Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-22 PACKET 06.2.STAFF REPORT CASE: TA2016-0396 ITEM: 6.2 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 8/22/16 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 9/21/16 APPLICATION APPLICANT: City of Cottage Grove REQUEST: A zoning text amendment to establish reasonable performance standards for mobile food units, and to allow the new uses in certain appropriate zoning districts. SITE DATA LOCATION: N/A ZONING: NIA GUIDED LAND USE: NIA LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: SIZE: N/A DENSITY: NIA RECOMMENDATION Approval. NIA GUIDED (+ Cottage COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION Grove dere vaae,,,e emsveaW need Planning Staff Contact: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner; 651-458-2825; iburbank(c cottage-grove.orq Application Accepted:. N/A 60 -Day Review Deadline: N/A City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South 9 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Planning Staff Report Food Units Planning Case No. TA2016-039B August 22, 2016 Proposal The City of Cottage Grove has initiated a zoning text amendment to establish reasonable performance standards for food units and to allow them as a new permitted use in certain appropriate zoning districts. Background In 2015 new legislation was enacted related to breweries, brew pubs, tap rooms, wineries, micro distilleries, and cocktail rooms. The City is currently considering an ordinance amendment to align City zoning ordinances with state statute and to establish appropriate allowable zoning districts and reasonable performance standards for the newly state permitted uses. The operation of food trucks in concert with breweries, taprooms, and related uses is popular and an enabling factor in the success of many breweries, tap rooms etc. The food truck industry also serves many other events such as festivals, park events, weddings and other activities that generate hungry crowds. The City ordinance is silent on this topic. Given that fact, the attached ordinance amendment is being presented for consideration. Planning Considerations The City's Technical Review Committee and the Planning Commission have been reviewing this topic along with brew pubs, tap rooms, etc. for several months, and it was believe that it is now appropriate to review an ordinance amendment related to food units. The Planning Commission held workshops on April 25 and May 23 to discuss food trucks in Cottage Grove. A representative from the Minnesota Food Truck Association was invited to the meeting on the May 23 and offered great insight and feedback regarding this topic and on the regulations and operations in other communities. A component of the previous review and research was the creation of a survey to gauge the general public's standing on allowing food trucks as permitted uses in certain zoning districts and the potential modification of the City Code to regulate them in Cottage Grove. There were 1,109 respondents to the survey. The responses related to food trucks were favorable and are detailed below. When should the City of Cottage Grove allow food trucks? (Check all that apply) Iry r r- 6 All the Time 717 71 % Special Events and Gatherings (i.e. sporting events) 401 40q Special Permitted Areas within the City (i.e. parks, wedding venues, etc.) 36& 3 7� Business Parking Lots (i.e. lunch option for employees) 322 32% Other 14 1 y Where s houldi the City of Cottage Grave allow food truck,,,, (Check all that apply) 016 Lur Id C�e el lm&� II car the Above '>§oca metic at Areas Only 4P _ R eu eE1hal Areas for Special Evients OnPy Mot m Al I - of _t Ow y. 6530 63x 3,34, 34% 3l'4 31% Zai 24% Would you support food trucks being allowed in the Business Park? Yes Asa 96% No ao 4% Would you support Food trucks being allowed at parks if they were required to obtain a permit? NT Yes eca 796 No 34 3v� Planning Staff Report — TA2016-039B Food Trucks August 22, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Review Period The application was initiated by the City, so the required 60 -day review period is not applicable. Discussion Since this is a zoning text amendment, the standard site plan review criterion is not applicable to this report. According to the National Restaurant Association's 2014 forecast, food trucks were reported as the fastest growing sector in the restaurant industry. A 2012 study by Emergent Research projected that by 2017 food truck revenue would be $2.7 billion per year. The permitted use of food trucks in other communities and states has shown that they are contributing factors to the health and vitality of the districts they operate in, and allowing for that growth to occur in Cottage Grove through this ordinance amendment could be viewed as a positive amenity for the community. The new ordinance addresses licensing, operation locations, and prohibited activities. One of the location prohibitions is on streets that are posted as no parking. A map identifying the current streets posted for no parking is attached. Planning Staff Report — TA2016-039B Food Trucks August 22, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance Criteria See the attached draft ordinance. Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin on August 10, 2016. Summary • Food trucks are permitted by state statutes. • Food trucks are licensed and monitored by county health departments. • The response to the public survey identifies a favorable reaction to allowing food trucks within the community. • The City ordinance needs to be amended to permit food units. • The City ordinance needs to be amended to establish permissible zoning districts for food units. • The City ordinance needs to be amended to establish reasonable performance standards related to food units. • The establishment of the food unit uses within other communities has shown positive effects on the health, vitality, and economics of the districts they are located in. Recommendation That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the zoning text amendment to establish reasonable performance standards for food units and to allow the new uses in certain appropriate zoning districts. Prepared by: Attachments: Draft Ordinance John M Burbank, AICP No Parking Map Senior Planner State Statute Section 157 City Survey Summary Report. Food Truck Freedom (Report) Street Eats, Safe Eats (Report) Seven Myths and Realities about Food Trucks (Report) Cottage Grove Zoning Map TO: Cottage Grove Planning Commission FROM: Bridget McCauley Nason, Assistant City Attorney DATE: August 17, 2016 RE: Amendments to City Code Related to Mobile Food Units (Food Trucks) Overview Once few and far between, in the past three years the food truck (mobile food unit) craze has swept the Twin Cities area. Food trucks went from serving the downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul lunchtime crowds to being found across the metro at farmer's markets, music events, and food truck rallies. In order to address the unique concerns presented by food trucks, the attached ordinance requires food trucks that wish to operate within the City of Cottage Grove to obtain a license from the City. The ordinance establishes requirements for food truck owners/operators to ensure that their operation does not endanger the health, welfare, or safety of patrons, and to address potential concerns with respect to the operation of these mobile restaurants. Analysis of Key Provisions of the Food Truck Ordinance Cities across the metro have begun adopting a wide variety of ordinances regulating food trucks. From highly detailed ordinances like the one adopted in Minneapolis to simpler ordinances adopted by many smaller suburbs, cities have adopted various approaches to regulating food trucks. The attached ordinance contains the following primary regulations and restrictions on the activities of food trucks: 1. Food truck owners are required to obtain either a temporary license, allowing them to operate within the City no more than ten days in any calendar year, or an annual license, which allows the food truck to operate an unlimited number of days during a calendar year. 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET • SUITE 400 • SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 •651-451-1831 • FAX 651-450-7384 OFFICE ALSO LOCATED IN SPOONER, WISCONSIN TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ LEVANDER, DANIEL J. BRESON 'KENNETH J. ROIILF °STEPHEN H FOCHLER MEMO A.7AY P. KARLOV1C11 ITILLEN & ANGELA M. LUTZ AMANN 'KORINE L. LAND MILLER, P.A. ,-DONALD M. ER HOEFT DARCY M. ERICKSON DAVID S. KENDALL 'BRIDGET MCCAUL.EY NASON ATTORNEYS AT LAW •iONA T. DOVE BRADLEY R. BUTTER ARIEL A. PITTNER TO: Cottage Grove Planning Commission FROM: Bridget McCauley Nason, Assistant City Attorney DATE: August 17, 2016 RE: Amendments to City Code Related to Mobile Food Units (Food Trucks) Overview Once few and far between, in the past three years the food truck (mobile food unit) craze has swept the Twin Cities area. Food trucks went from serving the downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul lunchtime crowds to being found across the metro at farmer's markets, music events, and food truck rallies. In order to address the unique concerns presented by food trucks, the attached ordinance requires food trucks that wish to operate within the City of Cottage Grove to obtain a license from the City. The ordinance establishes requirements for food truck owners/operators to ensure that their operation does not endanger the health, welfare, or safety of patrons, and to address potential concerns with respect to the operation of these mobile restaurants. Analysis of Key Provisions of the Food Truck Ordinance Cities across the metro have begun adopting a wide variety of ordinances regulating food trucks. From highly detailed ordinances like the one adopted in Minneapolis to simpler ordinances adopted by many smaller suburbs, cities have adopted various approaches to regulating food trucks. The attached ordinance contains the following primary regulations and restrictions on the activities of food trucks: 1. Food truck owners are required to obtain either a temporary license, allowing them to operate within the City no more than ten days in any calendar year, or an annual license, which allows the food truck to operate an unlimited number of days during a calendar year. 