Should the City Regulate Homeless Meal Distributions?

by Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Draft regulations would limit when and where

Mark Becktel, Public Works Operations Manager will be talking with CANDO about the City's proposal to limit the distribution of free food and "sundries" in City parks and rights of way at the May meeting at the First Christian Church on Tuesday, May 21, at 6p.

This post focuses on the proposal to limit food (meal) distributions.  It concludes that the City has failed to assess the situation properly, and needs to start over. 
 
Benevolent meal distributions are already regulated by state laws and rules that require permits and licenses.  These regulations are supposed to be enforced by county health officials, but, up until now, they haven't been.  They are now being enforced on a limited basis.

The City is proposing to set up an independent regulatory scheme that the City would either have to enforce, or that would depend on voluntary compliance.  Under the City's scheme, benevolent meals could be served only in certain areas of certain parks, regardless of the number of guests.  More about that provision later.

The City's proposal to regulate meal distributions arises out of the Public Works Department's decision in late 2017/early 2018, to install (without notice to CANDO) garbage cans and concrete tables and benches in the area posted “no trespassing” under the Marion Street bridge and instruct groups serving meals to the homeless community in that area to obtain permits through its "Reserve a City Facility or Park" system.  See SRC 94.200(c), which provides that a "park or a portion thereof, may be reserved for organized or group activities," emphasis added.  Some groups obtained permits, others did not.  People attached tents and tarps to the concrete furniture.  The area eventually became a large, unsanitary, unsafe homeless camp.  

Then, in January 2019, the City posted the area for eviction, stopped issuing permits and removed the garbage cans and concrete tables and benches.  See, Brynelson, T. and Alexander, R. "Salem to evict homeless camp at Marion Square Park." (9 January 2019, Salem Reporter.)  Bach, J. and Barreda, V. "Salem Bans Volunteers from Feeding Homeless Under the Marion Street Bridge." (11 January 2019, Statesman Journal.)  Alexander, R. "With eviction looming for homeless camp, its residents and leaders left with questions." (11 January 2019, Salem Reporter.)  Barreda, V. "Homeless advocates rally under the Marion Street Bridge." (13 January 2019, Statesman Journal.)  Brynelson, T. "City, police, service providers prepare for homeless eviction Tuesday." (14 January 2019, Salem Reporter.) and "Marion Square Park homeless camp evicted, organizations offer aid." (15 January 2019, Salem Reporter.)  See also “Meals Under Bridge on Shutdown.”

Shortly thereafter, even though there was not at the time any legal prohibition against distributing food and charitable donations in Salem parks per se, the City formed a task force “to find ways to allow distribution of food and other charitable donations to the homeless population in Salem parks while significantly minimizing the impact to the properties and its users.”  The task force was not asked to determine the need for outdoor meals, or for parks as a place to serve them.

As was noted during the task force proceedings, the Salem Revised Code does not regulate benevolent distributions per se, but requires a permit only when someone wishes to reserve a City park or facility (SRC 94.200(c)) for the purpose, or when s/he “expects or intends to involve 200 or more persons assembling on public property” (SRC 104.030).

Back in 2018, when the City placed garbage cans and concrete tables and benches in the area under Marion Street Bridge, it effectively created a reservable City "facility."  Then, by asking meal providers to seek permits to reserve the area and eventually putting the area off limits and announcing the permit program was "suspended," the City gave people (including the media) the impression that you had to have a City permit to serve benevolent meals in City parks.  But, as noted above, you don't.  You only have to have a county permit.  So, the question is, should the City also regulate benevolent meal distributions? The answer is, we don't yet know.

When the City announced it was "suspending" permits in January 2019, the meals moved to the parking lot at 615 Commercial Street NE, just north of Marion Square Park, by arrangement with the owner, the Mid Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA), and Marion County Environmental Health, pending completion of renovations which include a commercial kitchen.  When that happens, meals will have to move either indoors, or somewhere else.  Most sensible people would prefer that the meals move indoors.  See here for a detailed description of the effect of the parking lot meals on MWVCAA.     

