Okay.

So whenever you're uh ready, Mr.

Hanlin, if you could just go ahead and read Bill 53.

Bill 53 amends the 2026 general fund budget to provide for a supplemental appropriation of $50,000 from community action value and repayment of the Ms.

Kissler.

This is actually the repayment of an advance.

CALV was awarded a contract.

The contract was a reimbursement contract for whole home repair for bless you for seniors.

And it was basically for roofs.

And we had all the uh individual homeowners who were income qualified in the queue and ready to go.

When the roofers collectively, I think, due to information on uh budget freezes and the lack of a past budget decided that they needed money down to start the jobs, and CALV wasn't in a position to put that money down.

So we had approval from HUD to advance the money to them so that they could put partial payments down to the roofers that they could start the jobs, um, order the shingles or the equipment, and then uh after they did quite a few roofs, they were able to just pay us back that advance and go on a case by case basis.

So the only reason this is on the agenda is because their repayment needs to go back on a line, and we didn't have a revenue line for the grant since the grant was going to be a payout pass through only.

So this is establishing the revenue repayment and putting it in the appropriate place to pass an audit.

Gotcha.

Um and as I was reading through, I saw the reinvent.

How does this relate to the reinvestment money?

We had reinvestment money, we also had HUD money that was going into roobs.

People who got approved during the reinvestment days, once that money kind of both pots could work simultaneously based on how you qualified.

So we didn't we didn't differentiate.

We just said basically do the roofs of the people in the queue who are approved.

Here's the money to start the process, just pay us back when you're actually paid at the end of the job.

Okay, cool.

Uh any questions from anyone.

And there are no members of the public.

So unless there's anything else, is there a motion to move this forward?

Uh motion to move this forward.

All right, I'll second all in favor.

Aye.

So this will move forward to the regular council meeting.

Uh next up is Bill 56.

Bill 56 means part two, general legislation, chapter 4 and review section for six sound levels by receiving uh loud use to add regulations for continuously operating uses in section four, 107 regulations to add a compliance verification.

All righty, uh Ms.

Kissler, Ms.

Gomez.

Ms.

Gomez is going to handle um this tonight this evening.

Okay.

This ordinance addresses two primary things.

One, it adds an independent um compliance and verification system for all noise violations.

Um it allows the city to require a property owner to go out and do their own noise assessment, pay for that own noise assessment, have a third-party independent provider, provide that noise assessment and bring back the report to the city with recommendations on compliance and an appropriate time schedule.

This is, I think, a good idea for all noise complaints, and it takes the burden, the administrative burden of enforcing the code off of the city and onto the private applicant.

That way we don't bear those costs.

Um the second aspect that it does uh that this ordinance achieves is to add a uh a standard that starts to get at a at a hum.

And um the way that it defines that hum is uh it's called a uh DBC versus DBA differential.

And uh so DBA is essentially the sound that you can hear.

DBC is the sound that you can feel, and then once you subtract those numbers, if the difference is more than 15 decibels, you know that there is some sort of a low frequency hum.

So as this applies, it would apply to all continuously operating noise sources and um including any existing uses as written.

And also if there's a new use that's going to operate on a 24-7 basis or continuous basis, they'll have to do a a pre-and-post sound study to ensure that their new contributions to noise are not exceeding those existing noise levels or creating unnecessary hums.

Um we have received some comments on this from AADC who is concerned about the impacts of this on existing lawfully established uses that may or may not be creating um noise disturbances out there in the world.

Um, when you do an amendment, uh most of the time when I'm here before you're amending zoning codes or land use codes.

This is a little different.

Um, typically, actually, um, we're not typically involved with chapter 400, it's it's enforced through the health department.

But in this instance, since it has relation to some of the other work that we're doing, we we took this one on ourselves.

Um but with um with changes to the noise ordinance, unlike changes to a zoning code, um, these are immediately unenforceable across the board.

Okay.

Now with the AEDC's concerns, did they like point to specific without naming them publicly, maybe were they specific there were specific places at Do you want to talk to a uh frozen food storage facility that would run a generator continually.

And does, I mean, like have they done noise studies?

Maybe it is annoying to the neighbors.

I don't know.

They've never received a complaint, and in many cases, these types of establishments are in areas where they're all surrounded by other industrial noise.

So that's the that's kind of the rub that if something is positioned where it doesn't interrupt or or hurt another establishment, they would be subject to this under the way this is written.

Uh okay.

Um, oh sorry, any questions?

Yeah, I do have one question.

