MIN 08-03-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Kepple read the following report into the record: Committee members Litten, Rader, Kepple were present along with Councilmembers Shachner, Neff, & Bullock; Law Director Corrigan, Mayor George, Fire Chief Dunphy, Police Chief Wilkins, Planning Director Leininger, Human Services Director Gelsomino, and members of the public The meeting was called to order at 7:06pm, and the minutes from the previous meeting were unanimously approved. The main focus on the meetings was discussion ofRESOL UTION 2020-45 regardingface coverings and public safety in businesses and public spaces. The Committee discussed a revised version of the ordinance that was distributed to on Friday Council via email. The revised version takes into account feedback from local small businesses, with the most significant change being the removal of the 50% occupancy requirement, as several bars and restaurants have provided examples of how they are able to safely maintain a higher occupancy through barriers, physical distancing, and expanding outdoor dining. The revised version continues to mirror the state's mask mandate language and exemptions. In response to a question from a member of the public about effective mask wearing, it was noted that the resolution defines a face covering as "any material covering the individual's nose, mouth and chin. " The revised resolution also introduces the idea of using the Chapter 510 Nuisance Abatement to enforce violations of the Governor's order related to social distancing. Mayor George explained that enforcement is currently performed by the State Investigative Unit and CCBH, both of which are overwhelmed. She expressed confidence that the legislation will empower local safety forces to enforce the mandates. She also noted that the revised version removes the warning for a first offense and replaces it with a $50 citation. Councilmember Shachner and I asked for some clarification from Law Director Corrigan regarding the criminal nature of an individual or business not following a state Public Health Order vs the local civic penalty proposed in the resolution. Mayor George expressed reluctance to enforce a criminal penalty, and Director Corrigan acknowledged that de-criminalizing failure to wear a mask could potentially be challenged but that he feels the City is on solid ground. He noted that other municipal mask mandates are written in this way. We had some robust conversation around whether the nuisance chapter provided sufficient incentive and enforcement tools. Councilmember Shachner and I expressed some concern that the proposed penalties under the nuisance chapter would not be enough to deter the boldest and most affluent offenders, creating an inequity issue, when part of the goal is to support small businesses who are behaving responsibly by enforcing these public safety requirements universally. We expressed concern that some businesses with larger pockets might roll the dice, taking the risk that over-crowding would increase