So, what is the City proposing?  The Director of Public Works is authorized under SRC 94.200(d) to "regulate the activities in park areas when necessary to prevent congestion and to procure the maximum use and safety for the convenience of all.”  An undated draft staff report sent to the City Manager on March 27, 2019, proposes to institute the requirement of a permit to “engage in benevolent distributions on City property” by amending the City’s rules and regulations (not the code), specifically, the Parks Streets and Open Spaces rules and regs, a portion of which appears at the top of this post.  The proposed rules would restrict distributions to certain parks designated “reservable or common areas” and require distributors to reserve them (i.e., obtain a permit), without regard to how many people are intended to be served.   

Put briefly, the City is proposing to adopt a rule saying that, no matter how many people are involved, benevolent distributions must be restricted to certain areas of certain parks, and those areas must be reserved.  Because a reservation is required, a permit under SRC 94.200(c) is required.  

The proposed rule might be a clever way to avoid having to amend the code, except that it's hard to make the case that restricting benevolent distributions to certain areas of certain parks, regardless of the number of people involved, is "necessary to prevent congestion and to procure the maximum use and safety for the convenience of all” under SRC 94.200(d).  If it isn't, the proposed rule is not within the Director's regulatory authority, and a code amendment (i.e., action by City Council) is required.   

The proposed rule was originally scheduled to go before the City Council on April 8, but it was removed from the agenda and not rescheduled.  What we know happened next comes from the unpublished draft minutes of the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB)'s April meeting.  They say the City Manager and City Council sent Becktel to SPRAB to ask what should be done, even though SPRAB was represented on the task force.  

An excerpt of the draft minutes is pasted below.  It gives SPRAB four options.  Notice that the options  reduce the number of parks where meals will be allowed from 13 (as provided in the proposed rule) to 10 (option 1) or 5 (option 2).  The reason given SPRAB for the choice of parks was that homeless individuals live or congregate in them, and/or the parks have a sheltered area and restrooms. 

Draft minutes of April 11 SPRAB meeting

       

The draft minutes also state "Chair Quillinan is concerned about holding these activities in parks. Parks are for recreation and this is a social issue that needs to be addressed. There should be other potential locations other than parks for these feedings."  SPRAB took no action.

Of course, there are other potential locations, but the City has people very confused to the point they believe that meal distributions are not allowed anywhere unless one has a City permit, which is simply not true.  Unless a reservation is involved, or 200+ guests are expected, the only permit that's currently required is the one from the county.

The SPRAB minutes say Becktel put the issue this way:  "[T]he focus is to get as many of the homeless to established shelters as possible.  Acknowledging there will be some people who will not go to a shelter facility, there will still be a need to feed outdoors.  The question was: Where to conduct the feedings?"

But the question Becktel put to SPRAB was, Which parks do you want to restrict "outdoor feedings" to?  Ten?  or Five? 

Our question is, who decided the City should restrict benevolent distributions in parks, regardless of whether reservations or 200+ guests are involved?  The answer is, no one. 

The City has needlessly complicated things by failing to ask very basic questions and examining assumptions, including its own.  Questions like, Is there an objective need to "feed outdoors?"  How big is it?  Does it need to occur in City parks?  Does anyone want it to occur in parks?  Which parks?  How often?  Are they currently taking place in parks?  Which parks?  How often?  What issues, if any, have there been?

City Manager's Update on the clean up under the MSB

To be clear, the problem was never benevolent meal distributions generally.

The problem was the daily meals under the Marion Street Bridge, because in between them, people lingered, camped, were preyed upon, and engaged in anti-social behavior there, and in the adjacent Marion Square Park, and the police, who spent 80% of their time at the park during the summer already, didn't have the resources to enforce the camping prohibition.

But, all along, the area under the bridge, which was not part of the park, was posted no trespassing.  When the City finally decided to enforce the order, the immediate problem was solved.  With no daily meal service, a lot of people went to UGM for meals, and people stopped hanging about in Marion Square Park. 

MWVCAA's involvement with the meal providers using its parking lot has kept things fairly orderly and predictable.  They will be more so once the renovations are completed, and the meals move inside.  That's expected to be some time in August.
 
If providers don't choose to move inside in August, they will need to obtain permits from the county every 30 days.  Marion County has waived fees through August 1.  But, after that, the county must charge in order to cover costs.