I was just looking through from the standpoint of unintended consequences on this.

If if we do find that we implement this and someone starts finding that they are in fact been running and this becomes an issue, the process for um this still would go to a a hearing, like a board that would actually evaluate it, um, in which case we could then perhaps evaluate and maybe make some changes as needed, I would assume.

Correct.

There's uh in the existing sound ordinance, there's a noise board that's established or can be established.

Um, to be perfectly honest, I don't know if it's appointed currently, um, but it would be a matter of appointing new members to it to have it up and running.

And that is the relief valve that's built into the code.

So that way, if there is an unintended consequence, they would go to that board, demonstrate if they could, a hardship and um get that board then to approve the use.

Um AEDC's position is that that could introduce a um administrative burden on lawfully existing industrial property owners, and now they have to go through this additional administrative process just to operate in the way that they always have.

That's not without merit.

This would create um an additional burden on some industrial property owners.

Um, one of the um areas where you could amend it, should you choose to in the future or through this adoption process would be to add some sort of exemption for existing lawfully established uses.

You might want to really think through that to make sure that's the course of action that you'd want to go through because um that would that would be a blanket exemption.

I mean, it all depends on how it's written, but um, you know, pros and cons with either approach.

But there are there is the potential for widespread consequences based on the way that this is written.

And then one other question, which um I know I'd come up with the definition of continuous use.

Um so and I I think the example was uh was someone running a dust collector, but I can think of um down the street.

There's a there's a restaurant that has uh exhaust fan that runs.

It's continuous while it's open, but it's obviously not continuous 24-7.

Um it may or may not be above the decibel level I haven't I haven't checked.

But um, I think if we we should probably look and see, explore what that would look like.

I understand it seems obvious to the reader um what continuous means, but I think defining that might help catch some of these things that are running into issues.

So I absolutely agree with you.

Um kind of the working definition that uh that uh I've got in my mind since uh this concern was raised today, um, is something that operates continuously or nearly continuously throughout all hours of the day without cessation or long pauses.

So I think that that needs to be fleshed out a little bit more, but we could absolutely put a definition in if if if this does move forward and invote to include, I think that's a good idea because I I do think the term could be a little bit ambiguous and and we want to clarify what we're looking for, which in this instance is something that is continuously operating all day throughout all day long.

And but we also want to leave some wiggle rooms that way, let's say it it turns off for one hour a day, they're still continuously operating use.

Yeah, or sound source, rather.

And didn't just if I remember, I could be incorrect on this one, but in a previous meeting, I think you had worked with uh or the the um C it worked with some noise consulting to try and kind of work through this wording, that kind of stuff.

Yes, um, we had worked with them specifically to get that sound level measurement.

It's not our area of expertise, so we did need some outside consultants on this one.

So they gave us that one that the that 15 dB in that formula is a good range to start identifying those hums, those low frequency sounds that people have been trying to describe, but without a real measurement.

So now we have a real measurement that can be monitored.

The city doesn't have the tools to monitor that type of sound.

We only have DBA-based measurements, that's what our our um noise enforcement does.

Um, but now through this change, we can also require them to produce their own assessment and a professional noise um expert would be able to measure this with their um more nuanced tools.

Okay, and then I know from this would be more in the health department side of things, but do you are you aware of have we received a lot of complaints to date with existing stuff for humming and that kind of thing, or has that been pretty small?

To my knowledge, in the past, I would say three years, we've had three.

And usually those complaints were added to other more significant complaints about the establishment.

Okay.

Like an and they make noise.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't have any more questions.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Pongo, anything?

Yep.

Yeah.

No, uh, thank you.

Um, I think one of the the key kind of factors in this is in you know, for 406, uh 400-6, I think within section uh B and C, and then eventually D.

We we talk about you know, the the threshold, and I think the table establishes I think particularly where a lot of this equipment is found, industrial zones.

When we're talking about refrigeration, we're talking about big heavy compressors that kick on.

Um there is the wording in there that kind of looks at the existing background noise, so it's not just you know the one property.

So I'm I'm wondering if you know, again, if we're in an industrial zone in an area where generally a lot of these pieces of equipment are found, these types of uses are more permissible and not specifically around a residential area where that doesn't exist.

I'm wondering if that background threshold ends up being higher and potentially helping to naturally alleviate that threshold in an area where a lot of that equipment already exists.

So perhaps um in the way that it's measured right now in that new subsection D, there's two pieces to it.

One is just does it meet the differential?

Um whether there's ambient noise that might obscure that, um, I I can't answer that.

