ORDNC-2024-5 : Requesting an Amendment to the Melrose Code of Ordinances, and adoption of a City Council licensing and application process, to address Food Truck Operations within the City of Melrose

Transcript (~24 min @ 1:12)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:08 Ryan Williams: Okay. We have one order on the agenda tonight. Um, it is the continuation of Ordinance 2024 dash five requesting an amendment to the Melrose Code of Ordinances and adoption of a city council licensing and application process to address food truck operations within the city of Melrose. Um, uh, uh, we don't have anybody from the administration joining us tonight. They've been very generous with their time and have joined us several times since this has been on the agenda for a couple of months. Um, at this time, I would like to see if anybody from the committee has any opening thoughts or statements or questions. Yes. Councilor or President Ulari?

▶ 1:47 Speaker 2: Um, chair Williams.

▶ 1:48 Leila Migliorelli: I'm just to confirm, since I was not at the last meeting, in the last meeting, the, um, final pages of the document were struck.

▶ 1:59 Speaker 2: Um, just wanna confirm that.

▶ 2:03 Leila Migliorelli: Um, basically the, the application part, so starting from there, um, I would like to, in reviewing this, um, license application, um, I would like to comment on section 1 27 dash 14, the issuance of a license, um, in fee and Section B in specific. I had noted from our conversations back in July that there was some concerns, I think, among both members of the committee and members of the council who were attending that meeting about some of this, um, particularly the language around the city. The, you know, city council must determine if

▶ 2:45 Speaker 3: public good requires it.

▶ 2:48 Leila Migliorelli: Um, and in my opinion, I didn't see this type of language in these types of sections in other licenses, um, that were granting. Um, and as I know this was just proposed language from the, um, mayor's office, I would, um, for the purposes of conversation, like to motion to delete section B. Um, I, I just think it's a little bit subjective and, um,

▶ 3:18 Speaker 3: and it's just not consistent with our other, um, licensing. We don't, we don't do this type of sort of subjective, um,

▶ 3:24 Leila Migliorelli: evaluation of these other issues for other businesses. So it seems like here it's just a little bit out of place and not consistent with our other license. So I would like to motion to strike, um, section 1 27 dash 14, section B, um, from the ordinance. Thank

▶ 3:42 Speaker 3: You.

▶ 3:45 Ryan Williams: So that's a motion to do what she said. I'd like to second that. Seconded by Councilor Romanul. Uh, voice vote for this for an amendment? Yeah,

▶ 3:56 Speaker 4: I might Think so. No roll call. Yeah, roll call. Okay. Alright. Thanks. Or on discussion. Sorry.

▶ 4:00 Ryan Williams: Oh, yeah. Any other, uh, comments on this, um, motion on discussion. I will say on discussion that, um, you read my mind and, um, happy to support this.

▶ 4:16 Ryan Williams: Okay. Uh, sorry, it's been a while. Am I doing the roll call call out? Yes. Isn't it? I do. So, yes. Yes, I do. One at a time. Roll call. Yeah. Yes. President Melli? Yes. Councilor ul? Yes. Councillor Vandiver? Yes. And Councillor Aldine? Yes. Okay. So that's And Yes, I'm a Yes. Yeah,

▶ 4:39 Speaker 3: I think I, I think, sorry, sorry. Point of order. I do think that, um, city clerk, uh, should be calling the role. 'cause you're right, you, you're calling your own role for yourself. That doesn't, okay. Yeah.

▶ 4:49 Speaker 1: All right. For the clerk. Okay, no problem. I'll do it. Okay.

▶ 4:52 Speaker 3: But we did it. It's fine. We

▶ 4:53 Ryan Williams: Did it. We all voted. It's unanimous. That works out. Okay. Um, councilor Romanul?

▶ 4:58 Devin Romanul: I did, uh, this is not a, um, a suggestion of a specific amendment, but I did want to note the dichotomy between the, uh, significant amount of language and detail and licensing and, uh, revoking of licensing for the proposed language, which I, I think a lot of which is good, but when looking to mold it in compliance with our existing language in 1 52 dash 12, um, for business licensing, which is all of one sentence and mm-Hmm. Um, and that as we propose language for food trucks, I'd love to see if there are elements of that that we'd like to adopt for, um, you know, uh, uh, general businesses as we, um, you know, think to, to have all those in compliance.