Before the City undertakes to regulate benevolent meal distributions in parks, it should first find out whether the groups currently serving meals in MWVCAA's parking lot expect to move indoors in August, or whether they, or some of them, plan obtain county permits so that they may continue serving meals outdoors somewhere.  The City should ask whether those county permittees will want to use City parks for meal distributions, and how often.  Then, and only then, should the City decide whether to adopt regulations mandating that benevolent meals be restricted to certain facilities in certain parks, or whether to reject them as stigmatizing and invidious, status-based discrimination in favor of some less restrictive, more humane scheme. 

The City might, or might not need to regulate homeless meal distributions some time in the future, but not along the lines that are currently being proposed.  The City needs to stop, back out its erroneous assumptions and reassess the situation.  If that's what is meant by "Do nothing" (option 4), then that's what SPRAB and CANDO should recommend. 

6/10/19 Update:  from the City Manager's Update of June 5, 2019

 

Food Task Force Recs Hit Wall

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

City Manager Steve Powers has declared that the Food Task Force recommendations will not go to City Council at its April 8 meeting on the grounds that the recommendations to amend the Salem Revised Code "could result in changes to the community's expectations for its parks."  (His email at left.)

That's a good reason to delay implementing law and rule changes, but not a good reason to delay presentation of the recommendations.  It's not now known when or how the recommendations will be presented to Council. 

We asked Powers when he might be "sharing the recommendations with the...Council" and whether it would be a public process, and were told: "The task force recommendations are public and will be available to anyone at the task force webpage.  There will be a report from me at a future council meeting regarding next steps for the task force recommendations."  When we asked for clarification, pointing out that only the draft recommendations are available on the webpage, he replied, "The final report with the task force’s changes will be posted to the web page. I’m not sure why there has been a delay.  The recommendations will be shared at a future council meeting." 

It's been about three months since the City announced it would take 30 days to re-evaluate the City's meal distributions permit process.  See "Meals Under Bridge on Shutdown" and "Refusal to Admit Error Delays Meal Permits."  In March, Mark Becktel told the Food Task Force that Council would receive a staff report on its recommendations at its March 25 meeting.  He later said the report would go to Council at its April 8 meeting.  He declined to allow the Food Task Force to review the final draft recommendations, as they were still under review by the City Manager.

Funny what happens to City task force recommendations as they go through the layers of City staff, on their way to Council.  But that's another blogpost.

Although the City refuses to admit it, the Salem Revised Code does not currently require a permit to distribute food in City Parks and rights-of-way except under certain circumstances that don't apply to the vast majority of Salem's meal distributions to the homeless.  See "Refusal to Admit Error Delays Meal Permits."

The Task Force recommended revising the code and rules, assuming the City wanted to require a permit for meal distributions.  The Task Force was not asked to recommend requiring a permit, as staff (incorrectly) maintained throughout the proceedings that a permit was required, even though they weren't able to cite to the code provision that did so.  See "Under Bridge Off the Table (Final)."  (State laws and rules already require permits and licenses for food distributions.)

Given that the Salem Revised Code already allows the typical meal distribution to the homeless (serving under 200 people with no facility reservation), it's hard to see how imposing the requirement of a City permit is going to "result in changes to the community's expectations for its parks."  Perhaps Powers contemplates that, under the new regs, vast numbers of citizens will decide to gather for meals in their neighborhood parks and make a nuisance of themselves?  This seem highly unlikely.  Rather, the new requirement of a City permit will affect primarily the meal providers, which is why they were represented on the Food Task Force.  Whatever concerns the City Manager has, they don't justify secrecy or further delay in putting the Task Force recommendations to the City Council.

Refusal to Admit Error Delays Meal Permits

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

SRC Chapter 104 to require meal distribution permits

The City proposes to amend Title IX of the City code -- vehicles and traffic -- to require permits to distribute meals and sundries to the homeless.  If that seems more than a little odd, consider the following.

Ten weeks ago, the City Manager told City Council that staff would be re-evaluating the City's meal distributions permit process over the next 30 days and that, "[t]he goal of the evaluation is to determine if there are better ways of managing the meal distributions...to help prevent unreasonable interference with public health, welfare, safety and recreation."  See "Meals Under Bridge on Shutdown."

