Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 132075

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 132075

File Type: Ordinance

Status: In Committee

Version: 0

Reference: 14-31

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LETTERING

Introduced: 10/21/2013

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 3/18/2014

Agenda Date: 3/18/2014

Agenda Item Number: 7A

Notes:

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION; AMENDING SECTION 8A-276 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ELIMINATE REQUIREMENT THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE MARKINGS INCLUDE THE ADDRESS OF THE OWNER, TO ELIMINATE NEED FOR PERMANENT MARKING AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE NUMBERS, AND CHANGING PENALTIES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

Sponsors:	Esteban L. Bovo, Jr., Co-Prime Sponsor
	Sally A. Heyman, Co-Prime Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	3/18/2014	7A	Adopted				P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing propose ordinance into the record. Commissioner Moss noted that he was not in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance because from his perspective, he said, the commission needed to ensure that residents were aware when contractors were in their neighborhoods; in an effort to discourage people that had ill intent to take advantage of residents being able to identify contractors was important. There was a need to continue to have identification in place. Commissioner Diaz noted that although this had become a severe problem, the State Law regarding this issue needed to be addressed and clarified. He pointed out that commercial vehicles needed to have identification markings on the vehicle. Commissioner Heyman noted that accountability for all commercial vehicles needed to be ensured. She clarified the language within the ordinance regarding vehicle markings and what contractors needed to comply with valid licenses and markings on their commercial vehicles. She pointed out that many commercial vehicles were parked in residential areas, not only for work but because they resided there; several cities had spoken against having these vehicles parked in their neighborhoods, this posed a hardship for working laborers in Miami-Dade County to have a take home vehicle to use for work. This portion of the ordinance was changed for this reason. Commissioner Jordan noted that she supported the foregoing proposed ordinance at the committee level because she was under the impression that this only removed the name and address of the individual from the commercial vehicle markings. She inquired about the intent of the ordinance and asked for clarification. Assistant County Attorney Thomas Robertson explained that this ordinance changes so that the address of the individual is no longer necessary, a permanent sign is no longer required, magnetic signs are acceptable, business license are no longer required to be printed on the vehicles. He further explained that any entity that operates in more than one locality has to have a business license for each locality. The way the ordinance was currently written, an individual would have to have 30 business licenses in 3 inch letters covering the entire vehicle. Commissioner Jordan expressed concern regarding contractors using fraudulent magnetic signs, simply taking one sign off and putting another one on with different information. She pointed out that she was in support of the ordinance if the ordinance could be amended to have the information was permanently printed on the commercial vehicles. Commissioner Jordan noted that leaving out this portion of the ordinance was opening the door for fraudulent activity. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s concerns, Commissioner Bovo noted that he understood her concerns; however contractors were still required by law to have their license number permanently affixed to the vehicle. Commissioner Jordan noted if contractors still had to have the contractor license number affixed permanently and this ordinance was changed to allow them to take their vehicles into communities she did not understand why this was being done. Assistant County Attorney Robertson responded to Commissioner Jordan’s comments noting that this did not apply to contractors but applied to delivery people using trucks, food trucks and delivery trucks; it did not apply to a contractor who is required to have a contractor’s license; he noted this did not apply to plumbers, electricians and general contractors. Commissioner Moss inquired why would there be a need to remove the address from commercial vehicles. Commissioner Bovo responded to Commissioner Moss’ inquiry noting that the address did not lend to the safety issue regarding the consumer. He noted this issue came to him because he had received complaints from individuals receiving citations from Highway Patrolmen or Police due to the confusion between State Law and Local Laws. He noted the drivers were complaining that operating a vehicle in multiple cities all the different listings became a burden. Commissioner Bovo noted the intent of the ordinance was to maintain safety and to make this less burdensome on the person with the commercial vehicle.