But and um item two is to do a pre-existing baseline ambient noise level measurement, and so that's gonna get all the noise.

And so what that gets at is um if you are if if those sound levels exceed the thresholds within the codes, because there are parts of the city that do exceed our noise thresholds just by being there.

Um a lot of busy streets, a lot of loud noises, it's it, you know, the the sound or ordinance or excuse me, sound levels are actually higher than you'd think that they would be.

Um so there's some places that are already in excess of that.

And so what the second dimension to this gets in is if if that area is already in excess of the allowable sound limits for whatever reason, that the new business then is not going in and increasing those sound levels.

And this is a threshold that we're proposing for a continuously operating use, so a 24-7 operation essentially, so that way we're not introducing a new standard that could be overly burdensome on you know, say an eight-hour operation.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, yeah, Mr.

Bender.

Just to follow up on that, which um from a metering perspective, and I know we don't call this out, but oftentimes when they are metering, it's there's some directionality to it.

So if you're standing and looking at a uh a property and behind you it's much louder, you can oftentimes depending on the equipment, focus on saying this is what's actually producing that, just regardless of what the baseline is, um, depending on how the meter.

I don't think we call that out in here, but since we're calling out a uh professional organization to do it, I would imagine that might be something that they'd take into account.

But so I don't know if that's helpful.

So yeah, because I'm thinking so if there were a busy street and there is an industrial zone near that busy street, then whatever sound that new industry that moves into that building, they would almost kind of have to like mesh in, they wouldn't be able to increase even slightly or think of think of I-78.

Um if you are located near I-78, it's gonna be really loud.

And let's say you build an industrial development near there.

Um, as long as that new industrial development doesn't increase the already loud noise of I-78, shouldn't be a problem.

If now say it was, I don't know, 75 decibels by I-78, and now it goes up to 90 because of this new bit, that would be a problem.

But as long as you meet that existing threshold, it won't be a problem.

It would have to be like a 247 or a kid.

It would have to be a continuously loud, because not all streets and even 78 isn't, you know, it's not always loud, it's not always busy.

So if there's always, if it's always like a loud area, then okay, it'll just be interesting to see how this is actually like applied um and what exemptions get me.

And there's uh into the existing code already is um there's daytime, nighttime provisions that way it starts to get this is without any code change.

We already have that.

So that you know, streets are noisier during the day.

So it already accounts for that that there's different sound levels that a property would need to meet based on whether it's in the morning or at night time after hours, is obviously you want it to be a little bit quieter at night, and then there's um hopefully less ambient sound.

So that's already baked in there.

And the way that the um new ambient measurement says is it says materially increase.

So I think that gives us a little bit of room.

So if it's you know, maybe one, two decibel difference.

I mean, that's probably not a material change.

You know, we don't have to overthink this.

But um, the idea behind it is that we're not making the situation worse.

Gotcha.

All right, uh, Mr.

Pungo.

No, no, I was just gonna add on to that.

And I think it it's a it's a clear distinction.

I think it's it's a good one to have that daytime, nighttime because it it again kind of takes it from like if you have you know three manufacturing or warehouse type properties all next to each other, chances are they do have equipment that's continuously running in that threshold levels already there, but it specifically helps avoid a situation where somebody's like, well, I'm building next to a busy street, so let me just do this at 5 p.m.

when everyone's rushing back to work.

Well, there is that daytime nighttime provision to explicitly kind of prevent you know that inflation.

So that's what I'm thinking of.

Okay.

Um, anyone else on the dais?

I would just like to add that we have an intern right now that we've asked to help identify the boards within DCED um through all of the departments in DCED, and to um give us some recommendations that we could collapse some of those boards together.

This doesn't seem like it makes sense to have it as a standalone board.

So this board may end up, we may end up coming back saying that we're amending this to a newly titled board that really is the condensation of the noise board and a number of others, hopefully in the very near future.

Okay.

Motion to move this forward.

Um from the public.

No, okay.

You only have public before now we've got public.

All right, uh, I'll second it.

Um, all in favor.

Aye.

So those who move forward to the regular council meeting.

Um, and that is unless we have do we have time?

Oh no, we're past, but still, if you have anything quick that you want to the only thing is that I know that council had requested an update on Allentown Works, and for some reason Allentown Works thought that update was tonight.

We set them straight that it was not tonight, but we will be looking with Mr.

Hanlon for a date to be bringing you the Allentown Works update.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Uh so I'll conclude this meeting and we'll move on to the budget if I didn't.

Thank you.