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 (~29 min @ 1:28)

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

▶ 1:17 Ryan Williams: And we have a representative of the administration before us. So I'm going to motion again by unanimous consent to suspend Rule 37 B so that she can speak to us as she so chooses. Okay. And I hear no objections. So 37 B is now suspended. Um, do you, do you want to give a little refresher since it's been, since we talked about this? Thank you,

▶ 1:41 Speaker 1: Counselors. Good evening. Um, so I believe we took this up at the July 8th legal and legislative committee. It was the first sort of look at any ordinance related to licensing of food trucks. Um, I think prior to that and, um, as continued while this body, um, contemplates what to do next is sort of an ad hoc process where we just sort of react to complaints about food trucks or, you know, trying to permit them to operate within the city's limits as best, you know, we can. Um, and I believe, you know, what the administration sent down was just sort of like a starting place, like having to start somewhere. Um, but as a licensing authority, certainly leaving it to this body to figure out, um, how to best move forward from there with, um, you know, what we had, and I believe we've sent down, um, we sent down some supplemental information, um, that should be in your packets related to some of the questions from that evening, um, that solicitor Phillips and I, um, had worked on with our CFO Kerry Golden. So I'm happy to try to refresh people's memories a little bit more or answer any questions. But, um, yeah.

▶ 2:57 Ryan Williams: Okay. Do we have any, um, questions from the voting members of the committee first? Yes. Councilor Romanul. Um,

▶ 3:03 Devin Romanul: Two questions. I, uh, we had a, a number of proposals were floated in terms of timing and distance and things like that. Um, had that been, had, has this draft changed at all since it was initially filed, uh, from what was originally filed? And I think that number two are there, are there other municipalities that this was modeled after? Things that you've seen emerge from best practices that you'd like us to replicate or look out for?

▶ 3:25 Speaker 1: Sure. So it has not, what you have in front of you is still the original ordinance. Um, but to my knowledge, I don't believe any changes were proposed to that from this body. Although a lot of discussion was made and yes. Okay. So Chair say nodding Yes. Um, so, you know, that being said, we're still, I think, I think we're still where we were in July, right? There's summertime and then there's been other things that the council's taken up as part of their business. And so we're really looking just to pick up where we left off in July. Um, we did look at several cities and towns. Um, you know, I think every each city in town is unique. Um, I can find out the exact ones before the end of the evening and let you know where we modeled it after. Um, but just understanding that we felt we needed to at least give this body an opportunity to look at something since we, um, don't have anything on the books currently.

▶ 4:21 Speaker 2: Thank you. Mm-Hmm. Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 4:23 Speaker 1: Um, so just wanted to follow up on, um, the, the additional information you sent and maybe you could summarize for anyone listening and, and for, so that we're all kind of brought back up to speed. Um, for instance, it looks like we're, we have, the information was sent over about meals tax and how that's collected, which was one of the things that the council was really interested in. Mm-Hmm. Um, so, uh, I guess can you summarize kind how, you know, how the information answers just at a high level, some of the key points around, you know, for instance, meals tax and if that would flow through or if there'd be anything else we would need to do to, to collect that. Sure. So, um, yep. The supplemental memo sent to the full council on September 17th from the mayor, which is in the packet and posted online for the public to see, um, it seems like meals tax was the biggest, um, or one of the bigger questions that was lying from this, um, body. And so long as the, the food truck business is Regi, the, the meals tax goes to the municipality in which that food truck is registered. Um, and so DLS to our knowledge just provides us with a number that says, here's your, you know, the aggregate number of, you know, dollar amount and meals tax that's been generated to your municipality. We don't have that broken down by vendor, by vendor. Um, that's just not something that's given to us by DLS. Um, we could certainly follow up if that was something that was important. And then we kind of broke down the sort of current process. I mean, we had to do something to allow food trucks here. I mean, it's a public, public health issue when people are consuming food. So we have a, a health and human services director who takes that really seriously. And so what we outlined was sort of what we have in place for right now. And that includes everything from a temporary one day permit, um, that might be at a community event, you know, to, um, what they do to license, um, a Melrose Food establishment where there is one here who's already a food establishment with a Common Vic that also has a, um, a food truck. Um, and so that's both with the Health and Human Services Department and then through our DPW engineering department, which was issuing an occupancy permit to basically say, yes, you can occupy the right of way with your temporary food truck business us. Great. Thank you.