A Food Task Force was formed and met three times before reaching a rough consensus on March 7 on a set of recommendations to send to City Council.  See "Under Bridge Off the Table (Final)."  Draft recommendations were sent to the task force on March 13, and a draft staff report went to the City Manager on March 27.  The draft report includes a statement that "amendments to SRC 104 Parades and Community Events will be forthcoming...better clarifying the need for reservations and permits [for food and sundry distributions]."

Food Task Force Meeting 1

Ever since the City instituted its meal distributions permit process back in January 2017, it has held to the position that current City code requires a permit to distribute meals in City parks and rights-of-way.

But, even when questioned on the point during the first Task Force meeting, staff were unable to cite to a specific code provision.  Instead of answering the question, staff directed the Task Force's attention to the general provisions of SRC 94 and to the City's general authority to regulate activities in parks and rights of way.    

At the second meeting, still unable to cite to any specific code provision, staff informed the Task Force that they might want to recommend amending the City code to "clarify" the need for a permit.

For an example of a specific code provision requiring a permit, see SRC Chapter 104, section 104.030, which provides, in pertinent part, that "a community event permit shall be obtained...for the following activities:

(a) An activity or event consisting of persons, animals, vehicles, or any combination thereof, which is to assemble or travel in unison on any public right-of-way...

(b) Any activity or event that the organizer expects or intends to involve 200 or more persons assembling on public property.

(c) Any activity or event on public property which requires the placement of a tent, canopy, or other temporary structure, if such placement requires a permit from the City's Fire Department or Building and Safety Division." (Emphasis added.) 

Subsection (b) above comes closer to requiring a permit for meal distributions than anything under SRC Chapter 94 (or anything else we could find in any other section of the code).  (SRC Chapter 94 is under Title VIII -- offenses.)  But meal organizers don't "expect or intend" to feed 200 people.  More like 100.  Perhaps the City plans to amend subsection (b) to require a permit for events involving, say 100, instead of 200 persons, so as to cover meal distributions?  Or maybe 75 or 50 or 25, so as to cover sundries distributions?  But, who would think to look under Title IX to see if a permit is required for such activities?

Photo courtesy Sarah Vick

The City Manager has indicated he wants to implement a City permit process regulating meal distributions asap, but the City's  refusal promptly to admit error and set about amending the code is likely to delay implementation by several months.  (Drafting, adopting, first reading, second reading, etc.)  Of course, he could still roll out a new permit process, but unless and until there's a valid and specific code provision that requires such a permit, the process would be purely voluntary.

In the meantime, meals continue to be served in the parking lot of 615 Commercial Street, reportedly under MWVCAA's site permit.  See Benevolent Meal Site Info Guide.

Under Bridge Off the Table (Final)

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Mark Becktel opens 3d/final Food Task Force Meeting

The City Manager and "Key Department Directors" have nixed the idea that the area under the Marion Street Bridge might be made available for meal distribution, much to the disappointment of some members of The Food and Sundries Distribution to the Homeless Community Task Force (Food Task Force), who learned of the decision Thursday evening, at the opening of the task force's third and likely final meeting.

Public Works Operations Manager Mark Becktel had said a week earlier, in answer to questions, that the area might be used, if it were secured with a vandalism-proof fence and gate.  When he asked upper management if they would support a recommendation along these lines, the answer was, basically, no.  There was, therefore, no point in the task force giving the matter further consideration.   

Management concerns included the inconsistency of allowing meals in an area posted "No Trespassing", poor optics, construction cost (~$100K), maintenance costs, the fence being used to secure tents and tarps and proximity to the Union Gospel Mission and The ARCHES Project, both of which serve daily meals.  Pretty predictable.  See "News from the Continuum" (5 March 2019).

The announcement that the bridge(s) solution was again "off the table" should not have come as a surprise, given the Task Force Work Plan Outline stated specifically that "It is not the intent of this process to allow -- or find ways to allow -- distribution in areas posted for no trespassing."  Nonetheless, at least one task force member said she felt "blind-sided" by the decision. 

Saying that the City and County "are not getting along very well because of some recent decisions" (see Brynelson, T.  "Salem votes down third bridge."  (11 February 2019, Salem Reporter.)), Becktel let the task force know the City would not be asking Marion County to "exempt or reduce" the statutory license fees for "restaurants operated by benevolent organizations", but individuals and their organizations could certainly do so.  (State law requires anyone providing meals to the public to obtain a restaurant license.)  See "Under Bridge Back On Table."  

