A

A proposed ordinance regarding food trucks by Director of Planning and Codes Charles Rush, City Recorder Lori Ashley and City Administrator Jason Quick was put in front of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BoMA) for review during a study session in November.

The ordinance outlined permit fees and a background check of food truck owners, along with several other requirements for food truck vendors to provide their services in the city.

Alderman Daniel Berry, who proposed that the city administrator draw up an ordinance said he did so after speaking with several food truck vendors who wanted “clear guidelines.”

“The intent of this was to have clear and established guidelines that are in alignment with surrounding municipalities,” he said.

Quick addressed the background check for food truck owners first, as some argument broke out about that particular item. He explained that he, Rush and Ashley were particularly concerned with registered sex offenders.

“That could occur at a regular brick and mortar business as well,” said Alderman Kurt Glick.

Berry responded “but you could make a decision to not go there versus a food truck setting up in your neighborhood…”

Mayor Pro Tem Jenna Amacher spoke up, backing Glick’s comment, to which Berry responded the same way he had the first time. There was some mild argument between Ashley and Amacher regarding school policy, before Glick stated that he didn’t “have a problem with it, I just had a question of why.”

Glick and Amacher agreed that if the sex offender registry was the main reason for the background check, they wouldn’t have a problem.

Quick stated that the ordinance was “a draft document” and said that the three (he, Rush and Ashley) could go back in and more specifically define what they would be looking for in a background check; namely the sex offender registry.

“But also a long pattern of felonious crime,” Quick added. He gave the example of someone who, in the last four months, had a couple of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charges.

Amacher stated “no, I’m not concerned if someone’s had two DUIs.”

“I am, if they’re driving a mobile missile,” Berry responded.

Amacher continued “we are regulating a business, not the individual” as her argument for her stance regarding the prevention of food truck owners from doing business if they committed felonious crimes, particularly the example of DUIs.

Berry countered that the board does do that when they issue beer permits.

“We’re regulating the business and how you sell the beer and follow state laws, we are not regulating or legislating the morality of an individual here, and I will never be for that,” Amacher said. Glick agreed with her.

Quick reiterated that the charge that Ashley, Rush and him were given was to do what they thought was best for the city.

“We also know that it’s your (final) decision on what you decide what is best for Tullahoma, and whatever ordinance you enact, we will definitely follow,” Quick said. “I think sometimes, your personal feelings come in, I’m looking at protection for my child if my child were to go to a food truck.”

“The concern that we had to do with (the business) being stationary versus mobile,” he continued, “from that perspective, we were looking at what we, as citizens, would want to see.” He added that they pulled from surrounding municipalities such as Decherd and Winchester.

Glick asked that if they were checking the owners to see if they were on the sex offender registry should they not check employees as well. Quick said that would be up to the owner, not the city.

“Nor should we be in the business of regulating that,” said Amacher. “I think (the background check) is for informational purposes, and I think that’s fine to have it, and I think it’s fine for our law enforcement to know. I do not think it should be public record, and I don’t even think it’s a reason for you to deny a permit necessarily.” She questioned the legality of regulating “the business’ business.”

“So, I hear you and I’m definitely not looking to debate. I think, probably, an assumption on my part that if the City of Murfreesboro and other cities has instituted the ordinance, that it might not be illegal,” Quick responded. He added that Planning Attorney Sam Edwards had no problem with the ordinance.

Amacher responded that they needed to be sure about “the reason of the regulation,” and that was her concern. Ashley explained that under current city regulations, if someone gets a special event or vendor permit, they have to get a background check done first.

“That’s the way it is currently in the city,” she said. “So I feel like this would go in that same line.”

Glick said he was fine with it, and other board members assented as well.

“I’m fine with it with the caveat that those are not subject to public inspection,” said Amacher. Ashley told her the background checks were not.

There continued to be arguments about what type of felony the city should be looking at in background checks.

Amacher insisted “These people have paid their dues to society…we are not a courtroom. That’s not our job.”

Berry cited Winchester’s “operational requirements” for food truck vendors, which included the city of Winchester reserving the right to reject applicants if they are registered sex offenders, have been convicted a felony in the last 10 years, had an “unreasonable number and kind of moving vehicle violations as determined by the Chief of Police,” or presents a safety risk due to past criminal history as determined by the Chief of Police.

“I think that’s way too regulatory,” said Amacher.

“I don’t like it either,” Glick said.

Argument broke out with members speaking over one another before Mayor Ray Knowis gave the floor to Quick.

“We’re not looking to diffuse capitalism,” Quick said. “I think this is where we take on the responsibility for public safety.” He pointed out that most vendors are people coming in from outside the community, and reiterated his commitment to public safety.

“That’s where we came from. That is strictly from a public safety perspective and nothing else,” he said.

Berry asked why food trucks wouldn’t be zoned Commercial One districts.

Rush responded that they would have to look at things like rent, traffic issues and if the central businesses had space for food trucks.

“If you look at (other ordinances from other cities), no one allows it in their downtown. It’s just protecting your C-1 core, making it walkable,” said Rush.

Amacher said “it’s still a downtown prohibition. If you own land in C-1, and you wanna put a food truck on your property, if you’re landowner we shouldn’t tell you no. That should be up to the individual land owners.”

Rush replied “I mean, technically, you said the exact same about zoning. If you’re going to make that argument, then we shouldn’t have any zoning whatsoever.”

“Now is not the time to be condescending to me, though,” Amacher responded.

Several members of the board came to Rush’s defense, but Rush spoke for himself.

“I’m not being condescending, that was not meant to be an offense at all, but I just said if we actually have zoning districts, we’re allowed to restrict their use, right?” He said.

“No, I agree with zoning districts, I never said that we shouldn’t have them,” she argued. “I’m just saying that if you have a property that’s zoned commercial and the business that you would like to put on that is a stationary food truck,” she gave as an example, and stated that it shouldn’t be prevented, but it would be in the language of the current draft of the ordinance.

Wilson gave an example of a stationary Greek food truck that is currently in Tullahoma and asked Rush to confirm that it was C-1, but he told her it was C-2. In the middle of his explanation, he was interrupted by Amacher.

“220 W Lincoln is downtown, and I will say this, I don’t own it, my family does,” she said. “We have tenants that have leases. Those tenants like to have food trucks on that property and that would be in that downtown corridor. That would prohibit Miss Oh’s and there’s a taco truck that’s been set up there. And you know what, we own the land and our tenants want food trucks there because it draws business in. Should you, the City of Tullahoma, be able to tell my father, who owns the land, who pays property taxes, and those tenants who own the business that ‘no, that food truck would not be allowed to be in that parking lot,’” she said.

“What are you zoned right there?” Berry asked. She said they were zoned C-1. Berry asked if she was sure and she said she was.

“Let’s look and make sure,” said Berry.

“I’m just giving you an example,” she said.

There continued to be arguments regarding zoning.

After a while, Berry said “You’re zoned C-2.” She restated they were zoned C-1, and Rush said she was correct. Amacher listed several properties that her family owned in what she called the “downtown corridor.”

Berry suggested they just add that they could have food trucks in C-1 with permission from the land owner.

“That’s what I said,” Amacher replied.

Discussion continued regarding several issues with wording and the ordinance. Quick, Rush and Ashley were directed to make changes regarding the ordinance.