▶ 6:36 Ryan Williams: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to motion to suspend Rule 21 C so that I can speak freely as a chair by unanimous consent. Okay. I see no objections. So rule 21 C is suspended and all the other counselors who are voting members have spoken. I know. Before I speak though, are there any non-voting members that wanna talk about this? Okay, I see none. So, um, I want to be cognizant of the timing of this. It's a pretty big order and it's like seven 11 at this moment. And we have other meetings. It's seven 30 and 7 45. So I think that the purpose of this meeting will probably be to kind of begin this discussion, um, and, and maybe propose, um, some amendments. And my understanding is that we can propose the amendments and have them pass and still hold it in committee so we can kind of make progress, um, without having to vote up or down at this at this moment. 'cause I just don't know if we're gonna get through, um, all of this in, you know, the 19 minutes that we have left. And I don't want to infringe too much on the other meetings tonight. Um, so I wanted to, you know, we're coming back at this for the public who may be listening tonight. We did put this on, uh, it came to council in late June. It went before the legal and legislative committee in July. We had a pretty decent discussion about it, but it ran a little long. And then we ran into the summer where we don't have as many meetings, and then we ran into staffing issues. And so we put this on hold for quite some time, and now it is back act. Um, one thing that I am kind of unclear on is the license application as part of the ordinance. And, um, I just, I don't think the license application appears in other ordinances when we have, um, when we have things like this. And I think that that's best left up to the, um, to the city and, and to the city departments that are gonna be monitoring food rules and enforcing food rules and sanitation and things like that. Um, so I would, you know, propose to, to the voting members that we could, uh, consider in an amendment, a simple amendment to begin with, just for the sake of clarity that we strike, uh, the entire mobile food vendor license application, um,

▶ 9:02 Ryan Williams: from this ordinance, which would be, and I'm sorry, I think on the packet there are two copies of the ordinance, and I think the second copy has, um, a little bit more information. So if you look at packet page 15, it would be, um,

▶ 9:20 Speaker 2: page 15 through 20.

▶ 9:23 Ryan Williams: Does that make sense? Mm-Hmm. Okay.

▶ 9:28 Speaker 2: But I haven't made that motion yet.

▶ 9:59 Ryan Williams: There can be, we can have discussion about this or someone can propose something or they can propose something different.

▶ 10:12 Ryan Williams: I was just gonna say that. Yes. Council Romanul, thank

▶ 10:13 Speaker 3: You.

▶ 10:15 Devin Romanul: I'm reading this, it seems wild to me that that meals sold in a municipality go to its truck of origin and not to, am I reading that correctly? Mm-Hmm. Um, is that something we can talk to our state legislative delegation about? Because that seems to me that's nuts, right? I mean,

▶ 10:34 Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm, I'm in agreement with isn't

▶ 10:36 Devin Romanul: That just defy common sense? So, alright.

▶ 10:40 Kimberly Vandiver: It does seem like the, the, you could see an argument for it because I, it, I think when I read that before, I haven't read it tonight. Um, some of the licensing goes to the city of origin, right? I think the health inspection, there's,

▶ 10:53 Speaker 2: You Mean the tax,

▶ 10:54 Kimberly Vandiver: Some of the work associated with the business goes to the city of origin?

▶ 10:58 Devin Romanul: Oh, it's not purely Oh, I see what you're saying. A hundred percent. Yeah. Well maybe I, maybe I read it incorrectly.

▶ 11:04 Kimberly Vandiver: I think the taxes all or nothing, but I, I think, um, as far as inspections, some of the kind of like the health inspections for any food preparation would happen at the facility location of the, of origin.

▶ 11:16 Devin Romanul: Hmm. Well, something to bring up with our state delegation nonetheless.

▶ 11:24 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, if I, if I may, I, I, I think councilor ver your, um, the, I think the idea of removing the, um, the application itself in the ordinance makes sense. Um, likely this would be the application, um, but, um, it doesn't necessarily need to be something that the city council reviews and approves any change to. I I think that would make sense for it to kind of live at another level as long as we have the, um, everything else scoped out in the ordinance as far as requirements around it. So I, I would support that.