▶ 5:43 Speaker 4: Thank you. Any other statements

▶ 5:45 Ryan Williams: or comments from folks? Okay. I would,

▶ 5:50 Leila Migliorelli: Yeah. Sorry. Excuse me. Sure. Yeah. Um, on my other comment, and I don't know at this time whether I'll be motioning to amend, but, um, I recall conversation on section one twenty seven dash 16, conditions of operation section B, uh, conversation on mobile food,

▶ 6:07 Speaker 3: or, sorry, uh,

▶ 6:08 Leila Migliorelli: comment on mobile food vendors shall not be allowed to remain in one location for more than eight hours on any given day in calendar year. And again, I recall conversation from July in which the conditions of operation, um, some felt that,

▶ 6:26 Speaker 3: you know, is it an opportunity to have a section of the city

▶ 6:29 Speaker 2: that is for, um,

▶ 6:33 Leila Migliorelli: for mobile food vendor, for food trucks? You know, whether that's something that should be considered, um, versus time restriction. Um, uh, in listening to the conversation from last week, it sounded like there was,

▶ 6:45 Speaker 2: um, I just lost my train of thought.

▶ 6:53 Speaker 3: Um, that, oh, that, that these are really, um,

▶ 6:57 Leila Migliorelli: these licenses are for mobile food trucks who are sort of operating outside of like an event or something like that. So it's not, so just kind of thinking of that different lens, this is really for mobile food trucks

▶ 7:09 Speaker 3: who are just operating among the city

▶ 7:11 Leila Migliorelli: for just one-off business, not part of an event or anything like that. Um, and whether there are any concerns about location, um, in that area, I don't, I don't have an amendment yet,

▶ 7:23 Speaker 3: but I just was curious if that was at all part of the conversation or should be discussed tonight. So

▶ 7:29 Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Vanderberg,

▶ 7:31 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, on a, on a different, uh, on a, on a different track, I, I wanted to also, during this meeting, um, ordering the discussion of this ordinance, revisit, um, the dollar amounts that you had, um, that, uh, you had raised last time. Um, when we were thinking about there's a $25 per day, one day permit. Um, you know, even if we had the last meeting of $500 was discussed, that would, the break even point for that would be 20 times per year. So, um, less than twice per month would make it worth the annual fee. So I, I think there's still something we could think about there as far as what the difference would be in, in which trucks would like to license for a year compared with a day event or a series of day events.

▶ 8:20 Speaker 4: Thank you. Um, can I motion

▶ 8:23 Ryan Williams: to suspend rule 21 C speak as chair,

▶ 8:30 Ryan Williams: I would entertain a motion to suspend Rule 21 C. So moved Chair. Second. Second. Okay. Uh, motion by, uh, council Romanul, seconded by Councillor Vandiver and others. I think that it will make it easier for us to communicate. Um, so I have a few other ideas in terms of removing redundancy and aligning the ordinance with, um, the Common Vic. I don't think it's gonna be exactly like the Common Vic license, which is one sentence, but I think that we can, um, that we can make some, some common sense changes. And what I would like to do is suggest them out to the committee and have folks, um, vote on them. And if y'all are comfortable with some of these suggestions, you know, then vote, vote with your heart and we'll just get through it. And then we will, uh, see if we can pass this and be done with it. Um, so in line with President re's, uh, removal, uh, motion to remove 1 27 dash 14 B. Um, I also think that we probably don't need 1 27, 14 C, which just says that the council has the right to vote no on the application. Um, I, I don't think it needs to be said that the council reserves the right to vote no on an application. I think that that's also not in the other, uh, common Vic applications. And I just feel like it would be tidier overall if, uh, if it wasn't in the, in the order. So I would entertain a motion to, um, delete 1 27 dash 14 section C. So moved, that's moved by councilor. And looking for a second,

▶ 10:16 Kimberly Vandiver: I'll second it. Uh,

▶ 10:20 Kimberly Vandiver: On discussion And on discussion. Uh, I, I believe C here, it says, doesn't, isn't about the right to vote no, but it says the right to defer action, um, which is slightly different, um, than voting. No, I, I am not sure if I, I think I support this motion, but, um, but I'm not sure if the there'd be anything around wanting to hold in committee indefinitely that wouldn't otherwise be supported, that this would support

▶ 10:46 Speaker 4: President Elli.

▶ 10:47 Speaker 2: Yeah, I, I think, I mean, I was willing to hear more conversation, but I see Counselor Vandiver's point that within our rules

▶ 10:56 Speaker 3: of order, we have the opportunity to hold in committee.

