##VIDEO ID:WCfbfVec8aI## right okay okay okay everybody good evening um the north Miami Planning Commission agenda is uh the meeting is now underway Thursday September 12th 2024 this is a special meeting because it's not on regularly scheduled uh day um socalled order uh may we have a roll call of the board members please okay thank you chairman Ernst um chairman Ernst here Vice chair mcdeid here commissioner each is excused commissioner blir present commissioner cied present commissioner Clark is absent commissioner Bob present and commissioner Besson present we have a quum sir thank you um at this time let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance a pledge of allegiance to the 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 thank you everyone [Applause] staff and Madame secretary I want to note that we have an amendment to the agenda uh noted on the July 2nd minutes um there was a era in the um members of that were here uh Naomi bler was marked as excuse but she was here if we could go ahead and make that I'm going to blame that on the glitches because I could have sworn I changed that but yes I will make that Amendment thank thank you so much very good um under Communications uh do we have a date for the next Planning Commission meeting yes it's going to be October 1st October 1st Tuesday October 1st I think that's a second and there are October 1st is a Tuesday okay I know cuz my birthday is that Monday very good thank you so we'll go ahead and begin the public hearing then um to council do we uh is this a qu judicial item neither of them are judicial so no disclosures are required very good thank you all right so this item on the agenda tonight is pc1 17- 95 this is an ordinance of the the city of council uh City Council of the city of North Miami Florida repealing section 19- 98 Water and Sewer capacity fees and chapter 19 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances entitled utilities amending chapter 29 entitled Land Development regulations article three entitled development review specifically at division 14 new development impact fees repealing Transportation impact fees adopting new storm water impact fees uh combining parks and Library impact fees combining Central General government and police impact fees amending land use categories within the Parks and Recreation and general government impact fees schedules assessing Water and Sewer impact fees on the basis of water meter capacity rather than use type adopting an an updated impact fee study providing for purpose uh and intent providing for definitions providing r of construction providing findings providing for conflict of cability providing for repealer providing for codification providing for an effective date may we have staff report sir good evening thank you Mr chair and fellow Commissioners this is Derek cook the assistant director with development services department as stated by the chairman the item before you is a text Amendment to the Land Development regulations specific to do new development impact fees this request is stated again is to the Land Development regulations the ldr's tax amendment for article 3 division 14 to adjust impact fees proportionally to the existing infrastructure experienes in compliance with Florida statute this location is Citywide this evening I have with you on the phone is our consultant which is Clancy Mullen which is he is the president of ducking and Associates he will also have a presentation associated with these impact studies he was the principal who did the study to get us to this point to bring this item before you this evening I will go over a few items in my presentation and then after that he will speak via the cell phone because we are having technical difficulties as it is and and I will proceed with his um PowerPoint um presentation by um proess processing it through and on his behalf here in front of you so what we have here is the next step we have content and intent so the city introduced an impact fee in 2010 to support the infrastructure of several key areas Transportation parks recreation Library Services General government police water sewer facilities initially the fees were set for 50% of the maximum amount calculated in 2007 the study for most categories and 100% amount calculated for 2010 the study for water and sewer facilities since then these fees have not been updated that is 17 years this the original study was done in 2007 fees were updated at that time and we have not had an update since 2007 the impact fees are charged to impose on new development to cover a fair share of the cost associated with expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth unlike unlike traditional negotiated development developer contributions impact fees are calculated using a standard formula based on objective factors like the number and type of new housing units these fees are paid once upfront at the time of building permit issuance ensuring that each new project contributes its fair share to community infrastructure as stated earli since this impact fee has not experienced an increase since 2010 I say correct 2707 the ldr's amendment adjustment to impact the impact fees proportionately to the existing infrastructure in compliance with Florida statute so to say that this ldr update to reiterate is our effort to bring our impact fees up proportional to the expenditure of our infrastructures that have today I stated earlier we have not had an increase since 2007 the one we supposed to have one in 2010 so it's been 17 years since we've had our last impact fee update this amendment has been reviewed pursuant to standards set forth in article 3 Division 10 section 3-10 04 of these ldrs and what we do in our analysis we look at we look at five six six elements to see how it would impact our city the first one that we look at is whether the amendment promotes the public health safety and Welfare so in that in mind we looked at that and we said it has an impact this adjustment does impact the public health safety and Welfare of the City by adjusting the fees better accommodating existing infrastructure cost and future costs second one is whether the amendment permits uses the comprehensive land use plan prohibits in the area affected by the zoning map change or text Amendment it does not it does not change the comprehensive plan as it relates to uses matter of fact it enhances that by get in increasing our impact fees so we can better accommodate our infrastructure that's going to be needed to accommodate the new structures that are going on in the city whether this amendment allows density or intensity in excess of the density and intensity which are permitted by the future land use categories of the affected properties the amendment does not have an impact it does not allow for you to exceed our density that is articulated in our comprehensive plan again what these fees would do is help us accommodate for these impacts as you know we just recently got our comprehensive plan codified by the state so it is active and in that comprehensive plan we added 8,000 bonus units as part of that comprehensive plan for development d whether the amendment causes a decline in the level of services for public infrastructure such as subject to concurrency requirements to a level of service Which is less than the minimum requirement of the comprehensive land use as it is as the theme has been this impact this um Amendment will not reduce it the attempt with this amendment is to bring generate funds so we can better accommodate our instru interest structure as we develop here in the city e whether the amendment directly conflicts with the the goals objectives or policies of the comprehensive land use plan no it does not matter of fact it aligns with the comprehensive plan by bringing our impact fees up to standard F whether the amendment furthers the orderly development of the city of North Miami this amendment should be allowed for more or should allow for more orderly development of the City by providing impact FS adjusted to better infrastructure demand and new development so in our discussions about the um ordinance associated with this impact um theme we saw some elements that had um that we felt that should be um edited and we going to identify these for you the one that is prevalent is in section 7 excuse me it's section seven of your document with our changes it will become Section 8 of the document and this is the effective date the ordinance the the ordinance now reads the ordinance shall not become effective until 90 days after aop option by mayor and count city council our edits are to state that the ordinance shall become effective on and it should be a strike through until 90 days after adoption by mayor and city council and our esteemed attorney Mr hell also had an adjustment that he would like for us to identify um that he presented this morning that I missed that was old ice cream excuse me um but Derek since you mentioned my name um I I thought we were saying 90 days after notice of adoption did we did we change that U so my recollection um Derek is that we were going to actually put in we were going to calculate per statute um what the date certain was going to be and internally we discussed 90 days after notice of adoption but that for clarity um to the and transparency to the public um that we were going to put in the the date certain um after adoption by mayor and Council that that was my recollection of the change so is this the way it should come 90 days after adoption I think no this is appropriate I I defer to you madam um attorney my apologies this particular section I think we were going to in parentheses put in insert date so that we could put in the date certain and then we were going to do as Gary said say um honor until 90 days after notice of adoption by the May and city council where would you put the insert after which which word where it says um this ordinance shall not become effective on until there should be a parenthesis there that says insert date so it'll have so that way when the public is looking at this ordinance they will know what that exact date and we the city the staff and the residents will all be on the same page as to what that date will be okay so we're going to strike 90 we're going to leave that in so that they know that we complied with the statute it's still 90 but the question is at what point do the 90 days start running and it's not adoption it's notice of adoption so so to be clear and as there if I may um further um elaborate so the jusos that we have here is that 90 days after we have adoption it comes in effect so what we were discussing is the language talks about notice 90 days after notice in the um State Statute so in I attempt to be be overly cautious we're saying that we're going to notice our intent is to notice and then after it's notice after adoption then that clock starts okay I'm just looking for the wording yeah so I haven't put it here we can update there U Mr chair to be in accordance to what we have discussion here so as I would understand it would say this ordinance shall not become or shall become I I think I prefer this ordinance shall become effective on and then the date affected on insert date insert date in