING, PANHANDLING GENERALLY IS A PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY. AND SO THE CITY IS RESTRICTED IN WHAT IT CAN DO WITH RESPECT TO PANHANDLING AS IT SHOULD BE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE, UM, PANHANDLING MAY BE REGULATED. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AIMING TO DO, FRANKLY, IT IS, IT IS, UM, APPROACHING PANHANDLING WHEN IT IS, UM, INVOLVING THE SAFETY OR SECURITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL. AND WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, SAY LIKE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE, UM, OR WHERE THERE'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OR SOMEONE WHO'S, WHO'S PANHANDLING, BUT NOT LEAVING SOMEONE ALONE AFTER THEY'VE [00:25:01] BEEN DIRECTED NOT TO. UM, AND SO PANHANDLING IN THE CITY WOULD STILL BE LAWFUL IF SOMEONE IS ON A STREET, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM AND THEY WALK UP TO SOMEONE ASK FOR MONEY, THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. WHAT YOU WOULD SEE HERE IS, UH, I'LL GIVE AS AN EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, AN ATM, UM, YOU WANT SOMEONE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS, FOR, FOR PERSONAL SAFETY REASONS TO FEEL SECURE THAT WHEN THEY'RE APPROACHING AN ATM, THAT THEY ARE, ARE NOT GOING TO BE ASKED FOR MONEY. THAT SOMEONE'S NOT GOING TO INTIMIDATE THEM TO GET MONEY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AIMING TO, TO AIM TO, UM, PROHIBIT WITHIN THE CITY. UM, AND SO AGAIN, WE WOULD STILL BE, UM, ALLOWING PANHANDLING IN THE ORDINARY COURSE, UM, AS AUTHORIZED UNDER FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE. BUT, UM, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS WITHIN SAY 15 FEET OF AN ENTRANCE TO A BANK OR A CHECK CASHING BUSINESS OR AN ATM THAT WOULD BE, UM, AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING, HARASSING SOMEONE, MAKING SOMEONE BE FEARFUL WHILE THEY'RE PANHANDLING. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AGGRESSIVE, PANHANDLING UNDER OUR ORDINANCES AND WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC. SO, UM, THAT, THAT IS WHAT THAT ORDINANCE IS AIMED AT ADDRESSING COUNCILMAN DORITO. SO TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THIS PRACTICALLY. 'CAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALL EXPERIENCED LIKE ONCE IN A WHILE. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT OFTEN, IT'S NOT A REAL PROBLEM. BUT I'VE ALSO HAD SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS EXPRESS TO ME CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY WITH AN ATM INDOOR, ATM, NEAR THIS AREA OF THE CITY. I WON'T MENTION WHERE, BUT WHERE THEY'VE ACTUALLY CALLED THE POLICE A COUPLE OF TIMES. AND, AND CHIEF YOU AND I HAVE ACTUALLY I THINK TOUCHED ON THIS BRIEFLY, BUT THE, THE LOITERING ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW THE POLICE TO ACTUALLY HAVE BETTER ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO REMOVE THOSE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING STUPID UNLAWFUL IN THOSE ENCLOSED AREAS. RIGHT. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE LOITERING ORDINANCE. THAT SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR WOULD NOT NECESSARILY, NOT, NOT THE PANHANDLING PORTION OF IT, THE LOITERING WOULD JUST BE, NO, I'M SAYING THAT WHAT I JUST OUTLINED WOULD BE MORE UNDER THE LOITERING ORDINANCE, UH, SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT JUST BEING OR MADE IN AND MAYBE MAYBE LOOK INTO, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GIMME SOME MONEY? I NEED TO GET BUY GAS OR WHATEVER THEY TYPICALLY SAY MM-HMM . UM, OR WOULD THAT FALL UNDER THE PANHANDLING BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT, THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY'S ANYWHERE NEAR AN ATM, WE PUT THIS IN HERE SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT JUST INNATE FEAR. