Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 06 28 Regular Item I COMMISSION AGENDA June 28, 1999 Meeting Consent Informational Publie Hearing Regular X ITEM I ~ Mgr. 1 Dept. Authorization REQUEST: The City Manager is requesting that the City Commission consider overriding the Mayor's Veto of Ordinance Number 721 (Commercial Vehicles). PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the City Commission to decide if it desires to override the Mayor's Veto of Ordinance Number 721 (Commercial Vehicles). CONSIDERATIONS: The City Commission approved Ordinance Number 721 (Commercial Vehicles), at the June 14, 1999 Regular Meeting of the City Commission. On June 23, 1999, a letter addressed to the City Commission was received from Mayor Paul P. Partyka. This letter noted his veto of Ordinance Number 721 (Commercial Vehicles). ATTACHMENTS: . Letter of Veto from Mayor Paul P. Partyka, dated June 23, 1999. COMMISSION ACTION: ,~-- ....-" CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Re: VETO OF ORDINANCE 721 ,~1l!O ~~~* . ~\)~ '2. ~ ,~~~ ~~ .~~~(~ 'I. ~\ t,:\) G\\'{ of c~ < Jv"\\C- ,,~. 0i\ . Le-i < < June 23, 1999 To: City Commissioners I have decided to veto Ordinance 721 (deals with Commercial Vehicles) which was passed by the City Commission on June 14, 1999. I will provide a written statement at the next regular Commission Meeting on June 28, ~::~ \f Mayor CC City Manager City Clerk CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 June 28, 1999 VETO STATEMENT CONCERNING ORDINANCE 721 (COMMERCIAL VEIllCLES) I have decided to veto ordinance 721 because a monster has been created. After the many meetings on this issue, I had asked the city clerk to fax me the fmal version to me so that I could review it in total. That was two Fridays ago. After reviewing it throughout the weekend and then conftrming what it said with Mr. Guthrie. I decided that this ordinance is a classic example of GOVERNMENT GOBBL YGOOK. My rhetorical question to the Commission is have you read the fmal version and do you understand the implications for our working citizens? This new ordinance will have negative ramifications not for the 100 or so households initially planned to ftx but, in addition, will affect potentially thousands of households throughout the city. In my neighborhood alone it affects at least 5 households including myself. This is another example of how government has taken a relatively simple concept. . .Make the city a nicer place to live. Instead it has overreacted and made it difftcult for its working citizens through unnecessary, imprecise and unfair language in the ordinance. In fact it probably infringes on their Constitutional Rights. I read that I am doing this for political reasons. Yes, but not for me, but for the Commissioners. Let me illustrate some key points. The current law on commercial vehicles is clear that it's intention is to prevent trucks or vehicles that are rated more than % ton. It refers to dual rear wheel vehicles, trailers and certain type of vehicle bodies. It was simple to understand and the intent was to stop heavy-duty type of vehicles used in the common sense standard of commercial use. Now here's what has happened when government officials take over and create GOVERNMENT GOBBL YGOOK. Take a simple ~page ordinance, turn it mto a monster ordinance that changes the spirit of what needs to be done, makes it unwieldy to administer, creates a situation where people will be breaking the law and won't even know they're doing it. Let me read the proposed deftnition of commercial vehicle: Section 20-432 For purposes of this Chapter, commercial vehicles are defined to be all passenger vehicles, trncks, trailers, and constrnction equipment of any type used in or designed to be used in business; all vehicles temporarily or permanently designed to accommodate, support, house, store, deliver or transport material, supplies, equipment machinery or power plants of all types; all constrnction related equipment; and all vehicles of any type, trailers and construction equipment upon which a business name or sign is permanently or temporarily affixed , \ And Section 20-434 One commercial vehicle per dwelling may be parked in residentially zoned districts of the City... Now let me illustrate some examples of its implications: I. The new defmition of commercial vehicles goes beyond trucks and includes all passenger cars used for business with or without commerciallettering; for temporary or permanent use. So for families that have 2 business cars (these could be company cars or private cars) because the man and woman or (perhaps a child) work for companies that give them a very nice car, can now only have 1 authorized per dwelling. What do you do with the second car? Who is going to tell the household that the two cars, one from Mary Kay and one from xyz company, only one ia allowed and the other is not. Or the person that has a business truck and has a second passenger car also used for business. Guess what? They must get rid of it, park it somewhere else or move out of the city? Does that make sense? It doesn't to me. This law will affect thousands of wage- earning homes in this city. 2. Here's another one. Section 20-435, it reads: Utility vehicles used to maintain the site or horse trailers of any length are permitted within any parcel of 5 acres or more within any. ranchland or agricultural zoned district provided that they are not visible from any rights-of- way or abutting property. Guess What? In the current zoning designations of the city there is no such zoning as ranchlands or agricultural zoning. How did this language happen? 3. What is the implication of the statement I just read. Residents that have more than 5 acres and are in a residential community (such as Dunmar Estates that is zoned for a minimum of 1 acre) cannot have a utility vehicle to take care of the land because it may be a non-conforming vehicle whether it is hidden or not. Those residents can only have I authorized vehicle for business (truck or passenger). In fact there can be a case made that certain tractors used for lawnwork may be construction-related and are non-conforming vehicles. The second vehicle may be non- conforming or needs to parked elsewhere or move out. By the way, horse trailers on these properties will fall under the same limitations as the rest ofthe residential areas of the city. 4. Not to long ago the city has NOT BEEN GOOD in enforcing the current commercial vehicle law. And in some cases actually permitted these vehicles by issuing occupationallicenses or permits. In effect we allowed those trucks in those neighborhoods. Now we have overreacted, we now are telling those same people you have two years or else (provided it is the only commercial vehicle you have). Get rid of that brand new truck (you just bought) two years from now or park it somewhere else or move out. Well let me tell you that is plain NOT FAIR. In actual fact, we are dealing with 50, 100, maybe 150 non-conforming trucks. This is not a life or death issue but one of common sense and fairness. The fair thing to do is let normal attrition 2 take over. Grandfather these people. As the truck gets replaced then license only conforming trucks/vehicles. This is similar to what progressive companies do when they have to take job cuts. Let's be considerate of our wage-earning citizens. Through attrition, this problem will go away in a few years without causing a hardship for these citizens. 5. Here's something that riles me. We slap them with a new law that potentially affects their livelihood.. .then charge them $25 to permit that to happen, Talking about big brother. Let's face it, we are only talking about a relatively small number of vehicles under this category. In fact, the permit process creates a burden for the working citizen and the city. Perhaps we should pay them as they come in for their lost time. Or take one progressive step forward. Eliminate the permit process. If they are grandfathered then all new vehicles whenever they get licensed will be told whether it complies or not. This saves the city and the citizen time in doing administrative GOBBL YGOOK. Our job when this issue came up was simply to update the current ordinance. Educate all people throughout the city about the ordinance and its intent. We, as elected officials, need to make sure our laws are fairly, and with some common sense, applied. If they are not.. . get rid of them. Instead, we created a monster that will penalize thousands of households, goes way beyond its original intent, is not clear in its application, refers to zoning areas that don't exist, is not fair, and is not clear on how to administer. Do not override the veto but show our citizens that you understand their plight by make a pragmatic and realistic law that makes our city nicer and treats our wage-earning residents with respe~ Paul P. (:t;~a Mayor 3