Council rejects second reading of ordinance regulating mobile vendors; cites enforcement and clarity concerns

The Watertown City Council voted down a second reading of an ordinance on July 21 that would have formalized a permit and rules for mobile food vendors, food trucks and similar transient merchants on public property. The motion to adopt the revision was made by Councilman Peters and seconded by Councilman Allen; the roll-call vote recorded a majority of nays and the motion failed. Why it matters: The proposed ordinance was intended to replace an older transient-merchant framework and create a right-of-way permit tailored to mobile vendors, with the stated goals of keeping sidewalks passable, protecting adjacent businesses and clarifying when vendors need City Park & Recreation approval to operate in parks. Council members said the draft still left too many unresolved operational and enforcement issues and could unintentionally make it harder for out-of-town vendors to participate in local events. Key provisions in the draft: City staff described the permit structure that would allow a one-time event permit for $25 or a downtown seasonal permit for $100; parking limits that cap vendors to three diagonal spaces or two parallel spaces; time-limited presence; required merchant and state food licenses; prohibition on parking that blocks main entrances to neighboring businesses; and a requirement that vendors maintain a five-foot pedestrian pathway for ADA compliance. The draft also included a provision restricting vending within 200 feet of a single-family dwelling in some public park settings; staff later suggested a shorter, more typical setback (e.g., 40 feet) might be appropriate. Council concerns: Council members asked whether vendors would need written permission from adjacent businesses to set up on public streets and whether the 200-foot residential setback would be achievable at many city parks and ballfields. Council members also raised questions about insurance and liability requirements for visiting vendors, how the city would enforce the rules and whether permit and fee structures (per-event versus seasonal downtown fees) were clear and accessible to nonlocal vendors. Councilman Hoyer and others suggested further clarification on park permitting and an alternative phrasing to address "adjacent park side" rather than a strict 200-foot rule. Process and vote: The ordinance was presented as a second reading by City Engineer Justin Peterson and other staff. Council discussion included input from Parks Director Rodick, Community Development staff and City Attorney Kericho about enforcement and the ordinance's relationship to existing transient-merchant language. Finance Officer Bob (surname variant in transcript) advised that significant changes would require bringing the ordinance back as a first reading. When the council took the roll-call vote on the second reading, Hoyer, Pauline, Mormon, Peters, Shutti and Allen were recorded as voting "nay," and the motion failed. Next steps: Staff and council members discussed options for further review, including a focused work session or bringing the draft back after revisions. City staff said much of the draft language existed already under transient-merchant rules and the draft sought to extend it to mobile vendors; council members asked staff to refine language on setbacks, insurance and ADA compliance and recommended outreach to vendor stakeholders before returning the ordinance.