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE AT AN ATM, YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THEY'RE IN THOSE SITUATIONS GIVING OUT. THEY HAVE THEIR PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE ENTERING IN AND THEY'RE TAKING OUT MONEY OUT OF THEIR ACCOUNT. THEY FEEL PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE. YOU'RE, YOU'RE CAPTIVE WHILE YOU'RE CONDUCTING THE TRANSACTION. SO THIS IS WHY WE PUT THAT, THAT PORTION IN THERE SO THAT PEOPLE COULD FEEL SAFE WHEN THEY WERE DOING THAT BUSINESS SPECIFICALLY. WE HAVE HAD ISSUES WHERE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WITH THOSE INDOOR ADMS, WHERE THERE'S SOMEBODY SITTING INSIDE THE ATM WHILE PEOPLE ARE JUST TRYING TO CONDUCT THEIR HANGING OUT, WHETHER THEY'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE WEATHER OR ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND ULTIMATELY, IF THERE'S NOT AN AGENT ON DUTY TO TRESPASS THAT PERSON OFF THE PROPERTY, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS GONNA GIVE US THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS THAT SPECIFIC, THAT'S GONNA BE MY NEXT BEHAVIOR QUESTION TO POINT OUT THAT THAT WOULD, UP UNTIL NOW, UNTIL THEY GET APPROVED BY COUNSEL AND TO LAW, THERE'S NOT MUCH OUR POLICE CAN DO RIGHT NOW TO REMOVE THAT SITUATION. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN REEFS AND YOU, WE DO, THIS IS NOT ENFORCED ON A PRIVATE PROPERTY LIKE A GROCERY STORE PARKING LOT UNLESS THE OWNER HAS AGREED TO THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THERE'S A, THERE'S A COMBINATION OF ISSUES HERE WITH, WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY, UM, THAT WE HAVE MANY TRESPASS AFFIDAVITS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ALREADY. WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. IN WHICH WE CAN AND, AND WHICH THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO GO AHEAD AND ACT ON THEIR BEHALF. WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE. AND THEN ANY OTHER ISSUES AS YOU WOULD SEE IN HERE LATER, IF THEY'VE POSTED A SIGN WHERE THEY DO NOT WANT THAT BEHAVIOR ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS IT. CURRENTLY WE CAN'T. WE HAVE TO HAVE A, WE HAVE TO HAVE A VICTIM OR A CALLER CALL US AND SAY, THIS PERSON IS DOING X WITH THIS. WE WOULD JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT WANT THIS BEHAVIOR ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND THEN WE CAN GO OUT AND DEAL WITH THEM DIRECTLY RATHER THAN HAVING TO WAIT FOR A VICTIM TO CALL US ONCE AGAIN, CAN'T SAY IT ENOUGH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF THESE. IT'S VERY HELPFUL AND VERY, IT'S A LOT, A LOT MORE PROTECTION, A LOT MORE AMMUNITION FOR YOU TO USE. YES, MA'AM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT? OKAY. UH, THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, PUBLIC [00:30:01] DRUNKENNESS. AND I THINK THAT ONE PRETTY MUCH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. UM, BUT IT WOULD MAKE, IT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL TO APPEAR IN A PUBLICLY DRUNKEN STATE IN THE CITY. THIS IS ALREADY A STATE LAW OFFENSE, BUT IT'S EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED FOR AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE SAME CONDUCT, WHICH AS THE CHIEF MENTIONED, IT'S JUST GOING TO ALLOW US TO ENFORCE WITHOUT HAVING STATE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST SOMEONE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, CHIEF? JUST WITH THE CURRENT GROWTH OF OUR NIGHTLIFE THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY AND THE DOWNTOWN AREA. JUST HOW WE WANT TO KEEP THAT SAFE AND ORDERLY DOWN THERE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL GIVE US AN INITIAL TOOL AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WITH POTENTIAL GROWTH IN THE FUTURE, JUST AGAIN, GIVE US THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN CONTROL WITHOUT HAVING TO BE HEAVY HANDED, WITHOUT HAVING TO NECESSARILY GIVE PEOPLE CRIMINAL RECORDS BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD ONE TOO MANY TO DRINK. JUST GIVING US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN THEY DO TO DO OUR JOBS. COUNCILMAN, HES, SO BY USING THE TERM DRUNKENNESS, IS THAT IN, IN, IN THE STATUTE IT SAYS INTOXICATED, UH, BUT IT ALSO SAYS, IT SAYS APPEAR IN AN INTOXICATED CONDITION. IS THIS TIED TO ANY LEVEL OF BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OR IMPAIRMENT OR IS IT JUST MORE OF THE BEHAVIOR? IT WOULD BE THE BEHAVIOR AND THE MANIFESTATIONS. OKAY. AND HOW AND THE ACTIVITY AND, AND JUST SO WE HAVE A NICE ENFORCEABLE TYPE STATUTE, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SEE ERRATIC BEHAVIOR, HOW DO YOU TIE THAT TO INTOXICATION? MOST TYPICALLY YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A HEAVY ODOR OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, OR YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A CALL FROM A COMPLAINANT WHO SAYS, THIS GUY'S BEEN DRINKING TOO MUCH AND NOW HE'S UNRULY IN THE BAR. OR WE THREW HIM OUT OF THE BAR AND NOW HE'S IN THE STREET. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE KNOWN FACTORS THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT, BUT WE WOULDN'T, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST OR, YOU KNOW, CONDUCT ANYTHING LIKE ON THE SPOT WITH THE ALKA SENSOR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO DETERMINE. IT'S JUST THE, IT'S THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE OFFICER. YEAH. OKAY. AND THE, JUST ADD THE LANGUAGE FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS STATE LAW. SO THE ENFORCEMENT BEING TAKEN BY THE OFFICERS IN THE CITY WOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY WOULD AUTHORIZED TO DO UNDER STATE LAW AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE STATE, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. SO COUNCILMAN DORITO, UM, SHOULD WE NOT BE CONSIDERING SOME, NOT ONLY DRUG THIS, BUT OTHER FORMS OF, I DUNNO WHAT YOU WOULD CALL IT, IMPAIRMENT? IMPAIRMENT DRUG USE? I SAW, UH, AN INDIVIDUAL JUST A WEEK AGO OUTSIDE THE LIBRARY HERE IN MIDDLE OF DAY. UM, AND, UM, THE PERSON WAS, SEEMED TO BE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A MENTALLY DISABLED OR WAS ON SOME SORT OF, I'LL SAY DRUG OR SOMETHING THAT HAD CAUSED HER TO BE VERY ERRATIC AND ALMOST, UM, SO I WONDER, SHOULD WE INCLUDE SOMETHING IN IT EXCEPT JUST REFERRING TO ALCOHOL, BUT TO ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE THAT MIGHT CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE HAVE ERRATIC BEHAVIOR? DO YOU WANNA GO FIRST OR YOU WANT ME TO TAKE IT? UM, SO I MEAN, I, I SUPPOSE WE COULD, UM, WHAT STATE LAW HERE EXPRESSLY REFERENCES IS PUNISHING DRUNKENNESS. MM-HMM . UM, THAT, SO THE SUBSECTION A OF THE CODE SECTION IN STATE LAW USES THE SAME LANGUAGE AS IN THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH DOESN'T SAY DRUNK ANYWHERE OTHER THAN IN THE TITLE. RIGHT. AND TITLES NORMALLY ADVISORY, THEY'RE NOT CONTROLLING. HOWEVER, THE SUBSECTION B THAT AUTHORIZES CITIES TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE DEFINITELY REFERS TO PUNISHING DRUNKENNESS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT. AND THAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY WHERE I WOULD POINT YOU TO IS THAT THE NEXT THING I THINK THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD LOOK TO, IF THEY DON'T THINK SOMEONE IS INTOXICATED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT OUR, OUR DISORDERLY CONDUCT EVENTS. OKAY. AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE COULDN'T PUT AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT DEALS WITH ACTING ERRATICALLY WHEN YOU'RE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SOME SORT OF A DRUG. BUT THAT I THINK WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO ARTICULATE AND ENFORCE AND PROVE IN A COURT, UM, BASED ON ANY NUMBER OF SUBSTANCES OTHER THAN ALCOHOL THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY GIVE THAT ODOR THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. AND AT THAT POINT, REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TO DEAL WITH IS THE BEHAVIOR AND THE UNSAFE CONDUCT. AND AGAIN, I THINK AT THAT POINT WE WOULD HAVE A NUMBER OF ORDINANCES AND VIOLATIONS THAT WE COULD PROBABLY LOOK TO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. ESWINE? SO THE, THE NEXT ONE IS AVOIDING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, UH, SIGN OR LIGHT. AND SO THIS IS REALLY JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ORDERLY DRIVING ON OUR STREETS SO THAT SOMEONE CAN'T DRIVE OFF OF THE DESIGNATED [00:35:01] ROADWAY TO CUT ACROSS THE PARKING LOT OR OFF ROAD RIGHT TO AVOID TRAFFIC OR TO AVOID LAWFUL TRAFFIC SIGNALS. UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING PROPER LAW AND ORDER IN OUR STREETS. SO, UM, IF WE WERE TO HAVE AN OFFICER WATCH SOMEONE DRIVE ON THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD TO AVOID TRAFFIC OR CUT ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY TO CLEARLY AVOID A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ISSUE A CITATION UNDER THIS CODE SECTION. MAYOR PRO TIM, I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP WITH A THANK YOU. THIS CAME TO MY ATTENTION AT MANSEL ROAD AND 400 GOING SOUTH DURING RUSH HOUR. AND THE COMPLAINANT SAID THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING THROUGH THE MARTA PARKING LOT TO GET ON THE ON RAMP AND GET AHEAD OF EVERYBODY. AND SO I WENT DOWN THERE. IT WASN'T THE NEXT DAY, BUT IT WAS THAT WEEK. AND YEAH, IT, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE LETTING EACH OTHER CUT THROUGH TO GET OVER THERE. THERE WAS A WHOLE GROUP OF THEM THAT HAD CAUGHT ONTO THAT BEING A QUICKER WAY TO GET