After more than two hours of discussion last week, the Clearwater City Council agreed to continue working on a moble food unit ordinance. 

 

But there are still  lots of unanswered questions about what the ordinance should include.

 

The council had called for last week’s special workshop on the issue that was prompted by a request in June by Jimmy’s Pizza to locate a mobile food truck in the parking lot of Clearwater Hardware & Bait.

 

Jimmy’s is looking to keep a 32-foot mobile unit at the site year-round, to sell food and make deliveries.

 

Jimmy Gordon of Jimmy’s had spoken with the Minnesota Dept. of Health (MDH) about regulations limiting the time a mobile unit could be located at one site and about catering.

 

In order to attempt to get permission from the MDH to stay at the site more than 21 days and make deliveries, Jimmy said the City of Clearwater would have to adopt an ordinance allowing those items.

 

The city developed a draft ordinance for discussion, and the council spent hours at last week’s workshop trying to agree on the ordinance language.

 

Administrator Kevin Kress said the issue was complicated because the  ordinance had to be relevant for any mobile food unit - not just Jimmy’s. That meant it would have to cover smaller units that parked on non-private property, larger units on existing business lots and units that had no intention of staying in one location more than 21 days. 

 

There were also concerns about the length of the mobile unit, how tall it could be, how it acquired its electricity, how it disposed of water and waste and where it could be parked.

 

Other issues included how to define the difference between temporary and permanent units, the length of a permit and how much the city should charge.

 

The main discussion focused on temporary versus permanent permits. Councilman Rollie Lange said he would like to see an annual permit with an option for annual renewal. Councilman Kris Crandall suggested a six-month permit.

 

Councilman Richard Petty was in favor of a temporary permit that had an expiration date, but no guaranteed renewal. He felt the permit should allow a business time to decide whether it wanted to operate permanently in the city, but only after finding a brick and mortar site.

 

“Brick and mortar” was mentioned a number of times during the discussion. Petty said the council had to protect the existing businesses that had made a substantial investment to pay property taxes and utilities by not just allowing a mobile unit to compete with lower costs.

 

“I don’t want these in place instead of brick and mortar,” he said. “I like the idea that someone can test the area and realize whether they want to be there.”

 

Another issue was how to write an ordinance that prevented someone with an unimproved parcel from renting out spots to multiple vendors.

 

“If we were to allow an annual permit, what’s to say we won’t see 15 or 20 mobile units at a location?” asked Kress.

 

“We could end up with a swappers meet style in a vacant lot,” said Petty.

 

Council member Andrea Lawrence said one way would be to limit the number of annual permits the city allows, like some cities do with liquor licenses.

 

“A cap would take care of that,” she said.

 

But Kress asked how the city would determine who gets a license and who doesn’t.

 

“If you only offer five and you have 10 looking, how do you make the requirements fair to each?”

 

And there was still the issue of how to set a time limit if a business received an annual license. Kress said there were legal ramifications. The council had to be objective and couldn’t just tell a business they no longer wanted a mobile food unit at a site.

 

“If they comply with the ordinance, there’s no reason to deny an extension,” he said.

 

Crandall said that was his issue.

 

“I would like the option to not renew at the end of the year,” he said. I don’t know what the criteria would be, but I would like to have that right.”

 

Petty said the city could change the ordinance to allow interim use permits, which gave the city authority to set specific conditions for a business.

 

Mayor Pete Edmonson said one way might be by charging enough in fees to make it worthwhile to the city, protect existing businesses but still be advantageous enough to the mobile business.

 

“If the fee schedule reflected it, that can help us justify that it’s not some peddler permit which clearly doesn’t dictate what the revenue potential is for the business,” he said.

 

“We want the business to be successful and we want the city to be renumerated for the allowance of that. I don’t know what the fee schedule would look like, but if the fee schedule is structured properly....”

 

Kress said he would take all the discussion points and re-draft the ordinance for review by the city attorney and for the council to disc