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET • SUITE 400 • SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 •651-451-1831 • FAX 651-450-7384 OFFICE ALSO LOCATED IN SPOONER, WISCONSIN HAROLD LEVANDER 1910-1992 ARTHUR GILLEN 1919-2005 MEMO ROGER C 194L 929-2M-2009 'ALSO ADMTfED IN WISCONSIN .ALSOADMRTEDINNORUIDAKOTA 0ALSO ADMI ..D INTMSSACINSEM rlA SOADAIITTEDINOKLAHOMA AALSO ADM119ED IN ARIZONA TO: Cottage Grove Planning Commission FROM: Bridget McCauley Nason, Assistant City Attorney DATE: August 17, 2016 RE: Amendments to City Code Related to Mobile Food Units (Food Trucks) Overview Once few and far between, in the past three years the food truck (mobile food unit) craze has swept the Twin Cities area. Food trucks went from serving the downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul lunchtime crowds to being found across the metro at farmer's markets, music events, and food truck rallies. In order to address the unique concerns presented by food trucks, the attached ordinance requires food trucks that wish to operate within the City of Cottage Grove to obtain a license from the City. The ordinance establishes requirements for food truck owners/operators to ensure that their operation does not endanger the health, welfare, or safety of patrons, and to address potential concerns with respect to the operation of these mobile restaurants. Analysis of Key Provisions of the Food Truck Ordinance Cities across the metro have begun adopting a wide variety of ordinances regulating food trucks. From highly detailed ordinances like the one adopted in Minneapolis to simpler ordinances adopted by many smaller suburbs, cities have adopted various approaches to regulating food trucks. The attached ordinance contains the following primary regulations and restrictions on the activities of food trucks: 1. Food truck owners are required to obtain either a temporary license, allowing them to operate within the City no more than ten days in any calendar year, or an annual license, which allows the food truck to operate an unlimited number of days during a calendar year. 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET • SUITE 400 • SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 •651-451-1831 • FAX 651-450-7384 OFFICE ALSO LOCATED IN SPOONER, WISCONSIN 2. Food truck owners are required to carry various forms of insurance, including food products liability insurance. 3, Food bucks may be operated on City property/right-of-way as long as it is not within a "no parking" zone. 4. Mobile food units may only operate on private residential property when performing catering services. 5. Mobile food sales are prohibited between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. Generators are required to comply with the City's noise regulations, and propane tanks are required to be secured to the food truck and adequately ventilated. 7. Provisions are included for the suspension and revocation of licenses. The ordinance includes a number of additional provisions related to the operation of food trucks, and seeks to ensure that the operation of food trucks within the City will not create health or safety hazards. Action The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed amendments to Chapter 3 of the City Code and provide recommendations regarding the proposed changes. 2 ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA, ENACTING COTTAGE GROVE CITY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 12, REGARDING THE REGULATION OF MOBILE FOOD UNITS The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. ENACTMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 3, Chapter 12, shall be enacted as follows: 3-12-1: PURPOSE: This chapter is intended to require an establishment preparing and serving food from a self- contained readily moveable vehicle to obtain a license from the city and to regulate the conditions from which the licensed establishment operates within the city for the promotion of business within the city and for the protection of customers and the general public. 3-12-2: -1,," C 4� DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. MOBILE FOOD UNIT: (1) A self-contained food service operation, located in a readily movable motorized wheeled or towed vehicle that is readily movable without disassembling and that is used to store, prepare, display or sere food intended for individual portion service; or (2) A mobile food unit as defined in Minnesota statutes section 157.15, subdivision 9. 3-12-3: LICENSE APPLICATIONS: A. License Types. Each applicant must indicate whether it is applying for a temporary license or annual license. A temporary license allows mobile food unit operations in the city for up to ten (10) days total each calendar year. An annual license allows mobile food unit operations in the city for ten (10) days or more during any calendar year. A licensee will only be issued one temporary license per calendar year, however nothing shall prohibit a temporary licensee from applying for an annual license within the same calendar year. B. License fees. Fees for annual and temporary licenses shall be established by resolution of the City Council and listed in the city's fee schedule. C. Mobile food unit. It is unlawful for any person to operate a mobile food unit in the city without first obtaining a license from the city. An application for a license shall be filed, along with any required fee, with the City Clerk. The applicant must be the owner of the mobile food unit. The application shall be made on a form supplied by the city and shall contain the information requested by the city, including the following: Ordinance No. XXX Page 2 of 6 1. A description of the nature of the business and the goods to be sold and the license plate number and description for any vehicle to be used in conjunction with the activity; 2. The name of the operator, if different than the owner, of the mobile food unit and the name of all persons working for the owner and operator of the mobile food unit; 3. The applicant's full legal name, other names the applicant uses or is known by, date of birth and driver's license number or other legal identification with a photograph of the applicant; 4. The permanent and any temporary home and business address, phone numbers and email address of the applicant, with a designation of a preferred mailing address for notices related to the license; 5. The name, address and contact information for the commissary with which the mobile food unit is affiliated, if applicable; 6. If owner is a LLC or other similar business entity, the name of the business entity, all other names that the entity conducts business as, and all of the applicable information required of an individual applicant for the business entity; 7. A certificate of insurance by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, evidencing the following forms of insurance: a. Commercial general liability insurance, with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence. If such insurance contains an annual aggregate limit, the annual aggregate limit shall be not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000); b. Automobile liability insurance with a limit of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit. The insurance shall cover liability arising out of any auto, including owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles; c. Food products liability insurance; with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence; d. Public liability insurance, with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence; e. Property damage insurance, with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence; f. Workers compensation insurance (statutory limits) or evidence of exemption from state law; and g. The city shall be endorsed as an additional insured on the certificate of insurance and the umbrella/excess insurance if the applicant intends to operate its mobile food unit on public property, including public right-of-way. Ordinance No. XXX Page 3 of 6 8. The certificate of insurance must contain a provision requiring notification be sent to the city should the policy be cancelled before its stated expiration date. 9. Written consent of each private property owner from which mobile food unit sales will be conducted; 10. If the mobile food unit will be located on city property or public right-of-way, a signed statement that the licensee shall hold harmless the city and its officers and employees, and shall indemnify the city and its officers and employees for any claims for damage to property or injury to persons which may be occasioned by any activity carried on under the terms of the license; 11. If applying only fora temporary license, the applicant must provide the exact dates and locations for its up to ten (10) days of mobile food unit operations; 12. A copy of each related license or permit issued by Washington County and the state required to operate a mobile food unit; and 13. A copy of the applicant's state sales tax ID number. 3-12-4: CONDITIONS OF LICENSING: A. Locations. A mobile food unit may only operate in the locations set forth in this subdivision (A). A mobile food unit may operate in a private commercial or industrial parking lot and on private residential property, with the written consent of the private property owner. When operations occur on private residential property, mobile food unit sales may only be for catering purposes (such as a private graduation party or wedding) and not open for sales to the general public. A mobile food unit is prohibited from operating on streets posted with no parking signs. A mobile food unit may only operate in a city park or on other city property with the prior written approval by the city; additional permits may be required for such operations. B. Performance standards. A mobile food unit licensee is subject to the following performance standards: 1. A mobile food unit with an annual license may not operate on the same property more than twenty-one (21) days during any calendar year. 2. Mobile food unit sales are prohibited between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 3. A mobile food unit must dispose of its gray water daily. Gray water may not be drained into city storm water drains. 4. An out of service mobile food unit stored within the city must comply with all applicable zoning ordinance requirements. 5. The mobile food unit may have a maximum bumper to bumper length of no more than thirty (30) feet. Ordinance No. XXX Page 4 of 6 6. A mobile food unit is not required to obtain a sign permit from the city. However, no additional signage is permitted beyond that which is on the mobile food unit unless it meets the following requirements: a. One single sandwich board style sign is permitted per mobile food unit; b. The maximum sign size is eight (8) square feet; c. The sign must be placed on the ground and within ten (10) feet of the mobile food unit; d. The sign must not be placed in a manner that hinders passage upon any sidewalk; e. The sign must not be placed within the improved travel surface of the public right- of-way except with the express written permission of the city; and f. The sign cannot project from the mobile food unit or be mounted to the roof of the mobile food unit. 7. A licensee must comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, parking zones and posted signs. 