parentheses you're still striking the word on no we're going to leave on we're going to strike not okay strike not are we keep it inal on is a new word so that's why I have it underlined and highlight right um I don't think you need until I would strike until that I meant to strike that insert date okay and that's in parenes and then we go 90 days comma n 90 days maybe IE what do you think Gary or could you say or could you say U or until with the date and parentheses um and or or it's not going to be an or it's a specific date so it shall become effective on and then you'll have a parenthetical that says insert date Dash um uh effective on put the date and then I would say which is 90 days after adoption notice of adoption by the mayor and city council which is 90 days after notice of adoption by the mayor and city council okayu change or can we just leave that until we're ready to adopt it I mean we could we could all agree now on that if we want to get any inut it's your discretion sir yeah we're all fine we've already we've already um okay discussed it with Mr held and he was okay with it all right thank you and the um second element is the ordinance also will require modification to include the extraordinary circumstances which Mr Mullen will go over um this evening about in his um presentation the analysis is to include a title adjustment we're going to add language in the title We'll add some wear ER Clauses and we're going to add a new section three that new section three will Bump by number up it used to be seven sections that you had at the end now it becomes eight with that new section three did you mention paragraph five as well paragraph 5 did you mention that because we had this October one date and now we're changing that to insert effective date all right do I understand what you saying Gary yeah it was that we had that so also as a change is in um it be section 3-1 1401 and excuse me it's actually section 3-1 1402 number five and we have um a change there it used to have October 1st 2024 with the anticipation that we would have but understanding we won't meet that date we have changed that to be insert effective date and that is in parenthesis that is the extent of our modifications and any that you as the Commissioners wish to insert you're welcome to do so after the after the presentation and we we will act accordingly with that in mind again I'm going to introduce to you you have Clancy Mullen he is the president of Duncan Associates he is the consultant who was intimately involved in the preparation of this study impact study and he has a presentation for you this evening as well good evening Mr Mullen can you hear us okay yeah he's on the cephone Mr mull you can speak you still there classy I'm still there okay all right good evening Mr Mullen can you hear us okay yeah I can hear you okay good thank you sir good evening uh for the record we need you to state your name and an address for 167 West I Street Austin Texas all right can you hear that yes got it thank you sir um if I may I just want to point out for everyone's benefit that there will be a slight delay because he's watching this on streaming and there may be a 3 second delay okay we we understand that there will be a 3second delay sir so we will be patient with your response so clenon can you see that the um presentation available do we want to start with the extraordinary circumstances or we want to start with the other you may proceed yeah I've got I've got my my uh live stream uh speaker muted so you're not hearing an echo hopefully uh but it may make it a little more difficult for me to hear you um yeah I'd like to start off by um just alerting you to the time pressure we're under with this study uh my contract was executed January 9th of this year uh in March the legislature made revisions that are going to go into effect October 1st which say basically that uh the study needs to be adopted within a year of its initiation which means at least by early January now the plan is to First adopt the impact the update and extraordinary circumstances uh and then uh some in October and then sometime after that to adopt the mobility fees and I think they're on the same I don't know exactly when that contract was executed but I think it's on the same about basically the same time so the idea was would be to get both of these ordinances adopted this year um so that's the plan um doesn't give us a lot of time because if we don't if we don't get them adopted within a year starting the study uh we need to start the study over again uh and that's going to throw us back another year uh okay let's go to the first slide uh I'm still seeing the starting slide Derek can you go to this the legal Basics you it's up Clancy you cannot see that okay there it is uh yeah I guess maybe that's the delay uh and covered some of this the the fees need to be proportional to the impact of the development uh based on the existing level of service uh they can only be spell on improvements that add capacity so not replacement repair maintenance or operations they need to be reduced to account for standing debt on existing improvements now the city doesn't have any actual outstanding debt but it does have outstanding obligations to uh use impact fees to repay developer uh the developer of the solia um project um those developer credits uh for improvements they've made as part of that project all right so the next slide um okay the overview as as Jerry said it may have been a little confusing uh the current fees are based on studies from 2007 now they weren't adopted until 2010 Water and Sewer 100% the rested 50% um but those fees are still based on the 2007 study or there were actually two different studies so changes in this update really quickly the transportation fee is repealed in this ordinance it will be replaced later with the Mobility fee that's not going to go into effect uh exactly concurrently but presumably a short time after the this ordinance is adopted uh the parks and Library fees are combined they're separate right now they can be combined into a Parks and Recreation an updated Parks and Recreation fee uh same with police and general government they would be combined into a updated General government fee and the purpose for this combination combining these fees is to give the city more flexibility so pars and Library fee the current par and Library fees uh would be the new pars and rec fee could be spent on either libraries or parks and wreck now there may be an issue with the outstanding balances in those in the current accounts we may need to spend those down for the we need to discuss with the uh city attorney's office uh we need to make we may need to spend those down for the purposes they were collected for uh separately uh I just lost the power oh there it is no no we're going back a slide uh okay I see we've gone to the next slide uh can can we go back or was I finished yeah no we need to go back can we go back to the previous slide dere um it just takes a moment um Clancy um for it to materialize on the screen where you are okay so in addition uh okay the next change was the water and sewer fee the updated Water and Sewer fees are based on meter size they're currently based on land use uh the Fe schedules are going to be simplified the current water and sewer fees based on land use there's 50 different land use categories uh the new meter sizes there's only 11 different types of meters um so that's simplifying that one considerably um the police and general government fees have I think in excess of 20 um I forget what the exact number is reducing that down to six um so we're centralizing the fee schedules um the increases need to be phased in this has been a requirement since 2021 uh but first time you've encountered it because you haven't changed your fees um unless extraordinary circumstances are found so the fees are increasing for Parks right General government and water um now let's go to see those changes on the next [Music] slide now for what I've called the non-utility fees uh those are uh the current fees that are being shown for Parks is the current Park and Library fee combined those two fees combined for single family detached detached uh same for General government the police and general government fees are summed to get you the current fee for the broader category uh then the second two columns are showing you the updated fees and the last two columns are showing you the percent increases and the biggest percent increases which are the one that really affects phasing are the 45% for [Music] parts uh and the 581 uh for the retail commercial of the general government fees so the 45% multif family fee increase and the 581 per um retail commercial increase those are the largest increases in the two categories uh and below it is the utility impact fees and for the utilities we can really only compare the uh the uh single fan family fee the current single family fee with the updated fee for the smallest meter because typically the single family fee does require the smallest meter that is a a 3/4 inch meter uh the other ones we can't really compare the other land use uh categories we can't really compare um so but these two we can compare uh and it shows the one Water fee increasing 300% to lower 300% the sewer fee going down 28% uh So based on this comparison which really doesn't tell us much about what the revenue impacts are um because you're not getting very many new single family units um and you know larger meter can accommodate many more units or most commercial the smallest meter can accommodate a lot of commercial uses plus they're really big um so um it's not really telling you a whole lot but U about Revenue impacts but it is a comparison that we can make with the current fees um okay we go to the next slide um phasing requirements uh so the limitations of the St of the statute as of 2021 when those went into effect any increase up to 25% must be phased in over two years any increase of up to 50% must be phased in over four years these may not be increased more than once every four years except for phased in increases which must be in equal annual amounts so the extraordinary circumstances option basically requires an analysis to be prepared that demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances we meant to get you that to you in your packet but it didn't get in your packet unfortunately and I think you just got it today earlier today um but I'm going to be summarizing that for you anyway um two publicly noticed workshops must be held on the analysis we'd hop this would be the first one but we got our wires crossed and the rush to get this on your agenda and it uh it's not noticed as a as a separate item uh so this isn't going to count so there's going to have to be two notice workshops later presumably in front of the uh city council and the ordinance adopting the increases that vary from facing requirements uh must be adopted by a 2third majority of the governing body okay uh next slide so the fees are increasing only for Parks General government and water the sewer fees is going down the storm water fee is new and while that may be an increase from zero you can't really calculate a percent increase so we can't do phasing um the transportation