HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Robert Catalano regarding Special Events Ordinance Good Morning Supervisors,staff and interested parties. Thank you for being here and allowing this
statement to be read. My name is Robert Catalano and I represent both The Honey Run Covered Bridge
and the Centerville Recreation and Historical Associations.
In my experience in working with the Department of Development Services and the Planning
Commission on the Butte Creek Canyon Overlay, I have learned that a 'one size fits all'approach to
developing rules concerning land use issues is neither fair,good policy nor sustainable. The'Special
Events' permit process is the epitome of this kind of approach.
First of all,Special Events venues are varied by size, income,location and whether they are a non-
profit or for-profit business. All these factors should be taken into account in the permit process. If a
for-profit venue has an income of half a million dollars,a permit fee of almost$5 thousand dollars,
hiring an engineer for a site pian or not having income while the permit process is being completed,
while financially significant,when compared to a non-profit venue with an income of$30 thousand or
less,those costs are a drop in the bucket. In this respect,the necessity of acquiring a permit could break
the financial security of organizations which are essential to the public good.
Second,while I see the need for a Special Events Ordinance to prevent parking, noise and other
problems in rural neighborhoods caused by unregulated or irresponsible venues, I also believe any
complaints related to this should come from the neighborhoods where the violations occur. Allowing a
business from across town to lodge a complaint solely for financial reasons or making the complaint as a
fairness issue should not be allowed. This practice,essentially,allows a private business to use county
resources to enforce regulations which are financially beneficial to that business. Also, how ethical is it
for one business to call another business, under false pretenses,to get information to give to the county
to enforce a rule which benefits that business? While I believe the permit rules should be enforced, l
think they should be complaint driven from the area where the violation occurs by a neighbor who has a
legitimate concern for the safety of their neighborhood.
Third, I know it was never the intent of the Supervisors to put publicly beneficial organizations out of
business or create an undue burden on others. However,this is what happens when a 'one size fits all'
approach is taken. Organizations which provide public or charitable benefit to county residents other
than holding'special events'or allow their facilities to be used for informational services from
governmental organizations(fire, public works,and etcetera)to the public at no charge may be greatly
affected by the requirements necessary for a 'special events' permit. These other services they provide
may no longer be available to the public if the necessary costs of acquiring the permit are an undue
burden to the point where they have to close their doors.
Rather than just make complaints, I would like to offer some solutions. While the Board of
Supervisors has the discretion to waive fees out of financial necessity, I think there should be a sliding
scale on permit fees based on the financial status and size of the organization. This scale also should
include the physical and crowd size of the venue,the costs of possible crowd control and traffic issues
borne by the county,and,if the county continues to be used as an enforcement body for the private
business or anyone complaining on their behalf,the costs of sending out enforcement agents in addition
to the permit costs.
I also believe that any charity which has the main purpose of benefiting the public and has an income
of$35 thousand or less should be exempt from acquiring a 'special events'permit if the event is paid for
as a charitable donation,the organization is managed by unpaid volunteers,it allows public meetings for
the benefit of the community where they are located, and adhere to crowd size limitations agreed to by
the county.
As much as most of us dislike being regulated by the government,we can all:agree that some rules
are necessary to insure the peace and safety of our rural county neighborhoods. If regulations are
reasonably fair and equitable, do not take a 'one size fits all" approach' and can be readjusted as
problems appear, I think most of us can live with them with little complaint. This should be the aim of
regulation:to do what is best for the many with the fewest adverse effects possible to others.
Thank you for listening.
Robert Catalano