Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ordinance 1539 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances Ordinance 15-39 to align food-truck licensing and sanitation rules with state law

Marshfield Judiciary Licensing Committee · April 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Marshfield Judiciary Licensing Committee voted to advance Ordinance 15-39, which would revise the licensing cycle for food trucks and update Chapter 9’s health and sanitation section to conform with Wisconsin law, for first reading at the March 10 city council meeting.

Marshfield — The Judiciary Licensing Committee voted March 3 to send Ordinance 15-39, a package of changes to Chapter 9 of the Marshfield Municipal Code, to the March 10 city council first reading.

A staff member told the committee the draft ordinance revises the licensing cycle for food trucks and brings section 9-32 (health and sanitation regulations) into consistency with state statute. “Just making the changes we talked about at the last meeting regarding the licensing cycle for food trucks and bringing that section of 9‑32 regarding health and sanitation regulations to be consistent with state statute,” the staff member said.

The staff member said the ordinance remains subject to final review by the city attorney but recommended moving it forward so that approvals can be in place as food-truck license applications arrive for the coming season. Committee members voted to move the draft ordinance to the council’s first reading on March 10.

If the council adopts the ordinance on its schedule, the revised licensing cycle and the updated health and sanitation language would take effect before the peak of food-truck applications this spring. The committee did not record a final vote tally in the transcript for the advancement motion; the staff representative noted the city attorney review was pending.

The ordinance was identified in packet materials as "15‑39." The committee’s action on March 3 was procedural—advancing the draft for council consideration rather than final adoption.