fee is going to be repealed uh that fee is currently very small it's like $140 for a single family unit um and that's going to be replaced at some point in the near future with the mobility fee uh the fees have not been updated in 17 years as we've discussed that's kind of one of the extraordinary circumstances uh costs have increased significantly um significant Improvement needs exist and phasing would have re negative Revenue effects so those are the extraordinary circumstances we've identified and I'll go through them for each of the each of the uh facility types so starting with parks and wreck uh so these fees have not been updated like all of them at 17 years but the fees are increasing only modestly uh less than 50% I mean they were adopted at 50% it would take 100% increase to get them basically to where they were in 2007 the maximums that were calculated in 2007 uh the CPI has increased by oh more than that more more than by 51% since 2007 CPI Consumer Price Index uh so they're increasing mod very modestly considering and why they're not going up more we don't actually know because we don't have the original study uh that seems to gotten lost in The Ether since in the last 17 years um so can I ask you real quick sir um your methology without that information can you explain a little bit how how you could come about with the adjusted figures um without that adjusted figures are B what we're basing it on is the existing level of service so what the uh ex existing facilities that we can identify the value of those facilities would justify uh after you know giving credit for those developer credits um so you know we can't we can't say okay this changed from the original study because we don't know what the original study was we can't really make that comparison uh but we can say here's your updated fee based on what we have what you have today and the amount of development you know what you have in terms of capital assets and what you have in terms of of uh development existing development um does that answer your question yes sir you may continue yeah so Capital needs uh the has been planning on purchasing this building for the Galvin Community Center uh it leases that facility right now it would take 11.5 million to purchase it um that you know that the former city manager had said that was going to happen the city had enough money to to do that although certainly not impact the money uh but that I mean we have a new city manager it hasn't been purchased yet um so we did not include that as an asset uh and it's not factored into the fee as a city asset but it certainly would constitute an asset if the city purchased it uh so that's a capital need it could be funded with whatever impact fees are available for parks and rec uh so the revenue effects are phasing uh the city would collect 27% less compared to immediate adoption than um than it would otherwise uh that that's um a loss of about a third of a million dollars over the four-year phas in Period okay can we go to the next slide talk about General government uh again the fees have not been updated 17 years building costs have increased 85% that's the uh based on the engineering News Record building cost index now if you take into consideration the that those fee the current fees were only adopted at 50% that alone would account for the single family increase well certainly not for uh the retail family the retail uh commercial increase but it would account for the single family increase at least um Capital needs uh the city's been planning to build a new city hall police station combination to replace the current um overcrowded uh police station and City Hall uh not all of that of course would be eligible for impact fees some of that's replacing existing facilities that would be either repurposed or used for other purposes are demolished um U the effects of phasing of the city would collect 12% less than you would under currencies over the next four years that's a loss of about 24 million well no that's that's there would be a loss of about 24 million compared to not phasing at all over the four-year period and would require 22 years to fully implement the updated fees and finally water uh again the fees have not been updated 17 years water treatment costs have increased by over 500% now much of that's due to the need to comply with new EPA clean water rules um but um and and in terms of capital needs $120 million is what the city's Consultants estimate would be the cost upgrade and expand the existing treatment plant um again not all of that would be eligible for impact fees but some of it would um the effects of phasing it would require 14 years to fully Implement you would collect 43% less Revenue if you face them in than without facing and the final slide uh it just summarizes what the implementation options would be so if extraordinary circumstances if if the the uh commission if the city council does not find that extraordinary circumstances that these rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances uh at least uh a determination that's made is not made by a super majority vote um you'd need to adopt the four-year phasing schedules for part General government and water that are in the impact feed study um and uh you could adopt the sewer and Stor and the new storm water fees at 100% or whatever percentage the city desires with extraordinary circumstances you could adopt the parks General government and water fees at 100% or less or you could adopt them at less than 100% initially and increase the percentage over several years uh but you would not be able to make any change to the any increase any phased increase for sewer and storm water because you don't have an extraordinary needs extraordinary circumstances analysis for those facilities um so basically you do less than 100% you need to wait U four years before you can increase those sheets at all okay well that that concludes my presentation uh I will mute my phone for now and uh Listen to listen to the live stream because I can hear you better on the live stream okay should we uh a request for an answer or something you are available then you will still be available to answer any questions from U any of the members of the commission here tonight he's still on the phone I think he muted himself I'm waiting for the the delay Clancy the chairperson has asked will you be available to address any questions if the Commissioners have concerning your presentation in the impact Fe study yeah the answer is yes I'm staying on the line oh okay thank you sir uh we understand of the delay thank you for being patient with us too no problem um at this point uh we're going to open up the public hearing uh the public hearing is now open anyone wishing to address this uh may come forward we see no one here in the audience uh or anyone is present to comment on this I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing public hearing is now closed uh discussion is now open to the members of the uh Planning Commission and I'm going to um go ahead and start with Mr cyre down at the very end thank you Mr chair I I let's start this with a really simple basic question we make the assumption that this passes it's approved the council votes on it it becomes the law of the land I own a single family home I want to put on a bathroom how much am I paying in fees did you hear that question Clancy no I didn't hear it all right let's try that again I I believe I have it Mr go ahead and of course you correct me where I may be wrong so CL Mr Mullen U Mr Sid has requested if he own he owns a single family home and if these fees are adopted at 100% by mayor and counsel and he wanted to renovate his bathroom out of bathroom add a bathroom add a bathroom to his single family home do you have an idea how much his fees his his building fees would be yeah can you hear me yes okay uh wouldn't have any effect on the fees the fees are are still pelling in it so there wouldn't be any increase so what would be the fee I I think the answer is that the building unit already exists so the fee applies to new dwelling units not additions to existing units oh well that's not bad yeah it's it's again it's not the construction cost or uh for Home Improvements this is strictly for any new development that comes to us and and not existing uh element unless they want to confirm that that is in the actual title okay right okay yes yeah I did see that you are correct on that so the only way I would be impacted on this would be if I bulldozed the house and start it over that's correct otherwise well okay if you leave the foundation there will fall under home renovations and it would not be a new development so Clancy if I may to even further that question if a single family home was to add a bedroom where they have any impact fee increase no no okay thank you sir I have no further questions Mr Bob good evening sir you have the floor um a very thorough presentation I think it's all sorry a very thorough presentation I think it's all pretty straightforward I have no comment all right thank you sir Mr mcder um yeah the only question I have um well first off going back to Mr Cy's question um obviously if he put a new bathroom or bedroom on he would be increasing his usage correct so therefore he would be subject to the new fees correct um it's not part of the new development it's not a new development so we already have fees that one would pay for renovation that already exist this impact fee does not impact that such as if I come in and want to renovate my interior of my house is not impacting that but if I wanted to build a new home build a new um commercial um building build a new um multif family residential it will have an impact okay okay again we we're stressing that it's new development right anyone coming in um they they face it um with with existing developments that are in the pipeline um they had started the devel or once they start the development if this is adopted these fees would immediately be be in place correct well after the delay yeah after when whenever the effective date is right the effective date 90 days after ad correct after notice of adoption correct correct okay do you understand that yeah I'm clear on it okay um the way that this all was calculated um was calculated on an older study as you mentioned so um CL say can you can you clarify that again because you because as he stated during his presentation Mr madder is that we did not have the old study as the foundation of the new Cal so we are calculate he did his calculations based on um if I would if I CL you speak to that um because I don't want to misquote you I ask mythy it's the old Fe that are based on the old study there's a new study for the new fees and when was the new study done this year this year okay right yes that's correct he was he as he stated he was imployed this year we have a year that we need to execute this all we have to do to study over again Dr B Dr Besson I'll come to um could you ask Clancy how he used uh I believe he used the Consumer Price Index uh in making these adjustments if I am correct could he explain how he used that CPI and what over what period of time no D can you hear me yes can you hold up my it's to the it's to the mic they can hear