8. A mobile food unit must provide an independent power supply that is screened from public view and that complies with City's noise regulations. 9. Propane tanks must be attached or secured to the mobile food unit and must be adequately ventilated. 10. Licensees shall be responsible for the conduct of their employees and agents while operating a mobile food unit. C. License. A mobile food unit license is non -transferable. Proof of license shall be displayed at all times in the mobile food unit. D. Practices Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person engaged in the business of a mobile food unit operation to do the following: 1. Call attention to that licensee's business by crying out, blowing a horn, ringing a bell or by any loud or unusual noise, or by use of any amplifying device; 2. Fail to display proof of license and produce valid identification when requested; 3. Remain on the property of another when asked to leave; 4. Claim endorsements by the city based on license; or Ordinance No. XXX Page 5 of 6 5. Conduct business in any manner as to create a threat to the health, safety and welfare to a specific individual or the general public. 3-12-5: LICENSE SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION: A. Term of License: No license shall be issued for any period of time in excess of one year. All licenses shall expire on December 31 of the year in which the license is issued. B. Reasons For Suspension Or Revocation: Any license issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked for any of the following reasons: Fraud, misrepresentation, or incorrect statements on the application form. 2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statements made during the course of the licensed activity. 3. When a licensee or their employees or agents conduct prohibited practices as defined by this chapter. 4. When it appears that the licensee or its employees or agents have engaged in activities inimical to the best interests of the inhabitants of the city. C. Notice: Prior to revoking or suspending any license issued under this chapter, the city shall provide the license holder with written notice of the alleged violation(s) and inform the licensee of his or her right to a hearing on the alleged violation(s). Notice shall be delivered in person or by mail to the preferred mailing address listed on the license application. Service shall be considered complete as of the date the notice is delivered in person or placed in the mail. D. Hearing: Upon receiving the notice provided in this subsection, the licensee shall have the right to request a hearing before the city council. If no request for a hearing is received by the city clerk within ten (10) regular business days following service of the notice, the city may proceed with the suspension or revocation. If a hearing is requested within the stated time frame, a hearing shall be scheduled at the next regularly scheduled city council meeting in which the hearing can be legally held. E. Emergency: If, in the discretion of the city, imminent harm to the health or safety of the public may occur due to the actions of a licensee licensed under this chapter, the city may immediately suspend the license and provide notice of the right to a subsequent hearing as prescribed in subsection D of this section. F. Appeals: Any person whose license is suspended or revoked under this section shall have the right to appeal the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire Official Zoning ordinance: Ordinance No. XXX Page 6 of 6 "This ordinance amends Title 3, Business and License Regulations, by adding Chapter 12, Mobile Food Units, which establishes performance standards and regulations for mobile food units." SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Passed this day of , 2016. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Joseph Fischbach, City Clerk Published in the South Washington County Bulletin on [Date]. a� _ f .� ` r� Ij�Iie�i� y mniu>' F' !zv. f '� €YsB 3 Nom.;-°> 11 ��IO ,rxf Cid mi O x€ m I I� a mE Q m ,e m' U t C 3 Z N N W I O /A/ r n \ I m rc m I I a I LQ m= N m C m NO m „1 m m � i v MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.082 CHAPTER 157 FOOD, BEVERAGE, AND LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS 157.011 RULES, 157.175 DOGS; OUTDOOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ES'T'ABLISHMENTS. 157.15 DEFINITIONS. 157.20 INSPECTION; FREQUENCY; RISK CATEGORIES; 157.16 LICENSES REQUIRED; FEES. ORDERS. 157.17 ADDITIONAL I2EGIS'TRATION REQUIRED FOR 157.21 INSPEC'T'ION RECORDS. BOARDING AND LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS OR LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS; SPECIAL 15722 EXEMPTIONS. SERVICES. 157.01 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.011 RULES. Subdivision 1. Establishments. The commissioner shall adopt rules establishing standards for food and beverage service establishments, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, and resorts. Subd. 2. Certification of food service managers. The commissioner shall: (1) adopt rules for certification requirements for managers of food service operations; and (2) establish in rule, criteria for training and certification. Subd. 3. Rule exemption. Notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, no food establishment shall be required to acquire equipment or change construction solely because ownership of the food establishment has been transferred. History: 1995 c 165 s 11; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 46; 1Sp2005 c 4 art 6 s 42 157.02 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.03 [Repealed, 1996 c 451 art 4 s 71] 157.031 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.04 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 611 157.045 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.05 [Repealed, 1995 c207 art 9 s 6 1 157.06 [Repealed, 1975 c 310 s 38] 157.07 [Repealed, 1975 c 310 s 38] 157.08 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.081 [Repealed, 1993 c 206 s 25] 157.082 [Repealed, 1994 c 567 s 24] Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 157.09 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.09 [Repealed, 1994 c 567 s 24] 157.10 [Repealed, 1965 c 45 s 731 157.11 [Repealed„ 1975 c 310 s 381 157.12 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.13 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 611 157.14 [Repealed, 1995 c 207 art 9 s 61] 157.15 [Repealed, 1959 c 592 s 29] 157.15 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Application. The definitions in this section apply to sections 157.011 and 157.15 to 157.22. Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1996 c 451 art 4 s 71] Subd. 3. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of health. Subd. 4. Boarding establishment. 'Boarding establishment" means a food and beverage service estab- lishment where food or beverages, or both, are furnished to five or more regular boarders, whether with or without sleeping accommodations, for periods of one week or more. Subd. 5. Food and beverage service establishment. "Food and beverage service establishment" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any pati of a building, structure, or enclosure used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be an operation that prepares, serves, or otherwise provides food or beverages, or both, for human consumption. Subd. 6. Food cart. "Food cart' means a food and beverage set -vice establishment that is a nonmotorized vehicle self-propelled by the operator. Subd. 7. Hotel or motel. "Hotel or motel' means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public and furnishing, accommodations for periods of less than one week. Subd. 7a. Limited food establishment. "Limited food establishment' means a food and beverage service establishmentthat primarily provides beverages that consist of combining dry mixes and water or ice for immediate service to the consumer. Limited food establishments must use equipment and utensils that are nontoxic, durable, and retain their characteristic qualities under normal use conditions and may request a variance for plumbing requirements from the commissioner. Subd. 8. Lodging establishment. "Lodging establishment' means: (1) a building, structure, enclosure, or any pail thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accom- modations are furnished to the public as regular roomers, for periods of one week or more, and having five or more beds to let to the public; or (2) a building, structure, or enclosure or any part thereof located within ten miles distance from a hospital or medical center and maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished exclusively to patients, their families, and caregivers Copyright © 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.15 while the patient is receiving or waiting to receive health care treatments or procedures for periods of one week or more, and where no supportive services, as defined under section 157.17, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), or health supervision services, as defined under section 157,17, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), or home care services, as defined under section 144A.471, subdivisions 6 and 7, are provided. Subd. 9. Mobile food unit. "Mobile food unit" means a food and beverage service establishment that is a vehicle mounted unit, either: (1) motorized or trailered, operating no more than 21 days annually at any one place, or operating more than 21 days annually at any one place with the approval of the regulatory authority as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0020, subpart 70; or (2) operated in conjunction with a permanent business licensed under this chapter or chapter 28A at the site of the permanent business by the same individual or company, and readily movable, without disas- sembling, for transport to another location. Subd. 10. Person. 'Person" has the meaning given in section 1031.005, subdivision 16. Subd. 11. Resort. 'Resort" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof located on, or on property neighboring, any lake, stream, skiing or hunting area, or any recreational area for purposes of providing convenient access thereto, kept, used, maintained, or advertised as, or held out to the public to be a place where Sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public, and primarily to those seeking recreation for periods of one day, one week, or longer, and having for rent five or more cottages, rooms, or enclosures. Subd. 12. Restaurant. 