ON. SO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. YES, SIR. AND THAT ENDS UP ULTIMATELY CAUSING ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING TO TURN IN TRAFFIC TO GET STUCK IN THE INTERSECTIONS. AND THEN THE INTERSECTION GETS BLOCKED AND THEN EVERYTHING GETS, GETS. SO STATE LAW DOESN'T PROHIBIT THIS RIGHT NOW. SO CURRENTLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY USEFUL AND NOT JUST THERE, BUT IN MANY AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE YOU SEE PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH GAS STATION PARKING LOTS AND SHOPPING CENTERS TO AVOID THE LIGHTS. AND I'LL JUST ADD FOR THOSE OF YOU ON COUNCIL THAT MAY NOT BE AWARE IN THE PUBLIC, WE HAD A TRAGIC INCIDENT INVOLVING THIS LAST WEEK, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S DEFINITELY NEEDED IN THE CITY OF ALPHARETTA NOW. ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS PUBLIC URINATION OR DEFECATION. AGAIN, I THINK THIS PRETTY MUCH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, BUT, UM, IT WOULD MAKE IT A CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATION TO URINATE OR DEFECATE ON, UH, ON OR ADJACENT TO A STREET ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR IN ANY AREA OF THE CITY THAT'S, UM, IN VIEW FROM A PUBLIC STREET, UM, AS WELL AS IN ANY PORTION OF A PUBLIC BUILDING OTHER THAN AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A RESTROOM. OKAY. UH, CREATING A DISTURBANCE AT SCHOOLS. AGAIN, THIS ONE AGAIN, I THINK IT, IT PRETTY WELL SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. UM, THIS WAS ONE OF THE REQUESTS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, JUST TO AGAIN, HAVE SOMETHING TO NOT BRING STATE LAW CHARGES AGAINST SOMEONE IF THERE IS A SITUATION, UM, WARRANTING SOME SORT OF AN ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING IT BE A FINGER PRINTABLE OFFENSE. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. UH, THE NEXT TWO ARE ADDITIONS TO THE LOITERING SECTION OF THE CODE. UH, ONE IS LOITERING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN SOLICITATION OF SEX ACTS, AND THE SECOND ONE IS LOITERING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN DRUG RELATED ACTIVITY. UM, I CAN EXPLAIN THIS A LITTLE BIT BETTER RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE BULK OF THE ORDINANCE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS AIMED AT. UM, SO PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN OFFENSES UNDER STATE LAW CAN BE CHALLENGING TO, TO PROVE OR TO HAVE THE, THE BACKING NECESSARILY TO GET, TO GET THE CASE SEEN ALL THE WAY TO THE END FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS. RIGHT. UM, AND SO FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, WE CAN'T NECESSARILY DECRIMINALIZE AND PUT IN OUR ORDINANCE CERTAIN VIOLATIONS LIKE PROSTITUTION OR HAVING CERTAIN DRUGS. AND SO SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE APPROACHED IT BY DISCUSSING LOITERING. SO WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT SEE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LOITERING FOR THE PURPOSE OF, FOR INSTANCE, PROSTITUTION, RATHER THAN BRINGING A PROSTITUTION CHARGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MORE ACTIVITY THAN WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE, UM, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CITE SOMEONE FOR THAT PURPOSE. UM, AND SO IT WOULD KEEP IT IN MUNICIPAL COURT, KEEP IT IN THE LOCAL JURISDICTION WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT FULL PROCESS FOR WHAT WOULD BE A STATE LAW CHARGE. IN THE SAME WAY IT WOULD BE FOR DRUG ACTIVITY IF SOMEONE IS LOITERING FOR PURPOSES OF BUYING OR SELLING DRUGS, RATHER THAN HAVING TO WAIT FOR THE SALE TO OCCUR RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE FULL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD WARRANT GETTING THOSE STATE LAW CHARGES. THIS WOULD GIVE THE OFFICERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CITE WITH LESSER CHARGES, UM, UNDER THE LOCAL ORDINANCE TO KEEP IT WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION RATHER THAN HAVING TO BRING STATE LAW CHARGES. ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTINUE. OKAY. THE, THE LAST SET, UH, THE LAST THREE SLIDES ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSED IN SECTION OR CHAPTER 10 UNDER BUSINESSES. AND, UM, THIS WAS ADDED DUE TO SALES, UM, BASICALLY NOT IN BUILDINGS. RIGHT? NOT WITHIN [00:40:01] AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. AND THIS WAS MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT DOING THIS IN, IN DISCUSSING IT FURTHER WITH STAFF BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A WORK ACCESSION. UM, I TALKED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF, UH, JUST BEFORE THIS MEETING ACTUALLY, AND THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT, I'LL BE HONEST, I HAD NOT FOUND, IT'S UNDER THE NONCONFORMITY SECTION THAT PROHIBITS A LOT OF THIS BEHAVIOR. AND SO I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO, TO LOOK AT THIS AND SEE WHERE WE STAND WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE AN A PARENT PROCEDURE UNLESS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD SPECIFICALLY WANT TO DIRECT. UM, BUT WE ALREADY DO HAVE SOME PROVISIONS THAT MAY ADDRESS THIS FROM A USE STANDPOINT RATHER THAN A PERMITTING STANDPOINT. UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES PARTICULARLY INVOLVING CITY EVENTS THAT MEET, WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS MORE EXTENSIVELY, WHETHER IN OUR EVENT REGULATIONS OR IN OUR PARKS ORDINANCE. THOUGH OUR PARKS ORDINANCE ALSO ALREADY REQUIRES A PERMIT TO SELL TO SOLICIT WITHIN THE PARKS. UM, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING I WOULD SAY. UM, I HAVE THIS DRAFT AND I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STUFF ON IT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A FEW TOOLS THAT WE MAY WANT TO TWEAK RATHER THAN IMPOSE A PERMITTING REGULATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TIME. COUNCILMAN HEIGHTS, I HEARD EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND I DIDN'T FOLLOW IT. ARE WE WANTING TO PERMIT OR NOT WANTING TO PERMIT? I THINK WE'RE NOT WANTING TO PERMIT BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD BE INUNDATED. UM, THERE IS, UH, I THINK A CONCERN THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE VENDORS WILL START SELLING MERCHANDISE AND IT'S NOT IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. IT'S NOT PERMITTED AS PART OF A CITY EVENT. IT MIGHT BE IN A PARKING LOT OR IN THE RIGHT OF WAY SOMEWHERE, BUT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD GENERALLY SANCTION. THIS WAS GOING TO BE A PROCESS FOR US TO SPECIFICALLY PERMIT IT. UM, AND I THINK THAT FOR THE CITY EVENTS SITUATION, THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON THIS WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. WE CAN ADDRESS IT IN A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE CODE RATHER THAN JUST HAVING IT IN BUSINESSES BECAUSE THE UDC ALREADY PROHIBITS SALES IN AREAS THAT ARE NOT ENCLOSED AT LEAST ON TWO SIDES, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE DEF DEFINITION FOR TEMPORARY VENDING ALREADY SAYS. SO FOR THOSE OF US WHO SPEND TIME ON THE TOWN GREEN DURING THE SUMMER, WE'RE AWARE THAT POP-UP TENTS GETS SET UP ACROSS WHERE THE HAWK LIGHT IS. AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE EASIEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT IS IF WE JUST HAD A PERMITTING REQUIREMENT AND YOU WOULDN'T GET A PERMIT TO BE THERE BECAUSE OF TIME PLACE RESTRICTIONS. AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PERMIT, THAT WOULD GIVE YOU AS AN OFFICER AUTHORITY TO SAY, YOU NEED TO CLOSE THIS UP AND MOVE ALONG. YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T WANT A PERMIT. I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING YOU DON'T, BUT THAT'S A QUESTION I THINK THAT'S MAYBE BEYOND ME JUST SAYING WHETHER OR CAN WE HAVE BELTS AND SUSPENDERS? CAN WE HAVE PERMITTING AND SOME OTHER AVENUE TO ADDRESS THIS? OR IS IT THAT COMPLICATE THINGS? I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF REGULATION ON IT ALREADY. IF WE WANT TO ALLOW IT IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS, THEN I THINK A PERMITTING SYSTEM WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO IT, WHICH IS WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. IF YOU READ OUR, YOU READ OUR PARK RULES, THERE'S A SECTION THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T SOLICIT IT IN A PARK OR SELL THINGS IN A PARK WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO ON THE TOWN GREEN, THAT'S PARK, RIGHT? THAT'S PART OF OUR PARK SYSTEM. WELL, THAT'S ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT IT'S STILL PUBLIC SPACE. IF IT'S ON THE SIDEWALK, THEN WELL, THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE TOWN GREEN AS WELL. I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL INSTANCES, BUT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS IT EXTREMELY LOW LEVEL. YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD'VE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT SELLING GIRL SCOUT COOKIES EVEN, YOU KNOW, THAT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT NEVERTHELESS, I'M LOOKING FOR THE MOST EFFECTIVE UNINTRUSIVE WAY TO ALLOW OUR OFFICERS TO EXERCISE DISCRETION, TO KEEP THINGS MOVING. SO I CAN ADDRESS ONE PART OF WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS THAT THE STATE LAW LEMONADE ACT, LEMONADE STAND ACT, UM, PREVENTS US FROM REGULATING, AND THIS WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE TO, AND IF YOU READ IT, IT ACTUALLY DOES EXEMPT ANY SALE BY A MINOR OF CONSUMABLE GOODS. SO LEMONADE STANDS, GIRL SCOUT COOKIES, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT ON STATE LAW. AND I HAD PUT THAT IN OUR PERMITTING ORDINANCE. UM, I'M, I'M THANKFUL 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA FIGHT FOR THAT EXCEPTION. THINGS YOU LEARN WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER CITY ORDINANCES. RIGHT. UM, BUT, UH, I THINK THIS ONE JUST REQUIRES, IF I'M BEING CANDID, A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND COUNCIL, FRANKLY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S A A PRETTY BROAD POLICY OBJECTIVE BEING APPROACHED ON THIS ONE. AND IT COULD BE APPROACHED IN A, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS. UM, AND, AND I WOULD DEFINITELY WANNA BE MINDFUL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TIME THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT WITH THIS VERSION. WHAT COUNCILMAN HYPES IS PROPOSING SEEMS TO MAYBE STRIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BALANCE FROM JUST RELYING ON WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. SO I WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH STAFF, UM, BOTH WITH [00:45:01] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE ON THAT ONE. AWESOME. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THIS? IF I MAY, MR. MAYOR, ON THAT LAST POINT, YOU MAY. FROM THE, UH, FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE LIKE THE, THE, IT'S OFTEN THE VERY GRAY AREAS. THIS PERSON IN THE PARK IS THIS PERSON NOT IN THE PARK. A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, WE HAD PEOPLE PULLING WAGONS DOWN THE STREET DURING THE CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING. NOW THEY'RE NOT ON THE GREEN, THEY'RE NEXT TO THE GREEN OR ADJACENT TO THE GREEN. BUT YOU'RE GETTING COMPLAINTS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO'VE PAID TO BE THERE, THAT THEY'RE NOT BUYING MY STUFF, THEY'RE BUYING THEIR STUFF BECAUSE THIS PERSON'S DRAGGING THROUGH AND THEY DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT I WENT THROUGH. SO JUST HEARING THOSE COMPLAINTS FROM SOME OF THE TAX PAYING CITIZENS ABOUT THOSE ACTIVITIES WAS THE, THE, THE SORT OF THE IMPETUS BEHIND ASKING FOR THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. THANK YOU FOR FILLING THAT OUT. I APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? THIS IS A WORK SESSION, SO WE'LL NOT BE VOTING ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS. IF EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, WE CAN MOVE ON. AND NEXT [4. EXECUTIVE SESSION] ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ACTUALLY AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION TO THANK YOU CHIEF VOTE TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO MOVE, MOVE BY COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER DORITO SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DRISCOLL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE VOTE YES. AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. EXCELLENT. SO WE WILL BE RECESSED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND RETURN ONCE WE'RE COMPLETED. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONVENE? MOTION TO RECONVENE, MAYOR. SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DORITO, SECOND BY MAYOR PROTI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECONVENING THIS MEETING, PLEASE VOTE YES. AND IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. AND SINCE OUR FORMAL MEETING WON'T BEGIN FOR ANOTHER 20 MINUTES, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS SESSION? THE WORK SESSION. MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS SESSION. SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN, HES SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TIM TO ADJOURN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE VOTE YES. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK IN A FEW MINUTES. YOU HAVE SOME FORMS BACK HERE TO SIGN. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.