you okay um yeah the uh no I mean we we didn't base the study on the CP changes in the CPI the the changes are it's just a way to explain why the fees are changing and we can't really do that very well because um you know we don't have the studies uh except for water and sewer we do have those uh so it's it's it's it's not the basis of the study though the study is based on your existing facilities the value of those facilities the current value of those facilities uh versus how much existing development you have that's using those facilities and that establishes your level of service so we're basing it on that we're not basing it on changes in the CPI or changes from the last study um it's just supplementary analysis that we can do if we had that information but we can't really explain why things have changed why the studies have changed because we don't really know what the what the current Fe the studies that the current fees are based on we don't have those uh anyway perhaps if thats your question if I could U um my take is that um property values will increase once the new development comes in let's say that propert value increases well then that amount of increase increase will be a factor in anybody coming in after that de you know let's say that development's been around for 5 years that value has increased a new property of of uh the same nature let's say a development of the same nature their impact fee will be most likely increased because of the increased in the in the cost over that 5year period is that a good way to look at it so we have to use on the assumption that uh there's going to be increase in cost for the city to operate um for service then we adjust that impact fee to cover that cost not if the facility exists it could uh if it runs at 100% you're able to accommodate um increased U usage so to speak as we build more units and so on why would that cost more if it's if it can run up to 100% with current um with current Staffing so what you're what you're meaning is I assume what you're meaning is that it's going to cost more to run the facility as we bring online more and more that's my take on this impact fees are dealing with the incremental increase as a result of new units right right okay okay thank you for thank you very much for the answer um M blur do you have a comment now as I'm looking at the increases my only concern is is whether or not these increases will solely affect those coming to do business with the city will these increases impact residents in any way shape of form my understanding is they're designed to be imple in implemented through the issuance of building permits for new construction so exist unless existing residents are undertaking new construction it wouldn't affect them so for example a new construction would mean if they are doing anything within their own home and they would no new development new only so this is 100% only new development for those coming to do business with the c believe yes is new development impact fees only yes thank you all right any other questions well out of idle curiosity I'm looking at section 3-1 1407 imposition of impact fee so under housing type a single unit a single dwelling unit would have a a fee of $874 and then you look at the land use type single family that has a fee of $2,657 are those two fees cumulative or are they separate it's two different fees one is for parks and the other is for General government well it's explained on page two of the extraordinary circumstances analysis well I'm I'm not on page two no so if you see there's a a subheading um above the 5874 there's a capital A Park and Recreation impact fee schedule and then above the 2657 there's capital B General government impact fee schedule those are two different impact fees so they're cumulative yes yes and so the water and sewer fee would be over $99,000 yes the sewer impact fee would be another 1,700 so you're talking almost $20,000 in fees to build build a new single family home on a vacant lot yes that's correct just want to be sure I I really understand that that's it just strikes me as a huge amount of money for a a single family unit and I don't know that this covers all the fees these are just some of the big ones actually Mobility fee would be in addition to those yeah so there was another fee that hasn't yet been tacted in in correct so we're we're easily looking at $20,000 to to build a single family home on a vacant lot MH or if the existing home is bulldozed and they start over they'd be spending some $20,000 at least in in fees okay so so that I'm not going to speak to that circumstance I I I haven't looked at that I I well we I just want to be clear because to his point if I am a homeowner and I make the decision to take down my home and build a new One MH do I now you build it into your mortgage and pay it out over 30 years right so it's not just for those that are developers it's for anyone who would would develop a home and that can actually be a current resident does it apply to people who are demolishing their home and rebuilding that is happening every day in North Miami there are people who are purchasing Lots there are people who are there are developers who are purchasing lots and who are building homes and they understand um that there's going to be impact fees associated with that construction Mr cook with all due respects it is not just developers there are individuals who purchase lots and build upon it and my question earlier if this is an would this affect an individual property owner so I I think I I think your question has yes ma'am so this is an update to the actual fees so this isn't something that's a new impact any existing resident is currently paying these fees it's currently still applied it's not like we're generate I just wanted you guys to know that they're already paying this this isn't a new imposition of an impact fee what this is is an update to the existing fee that residents are currently paying and and to Mr Cook's point we don't generally when we're talking about impact fees um consider we don't really it's usually not the normal resident that's coming in that that's getting the impact fee assess who you're seeing this apply to is new developers um the people that are coming before you for your conditional use permits that's really what this is geared towards but just so you know that this is currently in effect it's currently applied um this is just an update to the fee that's already there and established okay I also have a if you look at the definition of new development which is on this okay well it's under definitions it's uh section 3-45 so I'll just read it new development shall mean the carrying out of any building activity make of any material change in the use of of a structure or land the installation of water meter or the making of a connection here's the important language that generates demand for Capital facilities and equipment over and above the previously existing documented use of the development site so if there's if you're going to double the size of your home it will be incremental increase of the size of that home that is subject to the impact fee not the entire home and if I may if I may just for just a different perspective let's say if I came in here and just to giving an example this is not specific to impact fees but it's just giv you a a perspective on how development can work if I'm a single family homeowner and I came in to use um Mr Hill's example and I increased my property by more than 50% of the value I have to bring that whole house into current standard that means it has to raise to meet the flood plane um standards and all that and that is a cost so in that perspective when you're talking about even increasing like the level of service you're increasing your house to a point that is going to trigger new service impact on the city then it's going to be a fear associated with that thank you I have a question yes sir Mr H so uh Derek and Clancy I'm I'm trying to understand the 100% rule um and if you look at page two of the extraordinary circumstances analysis table one it has the updated non-utility fees related to parks in general government and the ones for General government um are like 174% 217% 581 per. but those numbers that are in the updated fees are the ones that are in the ordinance so how does that relate to the 100% cap on the increase in the fees Clancy did you hear that okay I'd be happy to do it again or just talk to him hey Clancy it's Gary held can you hear me now yeah okay good so in the extraordinary circumstances analysis under table one there's the updated fees for parks and general government and then there's a percent change in general government and the percent in change in the general government fees runs 174% 217% 581 and those same general government fees are the ones that are included in the ordinance itself under the general government impact fee schedule so I'm trying to understand how those percentages relate to the 100% feed cap that you previously talked about um table two any extraordinary needs analysis um I hear that correctly that's correct I mean table two just compares the current fee for a single family home to the updated fee for the smallest meter and that shows the increase so I'm I'm not sure what the question is no so if you go to the non-utility fees in table one the first line is single family detached slash attached and that's the updated land use type if you go across the current fee General government is $970 right and then you go further the updated fee is $2,657 and it the chart says that change is 174% right how does that relate to the 100% limit on the increase in fees that are allowed uh there's no 100% limit it's 100% over it's 50% over four years with with phasing uh it's not 100% increase it's getting them to 100% if you increase them to 100% immediately without phasing that fee would go up 174% and the point I'm making in this in the in the in the U analysis about the single family fee is increasing the increase could be accounted for by the uh 85% increase in building cost generally and the 100% increase it would be required to make up for the fact that they were adopted at 50% that would be 185% increase those two things I'm just saying those two things could account for the for the change all by themselves for single family well the $581 U fee you said is under retail and Commercial which is is also a huge amount of cost for redevelopment or or bringing in new business to the community and the Hold On To Sir yeah well okay we'll give you a minute um if if I yes ma'am you may I think okay um so the the question that we're seeking additional clarification is the 100% language that we talk about with the extraordinary circumstances analysis is that considered a c meaning that we can only increase the fees up to 100% or are we talking about that 100% whether or not is that 100% related to the amount of the new fee and how that's phased in how we implement the new fee yes it relates to the percentage of the new fee so 100% would be adopting the the updated fees at 100% immediately without phasing or would take you that long to get to 100% get it now okay so that answer your question so you set the fee and if you're adopting at 100% of that