Laserfiche WebLink
Response: Many cities have already <br />passed ordinances banning the use of e- <br />cigarettes in all public places. To ensure <br />uniformity and consistency across the <br />state, the Legislature should regulate e- <br />cigarettes under the MCIAA while <br />preserving the ability of local <br />governments to enact more restrictive <br />ordinances. <br />SD-58. Regulation of Food Trucks <br />Issue: Minnesota has seen a sharp increase <br />in the number of food trucks (Mobile Food <br />Units) operating throughout the state. Food <br />trucks are licensed as food and beverage <br />service establishments by the Minnesota <br />Department of Health (MDH) or by local <br />jurisdictions pursuant to an MDH delegation <br />agreement. Food trucks are prohibited from <br />operating in the same location for more than <br />21 days without approval of the regulatory <br />authority. The transient nature of food trucks <br />presents unique challenges to traditional city <br />zoning and permitting and may create an <br />unfair competitive advantage over <br />traditional restaurants that pay property <br />taxes and generate income for a city. Cities <br />also make significant investments in the <br />development of retail districts and <br />downtowns and have a strong interest in <br />maintaining a level playing field for brick <br />and mortar establishments. <br />Response: It is appropriate for food <br />trucks to be licensed by MDH or its <br />designees in the same manner as other <br />food and beverage service establishments. <br />Such state regulation must not preempt <br />the ability of local governments to enact <br />reasonable time and place restrictions on <br />the operation of food trucks within their <br />jurisdictions. <br />SD-59. Environmental Protection <br />Issue: Cities demonstrate strong stewardship <br />for the protection and preservation of the <br />environment Minnesota municipalities have <br />historically been the leading funding source <br />for environmental protection and <br />improvements. Municipal efforts include <br />environmental protection through <br />wastewater treatment, wetland restorations, <br />stormwater treatment, public utility emission <br />reductions, brownfield cleanup, safe <br />drinking water programs, as well as others. <br />At some point, however, the diminishing or <br />nonexistent environmental benefit received <br />from additional efforts is fiscally <br />irresponsible. The programs are often <br />improperly designed to meet their stated <br />goals. Additionally, the absence of funding <br />by the state and federal government has <br />removed an essential restraining feature in <br />program design and implementation. <br />Agencies are less accountable to the <br />governments that mandate environmental <br />programs when they do not have to find the <br />money to implement the programs. <br />Specific problems faced by cities include: <br />a) New programs or standards are <br />continually adopted without regard to <br />the existence, attainability or cost of <br />existing programs and standards. <br />b) Regulatory bodies fail to consistently <br />use good science and the most current <br />and accurate data when establishing <br />water quality standards. <br />c) Regulatory bodies impose new permit <br />requirements without going through <br />rulemaking Instead, the agencies rely on <br />internal documents, program strategies, <br />and "best professional judgment of staff' <br />when setting permit criteria. <br />d) Regulatory bodies approve permits and <br />programs that compete with traditional <br />municipal services and encourage urban <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 36 <br />