The renewed prospect of having to pay $29/day or $118/mo in order to comply with state laws and rules regarding food distributions further upset several members of the task force, and heated cross-talk ensued.  Wresting the floor back with assurances that the task force was looking for a "win-win" result that "fairly balanced everyone's needs", the facilitator outlined the remaining options and split the task force members into two groups to fine-tune the new City permitting process.

While it's up to the City, ultimately, to determine the terms and conditions of the new Benevolent Meal and Sundries Distribution Permit, this is what came out of the small-group discussion:

1. City should have discretion to waive a reasonable permit/application fee.
2. Applicants must request a specific park/facility or right-of-way for the distribution, as well as specific dates/times. 
3. For the first few months at least, permits will be short term (one day, week, month, quarter), depending on location and other demand.
4. City has discretion to limit the number of permits issued for a particular location over a given period, to dis-incentivize camping and prevent over use.  
5. Permittees must obtain required County permits and comply with state laws and rules regarding food distributions.
6. "Park Rules" signage will be required in distribution areas (City to provide).
7. Litter must be picked up and all trash packed out.
8. Permittees must report violations to City-designated POC.

The above outline for new permit process satisfies the first part of the task force's charge "to develop a policy and procedure that permits distributions [of food and sundries] to the homeless community in Salem Parks while significantly minimizing its impacts."

The second part of the charge, to "identify alternatives to the use of Parks for these programs", is just a matter of listing existing programs and plans for expansion.  The final recommendations going to City Council on March 25 might look something like this:

If there is anything remarkable about the task force recommendations, it's that the City needed a task force to develop them and that the City waited so long to undertake addressing the situation in Marion Square Park.  It's obvious why.  As one City staffer put it, City leadership "doesn't want to appear to lack compassion."

It's doubtful that the folks who were serving meals under the bridge feel the task force achieved a "win-win" result that "fairly balanced everyone's needs."  The fact is, Meals Under the Bridge has been completely disrupted and will not be allowed to resume, ever.  The City should just admit that, rather than pretend that nothing's been lost.  This is not to say the City's intervention wasn't necessary or appropriate, only that we should be honest about what has happened.
  
Aside from ending Meals Under the Bridge, it's unclear how the new rules will affect food and sundries distributions to the homeless in Salem.  That's mostly because it's unclear whether, or to what extent, the City intends to enforce them, once the code is amended and the new rules are in place.  It's also unclear whether, or to what extent, the County intends to enforce state laws and rules regarding food distributions.  Currently, unlicensed groups not following the rules are serving meals in the parking lot of the ARCHES building at 615 Commercial Street NE.  Other unlicensed groups not following the rules also are serving meals at Cascade Gateway Park, Wallace Marine Park and various private and publicly-owned locations throughout the City.

Groups wishing to follow the rules are likely to have difficulty with the cost of complying with the statutory restaurant license requirement and with the rules regarding food distributions.  Based on what was said at the last task force meeting, the City does not intend to require permittees to demonstrate that they have the requisite license(s) but will let the County know when permits are issued.  Using that information to conduct random inspections of meal sites probably would be sufficient to ensure compliance by groups wishing to follow the rules.  As a practical matter, this means that unless they're exempted from restaurant licensing fees, most groups wishing to follow the rules will either move indoors, or cease regular distributions.  From a policy standpoint, that would not be a bad outcome.

As for groups and individuals not interested in following the rules and not engaged in distributions on any consistent basis, not much can be done.  However, these groups have not had as big an impact on City parks and rights-of-way as, say, Meals Under the Bridge had on Marion Square Park. 

Under Bridge is Back On Table

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Saturday Morning Brunch in the ARCHES Parking Lot, 2/23/19

The second meeting of the Food and Sundries Distribution to the Homeless Community Task Force (Food Task Force) put the prospect of serving meals under the Marion Street Bridge back on the table -- but only if the area can be secured when not in use.

We're likely talking more than the chain link and gate proposed by  task force member Kevin Hogan.

Public Works Manager Mark Becktel said the City has a design drawing that calls for a vandalism-proof fence made with carbon steel pipes buried 2 to 3 feet in the ground, with a 12-14 foot gate (large enough to get equipment through).  That's likely what the City would require to consider the area able to be secured when not in use.