fee you need to have the extraordinary fees analysis okay got it so it's not a percentage these percentages don't relate to the 100% it's two different things two different analysis apples and oranges correct okay here basically what that is then can we assume that those High numbers are if the fees if if we don't adopt that's what we're faced with is that correct to assume that then no still apples and oranges okay um so I think that's where we have some confusion so so Mr Mullen has done a great job at getting you an impact fee up study and so he he's um gone in in his um presentation about how he's come up with these new fees so you already have these new fees they're already laid out this extra analysis that we're asking you to consider is the extraordinary circumstances analysis and what that analysis is asking you to consider is whether you're going to adopt these new fees in the study at 100% or whether or not those fees would be coming in on a on a phased in schedule right so we so you're asking us to you get what I'm saying I got it I got it to accept the 100 100% uh fee plan we'll call that a plan the plan before us okay and that's what we that's what we will be voting on correct is everyone on the panel yep got it now have agreement on that or understand that Mr cyre Mr Bon uh as best as we can make it all right okay um all right so we've got the we've got the question answered sir um and um I have nothing to add to that I think I've already um made some of the points uh any other comment before I ask for a motion uh on this item none um all right I move adoption okay Mr cied has moved for adoption do I have a second on the motion second second by Mr mcdermaid uh we will do a roll call on this Mr we'll begin with Mr cyre yes Mr cied is yes Mr Bob yes Mr Bob is yes uh missmer yes Mr bmer yes Mr Besson Dr Besson yes is yes for Dr Besson Mr mcdermaid yes yes for m mcdermid and chairman ER is a yes so the item has moved uh and we thank uh Mr cook and U Mr melan for your input sir thank you very much for for your clarifications on some of the items and and also to our staff for helping us finally come to a resolution on this happy to do it thank you sir have a good evening thank you all right so let's move on to the U second item on tonight's agenda and that is the make sure that I've got all the correct language here nothing's changed on this uh um Madam Secretary did you say that there was a change on this ordinance or that the ordinance that we have before is and the pred form is correct about the read yes St staff has consulted with your board attorney and we have already um made some changes which will be stated on the record okay and then of course anything additional that comes out of deliberation tonight will also be added okay very good I'm going to go ahead and read into the record then PC 1796 this an ordinance of the mayor and the city council of city of North Miami Florida amending chapter 29 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances and titled Land Development regulations specifically Article 5 entitled development standards sections 5-1 1611 to allow ice cream trucks to operate within the city limit subject to create uh to certain standards in accordance with Section 66041 parentheses C and parth parenthesis 3 and parentheses C FL the statutes 2024 sections 3-14 4 through 3-17 and section 3-32 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances chapter 29 entitled Land Development regulations providing for repeal conflict cability catification and for effective date and may we have staff report sir thank you Mr chair and fellow Commissioners Derek cook with the development services department as stated by Mr chair the item before you is a text Amendment to the Land Development regulations specific to Mobile Food dispension vehicle ice cream trucks this request is to modify the ldrs to allow for a mobile food dispensing vehicle ice cream truck to operate throughout the city this is a Citywide ele um element the context and intent on September the 28th in 2021 the city adopted an ordinance number 1469 establishing uniform regulations to allow the operation of mobile food dispensing vehicles within the city consistent with the preemption provided in State Statute section 9102 currently except throughout through the temporary use permit process motor food dispension vehicles as an accessory use are limited to the M1 industrial area and the C1 commercial area at a mechanic wash and car wash establishment the intent of this is to establish a land use and Zoning regulation for Real Property upon which a mobile food dispensing vehicle and to support additional entrepreneurial opportunities within the City so as part of our review staff does an analysis based on the Land Development regulations article 3 section 3-14 of the ldrs and you have several um items that we look at here the first one will be whether the amend the amendment promotes public health safety and Welfare so as you can see the amendment does change the the adopted regulations governing mobile food dispension vehicles by allowing ice cream trucks to run within the jurisdiction limits of the city however the amendment also Institute parameters which requires the the vendor operating in a manner to avoid traffic conflict conjection protection of Public Safety and does not distract from the Aesthetics of the city and then the ordinance if you would go to section 5611 and go under C which is ice cream truck operations generally we have a list of items that we will require of a person who's seeking to operate ice cream truck within the city which is you have to have a business tax receipt certificate of use um we will do background check checks for criminal um history including sexual um conduct offenders and things that effect we also would have it that the person cannot have a violation of um driving wild the fluence recklessly within the last um within the last three years and additionally a person cannot have those violations more than three times within the lifetime to be able to operate one of these vehicles within the city so those are some of the elements that will be um as part of this legislation to help with maintaining the Safety and Security and health of our community and not have an adverse impact on the community whether the amendment permits uses the comprehensive land use plan prohibits in areas affected by zoning map change or text this is not a um text amendment that has impact on changing the land use or the land or the zoning of our city C whether the amendment allows density or intensity to exceed the density and intensity which is permitted within the city this does not this just allow for the use of a mobile food dispensing vehicle specifically ice cream truck to operate within the city and not to be isolated in one's place they can roam the city d whether the amendment causes a decline in the level of services for public infrastructure which is subject to concurrency requirements to a level of service Which is less than the minimum requirements of the comprehensive plan it doesn't as you know um mobile trucks are they own autonomous they have their own water and things that are associated within the truck they're not pulling from our actual um level of services one of the concerns that you would have as part of the level of services is that we are looking at as to traffic and we want to avoid that and that you know you if you're using the word of our roadways that is part of our level of services e whether the amendment directly conflicts with goals objectives policy policies of the comprehensive land use this amendment does not conflict with the comprehensive plan rather it implements the primary intention of the comprehensive plan which is to contribute to the economic sustainability and to protect the public health and safety and Welfare of our community F whether the amendment furthers the orderly development of the city of North Miami the amendment will allow for the city to continue to provide land VES and operational controls over food mobile food dispensing vehicles to ensure avoidance of traffic conflicts and congestion protection of the aesthetic Beauty and attractiveness of the surrounding streetcape and properties and protect the health and safety of our community so during our discussion with um our our board attorney and our City attorney we have some edits that we want to implement as part of this um legislation and the edit start at section 5-1 1611 the Mobile Food dispension vehicle including this ice cream trucks that is underlined that is a new term Dereck you need to underline including to and underline including within the definition which is also under Section 5611 B definitions within that definition we had to make some changes the original language was ice cream trucks these vehicles V only prepackaged frozen fruit um diary di dairy or frozen water-based food products soft sered or hand dip frozen dairy or frozen water-based food products and prepackaged Beverages and snacks with you you striking Sofer yes so per the um for the um Department of Agriculture and consumer services self- serve is not permitted through um um mobile um ice cream trucks Oh So as you can see um our changes are we we striking through um only we strike through soft serve um I strike through or frozen food based food product cuz I looked to me that we had mentioned that twice in this definition so it's been redundant um so that's that and the third element that we had I'm sorry I'm trying to this is under definition B in case definition B yes sir okay so again show us where you're striking again give us the language that is stricken okay so under definition B um for ice cream trucks we're striking only in that definition we're striking sof serve okay and I'm striking or frozen waterbased food products is a repeat term okay may continue sir um and then on the three in vending this is also in section five 1611 you go to three vending a all ice cream must be pre-wrapped sealed labeled and obtained from an approved source as determined by the applicable regulatory agency example given Florida Department of agricultureal and consumer services that will be language added to that that would be added all right everybody got that okay that's it except for um except for Mr Hill has um um element that he would like to add yes sir well it's the one we discussed about fixing the sentence that starts uh operational standards okay which uh I I texted you yesterday so um the old subsection D the new subsection 3 that says operational standards uh it it reads now the following operational senent shall apply to all mfvs operating with the city whether long-term or as part of a special event approved under a temporary use permit but it doesn't explain what happened so we're adding if if you all agree violation of which shall subject the uh vendor to revocation of business tax receipt and or certificate of use and temporary use permit and that'll fall under which uh under the under M the introductory language to a through T it's it's introductory language yes okay everybody have that understand agreed we discussed it yesterday yes that that was oversight on my part my apologies it's okay he so with that um that is the edits that we will