City Council

City of Salem, Massachusetts “Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A ss. 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.” The City Council Committee on Ordinances Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted Committee of the Whole_____________________________________________________________________________ met in the Council Chamber on _Thursday May 29, 2025 _____________ at ______6:00_______P.M. for the purpose of discussing the matters(s) listed below. Notice of this meeting was posted on __April 18, 2025__ at ___ 9:36 A.M._ (This meeting is being recorded) Attendance OLLA – Hapworth (chair), Cohen & Jerzylo. From the City – Julie Barry, Senior Planner - Arts & Culture, Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, Jeremy Fisk, Special Events Coordinator. Absent Were: OLLA - Morsillo, Varela SUBJECT(S) Ordinance to Amend Ordinance relative to Vending_____________________________________________________ Hapworth – We are here to amend to ordinance on vending. The ordinance is pretty bare bones. In 2022, I believe Salem Main Streets received a grant to start a process to audit the policies, the ordinance, how it is being enforced, and then to try to rewrite it to make it more efficient, more equitable, and cover more of what we do today. Barry – The Economic Development Department & Main Streets received a federal grant to do a study about removing barriers to access, clearing pathways, creating fair and equitable systems. In the study, they made suggestions for refining our vending policies and creating a better application process. We have been working with Main Streets and the Chamber of Commerce to get some input on how to utilize the results from the grant research. The top 3 priorities are to create transparent pathways, equitable access and an enforceable regulation. We have a lot of events in Salem, and this would allow the larger events with multiple vendors, each individual vendor wouldn’t have to come before the licensing commission to get approval. They can currently charge up to $200 per vendor but it hasn’t been equitable or enforceable. Rennard - The application fee of $100 covers the licensing board clerk. The application comes in. It gets scheduled for the Licensing Board meeting. It's put on the agenda and then they meet. They will process the payments and issue the license. That takes at least 2 hours. In addition to that, the Licensing Board reviews all the applications. Then, I go on to the portal and approve them ultimately when they are complete. That is how the application fee was developed on the vendor fee. This doesn’t include the large events that happen during Haunted Happenings or the Food Truck Festival. This is for smaller events. That might happen in Old Town Hall or Salem Common. Jerzylo – The organizer pays a $100 fee whether there is one vendor or 10? Do you think that is enough to cover the cost of the police and DPW and any damage they do, like having to re-seed the grass? Rennard – The Park Department has their own fees. They charge $25 per vendor to cover those things. If it is a larger event and they need a police detail, they must pay for that as well. This is for the smaller events. Jerzylo – The police will put an extra person on when there is an event, so the taxpayers are paying for extra police, and the organizer is only paying $100. Barry – This is something we discussed and really took a hard look at. On the one hand, we want to charge enough for these events to cover costs, but we don’t want to charge too much and deter these events from happening downtown. The events attract a lot of visitors and tourists to our downtown. We don’t want to price out the smaller events from happening in our city, so it is a tricky thing to balance out. We are willing to take recommendations. As far as police detail, they don’t need to have a detail for these smaller events. They may just have someone on foot patrol. The larger events are required to have police detail. Jerzylo – I think these fees are way too low. These people make a ton of money, and the tourists will come here for them. Hapworth – Are the fees covering the administrative costs of the events? Rennard – This ordinance does not cover the large events that occur during Haunted Happenings. This fee does not include the fee that the Parks Department is charging or the fee that Old Town Hall would charge if the event were there. We have met with some of the small organizers, and we think this will cover our administrative costs. Cohen – We discussed this in the council and the fees must correlate to the cost. Most of the events that require extra costs, whether from DPS or the police, those have separate contracts. I am comfortable with this because of the benefit to the community. It sounds like the administrative fees are covered by this cost and if there are other costs, we can address that in other ways. This fee is just to cover the cost of licensing the vendors. Jerzylo – Do you know what the organizers charge the individual vendors? Fiske – It really depends. For example, the farmers market, they only charge $12 but the Mass Poetry, it was $250. Some events they don’t charge at all. Jerzylo – I just don’t think