▶ 11:59 Ryan Williams: Okay. Um, I would like to ask a question of, of Ms. Grimm, do you know when, um, a restaurant, like the new cafe that's coming before us later tonight, when they come before the city asking for permission to get their license, are they filling all this information out and sending it to the city clerk's office? Is that how that happens?

▶ 12:18 Speaker 1: I believe so, yeah. And I believe that's probably included in those such licenses that you, that you review as part of the Common Vic renewal process.

▶ 12:26 Ryan Williams: Does anybody know where in the code that license process is contained so that we can quickly refer to that as we look through this counselor? Uh, sorry.

▶ 12:38 Mark Garipay: Um, I'm not sure where it is in the code, but, um, I, at the last meeting, I, I had mentioned that I think it should follow the same process maybe through the city clerk Yes. As a common vehicular. Um, 'cause I don't see much, there's much difference, um, you know, other than maybe, you know, I don't know, police, well, police would be doing Cory checks and stuff, but we have a whole checklist, um, that's in the packet if you want to go into the p and l, you'll see we have a common Vic in front of us tonight. It'll have you every, everything that's required. And I think a lot of that would be the same as as a food truck. And I would like to try to not have five different processes.

▶ 13:17 Ryan Williams: Exactly. I agree with you Councilor Gupa. So I, I suppose what I'm, what I'm looking to do with this is to, um, is to not have the specific vendor application held within the ordinance as a first step. And then what we can do after that is we can figure out a way to make sure that it's clear in the ordinance that the, um, that the Common Vic application applies, and then we can compare them to see what specific differences might be needed to contain within the ordinance.

▶ 13:48 Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's fine. I just wanna clarify when you say the city, so that kind of application, that Common Vic license would've been created by, at the time that the, whoever was in the city clerk's office under the purview of the council. So, got it. Happy to work with our current clerk, uh, on something that makes sense, but it is still your, you know, decision on what to do with an application.

▶ 14:11 Speaker 2: Got it. Okay. Yes. Councilor Romanul.

▶ 14:15 Devin Romanul: Yeah, I'll just say I'm, uh, I agree with everything that's been said. I'd love to examine the two, uh, the proposed statute and the existing statute, make sure they're more or less in alignment so we're not, have two wildly different processes. Um, that being said, I'm, I'm highly inclined to, uh, you know, this is a good great starting point. Um, highly inclined to move this forward. I'm cognizant that we're gonna have a full delegation when we discuss this in, um, you know, with the full body and that there may be a myriad opinions, uh, presented then too. But, um, so I know we're marking up with a smaller group right now, but, uh, but yeah.

▶ 14:52 Speaker 3: All, all that being said, ready to, ready to move forward.

▶ 14:55 Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Gepe,

▶ 14:57 Mark Garipay: Uh, yeah, I'm not a voting member, but just a suggestion on, as I read through the memo from, um, Ms. Phillips, um, regarding licensing with food established Melrose Food Establishment and licensing with outside food establishments. Um, we are relying as a community on the other health department, and my concern is, uh, how do we know how thorough they are? Sure. I mean, I think we have a pretty thorough health department, so I'd, I'd want to see that be pretty consistent. Um, if they're gonna sell food, and that's a big, big concern. We don't know what people, people are selling, right? That's the reason why we're doing the ordinance. If we're not, we're not even inspecting it and we don't have the authority or it's not in the ordinance that we inspect it. What, what are we really accomplishing?

▶ 15:46 Speaker 4: So that, that's just one other suggestion.

▶ 15:48 Ryan Williams: Yeah. Thank you. I, I appreciate that. I, so, um, what I was looking at, the city of Maldens, um, the ordinance is, is, is pretty minimal, but they, they have a, a policy, um,

▶ 16:03 Speaker 2: and the, um, just gimme one second here.