um introduced to move forward and if you have any others that you would like to implement that we also include as part of the modification our next step on this matter is that you have first reading um um is anticipated for the 24th of September second reading um is anticipated for October the 9th but that is still to be determined and then it would become effective if adopted 25 um 10 days after adoption okay um and that's the end of my presentation very good and uh just for the record now I have to open up the public hearing uh just for the record the public hearing is now open uh chair recognizes that there's no one in the audience to speak on the item we coming forth so I will go ahead and close the public hearing public hearing is now closed and I'll open up the discussion to the commission U Mr mcdermid I'd like for you to go ahead and start as officer okay um to begin with I have nothing against ice cream trucks I love them however there is a reason why they are confined to the industrial area um several years ago many years ago actually we had a little crisis in the north Miami um in that we had ice unlicensed ice cream trucks traveling through the city and the unfortunate part was they were going 5 miles an hour with Extremely Loud Music going on Bells songs Etc um we're a very workingclass community and we have hardworking people here who work two or three jobs some of them and to be wakened up if you're on an evening shift and you're trying to get rest during the day um it's really hard to be wakened up by some noise outside your window traveling at 5 miles an hour down your street so um what happened was the police started enforcing the fact that they were not licensed and they went away now they're coming back have no objections to them at all but I think there needs to be some kind of caveat that they cannot be playing any kind of Attraction noises that are going to disturb the hardworking citizens of this city I mean it just as I said it was a little crisis back in the day because as I said we have hardworking people here um a lot of them work you know split shifts double shifts triple F and I have sincere respect for them for the fact that they do that to make make lives better for themselves and their families I I really appreciate them for the dedication and the hard work that they put in I don't want to put any onuses on on them um and you know I think rather than start something that we may regret later um that perhaps maybe we need to put something on there that um tells them they cannot play noise and Etc of any kind um you know to s s obviously to try to attract attention to themselves that's all I have now um what was addressed there there were noise factors addressed it is in the ordinance that you're you're asking us to adopt but U Mr mcder do you think that those are not enough I don't think they're enough no all right I I think if you look at the proposed ordinance it gives you two options to consider one would be a ban meaning they're they wouldn't be allowed to have any kind of music um and then the other option to consider is that they would be allowed to have music but that it could not be audible at a distance exceeding 500 ft yeah well the problem with this the problem with that second one is you know who's going to enforce it you know you say okay I mean listen I think if you live in at least in my neighborhood we are supposed to have um certain times at which loud music does not you know is over we have ordinances that we you know as to how loud it can be those are violated every single weekend so again it's enforcement I think we need to have a ban um because who's going to enforce it that's that's the problem we have our our police police department is doing a wonderful job but they're very underand our code enforcement is doing a good job they're underand so who's going to be the enforcement tool and as we all know people will you know will get away with what they can get away with so I think we I think we need a ban I think that's the option um basically what you're saying is Ban regardless of any um any wording in the ordinances that would prohibit noise or them going throughout any other any neighborhood that they they please yeah is a total B you're asking for total ban on ice cream trucks AS stand now correct no no no ice cream trucks are fine we just need to ban the noise the noise only yes I have a question so assuming Vehicles travel in and out of City Limits and the surrounding jurisdictions do not prohibit noise having a ban on a device limits them from doing it both inside and outside the city so is the B would only be within no it's it's um I I think the way I understand and and I'm not an expert on the ice cream operation business um but obviously they're going to be coming into the city to get their their CU and their BTR and they're going to have to know the standards that are applicable with the city because we're going to be doing their background so part of it is knowing that when they pull into the city of North Miami that their device have to come off otherwise um and I'm not sure if the enforcement will be through neighborhood services development or the police department I'll defer to Mr cook on that um but I I will tell you that staff is also torn on whe you know because there is the business model this is part of the business model for ice cream trucks uh but there is the nuisance aspect of it and that's why we have um given you two options to consider and we would you know appreciate that feedback so that when we present it to Mayor and counsel we can let them know what your recommendation is on that um but no I don't expect them to to remove the device I I would expect that when they're traveling in the city of North Miami they would know to turn off their devices that that are audible I'm happy to any changes in the language um okay anything else you want to add to that I want to hear from some there are other cities that have banned banned the noise yes there are other cities that have done that that that do not allow the noise right so so the question would be do you not permit them to use their device or they're not permitted to have a device on the truck not to use it if they can use it somewhere else fine as I say I'm not against ice cream shs I'm just trying to prevent what I know has transpired before okay so you your position is let's let's not not have an ordinance allowing them to yeah to roam our street basically you're not allowing them to be to conduct business in the city of North no not make no that's what I business okay but they can still roam you're F they can still roam whatever they want I we just don't want to have a recreation of a issue no I understand yeah me too you know I understand where you're coming from but I'm I'm just trying to see if but otherwise they can do whatever they want to do and then I think we need to look at the fact that uh the enforceability of this ordinance U which could be problematic um as to who would who would have the enforcement responsibility or or the legal responsibility to enforce this can for code enforcement stop them Can the police department stop them you know that's what we need it could be either and it would be really um an operational decision by the city as to which of its resources it wants to dedicate towards the problem um it is a code violation so it is certainly enforcable by Neighborhood Services Department but it is also a nuisance noise is a nuisance which is also enforcable by the police department so I think it it will have to be an operational decision by the city as to which resources they want to dedicate towards it because either Department could enforce it now taking that a further further step would there be um a a warning system or would it be an immediate U um Citation for a violation again that would be an operational decision it would be if you have if you have a again it's back to enforcement you know if you say well you're going to get a warning well you know who's going to I know but that works real well with Uber by the way having to deal with them at events and you tell Uber they'll they'll eat the fine and continue you know so yeah but from a legal standpoint we we could it would be an operational decision again if you recall the red light camera citations when we first implemented that there was a time period for a certain period of time where everybody got warning courtesy warning notices that were caught on the camera but then there was a effective date where everybody got the real tickets right um so that's certainly something that the city Administration could consider whether or not they want to implement it in a similar manner to kind of have a warning system ahead of time well and I would suggest that they that every vendor will it would be their responsibility to know the outline of our city limits so that they can't say oh I'm sorry I didn't know I was in North Miami because I was just in North Miami Beach and I didn't know that I'm now in North Miami or bisc park because all the communities are so tightly knit and also the unincorporated areas that surround us so designing if they're designing a route they know they know right they know so they can't use that excuse you know as a part of the enforcement they cannot use that excuse that they did not know that they are with our city but I would think it would also behoove the city to have that as a part of the when they go in to get their their paperwork done and and the permit to do this that they understand that there's a zero tolerance for not understanding the U again to to the to the um the attorney this operational how you would like to have it um we've given you the option I think it's also important as part of the element that the operation hours that we are stating is from 10:00 a.m. to Sunset right I saw some of the other ones you know I'm fine with all those restrictions the noise factor is something that we've we've seen in the past and it was really tough to enforce and and uh you know if we raised a standard for Toler Toleration standard so to speak we we might be able to make this work I mean that's my opinion I'll you know floor is open for you know for further discussion here Mr cyre J Rec IED you if you have anything to add to the sir well you know I I take this with a certain bit of humor when I was KN High to a grasshopper which was a very long time ago we had ice cream trucks in the city and and they've come and gone but as a as a I hate to use the word senior citizen but nonetheless I I find the current noise to be very annoying but the problem is enforcement and how you can't expect an ice cream truck to attract attention if it doesn't make noise that's how as children we knew the ice cream truck was coming down the street um I think maybe we could cut back the 500 ft to something less because my yard for example is 100 ft deep so we take that times five it's almost a full city block oddly certainly uh you know we cover the distance of four to five houses I think if we could come up with something a little less honorous maybe 250 ft but then you do have the enforcement problem what kind of device or standard is going to be upheld in the courts but Mr Mr cyer if it's 250 square fet you're still