▶ 11:00 Speaker 2: So yeah, this might be just redundant hold, you know,

▶ 11:01 Speaker 3: or not pass.

▶ 11:03 Speaker 2: Um, it might be redundant language. Um, so I'd be inclined to support that motion. Okay.

▶ 11:11 Speaker 1: Can you state the motion exactly again for me,

▶ 11:14 Ryan Williams: Please? The motion is to eliminate chapter one 20, I'm sorry, section 1 27 dash 14, part C.

▶ 11:26 Ryan Williams: Okay. And then, uh, call a roll when you're ready, please.

▶ 11:30 Speaker 1: Yep. Okay. So motion to eliminate section 1 27 dash four, um, dash 14 part C. Councilor Williams. Yes. Counselor Ramo. Yes. Counselor Vandiver? Yes. Counselor. Jamal Ledine.

▶ 11:50 Speaker 1: Yes. Councilor Bki is not here. President Mili? Yes. Motion passes.

▶ 11:58 Ryan Williams: Okay. Um, hearing discussion from Councillor Vandiver about, I think it was, I've already forgotten who said it. 1 27 dash 16. Um, mobile food vendors shall not be allowed to remain in one location from more than eight hours. So in Section A of 1 27 16, it actually says that licensees may operate only at specifically approved times and locations. So I think that the person who is doing the application for the mobile food vendor can tell them where they can be and when they can be there. Um, and that can be a matter of internal policy with the city. I'd like to leave some room for flexibility if a a, a location is determined where we want to have a mobile food vendor for more than eight hours. So that motion, um, would be, uh, I would entertain a motion to, uh, delete 1 27 dash 16 Section B

▶ 12:50 Speaker 5: Show. Moved.

▶ 12:52 Ryan Williams: Second. Let's move. Okay. Moved by Councilor Vandiver. Seconded by Councilor Ul, when you're ready. Yep. On discussion. Excuse me.

▶ 12:59 Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Wait, who moved? Who was who put the motion

▶ 13:02 Ryan Williams: Moved by, uh, counselor Vandiver and seconded by Counselor ul. And now opportunity for discussion, if any. Okay. Uh, president Melli.

▶ 13:14 Speaker 2: Um, I'm just trying to think through,

▶ 13:19 Speaker 3: and I don't know if you have subsequent like, amendments

▶ 13:21 Leila Migliorelli: to pose here, but if we are saying, so by removing this, this means that

▶ 13:33 Speaker 2: Mode mobile food, like would they have any hours, like, do we want at all wanna be considerate of the fact that, or is it state anywhere else? Like, this goes from like 9:00 AM to whenever, so that, I don't know, people aren't operating food trucks in the middle of the night.

▶ 13:48 Speaker 3: I don't know who would do that. But anyway, just trying to think through, uh, my job is, you know, our jobs are to think through all the possibilities

▶ 13:55 Speaker 2: and make good policy around it.

▶ 13:59 Leila Migliorelli: Um, I, yeah, I agree on the, like in one loca, I, I don't know, and I to, to go back to counselor Vandiver's remark too, I, it reminded this is an annual license. Like this isn't, so this isn't like some, someone would want to know for an entire year, I can operate my food truck within the city. Mm-Hmm. Um, and then they would have the ability to do that

▶ 14:20 Speaker 2: for the entire year versus anyone else

▶ 14:21 Leila Migliorelli: who would do a one day license.

▶ 14:24 Speaker 2: So if you, you know, apply for this license,

▶ 14:27 Speaker 3: I'm gonna have a food truck be here for the whole year,

▶ 14:28 Speaker 2: what would you want? Is there any parameters around that that make sense?

▶ 14:32 Leila Migliorelli: You know, and not just be like, you can park here the same spot. I mean, we do know,

▶ 14:38 Speaker 3: and I, I think I remember from further conversation,

▶ 14:41 Leila Migliorelli: they would still have to adhere to the parking requirements. Mm-Hmm. So that doesn't really leave a lot of space for eight hour parking.

▶ 14:50 Leila Migliorelli: Um, and I don't know, now that I'm, I'm kind of forgetting the conversation again 'cause it was July about whether the location is,

▶ 15:01 Speaker 2: um, in

▶ 15:04 Leila Migliorelli: a business district. So my apologies for there too. 'cause I'm just thinking this all the way through. So I don't know. I, I think I would rather, I'd like

▶ 15:14 Speaker 3: to hear from my fellow colleagues about their thoughts on this before striking

▶ 15:18 Ryan Williams: It. Okay. We have Councilor Van Devin first, and then Councilor Jamal.