▶ 16:05 Ryan Williams: The, the, the policy itself, number one, they pay a much higher fee. They pay a $500 annual fee, which kind of offsets the tax consideration if you figure a food truck's gonna be in town. You know, not very frequently. Um, but then it's the Board of Health that reviews the permits. And I think that, um, there might be room for some consideration for, um, for the Board of Health to be involved with a permit on this just because of what Councilor Repe is saying, that there's, you know, that we, somebody could, you could have a model where somebody's establishing their food truck in a community that's far away from here and doesn't have resources and, you know, just doesn't have the kind of protections that we need to have in the city of Melrose.

▶ 16:55 Ryan Williams: Oh, thanks. Yeah. Um, in the same way that, um, and, and in the Malden standard, there's also an allowance for an agent of the Board of Health or police department or somebody to come in and inspect the vehicle at any time. Um, so there's that too.

▶ 17:15 Ryan Williams: Um, but, so I, I think, you know, right off the bat, like I was saying before, I, I would test this again and see if anybody's open to just making sure that we're not including this license application in the ordinance itself, which I don't know if it is 'cause it's typically not. Um, but just to, to clarify that this doesn't belong in the ordinance itself. Um, and we could make a motion to do that. Yeah. So moved. Okay. So the motion is, this is a little, this is a little different. The motion is to, um, eliminate paid, let's say the, the vendor last, the mobile vendor mobile, excuse me, the mobile food vendor license application from the ordinance, um, so that it won't appear in like e code, you know, or the city's official code. And, and for example, that, or that document appears in the packet on pages 15 through 20.

▶ 18:16 Ryan Williams: Um, so there's one motion on the floor from Councilor Romanul to, uh, to do that second, seconded by Councilor Vandiver. Um, and we'll do, what do we do with three people? Do a roll call. Vote Is a voice.

▶ 18:32 Speaker 2: Vote for amendment. Yeah.

▶ 18:37 Ryan Williams: Roll for final passage. Voice for amendment. Okay. We'll do a voice vote for the amendment. All in favor? We, aye. Aye. It's three of us. It's unanimous. Um, and so that amendment, it will be added into this.

▶ 18:52 Ryan Williams: Um, now I would encourage the Yeah, no, no, please finish. Okay. Okay. I was, I would encourage the, the counselors to look through this. Um, and with, with, uh, apologies to the public who are watching this kind of plotting meeting, it's the first time we're going through a very thick piece of legislation, um, in a couple of months. Councillor Vandiver. So,

▶ 19:11 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, the, so now that we've passed that piece, the other part that would sit in there, that councilor Van, that Councilor Repe was asking about. So I see in the application, mm-hmm. On page 1516, it looks like we have the other, other required conditions and including inspection of truck and cart for new licenses via the health department. So do we need to move? I was just looking and I don't think that it's specified anywhere else that there would be an inspection by the health department. I do see something about, um,

▶ 19:48 Kimberly Vandiver: let me find what I did see about the health department in here. Uh,

▶ 19:54 Ryan Williams: I think it's in Provision, if I may, in 1 27 16 there.

▶ 19:57 Speaker 1: Yes. Mm-Hmm. Yeah,

▶ 19:59 Devin Romanul: I think it's sections one of five. Sorry to interrupt. Go for it. But they, uh, you know, we may wanna roll it into legislative language for the ne next session, but it has, uh, the, the sections of Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1 0 5, uh,

▶ 20:18 Devin Romanul: CMR five 90, um, about complying with public health regulations. And then it references an inspection, but it doesn't say, you know, that it's a requirement of licensure. So I think we may want to pull that at a legislative language for the next next session

▶ 20:32 Ryan Williams: To help everybody and myself follow along with where you're seeing this. Yes. Could you tell me what page of the package

▶ 20:36 Devin Romanul: It's in the, um, other required conditions subsection of the application that just struck

▶ 20:41 Speaker 2: Oh, I see the application. Alright.

▶ 20:42 Devin Romanul: So it makes some helpful references, but, um, but I think we would, it would need to be formed into actual code language.

▶ 20:50 Ryan Williams: Yeah. So there is in, um, on packet page 14, under chapter 1 27, uh, 16 conditions of operation section C, the mobile fo the mo the mobile Food Vendor licensee shall comply with all applicable rules, including, but not those limited to the Board of Health Regulations. Um, so I, I think that that is probably a good place to move some of this stuff up.

