Public Parks Ordinances 1899, 1900, and 1901 Public Comment from Luke RumageAimee Brunckhorst
From: Luke Rumage <lukerumage@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:52 PM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: EXTERNAL Public Parks Ordinances 1899, 1900, and 1901
Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Luke, and I live at 1910 Jefferson Blvd. I cannot make the city council meeting tonight, but would like to
share my thoughts.
I appreciate you all discussing the issue of homelessness and the impacts it has on our public parks. The issues brought
up at the last work session brought to light a lot of debate within the community about the correct way to work with
and help our neighbors dealing with homelessness. Within the work session multiple different ideas for solutions were
brought forward — I would like to note that no one "solution" will fix the problem and this will continue to be an ongoing
debate.
The ordinances proposed today are reactionary in the fact that they require an issue before being acted upon. This is
not a bad thing, most laws and regulations are reactionary. These ordinances proposed today will not stop
homelessness but will move the homeless to another location out of the eyes of the community. If our goal is to move
them and forget about them, these ordinances will do just that. If our goal is to show compassion and love to our
neighbors in need, we must look at a holistic approach that prevents homelessness and better utilize our community
resources and non -profits to help support the people who fall through the cracks, get them back on their feet, off the
streets, and back to being productive members of society.
Focusing on the ordinances: I am concerned that these ordinances implemented as they read now will have unintended
consequences. Please see the following for my questions and concerns.
Ordinance 1899
Exhibit A Section B
Excessive — does this include picnics or kids selling lemonade on the street corners? These could both be
considered "more than what a reasonable person would carry with them as the most rudimentary precaution or for the
enjoyment or use of the public property or an amount of property that will interfere with another's use of public
property' and also could "Deprive another the use of the same property' per Exhibit A Section C Subsection 1
Public Property, Sidewalks — are people going to be fined for parking their vehicles in their driveways if they
overhang the sidewalks? City code chapter 17 section 57 already makes that illegal, would this add a fine to that? This
would also be an issue under Exhibit A Section C Subsection 3 which reads "Creates an obstruction."
Side note: is this not already covered in Kalispell City Code Chapter 19 Section 10 Disorderly Conduct? Specifically,
subsection 4 — unreasonably impeding vehicular or pedestrian traffic, subsection 5 — unreasonably impeding the free
ingress or egress to public or private places, or subsection 8 — creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition by
any act that serves no legitimate purpose? If it is not, can we rework ordinance 1899 to clarify what is considered
excessive, and how it can be associated with chapter 19 section 10 subsection 4?
Ordinance 1900
"No person shall, in any park or other public grounds, erect, maintain, use or occupy any tent, lodge shelter, structure,
or unattended installation or display." Does this include sunshades, shelters, or canopy tents that people put up to
watch their kids play in the parks?
Is there a way to clarify this law so it does not inadvertently target people recreating in and enjoying our parks?
Ordinance 1901
"Use of any and all covered city park structures by any person be limited in time to no more than 90 cumulative minutes
of use within one calendar day." Cumulative means throughout the whole day, so if someone stays there for one hour
in the morning and leaves, then they can only come back to that area for 30 more minutes in the afternoon. This would
affect parents, kids, homeschool programs, etc that use the parks for recreation and education.
Is there a time requirement on park amenity reservations? If so, can we extend the 90 minutes requirement to stop at
the length of time when a permit is required? If there is no minimum time limit on a permit, can the cumulative time
limit in this ordinance be raised to two or three hours?
Thank you for your time and the work you do for Kalispell.
Sincerely,
Luke Rumage
T. (815) 543-5799
E. lukerumage@gmail.com