The Walnut Grove City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2025-06, a revision to the city's home-occupation rules, after debate about vehicle limits and employee domicile.

Jeff (identified in the meeting packet and called on at the start of business) introduced the ordinance, pointing council members to a highlighted provision on page 3 that would prohibit an employee from remaining at the home during work hours unless they are a member of the household. "If you look on page 3 under item 10 ... no employee shall remain at the home during the working period unless they are a member of the homeowner's family or domiciled at the home," Jeff said.

Council members questioned how the vehicle rule would apply to common small-business situations. Speaker 2 asked whether a real-estate agent or family-run business could display decals on multiple family members' vehicles; Speaker 4 raised the example of a painting company that might use several decaled specialty trucks but have no one else working at the home. Speaker 6 proposed an exception process: "...maybe we can have a clause ... you need to go to city hall and ask permission," allowing case-by-case consideration for additional noncommercial personal vehicles used for advertising.

Proponents said the limit aims to prevent a residential property from turning into a de facto commercial parking lot and gives code enforcement a clearer standard to act on when traffic or parking impacts rise. Opponents cautioned that the rule could unintentionally affect husband-and-wife businesses or subcontractors who live nearby; the council agreed to the amendment discussed on page 5, section h, paragraph 3, to clarify that vehicles domiciled at the residence would be permitted.

Speaker 5 moved to approve the ordinance with the vehicle-related change; the motion was seconded and the council approved the measure following a voice/hand vote.

The ordinance updates city standards for home occupations, preserves a traffic-impact enforcement threshold, and adds an administrative pathway for exceptions. The council did not specify a separate effective date in the meeting record; implementation details and the final codified language were noted as available in the council packet.