▶ 21:22 Speaker 2: Um,

▶ 21:28 Ryan Williams: the stuff that we think is really important to legislate like the, like the, um, number five regulations of Massachusetts Department of Public Health in any local board of health regulations.

▶ 21:41 Devin Romanul: Yeah, if it would be helpful, I'd be happy to, um, Sergeant Interject. I'd be happy to work with the solicitor to make sure that it's in, uh, proper language form and, and file that for next

▶ 21:53 Ryan Williams: Time. Okay. Cool. So let's flag, let's like star that, um, for future discussion on this and, um, let's, let's keep at this for a few more minutes and see if there's any other lines of discussion folks wanna follow before we gavel out.

▶ 22:15 Speaker 2: Um, I'm, um, if I may be so bold,

▶ 22:18 Ryan Williams: Please. Um, I note in here it appears to me that the only fine that is needed is an application payment of a hundred dollars. Um, I would, so maldens a $75, but then they have a $500 annual fee. And, um, you know, I would suggest that we take an approach that is that if not, similar to that, that we lower the application fee and that we raise the annual permit fee. Um, the,

▶ 22:54 Ryan Williams: the ordinance does say that this is an annual basis. So, um, you know, I would entertain a motion to reduce the permit fee to $75. Let's start there.

▶ 23:15 Ryan Williams: The, the, the trade off to this would be that we, that we add in an annual right? Right.

▶ 23:19 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, on discussion. I, I guess for a question for Councilor Garipay about the typical process for licensing, uh, is an annual review helpful and important? And, and does that make sense to, to have an annual fee possibly tied and or tied to an annual review of and re-approval of the business? E

▶ 23:40 Mark Garipay: Every business has to reapply every year. Mm-Hmm. With a, with a fee. Yeah. And,

▶ 23:46 Speaker 5: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. Everybody has to. Yep.

▶ 23:49 Mark Garipay: So we are in the process of, um, approving common vs. For next year number of restaurants that are running out of time that will not have them in place. So in theory, they should not be operating after January 1st, so Mm-Hmm. They go through the same, they, they re-up, uh, that application. Is it a hundred dollars? Mm-Hmm. It's a hundred dollars. So if you want consistency, then I mean, I, okay. My suggestion would be a hundred bucks, but,

▶ 24:15 Ryan Williams: All right. Okay. If it's a hundred dollars across the board, I don't, it's, it's not a big difference. But I, I think in lieu of the, um, loss of potential tax revenue from a, from a thing like this that we need to consider another annual fee on top of this, an annual permit fee, that's not the application fee

▶ 24:34 Kimberly Vandiver: Is, uh, do you think there would make sense to differentiate between a food truck that was based in Melrose and based elsewhere and coming into Melrose? Is that something we could do or would want to do?

▶ 24:47 Ryan Williams: I don't know. I don't know how that would be viewed from a legal perspective.

▶ 24:52 Kimberly Vandiver: 'cause as far as the meals tax, if they're based in Melrose, that would be coming to Melrose, right?

▶ 24:57 Ryan Williams: Mm-Hmm. Um, the, um, Ms. Gimmick has that,

▶ 25:00 Speaker 1: Well, I was just trying to differentiate. So I think our thought process with the annual fee is for, similar to businesses that are operating here. So a food truck that operates out of here. So I don't think that a food, like how would someone, I don't think we're gonna ask someone to pay. No, no one's gonna pay an annual fee if they don't, if they're out of Peabody. Right? So they're gonna come down and they're gonna pay what we already have, which is the temporary event permit, right. Or the temporary one day event fee that the Board of Health already issues. How much, how much is that permit? Um, Online it says that it's, uh, $25 for a one day event. Like if the Cookie Monster Food truck comes down and does something here, they're already paying their annual fees to Peabody and their meals tax, you know, generated, goes to Peabody.

▶ 25:49 Ryan Williams: I wanna clarify, um, something you just said to make sure that I understand this. So is the purpose of this ordinance to license Melrose based food trucks for operation elsewhere? Or is it to license other food truck companies that want to work in Melrose? Or is it both?