Board of County Commissioners	3/4/2014	7B	Reconsidered & Rescheduled Second Reading for March 18, 2014		3/18/2014		P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Chairwoman Sosa opened the public hearing on the foregoing proposed ordinance. She closed the public hearing after no one appeared wishing to speak. Hearing no questions or comments, it was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Suarez, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 7-2 (Commissioners Moss and Souto voted “No”) (Commissioners Bell, Edmonson, Heyman and Zapata were absent). Later in today's (3/4) meeting, Commissioner Diaz requested that the foregoing proposed ordinance be reconsidered. It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing proposed ordinance be reconsidered. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 9-0 (Commissioners Bell, Edmonson, Heyman and Zapata were absent). It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, followed by discussion. Commissioner Diaz asked that the foregoing proposed ordinance be amended to delete “tow trucks,” and require that these types of vehicles continue to provide their license information. He said this was an attempt to avoid fraud, as he was working on this issue with the Department of Law Enforcement, and he wanted to ensure that the foregoing proposed ordinance did not impede the outcome. As prime sponsor, Commissioner Bovo noted he accepted the proffered amendment. Commissioner Moss questioned how exceptions could be made within this ordinance if it was supposed to conform to State law. Commissioner Diaz explained that there were local issues pending regarding fraud that needed to be addressed; and this amendment would inform people which vendors were licensed, and protect them from fraudulent vendors. In response to Commissioner Moss’ comments of concern, Commissioner Bovo explained that the State law contained the minimum requirements, but the County Commission could adopt laws with stronger requirements than the State. He further explained that in certain parts of the district, State police officers were issuing citations on vehicles that had complied with certain laws, but would omit certain requirements; while local police cited individuals who worked in the area and were compliant with State laws, but did not comply with the local laws. Therefore, he noted, the proposed ordinance exempted all of the trades; however, there were vendors working from their home. Commissioner Bovo said he had no objection to exempting tow trucks from this item as requested by Commissioner Diaz, and addressing them separately. Commissioner Moss noted there was a need to identify vendors in the community who drove trucks, towing cars, or worked on homes without licenses or disclosed business information, which could lead to fraud. He stated that those individuals working from their homes could always remove the licenses when the vehicles were parked in their driveways. He stressed the importance of knowing that these businesses were legitimate. Commissioner Moss stated that for this reason he could not be supportive of this ordinance. Commissioner Moss said that if this County was not compelled by State law, it would be advisable to have the most stringent rules in place to better protect Miami-Dade County residents. Commissioner Bovo pointed out that according to the County’s laws, the vendor’s address had to be on the license; and he believed that this was too stringent. He assured the Board members that this ordinance had no requirements that would put Miami-Dade County residents in harm’s way, as vendors were still required to comply with the laws. However, Commissioner Bovo reiterated that he had no objection with removing the tow trucks from the foregoing proposed ordinance, as requested by Commissioner Diaz. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding the State law requirements, Assistant County Attorney Thomas Robertson advised that State law required that vendors have their license, with the name of their business and telephone number on the signage. However, he noted, this ordinance only applied to small local entities with vehicles that were not otherwise regulated by the State or Federal Government; if the vendors were licensed by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) or the State DOT, this ordinance was not applicable. Assistant County Attorney Robertson also advised that this proposed ordinance removed the current requirement to have any government license for vendors who had business licenses that had to display that information on their trucks in three inch letters. He further advised that this ordinance would only require licensing information for vendors working in a trade business as defined under Chapter 10B. Following a series of questions, Assistant County Attorney Robertson clarified that some of the requirements were added after the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew. He stated that the ordinance itself pre-existed that hurricane, but it was modified at that point. Commissioner Jordan noted she believed that the licensing information was needed after the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew because several people took advantage of residents after this tragic event, and the residents had no recourse to locate those individuals. Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding allowing vendors who operated from their residence to eliminate their address from the business signage, or to remove the signage entirely from the vehicles while parked in their driveways, because some towns or municipalities, such as Miami Lakes or Coral Gables, did not allow commercial vehicles to park in residential areas. Following further discussion, First Assistant County Price-Williams advised the Board members that the foregoing proposed ordinance had to be re-noticed due to the reconsideration of this item in today's (3/4) meeting. Therefore, she stated, this proposed ordinance would be rescheduled for a second hearing at the County Commission meeting on March 18, 2014.