▶ 15:20 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, I, I believe anything else in that is in ordinance would also apply. So for example, the existing noise ordinance would apply Mm-Hmm. Uh, or so if we're looking to limit operation because of noise, that would hopefully, um, take care of that requirement. I, I guess we could think about what are the reasons to limit, you know, the hours of operation? And is there anything that is not generally covered? I don't have anything offhand a reason to further limit it besides noise ordinance, parking ordinances, things that are already exist, but maybe it's out there.

▶ 15:55 Maya Jamaleddine: Council, Um, thank you. I, I would like to echo, uh, president CLE Lee. I, I also feel that this is a new ordinance and I would like to see, uh, how this year is, the first year is going to be, so I would rather put more strict, um, or, or close, uh, monitoring, uh, for the first year. And then we can, uh, revisit and reassess and probably loosen up on other things and, uh, give it to other, uh, departments to, uh, monitor, uh, rather than us, uh, making those decisions, uh, on a license, uh, basis. So I would like to suggest to keep it, uh, for the, for the first year at least. And then we can revisit after.

▶ 16:48 Ryan Williams: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. A no vote would maintain the eight hour limit. A yes vote would remove the eight hour limit.

▶ 16:58 Speaker 4: Councillor Migliorelli, really?

▶ 17:02 Leila Migliorelli: Um, I, I would be open to hearing if there's any way, any other thoughts on amending this.

▶ 17:08 Speaker 3: I don't know. 'cause to your earlier points,

▶ 17:10 Speaker 2: um, Mr. Chair, that there, if there's anything else

▶ 17:17 Leila Migliorelli: that might get us closer to, I don't, I don't know what the, I guess what the objection is to having it in one location for more than eight hours on any given day. Like, is there anything, is there another middle point to that? But I don't know what the other end is of the middle. So,

▶ 17:32 Ryan Williams: So I, I have Councilor Romanul and Q, but if you don't mind, I want to please by all means, I, my thinking on this is that the license, uh, the approval process will include some robust discussion of where the operator wants to be and that the, the clerk's office or the city departments that are reviewing the application will make that judgment like case by case. I, I do appreciate, um, this, you know, this thing of not wanting to have somebody just park a truck somewhere permanently, but there are some places where private property owner might want to have a food truck like incarnation field, right? They may just set a food truck in the, um, in the, uh, parking lot or something and have it there for, uh, a Saturday Sunday game series and then move it, you know? And I just think that we should maybe leave it to the individual application process, um, and trust that the city will not approve a vendor who wants to just like park a truck on the public street for a week or something like that. And I am open if we have problems to making amendments to the ordinance. I mean, now that it's my decision, but, you know, we can make amendments to the ordinance. Yes. Councilor

▶ 18:46 Devin Romanul: Ruminal. Yeah, I know we're trying to pare this down a little bit. I'm, I'm, it's not that I object to, uh, a, a, uh, an hour limit. I, my assumption would be that in the promulgation of whatever regulation or in the administrative application, there would already be some sort of time restriction, or they would have to note that in the application, which we'll turn around and we'll approve, uh, when they come to us, uh, for that application. So we'll have a, an opportunity to, uh, revisit this on a case by case basis. And, uh, to, uh, parrot my colleagues, uh, thought process. You know, we, we, this being a new legislative avenue, we, we may in six months or a year, have some issues that arise. I suspect that our, uh, constituents who are watching and those who are not, may have some complaints as time unfolds. And we may have the opportunity to, to add or subtract some elements. And plus we, we'll, we'll have the opportunity to revisit some of these issues when this is on the full floor. So, um, it's my, my 2 cents

▶ 19:39 Ryan Williams: President McGee. Really?

▶ 19:41 Leila Migliorelli: Yeah. I think then one issue to maybe think about before it's on the full floor is I, I understand why the, the application was struck. 'cause it makes sense. We don't approve the other applications. However, I feel like we don't, it's kind

▶ 19:57 Speaker 2: of interesting that we don't have a, like a

▶ 20:00 Leila Migliorelli: site line into all the other app. I mean, we can look and go through what, and see what we've approved before, but like, we don't have an opportunity to just sort of look at licensing overall

▶ 20:11 Speaker 3: and seeing like, the consistency between, you know, some of the applications that are out there.