▶ 26:03 Speaker 1: I think it's both. I mean, I think we have a perfect example. We do have a food truck that, we have two food trucks that are here right now, and they're both operating differently and we have no, you know, we're, we are taking processes that already existed in order to help regulate them and to allow them to do business here. And it's not a perfect fit.

▶ 26:21 Speaker 3: Right. Okay.

▶ 26:29 Ryan Williams: Um, so I mean, I think that the wouldn't the process for a food truck, the La Charra food truck look different than the process for the Cookie monster, right? Mm-Hmm. Because the La Charra food truck would do all of its inspections and file for a license in Melrose. Would the Cookie Monster Truck also file for a license in Melrose, but it would do its inspection somewhere else,

▶ 26:51 Speaker 1: Correct? Well, the, the, um, the Board of Health does do temporary. They inspect anyone that's doing a temporary food setup. So like, I'll use the example of the Victorian Fair. Okay. If you're operating in a booth, or if you're operating, um, a food truck at the Victorian Fair, you need a one day temporary permit from the Board of Health for that event. The Board of Health then goes and inspects all of those, um, setups, whether again, it's a food truck or just, you know, someone having food at a booth.

▶ 27:18 Ryan Williams: Okay. So I think this gets into, and we're gonna, we're going to switch meetings here shortly 'cause it's, we're at seven 30. Um, I think this is a great discussion. I appreciate everybody's patience getting back into it. 'cause I think we need some discussion to, to get through this. Um, in the vendor license application that we just took outta the ordinance, there's a number of required documents. And I do think that was the most efficient way to get through this because some of those documents seem a little like the business plan form for a food truck. It's a truck and it sells food, you know. Um, but the food service permit issued by the Melrose Board of Health that deserves to be moved up into this ordinance as a requirement of getting this license. Um, you know, sanitation plans, state issued hawkers. So there's a bunch of stuff in here that I think deserve to belong in the conditions of operations section where we can have like a laundry list of things that they have to have. Um, and then the, the license application will just confirm, you know, did you have these things?

▶ 28:18 Speaker 2: Yes or no? Um, do we, um, do

▶ 28:27 Ryan Williams: we know what a fire safety inspection would look like for a vehicle versus a, a building? How that would differ? Or do you think that maybe by the next time we talk about this, that we could get one of the fire department, the chief or someone to weigh in on how they might approach that? 'cause I'm interested, I'm interested, I mean, I know these things, the cooking devices themselves have suppression systems that they're required to have, you know, helon, or not helon, but CO2 or whatever. Mm-Hmm. Um, but they wouldn't need sprinklers. You know, there was all kinds of things they would and wouldn't need. So I think there's kind of a special case for this. Um, and like, I don't really understand the occupancy permit, is that just permission to park in a parking space? Okay. Um, I, I would like to see some of these things, you know, as we're, as we're approving them. Like we're, we're looking at a, a vendor application that has a bunch of required documents, but we don't really know what those documents are, what they look like, and whether they're burdensome or, you know, they haven't fully considered, you know, things.

▶ 29:31 Speaker 1: But I thought we were striking the application altogether. But you want us to add the application, but all the other applications,

▶ 29:38 Ryan Williams: I want to add some of the required documents into the ordinance, right? So that we don't have this big, you know, application form in the ordinance with, um, with tons of stuff. But I recognize that some of these required documents are important to the consideration of the license. Um, there's just, there's a bunch of stuff in here. There's like 14, uh, you know, mobile food vendors shall ensure safe positioning of the truck cleanliness, you know, I mean, that stuff is, is, um, in other parts of the code, you know, so I don't necessarily think that we need to have this very, very, very long application form in here. Just for that.

▶ 30:21 Speaker 3: Could I make a motion to hold in committee? Uh, yes.

▶ 30:23 Ryan Williams: Motion to hold by Councilor Romanul. Second. Seconded by Councillor Vandiver. Um, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Um, so we got started. It's been a while. I think there's interest in moving it forward, so that's good. And we can try to do more l and l meetings more closely together and make progress on this. Um, and with that and being, uh, 7 34, I will motion by unanimous consent to adjourn. And I see no objections. Were adjourned.