Public Safety & Animal Services Committee	2/12/2014	1F1	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Alexander Bokor read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing proposed ordinance be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a favorable recommendation. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman, followed by discussion. Chairwoman Heyman opened the public hearing and the following individuals appeared: Mr. Alan Eichenbaum, 10059 NW 1st Court, Plantation, appeared before the Committee on behalf of the Miami Building and Construction Trades Council and questioned whether this proposed ordinance would impact Section 10-4(b) of the Code. He commented that if there was no impact, then his organization had no issues with this ordinance. Assistant County Attorney Thomas Robertson advised that the foregoing proposed ordinance did not change the requirements of Section 10-4(b) of the Code. The following individuals signed speaker cards; however, they waived their request to appear after hearing confirmation that Section 10-4(b) would not be impacted: Mr. Larry Means, 3800 NW 126 Avenue; Ms. Julie Dietrich, 160 W. Camino9 Real, Boca Raton; and Mr. William Delgado, 3214 SW 175 Avenue, Miami. Commissioner Bovo noted this ordinance addressed and clarified the issue pertaining to the required signage for commercial vehicles with respect to the different governmental regulations. Chairwoman Heyman noted the period following Hurricane Andrew when people came into the ravaged areas to perform work without having legitimate licenses and skills, which caused great harm to this community. She stressed the importance of knowing who was performing the work and indicated the proper licensure and identification on commercial vehicles was crucial to holding the industry accountable. Chairwoman Heyman expressed her appreciation to Commissioner Bovo for sponsoring this item and making it inclusive. Mr. William “Bill” Riley, South Florida Building Construction Trades Council, 1657 NW 17th Avenue, Miami, appeared and requested permission for Mr. Eichenbaum to reappear and clarify as to whether the language in the foregoing ordinance was as perceived by his colleagues. Mr. Eichenbaum clarified that the language in the foregoing ordinance, as well as in Chapter 10 of the Code state that those licensed trades would not be allowed to have removable signs. He noted that the term “trades” was believed to be the licensed trades doing work that must be permitted and inspected. He noted the reason for the permanent signage on the vehicles was so County officials could know when projects required permitting and inspections, to protect the public. Assistant County Attorney Robertson confirmed that there was no change to Section 10-4(b) as it currently existed in the Code and explained that this provision was placed in the ordinance as a notice to clarify that this did not apply to trades. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented.

Public Safety & Animal Services Committee	1/15/2014	1F1	Deferred to next committee meeting		2/12/2014		P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairwoman Heyman opened the public hearing and the following individuals appeared: Mr. Alan Eichenbaum, 10059 NW 1 Court, Plantation, Florida, attorney representing Miami Building and Construction Trades Council, appeared and asked if, pursuant to the foregoing ordinance, the requirement that the signage be permanent and with respective license numbers remained for persons covered under Section 10-4(b). Assistant County Attorney Thomas Robertson advised that, as this ordinance was written, that requirement remained; however, he explained that Section 10-4(b) required only the contractor’s license. In response to Chairwoman Heyman’s inquiry as to whether the intent of the forgoing ordinance was to allow properly licensed contractors to be easily identified and allow removable signage on vehicles without displaying all the numbers previously required, Mr. Robertson advised that was provided in this item; however, he noted those requirements remained in the provisions under “Contracting.” Chairwoman Heyman stated that since this item was sponsored by Commissioner Bovo, who was absent from today’s meeting; she would request that this item be deferred to the next Committee meeting (2/12). Mr. Eichenbaum noted he understood that this legislation previously required all commercial vehicles to display the signage; however, a higher requirement existed for the licensed trades. He spoke in support of retaining the higher requirement for the licensed trade. After reiterating her concern regarding tradesmen being able to take their vehicles home when regulations prohibited commercial markings on vehicle, Chairwoman Heyman asked Mr. Eichenbaum to address his concerns with Commissioner Bovo. In response to Commissioner Barreiro’s question whether a distinction was made between ownership and use of company-owned vehicles, Assistant County Attorney Robertson stated, as written, the requirements were based on use of the vehicle. Commissioner Barreiro noted, for the record, that he felt people who used their vehicles for both commercial and personal use should have the ability to use temporary removable signs. Hearing no objections, the Committee proceeded to vote on the deferral of the foregoing proposed ordinance.

