City aldermen on Aug. 19 voted to have the city attorney revise a proposed food-truck ordinance to add protections for existing vendors, clarify permit types and correct formatting before returning the bill to the Board of Aldermen.

The ordinance under discussion, amended bill number 5,286, would add a new chapter governing food trucks (identified in the draft as chapter 402 and sections in the 426 series) and create a station-based permit class for food trucks that remain on private property for extended periods. The board debated permit fees, whether existing trucks would be required to build permanent “brick-and-mortar” restaurants, and how to treat trucks on leased land.

Alderman Cleave raised a language question about the ordinance’s definition of food and quoted the draft: “It’s the food is ready for immediate consumption.” Attorney Carr and other aldermen clarified that “immediate consumption” was meant to distinguish prepared food from prepackaged items and would not force customers to eat on site.

Board members pressed staff and Attorney Carr on fees and grandfathering. The draft sets differentiated fees for permit types; board discussion said a mobile permit would be $100 and a stationary permit could carry higher fees (one draft line referenced $500), and Attorney Carr explained the fees are intended to recoup the city’s administrative and inspection costs rather than act as a general business-license charge: “So, you really can’t go above the city's cost because you can't make a profit off of that,” she said.

Alderman Cleave, Alderman Hoven and others expressed concern about newly imposed fees or requirements displacing current operators. Attorney Carr told the board she could draft language protecting existing food-truck operators from new fees or otherwise exempting those operating on the date the ordinance takes effect: “We would have to develop the language to do that…I would just need some kind of guidance about whether you want to provide for a waiver of fees or a portion of the fees for the existing food trucks,” she said. The board instructed her to add grandfathering-style language permitting currently operating trucks to remain without the additional fees, and to specify that protections apply to their current location but would not necessarily transfer if they relocated.

Aldermen also raised formatting and scope questions (for example, prohibiting operation in the public right-of-way, specifying prohibited zones such as fire lanes and no-parking areas, and whether trucks on property under contract should qualify). Alderman Cleave asked that the stationary-food-truck permit (SFTP) language be clarified so the requirement to build a brick-and-mortar restaurant would not be imposed on operators leasing land without ownership; Attorney Carr said she had not made such a change in the version before the board and would update the draft as directed.

The board approved a motion to have Attorney Carr amend the ordinance for the clerk’s packet and to draft specific protection language for the two existing food-truck operators referenced by staff. The motion carried; the amended ordinance will return for further consideration on Sept. 2.

During debate Attorney Carr referenced a legal risk from another jurisdiction, noting the county had paid damages in litigation where permit rules were applied unevenly: “The county had to pay a couple $100,000 in damages and attorney's fees in that particular lawsuit,” she said, explaining the city must ensure content-neutral application of solicitation and permit rules.

The board also discussed exemptions for ice-cream trucks and other transient vendors; the draft expressly exempts ice-cream trucks. Attorney Carr and staff said planning and zoning input informed the changes, particularly about limiting long-term stationary food-truck operations.

No final ordinance was adopted Aug. 19; the board directed Attorney Carr to prepare the revised language and return the item to the Sept. 2 agenda.