going to affect every single house house on the Block well yes you will ultimately affect the homes but because the the vehicle is moving so that's that's moving sound and that just multiplies um the the nuisance I mean yeah I can for me I'm listen I'm gone during most of the day um doesn't it doesn't impact me but I can just tell you the phone calls that I got back in the day when this became a real big issue and of course you know was wound up only in the industrial area and the phone calls that I got the volume of phone calls I got back then just told me that this was really negatively impacting the the residents particularly the residents that are probably the ones doing the two and three job shifts kind of thing um you know uh so I I don't think there's any way around trying to muffle it because because of or retrograde the the distance Factor because of the fact that 250 ft 100 ft you're in the middle of the street you're going to still impact both homes on either side of the street and and people know people understand when trucks come down the street they under people you know after a little while of orientation they'll get to understand when it comes and what time so um you know that's just my comment on it well I I I have mixed feelings on this for a lot of good reasons I don't want to see us put a small business owner out of business before they get started because an ice cream truck has to make noise to attract the children they better or worse um and I understand where Mike is coming from I have found that noise to be objectionable as I've gotten older and so um I I I I agree with the need to regulate but when we do this the sound is an issue and we have to have a clear enforceable standard that's not going to require a whole lot of Technical Training and enforcement to make the Judgment call um and so I'm thinking what kind of device would measure the sound from what distance and how many of those would we have to buy in order to ensure enforceability um that's why no sound works better well yes I I I I concur no sound would be ideal for some of us but then it would be disastrous for the ice cream truck vendor well because how else to they announc their presence well it seems to work in other cities would that have banned them well you know I I'd sure like to know what cities and and what the impact has been the fact that there's no member of the public commenting on this uh I I I am frankly reluctant to see this go forward until we can get some more definitive answers on how a noise ordinance could be enforced um I I agree with the the the sense to to regulate to an extent uh although certainly they weren't regulated when I was growing up um are you uh would you entertain the thought of moving this item to or or or moving this this item or or to another I because I I as I look at this Charlie Mr chair uh I see an enforcement problem we don't want to make it set a standard that then can't be enforced in the courts pointless to to pick a rule that you can't stick so if we're going to set this up we need to have a clear enforcement vehicle and I don't know what kind of gadgets are out there that would measure sound so I would want to hear some expert testimony on the gadgets that would measure the sound certainly we don't want to look at the prospect of having a ice cream catcher out there roaming the neighborhood on on our you know on our uh payroll to to look for violating scre well yeah that's permission to respond or to Mr Shar so um through the chair um as a prior prosecutor of Code Enforcement violations from the city what I can tell you is that when I first started here as a prosecutor we had um decb decb were the standard yeah and we had decel measuring devices and the issues we ran into with enforcement of that was are these devices calibrated Are the officers properly trained on the decb um and so what the trend has been in in cities is to get away from this decibel standard for prosecution and go to a distance measured standard and that's why you have the 500 ft um because it's easier to measure distance and say well the officer as you said it's a block away right 500 ft um if the officer can hear it audible at that distance that's much easier to prosecute and enforce versus decibel standards um it it would um obviously take the officer being familiar with his territory with his area to know what 500 ft looks like certainly a city block looks different than a a Suburban block so um certainly it would require some training but I don't think that we'd have issues with enforcement we we certainly haven't from the noise perspective when we look at a distance standard where we do have issues is that decel measuring standard because that we the device issue that um chairman CED raised that that certainly does get to be an issue with prosecution but not so much with a distance standard well based on that I can accept the logic of the distance standard as opposed to decibel because I I can see with if you if you attract attack it from a volume perspective uh it would be like trying to enforce on these radar guns where you have endless expert testimony where every operative of a radar gun has to be qualified you got to prove it was calibrated you through all these steps before you get to the issue of whether or not the guy driving the car was actually going 110 mil hour that somehow never gets into the picture so yeah I can accept the distance uh issue and I'm in sympathy with Mike's feelings that God that music can be terribly annoying particularly when they play the same bars over and over and over again uh you just pull your hair out with that noise um let's let's hear from somebody from everybody in yeah CU I don't have an answer on this one yeah um let's hear from everybody and then um um we'll we'll try to get a consensus out as to whether or not we want to continue this item further discussion or you know I I don't want to do that just yet until we hear from everybody and and uh let them um uh speak on behalf or or against a proposal Mr Bob um I mean honestly you know the city I mean City sounds are City sounds so my view on it is you know the ice cream truck that music is like really kind of a staple uh of of regular summer day um and I mean you know we're going to let ice cream trucks come in but then the main way they generate traffic is you know restricted we're kind of sudden them up for failure because as a kid the only way I knew was hearing the sound and then you go outside and you know you kind of get used to it but if they're driving in silence I mean if you happen to be outside then you'll be able to you know take advantage of it and I mean and if the purpose of it is to assist small businesses and entrepreneurs that are coming in with that type of business then you know you want to put them in the best position to succeed so with that being said I'm not of the view that it's like cart blanch where you just you know blast the music as loud as you want with no restrictions I think you know the distance in place makes sense maybe we cut it down a bit if possible um I think really more so if the noise is an issue it's more so the the time frame because sunset during the months of from Spring to the fall the sun doesn't set till like you know almost 8:00 so that would be more of a concern than the noise itself because then you're going to have that music playing around 7 7:30 when you know most people are home you know winding down from a work dat um but overall that that's really kind of my view on it um I think they should be allowed to play the music if they're going to come in um but maybe we cut down the 500 maybe we cut it down a little bit more more and then enforcement doesn't appear to be an issue there are ways around that so that's my thought thank you sir uh Mr BL so as a business owner I see both sides so it's a bit difficult um I grew up hearing ice cream trucks and the music did draw me out as both Commissioners stated on my left and you know I understand commissioner McD's position especially when he was here when it was a chronic issue so you have experience right he he experienced it and you have you know individuals like myself who would like to see a balance bance so where's the balance if you if you absolutely say no music there's no balance there you know if someone is outside they get to purchase ice cream because they see it if they're not outside they miss them um I I think the number one consumer for ice cream is his children and the minute they hear it they start to tug on their mom and dad and say hey the ice cream man is coming let's go I want some ice cream so how do we strike a [Music] balance monitor it and if it is not adhered to then ban it give them an opportunity to run their business as effective and efficiently as possible giving them the benefit of the doubt but if they don't adere to it then we ban it okay Mr Bob sir Dr Besson getting late sorry um I remember growing up in New York City the Good Humor truck would come around and the only way you would know the truck comes around is because you would hear the music 500 feet is a pretty good distance because the trucks haven't come around in my neighborhood recently but you would hear hear them coming up one street down and then up the other Street and you kind of knew ahead you had three or five minutes to get out there so maybe we should consider the the distance the other thing is from sunrise to sunset um if you go to timeand.com you will find that there is a uh calculator for night nautical twilight astronomical Twilight Civil Twilight and so on so maybe we need to go and further delineate what the uh what sunet means because it's four or five different things it's another consideration last consideration is uh in this ice in the ice cream that's kept in the truck who is the agency that would make sure that the freezers are running at proper temperature would it would it be I I don't there not that that they they governed through they governed by yeah just the same as like your restaurants they have the same food inspection process as as a restaurant so that's not our headache right no um I think I think our main concern right now with this is the the noise and I think that's where everybody is is pretty much in agreement that it's a a a noise problem that we need to to address or either um now we have the option of banning it or we have the option of allowing the the distance Factor uh be a part of this ordinance is that pretty much clear with everybody yes sir in in trying to strike a balance um how about 100 feet that will reach both sides of a of a normal residential street from one spot from from the distance where the truck is presently from the middle of the street from the middle of the street but as he's moving along that 100 feet changes to the next 100 feet to the well no it's on either side as it goes down the street yeah but you can hear ahead of you and you can hear behind you too so well as I say trying to stri the person in in trying to strike a balance I mean even if you want to do 50 ft you're still going to hear but it's obviously going to be a lot less yeah well um I mean if you said I understand now I understand what you're saying the the um the ability to hear that is restricted this is what we're