'Restaurant" means a food and beverage service establishment, whether the establishment serves alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverages, which operates from a location for more than 21 days annually. Restaurant does not include a food cart or a mobile food unit. Subd. 12a. Seasonal permanent food stand. "Seasonal permanent food stand" means a food and beverage service establishment which is a permanent food service stand or building, but which operates no more than 21 days annually. Subd. 12b. School concession stand. "School concession stand" means a food and beverage service establishment located in a school, on school grounds, or within a school -owned athletic complex, that is operated in conjunction with school -sponsored events. A school kitchen or school cafeteria is not a school concession stand. Subd. 13. Seasonal temporary food stand. (a) "Seasonal temporary food stand" means a food and beverage service establishment that is a food stand which is disassembled and moved from location to location, but which operates for no more than 21 days annually at any one location, except as provided in paragraph (b). (b) A seasonal temporary food stand may operate for more than 21 days annually at any one place with the approval of the regulatory authority, as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0020, subpart 70, that has jurisdiction over the seasonal temporary food stand. Subd. 14. Special event food stand. "Special event food stand" means a food and beverage service establishment which is used in conjunction with celebrations and special events, and which operates no more than three times annually for no more than ten total days. Subd. 15. [Repealed, 1998 c 407 art 2 s 109] Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes,. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 157.15 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 Subd. 16. Critical control point. "Critical control point" means a point or procedure in a specific food system where loss of control may result in an unacceptable health risk. Subd. 17. HACCP plan. "Hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) plan" means a written document that delineates the formal procedures for following the HACCP principles developed by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. Subd. 18. Hazard. "Hazard" means any biological, chemical, or physical property that may cause an unacceptable constuner health risk. Subd. 19. Statewide hospitality fee. "Statewide hospitality fee" means a fee to fund statewide food, beverage, and lodging program development activities, including training for inspection staff, technical assistance, maintenance of a statewide integrated food safety and security information system, and other related statewide activities that support the food, beverage, and lodging program activities. Subd. 20. Youth camp. "Youth camp" has the meaning given in section 144.71, subdivision 2. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 41; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 47-55,70; 1997 c 203 art 2 s 19-21; 1998 e 407 art 2 s 87-91; 1Sp2005 c 4 art 6 s 43; 2009 e 79 arl 10 s 36; 2010 c 285 s 1; 2010 c 294 s 1; 2011 c 92 s 1; 1Sp2011 c9art 2s23; 2014c163s2; 2015c71 art 8s 57 157.16 LICENSES REQUIRED; FEES Subdivision 1. License required annually. A license is required annually for every person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of conducting a food and beverage service establishment, youth camp, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, or resort. Any person wishing to operate a place of business licensed in this section shall fust make application, pay the required fee specified in this section, and receive approval for operation, including plan review approval. Special event food stands are not required to submit plans. Nonprofit organizations operating a special event food stand with multiple locations at an annual one - day event shall be issued only one license. Application steal I be made on forms provided by the commissioner and shall require the applicant to state the full name and address of the owner of the building, structure, or enclosure, the lessee and manager of the food and beverage service establishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, or resort; the name under which the business is to be conducted; and any other information as may be required by the commissioner to complete the application for license. Subd. 2. License renewal. Initial and renewal licenses for all food and beverage service establishments, youth camps, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, and resorts shall be issued on an annual basis. Any person who operates a place of business after the expiration date of a license or without having submitted an application and paid the fee shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this chapter and shall be subject to enforcement action, as provided in the Health Enforcement Consolidation Act, sections 144.989 to 144.993. In addition, a penalty of $60 shall be added to the total of the license fee for any food and beverage service establishment operating without a license as a mobile food unit, a seasonal temporary or seasonal permanent food stand, or a special event food stand, and a penalty of $120 shall be added to the total of the license fee for all restaurants, food carts, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, youth camps, public pools, and resorts operating without a license for a period of up to 30 days. A late fee of $360 shall be added to the license fee for establishments operating more than 30 days without a license. Subd. 2a. Food manager certification. An applicant for certification or certification renewal as a food manager must submit to the commissioner a $35 nonrefundable certification fee payable to the Department of Health. The commissioner shall issue a duplicate certificate to replace a lost, destroyed, or mutilated Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.16 certificate if the applicant submits a completed application on a form provided by the commissioner for a duplicate certificate and pays $20 to the department for the cost of duplication. Subd. 3. Establishment fees; definitions. (a) The following fees are required for food and beverage service establishments, youth camps, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, and resorts licensed under this chapter. Food and beverage service establishments must pay the highest applicable fee tinder paragraph (d), clause (1), (2), (3), or (4), and establishments serving alcohol must pay the highest applicable fee under paragraph (d), clause (6) or (7). The license fee for new operators previously licensed under this chapter for the same calendar year is one-half of the appropriate annual license fee, plus any penalty that may be required. The license fee for operators opening on or after October I is one-half of the appropriate annual license fee, plus any penalty that may be required. (b) All food and beverage service establishments, except special event food stands, and all hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, and resorts shall pay an annual base fee of $150. (c) A special event food stand shall pay a flat fee of $50 annually. "Special event food stand" means a fee category where food is prepared or served in conjunction with celebrations, county fairs, or special events from a special event food stand as defined in section 157.15. (d) In addition to the base fee in paragraph (b), each food and beverage service establishment, other than a special event food stand and a school concession stand, and each hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, and resort shall pay an additional annual fee for each fee category, additional food service, or required additional inspection specified in this paragraph: (1)Limited food menu selection, $60. "Limited food menu selection" means a fee category that provides one or more of the following: (i) prepackaged food that receives heat treatment and is served in the package; (ii) Frozen pizza that is heated and served; (iii) a continental breakfast such as rolls, coffee, juice, milk, and cold cereal; (iv) soft drinks, coffee, or nonalcoholic beverages; or (v) cleaning for eating, drinking, or cooking utensils; when the only food served is prepared off site. (2) Small establishment, including boarding establishments, $120. "Small establishment" means a fee category that has no salad bar and meets one or more of the following: (i) possesses food service equipment that consists of no more than a deep fat fryer, a grill, two hot holding containers, and one or more microwave ovens; (ii) serves dipped ice cream or soft serve frozen desserts; (iii) serves breakfast in an owner -occupied bed and breakfast establishment; (iv) is a boarding establishment; or (v) meets the equipment criteria in clause (3), item (i) or (ii), and has a maximum patron seating capacity of not more than 50. Copyright © 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reseived. 157.16 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 (3) Medium establishment, $310. "Medium establishment" means a fee category that meets one or more of the following: (i) possesses food service equipment that includes a range, oven, steam table, salad bar, or salad preparation area; (ii) possesses food service equipment that includes more than one deep fat fryer, one grill, or two hot holding containers; or (iii) is an establishment where food is prepared at one location and served at one or more separate locations. Establishments meeting criteria in clause (2), item (v), are not included in this fee category. (4) Large establishment, $540. "Large establishment" means either: (i) a fee category that (A) meets the criteria in clause (3), items (i) or (ii), for a medium establishment, (B) seats more than 175 people, and (C) offers the full menu selection an average of five or more days a week during the weeks of operation; or (ii) a fee category that (A) meets the criteria in clause (3), item (iii), for a medium establishment, and (B) prepares and serves 500 or more meals per day. (5) Other food and beverage service, including food carts, mobile food units, seasonal temporary food stands, and seasonal permanent food stands, $60. (6) Beer or wine table service, $60. 'Beer or wine table service" means a fee category where the only alcoholic beverage service is beer or wine, served to customers seated at tables. (7) Alcoholic beverage service, other than beer or wine table service, $165. "Alcohol beverage service, other than beer or wine table service" means a fee category where alcoholic mixed drinks are served or where beer or wine are served from a bar. (8) Lodging per sleeping accommodation unit, $10, including hotels, motels, lodging establishments, and resorts, up to a maximum of $1,000. "Lodging per sleeping accommodation unit' means a fee category including the number of guest rooms, cottages, or other rental units of a hotel, motel, lodging establishment, or resort; or the number of beds in a dormitory, (9) First public pool, $325; each additional public pool, $175. 