▶ 20:15 Speaker 2: Um, for example,

▶ 20:20 Speaker 3: I would assume then the one day license exists and there's an application for that.

▶ 20:22 Speaker 2: And, um, I don't think that's part of this package.

▶ 20:27 Leila Migliorelli: So looking at the application, I'm just,

▶ 20:31 Leila Migliorelli: I'm assuming that you're right. So if there's, if there's stipulations that I'm looking at the language that was struck it, you know, there's like a mobile, a mobile food vendor may only operate between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM on any public property.

▶ 20:41 Speaker 3: Obviously. I think that whole licensing process, the application would, um,

▶ 20:47 Leila Migliorelli: it'd be developed by the clerk's office. I don't know when the last time a licensing application was developed. Like, I don't know when that was ever codified.

▶ 20:55 Speaker 2: So I could see, I could get around striking it. I just, I'm just trying to think of the logic and having it in there. Um, yeah, no, anyways, I'll just keep thinking for a few more minutes.

▶ 21:13 Speaker 3: Thank you.

▶ 21:17 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, to that point, I, for the record, I did, uh, just locate the single day, um, the temporary food permit, uh, application on the city website. It's four pages long

▶ 21:30 Kimberly Vandiver: and, um, includes a checklist, uh, that someone signs off on details about the event, um, details about the food, um,

▶ 21:45 Speaker 5: and, uh, uh, section on, uh, other, other considerations that they should be looking through.

▶ 22:00 Ryan Williams: Okay. It's a great discussion, by the way. It's really good. Um, uh, so the motion on the floor is to strike 1 27 16 section, or paragraph BA yes. Vote would remove the eight hour limitation from the ordinance. And we are assuming that it will remain in some form in the application process, by the way, has been the discussion that people have been having. Um, a So a a yes vote will remove it from the ordinance. A no vote will maintain it in the ordinance. Whenever you're ready.

▶ 22:33 Speaker 4: Hold on.

▶ 22:40 Speaker 1: Okay. So the motion is to strike 1 27 dash 16, paragraph B mm-Hmm. And a no is to keep the hours in the ordinance, right? Yes. Is to remove the eight hour limitation from the ordinance and place it somewhere within the application

▶ 23:01 Speaker 4: Just to remove, just to remove it, and then

▶ 23:02 Speaker 1: Just to remove it. You don't want it placed in the application. Don't, that's up

▶ 23:05 Ryan Williams: To the clerk's office when developing the

▶ 23:07 Speaker 1: Application. Okay. So don't put that. Okay. So yes. Is to remove the eight hour limitation from the ordinance. Council Williams? Yes. Counselor Romanul. Yes. Counselor Vandiver. Yes. Councilor All?

▶ 23:27 Speaker 1: No. Councilor Brisky is not here. President Midgley. Yes.

▶ 23:34 Speaker 4: That amendment passes. That amendment passes.

▶ 23:37 Ryan Williams: Um, well, we have an opportunity to actually send this to the floor after five months or whatever it's been.

▶ 23:47 Speaker 4: Um, um, I, I have,

▶ 23:48 Ryan Williams: I have other ideas, but honestly I think that where we are, I le I leave it to my, uh, colleagues if they have any other ideas,

▶ 23:59 Ryan Williams: make a motion to recommend to the full board.

▶ 24:04 Ryan Williams: So moved. I would entertain a motion to recommend to the full board.

▶ 24:08 Devin Romanul: I'm so moved by your suggestion. And so moving. Thank you.

▶ 24:11 Speaker 4: Second. Okay. Motion

▶ 24:16 Ryan Williams: To Move. Moved by Council UL and seconded by President Motion. Recommend.

▶ 24:25 Speaker 1: And that's to, That's

▶ 24:26 Ryan Williams: to move this up to the full council. Recommend for a vote. Commend, recommend this to the full counsel for a vote. Yep.

▶ 24:40 Speaker 1: Okay. We call mm-Hmm. Council Williams. Yes. Councillor Romanul. Yes.

▶ 24:48 Speaker 1: Counselor Vandiver. Yes. Counselor Jamine. Yes. KY is not here. President Midgley? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. There it goes. It will be at the full council.

▶ 25:03 Ryan Williams: Um, we have no other business before us, so I'll motion by unanimous consent to adjourn. I see no objections. We're adjourned.