we're considering in other words if you're if you're currently down the street more than 100 fet you're not going to be bothered to it until it's within it'sin 100 yes exactly so I mean that's understandable is everybody kind of under yes sir so I tried to do a Google search on cities in Florida regulating noise of ice cream trucks and it does say that Coral Gables considered an ordinance in 2022 I have not been able to determine the result but some ideas that come from it are that um some of it's applicable to mobile food trucks and some of ice ice cream trucks but when parked mobile food trucks cannot emit Amplified music or Sound so if they're parked on somebody's street they're not going to just sit there and play which tune that's great that's when moving additional option they must follow state and local laws regarding Amplified sound food trucks cannot operate in the same location for more than 1 hour a day and also I mentioned Parks but going to the 100 fet that uh Mr mcder made mentioned um the that ordinance proposed making Amplified sound that disturbes the piece of nearby residents prohibited including sounds that are audible from 100 ft from The Source or from any exterior edge of a building structure or vehicle now between now and before it goes to city council we can do a further search to see what happened to this proposed ordinance and whether other cities are regulating sound in a different way so yeah I think at least at the start that's that's a great addition about making sure they turn it off when they sit because you know if if in fact we we decide that we want to put that language in uh as stated the 100 ft plus the fact that the vehicle cannot play the music while it's stopped is that is that agreeable with everyone on the panel we you have to Define stop as it would be stop to as opposed to at a stop sign or red light part part to make their sale yeah then use part so just to bring to your attention there is an operational standard applicable to all food trucks which is item 3j which says vendors shall not use loud music amplification devices bullhorns crying out or any other audible methods to gain attention oh really it does say that okay so I was right about [Laughter] something where was that from Garen uh operational standards in applicable to all food trucks it's item J and what does that say again I'm sorry vendors shall not use loud music amplification devices bullhorns crying out or any other audible methods to gain attention if I may um seems to be in conflict with the very logic and history of ice cream trucks well that's why you have at the end that option because this is an amendment to our existing food dispension truck Vehicles what if what if we Pro what if we narrowed that from prohibiting music to just a plain old ringing device or like you know the the the bells that used to be on the ice cream trucks they didn't use Amplified music back when I was a kid I don't think Mr Cipher would you agree we're both kind of of that era when Good Humor truck would come around and you would U hear the hear the clanging of the Bell but you wouldn't be getting loud Christmas music in July which which uh I found more amusing than irritating but um you know I just so I think what you're suggesting is regulating the type of noise that a truck can make I don't know concerned about the First Amendment aspects exactly that wouldn't hold up in court for a minute that would not distinguish one truck may want to distinguish itself from another truck yeah exactly exactly but so there we are we're back to that and I think we would we probably run into a problem with total ban with First Amendment would that not be not sure yes I'm not sure I'm not sure well that would put an end to ice cream trucks being viable as a business right so Mr chairman but we can still put restrictions in then as far as amp amplification levels if we want that try that as a wording amplification levels perhaps and time of use modify that a little bit to more narrow it down to a particular hour rather than Sunset what's the beginning time again what does it say 10: a.m. 10 a.m. um Mr chairman yes sir um I'd like to propose a motion um that we um approve the item with the um caveat um that no Amplified sound shall be heard um outside of 100 ft that the number two that the um vehicle when stopped for when stopped um that the music or amplification needs to be parked H parked parked needs to be turned off and that the hours be from 8 to 5: oh 8 in the morning no 8 in the morning yeah no I don't want my kid eating ice cream at 8 o' them okay let the kids get to school first how about 9 to 5 well 10:00 10 o00 is fine kids in school is good yeah because then you're you're done rush hour so the last thing you need is like rush hour traffic and then there's like a big ice cream truck driving 5 miles hour 10 10 a.m. is okay yes 10:00 a.m. to what we don't want Mr Good rumor getting shot in the middle of the street it would really look bad no because so for for children's safety Ian is there a problem with sunset I didn't I mean aside from the because Sunset is like for instance Sunset now is like 7:30 at night well what's the problem with having dessert after dinner well because darkness is the issue 7 o' it's dark in the winter time listen Gary listen see I'm trying to be when I was when back in the day when I was on the when I was on the code enforcement board and you know one of the problems was the volume of calls was the fact that we had become a city where we had individuals who were working those two and three jobs who were you know doing that three-hour kind of shift I mean I had people call me who their their U their wives were nurses okay who came you know came home at 3:00 in the afternoon okay because they worked 11:00 to 3: they came home at 3:00 and the husband's off you know to you know in the morning so everybody's like shifting and so yeah so you know we need to be a little sensitive to that so maybe 10 to that's why I said 10 to 5 so how about except for temporary use permits um like if there's an an event an ice cream could get a permit to stay after 5 can we say 10 to 7: I do believe the idea that after dinner one may want to have a nice dessert and that may be their um that may be their their time where they actually have their rush hour if you will that so seven in the winter is dark dark so let's say seven in the summer in the winter I we'd have to specify those yeah I would I would rather go with sunset because at that point you you it gets too particular because it's it it gives a more it also kind of gives you a little bit more of an ability to enforce it because Sunset is sunet you know the sunset sunset okay a lots of apps use Sunset as a defined okay event I'm fine with sunset 10 a.m. to Sunset yes okay okay so those are the two three except for temp 10 a.m. no amplification uh no music when we park and then uh 10:00 a.m. to sun sunset sunset except for temporary use permits yes yeah temporary use permits are already a given like for special events so I don't think we need to call it out it's already there okay all right thank because that would that would apply to all trucks regard as of ice cream or whatever okay so those are the three caveats everybody understands that now that's already that's when they can vend right yeah it's already here 3D there only I'm sorry so then we only have two caveats uh no Amplified Sound Outside 100 ft and that the music must be turned off when parked when the truck is parked and the previous ones that we discussed at part of the presentation why don't we say why don't we say stopped rather than parked because if they're stopped at a stop sign or red light you know they're going to say parked and say well I didn't turn it off because I hadn't parked yet it's the definition of parked I hate to nitpick but no I I I mean I think if you stop sign to make it clear we can put a time like so for stopped for long longer than 5 minutes or you know who's going to be responsible for I think park because you have to actually put the car and park Park's Fine park yeah okay yep any self-respecting guy is going to park his truck before he opens the window to sell iceam exactly you hope yes right so there we have now we're we're all go that the poor ice cream man tonight so Mr they are unknown unless they are watching the Mr chair before you go to a vote Yes um I have a question for the deputy City attorney so the language I suggested on the operational standards which is subsection 3 applies generally to all um mobile food trucks right so how does that fit to all of these criteria that we're doing for ice cream trucks is it Incorporated by reference or do we need to add another section that says right yeah but the question is how does it we have all these other standards that apply to ice cream trucks do we need to state that violation of those standards result in revocation as well or it fits I think it's already Incorporated and clear okay that there's some standards that will you know that's why um one of the things when I was collaborating with staff on this I I wanted to Define what ice cream trucks were versus a mobile food truck because we already knew that ice cream trucks were going to have different operational standards versus food trucks so I don't think there's there's a need I think it's clear that they have their own standards that they have to comply with separate and apart from a a food truck and the violation of which correct okay correct all right okay so um um chair will entertain a motion for approval so moved Mr cyer moving for approval of of the ordinance second seconded by Miss blur we will do a roll call I'm sorry I thought it was Miss no he was he was I was proposing a motion you were prop proposed a motion Mr cyer I apologize um I'll forgive you okay uh uh Mr mcdermaid uh could you once more uh verify your motion sirly okay the the motion is uh to approve the item uh with the additional restrictions of no sound shall be audible um outside of 100 ft that um the anything any audible music or sound shall be turned off when pared um parked right and the third thing is that the hours shall be from 10 a.m. to Sunset right and that's already listed that's why I so we have only two caveat listed so with the two caveats of 100 no sound outside of 100 ft and that music should be turned off when the vehicle is parked right the motion has been made by Mr mcdermid again second seconded by Mr cyre we'll do a roll call vote Mr cyre yes Mr cyre is yes Mr Bob yes Mr Bob is yes M blammer yes Mr ice cream thank you thank you naam Mr Dr Besson yes Dr Besson yes Mr mcdermaid yes yes and Mr Ernst is also yes so it passes you thank you so much for everybody's on this what about you well I said Mr chair oh God yes my name you are Mr yes chair votes yes motion moves six nothing again thank you all for your input I greatly appreciate it that we worked that through um so now we uh we're fine for October 1st for the next uh meeting uh do we have any committee reports to make at all staff U any old business none uh no uh no new business uh none and so uh call for adjournment so move so move second it second and we are adjourned thank you all very good input tonight everyone I know do anybody want to go