'Public pool" means a fee category that has the meaning given in section 144.1222, subdivision 4. (10) First spa, $175; each additional spa, $100. "Spa pool' means a fee category that has the meaning given in Minnesota Rules, part 4717.0250, subpart 9. (11) Private sewer or water, $60. "Individual private water" means a fee category with a water supply other than a community public water supply as defined in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4720. "Individual private sewer" means a fee category with an individual sewage treatment system which uses subsurface treatment and disposal. (12) Additional food service, $150. "Additional food service" means a location at a food service estab- lishment, other than the primary food preparation and service area, used to prepare or serve food to the public. Additional food service does not apply to school concession stands. Copyright © 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 7 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.16 (13) Additional inspection fee, $360. "Additional inspection fee" means a fee to conduct the second inspection each year for elementary and secondary education facility school lunch programs when required by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. (e) A fee for review of construction plans must accompany the initial license application for restaurants, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, resorts, seasonal food stands, and mobile food units. The fee for this construction plan review is as follows: Service Area Type Fee Food limited food menu $275 medium establishment small establishment $400 $400 medium establishment $450 Transient food service food cart large food establishment $500 $250 additional food service $150 Transient food service food cart $250 seasonal permanent food stand $250 seasonal temporary food stand $250 mobile food unit $350 Alcohol beer or wine table service $150 alcohol service from bar $250 Lodging less than 25 rooms $375 25 to less than 100 rooms $400 100 rooms or more $500 less than five cabins $350 five to less than ten cabins $400 ten cabins or more $450 (f) When existing food and beverage service establishments, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, resorts, seasonal food stands, and mobile food units are extensively remodeled, a fee must be submitted with the remodeling plans. The fee for this construction plan review is as follows: Service Area Type Fee Food limited food menu $250 small establishment $300 medium establishment $350 large food establishment $400 additional food service $150 Transient food service food cart $250 seasonal permanent food stand $250 Copyright V 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 157.16 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 seasonal temporary food stand $250 mobile food unit $250 Alcohol beer or wine table service $150 alcohol service from bar $250 Lodging less than 25 rooms $250 25 to less than 100 rooms $300 100 rooms or more $450 less than five cabins $250 five to less than ten cabins $350 ten cabins or more $400 (g) Special event food stands are not required to submit construction or remodeling plans for review. (h) Youth camps shall pay an annual single fee for food and lodging as follows: (1) camps with up to 99 campers, $325; (2) camps with 100 to 199 campers, $550; and (3) camps with 200 or more campers, $750. (i) A youth camp which pays fees under paragraph (d) is not required to pay fees under paragraph (h). Subd. 3a. Statewide hospitality fee. Every person, firm, or corporation that operates a licensed boarding establishment, food and beverage service establishment, seasonal temporary or permanent food stand, special event food stand, mobile food unit, food cart, resort, hotel, motel, or lodging establishment in Minnesotamust submit to the commissioner a $35 annual statewide hospitality fee for each licensed activity. The fee for establishments licensed by the Department of Health is required at the same time the licensure fee is due. For establishments licensed by local governments, the fee is due by July 1 of each year. Subd. 4. Posting requirements. Every food and beverage service establishment, for-profit youth camp, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, or resort must have the license posted in a conspicuous place at the establishment. Mobile food units; food carts, and seasonal temporary food stands shall be issued decals with the initial license and each calendar year with license renewals. The current license year decal must be placed on the rmit or stand in a location determined by the commissioner. Decals are not transferable. History: 1995 e 207 art 9 s 42; 1996c 451 art 4 s 56; 1997c 203 art 2 s 22; 1998 c 397 art 11 s 3; 1998 c 407 art 2 s 92; 1 Sp2001 c 9 art I s 54; 2002 c 379 art I s 113; 1 Sp2005 c 4 art 6S 44-47; 2007C 147 art 9 s 34; 2008 c 328 s 8; 2009 c 79 art 10 s 37; 2009 c 157 art I s 13,14; 2010 c 285 s 2; 1 Sp2010 c I art 21 s 2 157.17 ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION REQUIRED FOR BOARDING AND LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS OR LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS; SPECIAL SERVICES. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) "Supportive services" means the provision of supervision and minimal assistance with independent living skills such as social and recreational opportunities, assistance with transportation, arranging for meetings and appointments, and arranging for medical and social services. Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.17 Supportive services also include providing reminders to residents to take medications that are self-ad- ministered or providing storage for medications if requested. (b) "Health supervision services" means the provision of assistance in the preparation and administration of medications other than injectables, the provision of therapeutic diets, taking vital signs, or providing assistance in dressing, grooming, bathing, or with walking devices. Subd. 2. Registration. At the time of licensure or license renewal, a boarding and lodging establishment or a lodging establishment that provides supportive services or health supervision services must be registered with the commissioner, and must register annually thereafter. The registration must include the name, address, and telephone number of the establishment, the name of the operator, the types of services that are being provided, a description of the residents being served, the type and qualifications of staff in the facility, and other information that is necessary to identify the needs of the residents and the types of services that are being provided. The commissioner shall develop and furnish to the boarding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment the necessary form for submitting the registration. Housing with services establishments registered under chapter 144D shall be considered registered under this section for all purposes except that: (1) the establishments shall operate under the requirements of chapter 144D; and (2) the criminal background check requirements of sections 299C.66 to 299C.71 apply. The criminal background check requirements of section 144.057 apply only to personnel providing home care set -vices under sections 144A.43 to 144A.47 and personnel providing hospice care under sections 144A.75 to 144A.755. Subd. 3. Restriction on the provision of services. A boarding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment registered under subdivision 2 may provide health supervision services only if a licensed nurse is on site in the establishment for at least four hours a week to provide monitoring of health supervision services for the residents. A boarding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment that admits or retains residents using wheelchairs or walkers must have the necessary clearances from the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Subd. 4. [Repealed, 1998 c 254 ail 1 s 57] Subd. 5. Services that may not be provided in a boarding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment. Except those facilities registered under chapter 144D, a boarding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment may not admit or retain individuals who: (1) would require assistance from establishment staff because of the following needs: bowel in- continence, catheter care, use of injectable or parenteral medications, wound care, or dressing changes or irrigations of any kind; or (2) require a level of care and supervision beyond supportive services or health supervision services. Subd. 6. Certain individuals may provide services. This section does not prohibit the provision of health care services to residents of a boarding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment by family members of the resident or by a registered or licensed home care agency employed by the resident. Subd. 7. Exemption for establishments with a human services license. This section does not apply to a bonding and lodging establishment or lodging establishment that is licensed by the commissioner of human services under chapter 245A. Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 157.17 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 10 Subd. 8. Violations. The commissioner may revoke the establishment license if the establishment is found to be in violation of this section. Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 43; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 57; 1997 c 113 s 14,15; 1998 c 254 art 1 s 55,56; 2002 c 252 s 21 157.175 DOGS; OUTDOOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS. Subdivision 1. Municipal authorization. A statutory or home rule charter city may adopt an ordinance to permit food and beverage service establishments to allow dogs to accompany persons patronizing designated outdoor areas of food and beverage establishments. Subd. 2. Dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. The ordinance must prohibit dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, as defined in section 347.50, from accompanying patrons to food and beverage establishments. Subd. 3. Banning dogs. The ordinance may not prohibit a food and beverage establishment from banning dogs. A person accompanied by a dog who remains at an establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has posted a sign banning dogs or otherwise informed the person that dogs are not permitted in the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. Subd. 4. Permit process. (a) The ordinance roust require participating establishments to apply for and receive a permit from the city before allowing patrons' dogs on their premises. The city shall require from the applicant such information as the local government deems reasonably necessary, but shall require, at a minimum, the following information: (1) the name, location, and mailing address of the establishment; (2) the name, mailing address, and telephone contact information of the permit applicant; (3) a description of the designated outdoor areas in which the permit applicant intends to allow dogs; and (4) a description of the days of the week and hours of operation that patrons' dogs will be permitted in the designated outdoor areas. (b) A permit issued pursuant to the authority granted in this section must not be transferred to a subsequent owner upon the sale of a food and beverage establishment but must expire automatically upon the sale of the establishment. The subsequent owner shall be required to reapply for a permit pursuant to this section if the subsequent owner wishes to continue to accommodate patrons' dogs. (c) A city may incorporate the permit requirements of this section into a permit or license issued under an existing ordinance if the city ensures that current and future permit and license holders comply with the requirements of this section. A city may exempt current permit and license holders from reapplying for a permit, if the current permit or license holder provides the city with the information required in paragraph (a) and any other information that the city requests. Subd. 5. Minimum requirements. The ordinance must include such regulations and limitations as the local government deems reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety; and general welfare of the public, but must require, at a minimum, the following requirements, which must be clearly printed on a sign or signs posted on premises in a manner and place that are conspicuous to employees and patrons: (1) employees must be prohibited from touching, petting, or otherwise handling dogs; Copyright 0:2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 11 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.20 (2) employees and patrons must not allow dogs to come into contact with serving dishes, utensils, tableware, linens, paper products, or any other items involved in food service operations; (3) patrons must keep their dogs on a leash at all times and must keep their dogs under reasonable control; (4) dogs must not be allowed on chairs, tables, or other furnishings; and (5) dog waste must be cleaned immediately and the area sanitized. Subd. 6. Service animals. Nothing in this statute, or an ordinance adopted pursuant to this statute, shall be construed to limit: (1) the right of a person with disabilities to access places of public accommodation while accompanied by a service animal as provided in sections 256C.02 and 363A.19; or (2) the lawful use of a service animal by a licensed peace officer. Subd. 7. Designated outdoor area. The ordinance must include a definition of "designated outdoor area" that is consistent with applicable rules adopted by the commissioner of health. History: 2008 c 325 s I 157.18 [Repealed, 1996 c 451 art 4 s 71] 157.19 [Repealed, 1996 c 451 art 4 s 71] 157.20 INSPECTION; FREQUENCY; RISK CATEGORIES; ORDERS. Subdivision 1. Inspections. It shall be the duty of the commissioner to inspect, or cause to be inspected, every public pool, food and beverage service establishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, or resort. For the propose of conducting inspections, the commissioner shall have the right to enter and have access thereto at any time during the conduct of business. Subd. 2. Inspection frequency. The frequency of inspections of the establishments shall be based on the degree of health risk. (a) High-risk establishments must be inspected at least once every 12 months. (b) Medium -risk establishments must be inspected at least once every 18 months. (c) Low-risk establishments must be inspected at least once every 24 months. Subd. 2a. Risk categories. (a) High-risk establishment. "High-risk establishment" means a public pool, or any food and beverage service establishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, or resort that: (1) serves potentially hazardous foods that require extensive processing on the premises, including manual handling, cooling, reheating, or holding for service; (2) prepares foods several hours or days before service; (3) serves menu items that epidemiologic experience has demonstrated to be common vehicles of food- borne illness; Copyright 02015 by the Revisor of Statutes,. State of Minnesota. All Rights Resewed. 157.20 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 12 (4) has a public swimming pool; or (5) draws its drinking water from a surface water supply. (b) Medium -risk establishment. "Medium -risk establishment" means a food and beverage service es- tablishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, or resat that: (1) serves potentially hazardous foods but with minimal holding between preparation and service; or (2) serves foods, such as pizza, that require extensive handling followed by heat treatment. (c) Low-risk establishment. "Low-risk establishment" means a food and beverage service estab- lishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, or resort that is not a high-risk or medium -risk establishment. (d) Risk exceptions. Mobile food units, seasonal permanent and seasonal temporary food stands, food carts, and special event food stands are not inspected on an established schedule and therefore are not defined as high-risk, medium -risk, or low-risk establishments. (e) School inspection frequency. Elementary and secondary school food service establishments must be inspected according to the assigned risk category or by the frequency required in the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, whichever frequency is more restrictive. Subd. 3. Orders. When, upon inspection, it is found that the business and property so inspected is not being conducted, or is not equipped, in the manner required by the provisions of this chapter or the miles of the commissioner, or is being conducted in violation of any of the laws of this state pertaining to the business, it is the duty of the commissioner to notify the person in charge of the business, or the owner or agent of the buildings so occupied, of the condition found and issue an order for correction of the violations. Each person shall comply with the provisions of this chapter or the rules of the commissioner. A reasonable time may be granted by the commissioner for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Subd. 4. Alternative compliance methods for delegated agencies. (a) A local agency operating with a delegation agreement under section 145A.07 may request approval from the commissioner to supplant subdivisions I to 3 with alternative compliance methods. The local agency must submitto the commissioner: (1) the alternative compliance methods that will be taken to ensure an equivalent degree of protection to public health, safety, or the. environment; (2) the reasons why alternative methods are requested; (3) a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the alternative methods; (4) a statement that the local agency applying for approval of the alternative methods will comply with the terms, if granted; and (5) other relevant information the commissioner determines necessary to evaluate the request. (b) The commissioner may approve the request if the alternative methods will have no potential adverse effect on public health, safety, or the environment and if the alternative methods are equivalent to or superior to those prescribed in subdivisions 1 to 3. In approving the request, the commissioner may attach conditions the commissioner determines are needed to protect public health, safety, or the environment. The com- missioner shall notify the local agency in writing of the commissioner's decision to approve or deny the request. If a request is denied, the commissioner shall specify the reasons for the denial. Copyright 02015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 13 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.22 Subd. S. Variance requests. (a) A person may request a variance from all parts of Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626, except as provided in paragraph (b) or Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. At the time of ap- plication for plan review, the person, operator, or submitter must be notified of the right to request variances. (b) No variance may be requested or approved for the following parts ofMinnesota Rules, chapter 4626: (1) Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0020, subpart 35; (2) Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.0040 to 4626.0060; (3) Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.0065 to 4626.0100; (4) Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.0105 to 4626.0120; (5) Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1565; (6) Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.1590 and 4626.1595; and (7) Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.1600 to 4626.1675. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 46; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 58,59; 2001 c 205 art 2 s 2; ISp2005 c 4 art 6 s 48,49; 2008 c 328 s 9,10; 1 Sp2011 c 9 art 2 s 24 157.21 INSPECTION RECORDS. The commissioner shall keep inspection records for all food and beverage service establishments, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, and resorts, together with the name of the owner and operator. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 47; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 60 157.215 [Repealed, 1 Sp2005 c 4 art 6 s 58] 157.22 EXEMPTIONS. This chapter does not apply to: (1) interstate carriers under the supervision of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; (2) weddings, fellowship meals, or funerals conducted by a faith -based organization using any building constructed and primarily used for religious worship or education; (3) any building owned, operated, and used by a college or university in accordance with health reg- ulations promulgated by the college or university under chapter t4; (4) any person, firm, or corporation whose principal mode of business is licensed under sections 28A.04 and 28A.05, is exempt at that premises from licensure as a food or beverage establishment; provided that the holding of any license pursuant to sections 28A.04 and 28A.05 shall not exempt any person, firm, or corporation from the applicable provisions of this chapter or the rules of the state commissioner of health relating to food and beverage service establishments; (5) family day care homes and group family day care homes governed by sections 245A.01 to 245A.16; Copyright C 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 157.22 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 14 (6) nonprofit senior citizen centers for the sale of home -baked goods; (7) fraternal, sportsman, or patriotic organizations that are tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), 501(c) (4), 501(c)(6), 501(c)(7), 501(c)(10), or 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or organizations related to, affiliated with, or supported by such fraternal, sportsman, or patriotic organizations for events held in the building or on the grounds of the organization and at which home -prepared food is donated by organization members for sale at the events, provided: (i) the event is not a circus, carnival, or fair; (ii) the organization controls the admission of persons to the event, the event agenda, or both; and (iii) the organization's licensed kitchen is not used in any manner for the event; (8) food timprepared at an establishment and brought in by individuals attending a potluck event for con- sumption at the potluck event. An organization sponsoring a potluck event under this clause may advertise the potluck event to the public through any means. Individuals who are not members of an organization sponsoring a potluck event under this clause may attend the potluck event and consume the food at the event. Licensed food establishments other than schools cannot be sponsors of potluck events. A school may sponsor and hold potluck events in areas of the school other than the school's kitchen, provided that the school's kitchen is not used in any manner for the potluck event. For purposes of this clause, "school" means a public school as defined in section 120A.05, subdivisions 9, 11, 13, and 17, or a nonpublic school, church, or religious organization at which a child is provided with instruction in compliance with sections 120A.22 and 120A.24. Potluck event food shall not be brought into a licensed food establishment kitchen; (9) a home school in which a child is provided instruction at home; (10) school concession stands serving commercially prepared, nonpotentially hazardous foods, as defried in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; (11) group residential facilities of ten or fewer beds licensed by the commissioner of human services under Minnesota Rules, chapter 2960, provided the facility employs or contracts with a certified food manager under Minnesota Rules, part 4626.2015; (12) food served at fund-raisers or community events conducted in the building or on the grounds of a faith -based organization, provided that a certified food manager, or a volunteer trained in a food safety course, trains the food preparation workers in safe food handling practices. This exemption does not apply to faith -based organizations at the state agricultural society or county fairs or to faith -based organizations that choose to apply for a license; (13) food service events conducted following a disaster for purposes of feeding disaster relief staff and volunteers serving commercially prepared, nonpotentially hazardous foods, as defined in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and (14) chili or soup served at a chili or soup cook -off fund-raiser conducted by a community-based nonprofit organization, provided: (i) the municipality where the event is located approves the event; (ii) the sponsoring organization must develop food safety rules and ensure that participants follow these rules; and Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 15 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2015 157.22 (iii) if the food is not prepared in a kitchen that is licensed or inspected, a visible sign or placard must be posted that states: "These products are homemade and not subject to state inspection." Foods exempt under this clause must be labeled to accurately reflect the name and address of the person preparing the foods. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 48; 2000 c 378 s 1; 2001 c 65 s 1; ISp2001 c 9 art I s 55; 2002 c 379 art Is113; 2009c79art10s38; 2009 c 142 art 2 s 10; 2011 c92s2; 2014c163s3 Copyright 0 2015 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. When should the City of Cottage Grove allow food trucks? (Check all that apply) All the Time 711 71% Special Events and Gatherings (i.e. sporting events) 401 40% Special Permitted Areas within the City (i.e. parks, wedding venues, etc.) 368 37% Business Parking Lots (i.e. lunch option for employees) 322 32% Other 14 1 % Where should the City of Cottage Grove allow food trucks? (Check all that apply) All of the Above 630 63% Commerical Areas Only 334 34% Public Parks 314 31% Residential Areas for Special Events Only 241 24% Not at All 10 1 % Would you support food trucks being allowed in the Business Park? Yes 454 96% No 40 4% Would you support food trucks being allowed at parks if they were required to obtain a permit? Yes -- 963 97% No 34 -3% If a tap room and/or brewery opened in Cottage Grove should they be allowed to have a food truck on site to serve food to their customers? Q T-1F_R9 S f kf Yes 926 93% No 73 Igo Which of the following do you support (Check all that apply)? "p. All of the Above 807 81% Breweries 489 49% Tap Rooms 489 49% Wineries 469 47% Cocktail Rooms 399 40% Distilleries 390 39% None of the Above 34 3% IEGRLIZF STREET- FOOD Published by the Institute for Justice's National Street Vending Initiative Authored by Bert Gall & Lancee Kurcab November 2012 SEUEn MYTHS nnD REALITIES ABOUT FOOD TRUCHS: WHY THE FRCTS SUPPORT FOOD-TRUCH FREEDOM By Bert Gall and Lancee Kurcob' Food trucks continue to grow in popularity throughout the country. But as the Institute for Justice detailed in a recent report, some cities have responded by enacting and enforcing laws that do not advance public health and safety, and serve no other purpose than to "protect" restaurants from competition from food trucks.Z Arguing in favor of these laws—such as those that bar food trucks from operating in popular commercial areas or that prohibit food trucks from parking within several hundred feet of any restaurant—their proponents rely upon several myths. Below, we list the seven most prevalent of these myths and, using facts and real-world examples, debunkthem. MYTH #1: The presence of food trucks is harmful to a city's restaurant industry. REALITY: The presence of food trucks does not hurt a city's restaurant industry, but instead helps it. Claims that food trucks spell doom for local restaurants are not only unsupported,3 but are also contradicted by the experiences of Los Angeles and Austin, which have enthusiastically welcomed mobile -food entrepreneurs. For example, the continued growth of the food -truck industry in Los Angeles—the birthplace of the modern food truck—in no way diminished L.A.'s vibrant restaurant scene. In fact, customers in a recent Zagat survey reported that they think the restaurant scene has continued to improve .4 In Austin, local restaurateurs and economists generally agree that the city's robust mobile -food scene has boosted the restaurant industry as a whole.5 Citing Los Angeles and Austin as positive examples, a group of restaurateurs in Pittsburgh have joined together to ask their city to get rid of restrictive regulations that have stifled the growth of the food -truck industry there because they have recognized that the "cities with the most vibrant food -truck scenes also have booming restaurant industries."6 Indeed, food trucks all over the country are helping to bolster the local restaurant industry in (at least) three specific ways: 1. Food trucks' presence increases the number of customers available to restaurants. Austin's food trucks and food trailers are a rising tide lifting all boats in the local restaurant industry; one way they have done so is by attracting more people—both new residents and tourists—into the city.' In Houston, restaurants have experienced increased business generated by food trucks parking nearby and drawing more people to the restaurants' neighborhoods. It is for this reason that restaurant owners have asked the Houston City Council to ease existing laws that make it difficult for food trucks to operate.$ And in Las Vegas, George Harris, the owner of Mundo, an award-winning upscale restaurant in Las Vegas, has observed that food trucks help his business by bringing new customers to the neighborhood? Furthermore, historical evidence suggests that banning food trucks from an area in which they currently operate will harm nearby restaurants by decreasing the number of potential customers. For example, when street vendors were banned from New York's Lower East Side and Chicago's Maxwell Street Market, brick -and -mortar businesses complained that they suffered lower revenues as a result.10 Simply put, food trucks draw people out of their offices and homes and into the community, opening their eyes to all of the meal options their neighborhood has to offer. 2. Food trucks provide restaurants with a great way to market and expand their business. All over the country, restaurant owners are launching their own food trucks. For example, the owners of Curried, an Indian restaurant in Chicago, started a food truck with the same name in order to better market the restaurant. Mission accomplished: "We've definitely seen an increase in business at the restaurant," says Scott Gregerson, Curried's managing partner.11 Jose Hernandez, general manager at POPS Cheesestakes in Las Vegas, says that the business at the restaurant's physical location has been boosted by the restaurant's food truck: "The truck has been great advertising." 