Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 05-08-2007 regular agenda — reading text

denied, 308 Or. 79. 775 P. 2d 322 Appellant. 1989). No Appearance for Appellee. HARRIS, Judge. lliill Davis' free speech argument is also unavailing. Officer Reilly of the Orange County Sheriffs The ordinance addresses noise not speech. In Clark v. Community for Creative Non- Violence. 468 U. S. Department was working off-duty for the Embassy 288. 293. 104 S. Ct. 3065. 3068- 69. 82 L. Ed.2d 221 Nightclub. While patrolling the club' s parking lot, the officer observed Davis approaching the parking 1984), the United States Supreme Court held that it lot by way of a service road connecting Lee Road to is appropriate to impose reasonable restrictions on the the Embassy property. The officer was " a minimum time, place, and manner of protected speech. In of 175 feet" from Davis' vehicle when he noticed the order for the regulation to be valid, it must: ( 1) be loudness of the vehicle' s stereo. The officer stopped content neutral; ( 2) narrowly tailored; and ( 3) leave the vehicle for violating a noise statute which makes open alternative channels. The ordinance herein it a violation to play a vehicle' s radio so that it is does not address content at all; it narrows its plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more application to sounds that are plainly audible 100 feet FNl from the motor vehicle." Once stopped, Davis or further away; and it permits one to listen to consented to a search of his vehicle and cocaine was anything he or she wishes so long as it cannot be found. Davis' contention on appeal is that the heard at the prohibited distance. In other words, the search, even though consensual, was the fruit of an statute permits one to listen to anything he or she illegal stop because the noise statute is pleases, although not as loudly as one pleases. unconstitutional in that it is void for vagueness and violates Florida citizens' right to " free expression It has been often recognized that the regulation of through music" and, in addition, the stopping of a sound and noise in public areas is an important vehicle which has committed no traffic violation is a function of government. This statute as applied wrongful seizure. We affirm. herein is a reasonable application ofthat function. ill Finally, we do not agree that an officer may stop a FNI. Section 316. 3045. Florida Statutes motorist only if he or she is violating the traffic code. 1997). For example, if an officer observes garbage being thrown ITom a vehicle, or that the driver is driving 636 Although we have found no Florida cases naked, or sees a driver shoot at a pedestrian, a stop directly on point. cases from other jurisdictions are would appear appropriate. In this case, a violation of persuasive. Concerning the vagueness argument the noise statute justified the stop. relating to a noise ordinance in New York, the court in PeoDle v. Toback. 170 Misc. 2d 10 1 L 652 AFFIRMED. N.Y. S.2d 946. 949 ( N.Y.Citv Ct. 1996), held: In order to establish that a law is vague within the GRIFFIN, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. Due Process Clause, one " must demonstrate that the Fla.App. 5 Dist., 1998. law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications;" Davis v. State Hoffman Estates v. FliDside. Hoffman Estates. 455 710 So.2d 635, 23 Fla. L.Weekly D880 U.S. 489. 497. 102 S. Ct. 1186. 1193. 71 L. Ed.2d 362 1982), and must " prove that the enactment is vague END OF DOCUMENT not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all." Id. ill This noise code is not vague. One may not play his or her car radio so loudly that it is plainly audible to another standing 100 feet or further away. Noise ordinances based on distances beyond which the sound may not be audible have been upheld. See State v. Ewing. 81 Hawai' i 156. 914 P.2d 549 (1996); @ 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.  CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 8, 2007 Public Hearing Consideration of Ordinance 1729, amending the Code of Ordinances, Business Tax fees Finance Director) Council Action 1st 2nd Vote: Agenda Item Number: PH- 3  City of Fort Walton Beach MEMORANDUM Date: May 3, 2007 To: Joyce Shanahan, City Manager From: Kim Barnes, Customer Service Administrator k Through: Lisa Absher, Finance Director V Subject: Business Tax Receipt (formerly Occupational Licenses) Fee Schedule Ordinance 1729 BACKGROUND: l The Local Business Tax Receipts ( BTR) is one form of revenue generation provided to local governments by the State to support general government functions. The Florida State Statute for BTR ( Chapter 205) was amended in 1993, and allows municipalities to adjust the BTR rates by 5% every two ( 2) years. The rates were last increased by 5% in 2005. The City has the option to raise the rates now, effective October 1, 2007. Revenue earned from Business Taxes for fiscal year 2005- 2006 totaled $ 213, 595. The proposed 5% adjustment is estimated to generate additional General Fund revenue of approximately $ 10, 500. DISCUSSION: This fee increase request is being submitted for approval now, so that the new rates will be reflected when the BTR renewal notices are printed in July. The renewals are for BTR fees for the period 10/ 01/07 through 9/ 30/ 08. Staff has prepared the attached Ordinance 1729 to provide for the bi-annual adjustment to the City' s Business Tax Fee Schedule as provided for by F. S. S. Chapter 205. Enactment of Ordinance 1729 requires majority plus one vote ( super majority) approval by City Council. City Council may opt to decline this increase, and the BTR rates will remain the same. The next opportunity for an increase would be in 2009. 1 BTR was previously referred to as " Occupational Licenses," but was changed during the 2006 Florida Legislature. The City of Fort Walton Beach recently updated its Code to change this terminology. Page 1 of2 PH3 RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully requests City Council approve Ordinance 1729. Respectfully submitted, I' J76~ Kim M. Barnes Customer Service Administrator Concur: Do not concur: Finance Director Concur: Do not concur: J0 ce anahan ""--' ty Manager Attachments: a) Ordinance 1729 b) Comprehensive Fee Schedule Revisions Page 2 of2  1 ORDINANCE 1729 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON 4 BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE BUSINESS TAX 5 SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE 6 FOR THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH TO 7 INCREASE ALL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT CHARGES BY 8 FIVE PERCENT ( 5%);AMENDED SECTION 8. 01. 09 OF 9 THE CJTY CODE, AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1725; 10 AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11 12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON 13 BEACH: 14 15 Section I. AUTHORITY 16 The authority for enactment of this ordinance is pursuant to the powers for the 17 City of Fort Walton Beach, provided in Section 2 of the City Charter, and sections 18 166. 021 ( 1), & 205. 0535 of the Florida Statutes. 19 20 Section II. The City Council, upon its vote of a majority plus one, hereby amends 21 the rates of business taxes, as of 1 October 2007, by five percent ( 5%) as permitted 22 under section 205. 0535, of the Florida Statutes (2007). 23 24 Section III. The newbusiness tax rates shall be as set forth in the attached 25 Comprehensive Fee Schedule which is incorporated in and made a part of this 26 ordinance by reference. 27 28 Section IV. Section 8. 01. 09, of the Code of Ordinances, as adopted in 29 Ordinance 1725, is hereby amended as follows: 30 31 Sec. 8. 01. 09. Fee Schedule. 32 A tax classification and rate schedule for all business taxes shall bo has been 33 established as set forth in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule, and may be amended 34 from time to time, by ordinance rosolution of the city council and pursuant to Florida 35 Statutes. 36 37 Section V. This ordinance shall take effect immediately. 38 39 40 41 APPROVED: 42 Mike Anderson, Mayor 43 44 45 ATTEST: Approved As To Form And Legal Sufficiency: 46  1 2 By: By: 3 Helen Spencer, City Clerk Toni L. Craig, City Attorney 4 5 6 New language is underlined 7 Deleted language is strickon 8 9 Codification Instructions: 10 Section of this Ordinance to be Codified: Section IV 11 Placement Volume II, Chapter 8. 01, amends 12 section 8. 09. 01 as