It's not clear what it would cost the City to install a vandalism-proof fencing system, or under what circumstances Public Works Director Peter Fernandez would direct/recommend installation under the Marion Street Bridge.  Regardless, he has stated that "[i]t is not the intent of this task force to allow, or find ways to allow, distributions in areas posted for no trespassing" (i.e., the area under the bridges, which is neither City park land, nor a right-of-way).

So, the task force still needs

(Someone also needs to proof Public Works memos.)

"Alternatives to the use of Parks" so far include existing, indoor, community meals (see chart below) and Dan Clem's statement that groups are welcome to serve meals from the kitchen of the Union Gospel Mission, and Jimmy Jones's permission to use the parking lot of 615 Commercial Street NE, which is owned by the Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA).  During the meeting, Ashley Hamilton, Program Director with The ARCHES Project, said that groups would be welcome to serve meals from its kitchen once renovations are completed, probably mid-summer.

Benevolent Meals, Feburary 2019

Notably, the task force has avoided discussing the question of need, which came first on the Task Force Work Plan Outline list of discussion topics.  That omission is yet another example of the City trying to solve a problem without first fully analyzing it.  And that makes reaching agreement on "solutions" unnecessarily difficult.

For example, the solutions offered by meal providers on the task force have tended to be justifications of past practice.  Rather than accept responsibility for the collective impact of the distributions and the need to change things up, their comments make it seem as though they just want to get back to how things were.  This is understandable, given the mixed messaging coming from the City about whether the distributions are, on the whole, a good and necessary thing.

Mark Becktel addressing the Food Task Force, 2/28/19

The point is, it's all very well for the task force to go around the room identifying "success factors" (which we did), but they will be of little use unless there's agreement that they are valid measures of task force success.  So far, the task force has largely avoided trying to come to agreement on anything of substance.  As a result, about half the proposed solutions focus on how to get back to how things were, and the other half on how things might be changed so as to mitigate the collective (negative) impact of the distributions.  In short, the task force is not yet working toward common goals.

Returning to the agenda, about half the room appeared taken aback to hear Marion County Environmental Health Program Supervisor Alisa Zastoupil inform the task force that the County did expect meal providers to comply with state laws and rules regarding food distributions (this information was covered at the first meeting, but didn't get the same response).

Long time meal provider, Dan Sheets, who was appointed to the task force after the first meeting, said at least twice that he'd known nothing about the requirements until very recently.  Kevin Hogan said he didn't object to "the paperwork", but the fact that the temporary restaurant application fee would cost his group $29 per meal (his group, River Church, serves one meal a month).        

However, ORS 694.490(3) provides that County (the local public health authority) may "exempt or reduce" the fee.  Zastoupil said that, as far as she was aware, the County had never had to enforce  benevolent meal distribution rules or issue temporary restaurant licenses under this provision, so she would have to go "up the chain" and return with more information on her authority to "exempt or reduce" the fee.  She also indicated that enforcement was complaint-driven (no inspection regime).

What's good about the requirement of City and County permits for benevolent distributions is its potential as a tool for communication and cooperation.  By permitting distributions, the City and County assume some interest in and responsibility for the distributions being orderly and maximally beneficial to the community.  And, by participating in the permit process, distributors demonstrate awareness of and respect for the needs and concerns of the wider community not directly involved in their activities.

The goal should be 1) to make the permitting process(es) clear, transparent, not unduly burdensome, appropriately flexible while the kinks are worked out, and widely known throughout the Salem community, and 2) to have permitting conditions relate directly to the potential impact of the distributions on the recipients and on the wider community, which includes the Salem police and Parks Department.  To illustrate what that might look like, taking into account the divergences:

The next meeting of the task force is 6p, Thursday, March 7, and will continue the discussion of proposed solutions.  Meanwhile, skaters enjoying Marion Square Park on a sunny Saturday afternoon (2 March 2019).

3/2/19 Update: revised Benevolent Meals chart per latest info from Pamella Watson, FCUCC.

Food Task Force Mtg 1

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Food Task Force web page

The atmosphere was generally positive at first meeting of the Food and Sundries Distribution to the Homeless Community Task Force (FSDHCTF, or Food Task Force). The meeting started on time, there were sandwiches and only a couple of people missing (no SEMCA rep, Murray G. was absent, and Sheri Wahrgren sat in for Kristin Retherford).  Ashley Hamilton represented the Mid Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA).

