HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 14 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6, Vehicles and Traffic, Adding Section 6.112 to the Springfield Municipal Code, Unlawful Transfer on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/21/2016
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Chief Tim Doney/Mary Bridget Smith, CAO
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3729
Estimated Time: 15 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Enhance Public Safety
ITEM TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
ADDING SECTION 6.112 TO THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, UNLAWFUL TRANSFER ON VEHICULAR PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a first reading on the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
ADDING SECTION 6.112 TO THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, UNLAWFUL TRANSFER ON VEHICULAR PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OFWAY (FIRST READING)
ISSUE STATEMENT: Shall the City develop and implement an Ordinance prohibiting vehicle drivers and passengers from transferring money or other property to pedestrians upon the public
roadway?
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Council Briefing Memo Attachment 2 – Proposed Ordinance
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed ordinance would prohibit motor vehicles from stopping in the roadway for the purpose of transferring property to pedestrians and does not exempt
situations where drivers or passengers donate to persons asking for charitable
contributions under a pedestrian activity permit.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield 3/17/2016Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: March 15, 2016
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Mary Bridget Smith, City Attorney
Tim Doney, Police Chief
Subject: Follow-up on Proposed Unlawful Transfer
Ordinance
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND:
At a recent Council meeting, the City Council asked the City Attorney’s Office and the Police Department to follow-up on some questions regarding the proposed Unlawful Transfer
Ordiance. Those questions were to determine whether any similar Ordinances had faced legal
challenges, if the state vehicle code violation for impeding traffic could serve the same purpose as the proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance, and what data the City had to support the
Ordinance.
Legal Challenges: The proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance that is being considered by the
City Council prohibits vehicle drivers and passengers from transferring property to a pedestrian
in the right-of-way unless they are legally parked. The version included in this AIS packet does not exempt drivers or passengers when they transfer property to persons soliciting for
contributions under a pedestrian activity permit for fundraisers like “Fill the Boot” and “Curbing for Cancer”.
Outright restrictions to panhandling or solicitation are generally considered to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Oregon Constitution due to their limitation on free speech. Comite de Jornaleros v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F. 3rd 936 (9th Cir. 2011).
Most of the litigation involving this area of law involves panhandling statutes that focus on the behavior of the person that is soliciting contributions or charity from other people. The focus of
the proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance, on the other hand, is on the driver and its purpose
make traffic flow more safe and efficient. People may still make contributions to persons who are soliciting, but they must legally park their vehicle before doing so. I could find no pending
litigation involving this type of Unlawful Transfer Ordinance.
When drafting the proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance, staff consulted with and reviewed
similar ordinances from other jurisdictions. Staff learned that none of these other jurisdictions faced a legal challenge. Those jurisdictions generally found that the effectiveness of the kind of ordinance was found in public education and posting signs instead of aggressive enforcement.
Moreover, the proposed Springfield ordinance is less restrictive because it only addresses the
behavior of the driver and passenger(s).
There has been, and continues to be, litigation that focuses laws that try and put limitations on persons soliciting contributions. For example, in December of 2015, the City of Grand Junction, Colorado lost a federal lawsuit with the ACLU involving a “aggressive panhandling statute”.
That statute was not like the proposed Springfield Ordinance. Rather, it restricted the time and place that individuals could ask for contributions. For example, it made it a crime to ask for
charity after sunset or within 20 feet of an ATM or bus stop. It also prohibited asking for
donations from people standing in line or seated in an outdoor café. In terms of vehicle traffic, the restrictions were put on the pedestrian asking for contibutions, not the driver or passenger(s).
As a result, the risk for this type of litigation for the proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance is
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
3/17/2016 Page 2
less because it focuses on the driver and traffic safety and does not try and restrict individual’s
free speech rights to express themselves.
Impeding Traffic, ORS 811.130: The statute for impeding traffic states that: “A person commits
the offense of impeding traffic if the person drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor
vehicles in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” This violation can be distinguished from the proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance in several
ways. First, it is Class D violation with a fine of $110 as opposed to the proposed $50 fine in the Unlawful Transfer Ordinance. It also is less specific than the proposed Unlawful Transfer Ordinance. For example, the impeding traffic violation invites argument as to whether a
momentary stopping to hand something to a pedestrian unreasonably interfers with traffic. The driver is expected to evaluate the consequences of momentarily stopping in real time in order to avoid impeding traffic which could be a dangerous distraction in and of itself. The Unlawful
Transfer Ordinance, on the other hand, does not leave it up to the driver to try and figure out what the likely effect of their actions will be and so eliminates both the risk imposed by impeding traffic and the danger of a distracted driver as they try and figure out whether they can
give something to a pedestrian before a light changes or the car in front of them travels.
Police Department Data:
The follow is a summary of citations issued in the past year for drivers impeding the roadway
and pedestrians improperly positioning themselves on a road and the number of accidents
involving pedestrians and vehicles.
Citations:
ORS 811.130 – Impeding Traffic January 2015 – Present = 9 citations
This is a class D traffic infraction, minimum fine $60, presumptive fine $110, Maximum fine $250
814.070 – Improper position upon or improperly proceeding along a highway January 2015- Present = 19 citations
This is a class D traffic infraction, minimum fine $60, presumptive fine $110, Maximum fine
$250
Accidents Involving Autos and Pedestrians throuout the City of Springfield:
January 2015-Present = 49 auto vs. pedestrian crashes with 8 fatalities
Determining crashes with a pedestrian soliciting from motorists as a contributing factor will be extremely labor intensive. The traffic/motor team officers don’t recall a recent crash with this as a factor noted but indicate that pedestrian’s soliciting in traffic does impede the flow of traffic
and create unsafe situations.
COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE:
Enhance Public Safety
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction on the proposed Ordinance and if the Council decides to adopt this Ordinance,
hold a first reading.
N:\OneDrive for Business\City\ORDINANC\2015\Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance 6.112 CBM.doc
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ADDING SECTION 6.112 TO THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, UNLAWFUL
TRANSFER ON VEHICULAR PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds as follows:
WHEREAS, conducting transactions in the street from or within a right-of-way creates
safety risks for pedestrians and motorists;
WHEREAS, conducting transactions in the street from or within a right-of-way slows and
impedes the safe and efficient flow of vehicular traffic;
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that public streets and roadways operate safely;
and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Springfield to add Section 6.112,
Unlawful Transfer on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way, to the Springfield Municipal
Code.
NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council of the City of
Springfield ordains as follows:
Section 1. The following section shall be added to Chapter 6, Vehicles and Traffic, index
page:
A6.112 Unlawful Transfer on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way.@
Section 2. The following language shall be added as Section 6.112, Unlawful Transfer
on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way:
A6.112 Unlawful Transfer on Vehicular Portion of the Right-of-Way.
(1) A person commits the offense of unlawful transfer on a vehicular portion
of the right-of-way if the person while a driver or passenger in a vehicle on a
highway, road or street within the boundaries of the city of Springfield, gives or
relinquishes possession or control of, or allows another person in the vehicle to
give or relinquish possession or control of any item of property to a pedestrian.
(2) This section does not apply if the vehicle is legally parked.
(3) An offense of this section is punishable as a violation and may include a
fine of $50.00.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
Section 3. Severability. If any phrase, clause, or other part or parts of this Article is
found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses
and other part or parts shall remain in full force and effect.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Springfield this ____ day of ______________,
2016 by a vote of _____ in favor _____ against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ____ day of _______________,
2016.
___________________________________
Christine Lundberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Amy Sowa, City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2