these fees are high enough. The people are going to come, the events are going to happen, and the vendors are going to walk away with a ton of money. We will be left with the cost of DPS, the police and everything else the city incurs. Cohen – I respectfully disagree. A lot of these smaller events are not meant to make money and some of them are run by non-profits. I agree that the larger events should be charged but not the small events and that is what this ordinance is covering. Hapworth – Shall we move on to the redlines to see what has been changed? Rennard – The first section is the definitions, and we cleaned up the language, so it is clear who is covered and not. It needs to be an event, there needs to be an event organizer, and each event vendor is responsible for their display. There are two types of events. One is an organized event and the other is like when we have parades and you see people walking around selling balloons and novelty items. They have separate ordinance requirements. Cohen – We are talking about this as if it’s just events, but it also covers door to door solicitations which must register with the police. That is one of the definitions in this ordinance. I just want to be clear that this ordinance isn’t just for events, it’s for any solicitations. Rennard – There is a definition of what the vendors are allowed to do, like the ADA requirements of having a 4-foot pathway. We spell out the procedures for obtaining a license. They must go through the licensing board. We must have 2 months advance notice. They need to have a health inspection report and their sales tax documents. We require that they carry insurance. And the vendors fees. Hapworth – C. Morsillo wanted us to correct section 28-58 to add an “s” to the word organizer. Cohen – Motion to add an “s” to organizer in section 28-58. Seconded by Jerzylo. Rennard – Section 59 breaks down all the rules that will be enforced. Then next we talk about what happens if there is a violation of the ordinance. The first offense will be a warning, the 2nd is a $150 fee and 3rd offense is a revocation of their license. Cohen – I know we are trying to strengthen the ordinance, but do you know how often the city must deal with violations of the current ordinance? Barry – We do get a good number of community concerns about how the vendors are conducting themselves, for example, they prop something up against private property or they block access to a home. The current ordinance doesn’t restrict the vendors going on to private property, so I don’t know the number of offenses. But they do happen, and these changes would help us to protect our residents. Jerzylo – How much does it cost the city to go out and check for violations and how much time does it take the city to clean up after these events? I just think the fees are too low. Barry – The fees are calculated on a scale based on the number of vendors. So, the fees will go up for larger events because the cost of enforcement will go up. For the small events, we have calculated that will take about an hour or an hour and a half for enforcement. They aren’t there for the entire event. Then the trash is covered by the security deposit we collect for the event. For example, in Derby Square, they go through an application process and there is a small application fee to Derby Square, and they have to put down a $250 refundable security deposit, if you leave the property in good condition, then you get that money back but if you leave your trash, then we retain it. Cohen – It is good that we are changing the ordinance, because people will be more aware of the requirements and be less likely to violate them if they know that we are enforcing these things, just like what has been happening with outdoor dining. We are seeing less violations because people are more aware of what is required, and they see that we are enforcing it. Rennard – The next section is regarding the transient vendors, there is a $25 fee and that covers the time to issue the license and the cost of the laminated badge. Cohen – Going back to the fees that are collected during the application process that you mentioned at Derby Square, is there a similar application process at the parks, like Forest River and the Common? Rennard – Yes, they would go through a similar application process. Jerzylo – I would like to make a motion to raise the fees from $100 to $200 and for outside organizers from $200 to $300. Hapworth – Any second for C. Jerzylo’s motion? Seeing none, is there any further discussion? Cohen – The fees must correlate to the cost and the solicitor said that this is what it is costing for the actual licensing. This ordinance doesn’t address the other things that can be addressed by the Park & Rec or Old Town Hall, wherever the event takes place. Rennard – If you are concerned with the maintenance of the Common or the areas where the event occurs, that is in a different ordinance and the fee is currently $25. Cohen – Motion to refer this back to the full council as amended with a positive recommendation. Seconded by Chair Hapworth. Motion carries 3-0. On the motion of C. Jerzylo meeting adjourned at 6:35P.M. ________________________________________________________ (Chairperson)