Board of County Commissioners	11/5/2013		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Public Safety & Animal Services Committee	12/11/2013

Board of County Commissioners	11/5/2013	4B	Adopted on first reading		12/11/2013		P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading. On November 19, 2013 BCC meeting the foregoing proposed ordinance was set for public hearing before the Public Safety and Animal Services Committee on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 9:30 A.M.

County Attorney	10/23/2013		Referred	Public Safety & Animal Services Committee	1/15/2014

County Attorney	10/21/2013		Assigned	Thomas H. Robertson		10/22/2013

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION; AMENDING SECTION 8A-276 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ELIMINATE REQUIREMENT THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE MARKINGS INCLUDE THE ADDRESS OF THE OWNER, TO ELIMINATE NEED FOR PERMANENT MARKING AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE NUMBERS, AND CHANGING PENALTIES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 8A-276 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 8A-276. Requirements.

(a) Definitions. When used herein:

(1) The words "commercial vehicle" shall mean any vehicle whether [[horse-drawn, ]]motor-driven or towed, and used, constructed, or equipped for the transportation of goods, wares, merchandise, tools, or equipment in trade, commerce, or industry. The following vehicles shall be excluded from the effect of this article: Passenger automobiles including station wagons, vehicles constructed for recreational purposes or other noncommercial purposes, vehicles used by governmental agencies for official business, and other vehicles which are or may be required to be similarly identified by State or federal law.

(b) Vehicles, markings of. Every commercial vehicle operated on the streets of the County shall at all times display, [[permanently affixed and ]]plainly marked [[on both sides�]]in letters and numerals not less than three (3) inches in height, the name[[, address]] and telephone number of the owner>> or business<< thereof. [[The numbers of all occupational and business licenses issued to the owner thereof shall be similarly displayed along with and in addition to the other information required by this paragraph. ]] >>Any contractor required to be licensed by the State or Miami-Dade County shall also comply with Section 10-4(b) of this code. <
(c) Violations. Any person convicted of:

(1) A violation of this section shall be punished by:

[[a. Not more than thirty (30) days imprisonment;]]

>>a<<[[b]]. A fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00);

[[c. Both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction over the cause;]]

>>b<<[[d]]. Fines in accordance with Chapter 8CC of the Code of Miami-Dade County; or

>>c<<[[e]]. Completion of the Miami-Dade County Diversion Program, pursuant to Implementing Order of the Board of County Commissioners.

(2) A second violation of this section shall be punished by:

[[a. Not more than thirty (30) days imprisonment;]]

>>a<<[[b]]. A fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00);

[[c. Both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction over the cause;]]

>>b<<[[d]]. Fines in accordance with Chapter 8CC of the Code of Miami-Dade County; or

>>c<<[[e]]. Completion of the Miami-Dade County Diversion Program, pursuant to Implementing Order of the Board of County Commissioners.

(3) Any subsequent violations of this section shall be punished by:

[[a. Not more than thirty (30) days imprisonment;]]

>>a<<[[b]]. A fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00);

[[c. Both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction over the cause;]]

>>b<<[[d]]. Fines in accordance with Chapter 8CC of the Code of Miami-Dade County; or

>>c<<[[e]]. Completion of the Miami-Dade County Diversion Program, pursuant to Implementing Order of the Board of County Commissioners.

(d) Applicability. This article shall be applicable in all the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

* * *

Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.