The task force was formed in January after the City put the area under the Marion Street Bridge off limits to groups serving daily meals there.  See "Meals Under Bridge on Shutdown."

The task force's assignment is to answer three questions over three or four meetings:

Q1. What community needs are being addressed by the distributions (What are we trying to achieve?)

Q2. What are the negative impacts to the park property, park users and rights-of-way? (What are the impacts?)

Q3. What solutions are recommended to address these impacts? (What are the solutions?)

Its ultimate goal is to present a staff report with recommendations to the City Council at its March 25 meeting and, thereafter, to implement any decision without undue delay.

After introductions, Mark Becktel gave a brief overview of the legal terrain.  The main problem with the City's view is that, while the Public Works Director has authority under SRC 94.200(d) "to regulate the activities in park areas when necessary to prevent congestion and to procure the maximum use and safety for the convenience of all", there is no provision in the code that requires a City permit for benevolent meal distribution.

Although City staff have repeatedly cited to SRC 94.200(c) as requiring such a permit, that section provides only that a "park or a portion thereof, may be reserved for organized or group activities."  So, it doesn't apply to an individual or group intending to engage in a regulatable activity, but not wishing to reserve space.  Therefore, if the City wishes to impose a permitting process for food distributions that don't involve space reservations, the City code will need to be amended. 

Perhaps one reason that there is no provision in the code requiring a City permit for benevolent meal distributions that don't involve space reservations is that regulating food distributions is a county health department function.  Oregon Food Sanitation Rules (OAR 333-150-0000 Section 3-201.11 (L))  are administered by the  Marion County Environmental Health Department.  Those rules require anyone wishing to set up a benevolent meal site (e.g., serve a meal or meals to the homeless community) to obtain a temporary restaurant license.  There is a fee involved.

Fee structure listed on Temporary Restaurant Permit Application

  
Back in 2003, when Dan Sheets and friends started serving meals to the homeless community inside the SonRise Church when it was located at the Marion Car Rental and Park, Marion County was inspecting the kitchen.  Their involvement ceased when the meals moved outside, sometime after 2011.  Oddly, it seems to us, the City has not asked the County to participate in the task force proceedings.  If uncorrected, this is a missed opportunity to expand existing opportunities for collaboration between the City and County (e.g., LEAD and CORT). 

Meal at SonRise Church in the Marion Car Rental & Park, 2011

Following the legal terrain overview, the task force was informed that staff had been unable to identify another city with a program that Salem might follow.  With that, they were then asked to answer Q1 and identify "what success factors will guide our discussions?"

As each person was asked to speak to Q1, themes emerged about the need for oversight, accountability, safety, accessibility and environmental controls.

Each person was then asked to add to the City's four "success factors":

SF1. Food distribution is allowed in Salem parks and rights-of-way.

SF2. Long-term, sustainable ways to significantly minimize the impacts are implemented.

SF3. The program is monitored and enforced.

SF4. Private property sites are considered.

Emerging themes included the need for clear, City-wide communication of expectations and all that goes along with that (e.g., web page, single POC) and a plan for short-medium-long term goals (e.g., plan to move meals back inside as soon as practicable).

Judging by some of the comments by members of the public at the end of the meeting (Dan Sheets, Kevin and Athena Gray, Kevin Spade, Randy Kelley, Michael Livingston), the next meeting should include a very clear and explicit statement by the City that, when the Public Works Director says, "It is not the intent of this task force to allow, or find ways to allow, distributions in areas posted for no trespassing", it means the area under the bridges is off limits for food distributions, period, not negotiable.  Otherwise, the issue is just going to keep coming up.

At its next meeting on February 28, the task force will identify the negative impacts on the parks and rights-of-way and begin the discussion on possible solutions (recommendations).  The third meeting on March 7 will finish the solutions discussion and attempt to prioritize them for incorporation into a draft policy outline.

Finally, from random comments during and after the meeting, we heard that since meal distribution moved from under the bridge over to the parking lot of 615 Commercial Street NE (aka, the ARCHES building), the frequency of meals had fallen from seven to two or three times a week, and that  youthful bicyclists and skaters had returned to the area.