12 Brian Pekarcik and Rick Stern, co-owners of Spoon and BRGR restaurants in Pittsburgh, just launched a BRGR truck for the same reason. "As brand recognition, it's a great advertising piece," they explained. "And we expect that it will drive customers to our restaurants."13 Similarly, Paul Lee, owner of The Winchester restaurant in Grand Rapids, Mich., explained that he opened the What the Truck food truck to serve "as an extension of [T]he Winchester. It allows for us to reach a greater audience and provide something unique to the city."14 3. Food trucks often serve as incubators for new restaurants. Several restaurants got their start as food trucks: Many chefs with a great concept, but without enough capital to start their own restaurant, launched food trucks to bring their cuisine to customers. Finding success in the food -truck arena, these chefs then accumulated enough capital to launch their own restaurants. For example, the New York Food Truck Association has 42 members, and 40 percent of them—including Mexicue, Souvlaki GR and Schnitzel & Things—now also have brick-and-mortarestablishments.Is These entrepreneurs are not an anomaly. Hundreds of other food -truck owners, including those profiled on the next page, have also opened new restaurants. Without the availability of the food -truck business model, these chefs might not have been able to open their restaurants. In sum, food trucks provide a boost to a city's restaurant industry. Examples of Food -Truck Entrepreneurs Opening Brick -and -Mortar Establishments Austin: In 2006, Michael Rypka opened a small food trailer on South First Street in Austin called Torchy's Tacos. The trailer became so successful that he was able to expand: Torchy's Tacos now has eleven brick -and -mortar restaurants, not just in Austin, but also Dallas and Houston. Michael now employs about 450 people.16 Boston: Ayr Muir graduated from MIT, earned his MBA from Harvard and began his career working at McKinsey & Company. But in 2008, he left the corporate world to follow his dream of becoming an entrepreneur and launched Clover Lab Food Truck. His locally sourced vegetarian fare has been such a huge hit with customers that Ayr has now been able to launch a total of six trucks and two restaurants in the Boston area .17 He now employs over 140 people.18 Chicago: In 1963, Dick Portillo opened a six -by -12 -foot hot dog trailer on North Avenue in Villa Park. Years later, Portillo's is a national brand—indeed, a brand that is nearly synonymous with the iconic Chicago hot dog—with 47 locations in Illinois, Indiana and California. Portillo Restaurant Group is now the largest privately owned restaurant company in the Midwest, with over 4,000 employees.19 Cleveland: Chris Hodgson was inspired to bring affordable gourmet food to Cleveland when he visited taco trucks in New York City. His first food truck, Dim and Den Sum, was so successful that he launched a second truck—Hodge Podge—which received nationwide fame when it finished second in the Food Network's hit show, The Great Food Truck Race. Chris partnered with a restaurateur to open Hodges restaurant in downtown Cleveland, and it now employs about 50 people 20 Seattle: In 2007, Chef Josh Henderson started serving classic American food, but with a gourmet twist, out of an Airstream trailer called Skillet. Skillet quickly became popular, in large part because of the delicious bacon jam in its gourmet burgers. In 2011, Josh opened up the Skillet Diner in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, and his business now includes catering and selling its bacon jam through retailers allover the country. He now employs almost 100 people .21 Washington, D.C.: Mike Lenard brought Korean fusion -style tacos to the nation's capital in August 2010 when he opened Takorean using a remodeled 1985 Ford step -van. Mike has now opened a permanent location at D.C.'s Union Market, serving up the same menu that made his truck so successful. Takorean was honored to be named one of Washingtonian Magazine's best food trucks in summer 2012, and the magazine recently billed the new Union Market location as one of 11 new restaurants its readers should visit.22 Mike currently employs nine people, and has imminent plans to hire five more employees if his sales continue their upward trend .23 MYTH #2: Trucks have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants because of their mobility. REALITY: It is true that food trucks' mobility allows them to serve customers in different parts of a city, but any advantage that this provides is offset by the many disadvantages of being a mobile operation. These disadvantages include: • Food trucks do not have a fixed location, which is a source of business goodwill and stability for restaurants.Z4 After all, it is easier to build a customer base when the customer can always be sure where the business is located. But food trucks have no guarantee that they will be able to find a parking location that is both available and convenient for their customers 25 Food trucks—unlike restaurants, which can offer climate -controlled dining rooms to their customers—are completely at the mercy of the weather. If it is raining, snowing or extremely hot, people will be far less inclined to stand in line at a food truck. Instead, they will go to a place where they can eat inside 26 Many trucks even take a hiatus duringthe winter because of the weather .27 Ice and snow present dangerous conditions, and spending hours each day in freezing temperatures can significantly affect their most valuable asset— their truck 28 • Food trucks cannot offer seating and table service for their customers. • Food trucks have extremely small kitchens that can hold far less inventory than restaurant kitchens; this means that food trucks can sell less food and must have a smaller menu. Additionally, preparing food in a small, cramped food -truck kitchen is more difficult than preparing food in a larger restaurant kitchen .29 • Food trucks cannot serve as many customers during the day as can an average restaurant. For example, once a food truck finds a parking space, it can take 30 minutes for set-up, and a similar amount of time to clean and pack up after the meal service is over. 30 This means that a truck that parks in a space with a two-hour parking limit only has around an hour to serve customers. That's less than half the time that a restaurant can generally allot to lunch service, and less than a quarter of the time that a restaurant can generally allot to dinner service .31 Food trucks, unlike restaurants, can, and often do, break down. Until repairs are made, the truck cannot serve customers, employees miss out on their shifts and the food in the commissary refrigerator may spoil.32 • A liquor license is a big moneymaker for restaurants,33 but food trucks are usually unable to obtain that license under local and state laws because they do not meet the requirement of having a fixed location 34 In a free-market system, there really are no "unfair" advantages between business models because all are free to be used by anyone. Even if a food truck's mobility could create an "unfair" advantage over restaurants, the many disadvantages described above swamp that one small advantage. MYTH #3: Trucks have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants because they are not subject to the same set of costs. REALITY: Restaurants generally do have higher costs than food trucks (e.g., buying or leasing restaurant space), but their return for paying all of those costs is getting the benefit of a fixed location and thus avoiding the many disadvantages that food trucks have. Furthermore, food trucks are in fact subject to many of the same costs that restaurants face. For example, food -truck owners must purchase liability insurance and pay license and permit fees. 35 Like other small business owners, truck owners must pay sales taxes, income taxes and payroll taxes.36 They must spend money to pay and train new employees, to purchase inventory and to market their business.37 Restaurants must either pay property taxes or rent, and the same is true for food trucks: Most cities require that food trucks associate with a commissary in which they can park and clean their truck, store their inventory and partially prepare their food.38 This means thal food -truck owners must (in addition to paying taxes on their vehicle) either pay property taxes or rent on the commissary space. There are other costs that food trucks have to pay that restaurants do not. For example, food -truck owners must spend money to purchase their trucks. A brand-new truck can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $300,000; a used truck can cost between $15,000 and $99,000.39 Owners must spend additional funds to outfit their trucks and maintain them. Truck owners must also pay for the costs of fuel (between $250 and $500 a month ),40 propane, parking, rental fees or building costs for a commissary or commercial kitchen, 41 as well as fees required to park in food -truck lots and to participate in festivals and other community events. 42 Finally, trucks that operate within more than one jurisdiction must pay for permits and fees within each of those jurisdiction S.41 In short, food trucks forgo the higher costs of operating a restaurant by forgoing all of the advantages that owning a restaurant provides. Food trucks are nonetheless subject to a whole host of costs, some of which restaurants do not have to pay. MYTH #4: Food trucks have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants because operating a food truck is easy. REALITY: Just like running a restaurant, running a food truck is extremely hard work. Ignoring all of the disadvantages and costs of the food -truck business model, many people still believe that, in the real world, running a food truck—unlike running a restaurant—is an easy way to make a lot of money. Try telling that to Miley Holmes, who runs the Easy Slider food truck in Dallas. She explains that "[t]he biggest misconception about this business is that it's a way to get rich quick. Margins are tight, space is limited, and the market is unpredictable. So the reality is that you are never going to make a fortune from running a food truck." Holmes describes workdays that begin at 9 a.m. and stretch to 3 a.m.: "People forget that we've been prepping for hours before our doors open," Holmes said, "and we spend hours cfeaning after we're closed. And we do it all two or three times a day, sometimes 14 or 15 days in a row!" Furthermore, "[t]here is no such thing as time off, just time off the truck. We're constantly emaifing, making phone calls or sourcing product."44 Holmes' 18 -hour workdays are not atypical. Even for operators who do a single meal service per day, the typical workday can range between 17 to 20 hours. 45 And make no mistake, the work is hard, Indeed, many people who experience running both restaurants and food trucks believe that running the latter is at least as difficult—or more difficult—than running the former: Celebrity Chef Ludo Lefevre has been a successful chef at some of Los Angeles' best restaurants and in 2010 he opened his critically acclaimed LudoTruck, which serves "impossibly juicy... fried chicken [that] is pretty close to the godhead," according to one famous critic46 Ludo is undoubtedly well-positioned to compare the difficulty of running a restaurant with that of running a food truck. As he points out, much of the work is the same: "People don't realize [that a food truck] is like a restaurant. You need to rent a commissary kitchen, hire a staff, and prep the staff. It's the same headache of a restaurant. It's not easy." And he notes at least one way in which running a food truck is more difficult: "At the restaurant, you have a big walk-in; you can always go and get some more vegetables." But with a food truck, "Sometimes our commissary kitchen is far away, and sometimes we're going to run out of food. There's nothing we can do.i47 Luke Holden started his Luke's Lobsters restaurant in New York City in 2009, and he opened three more brick -and -mortar locations before launching his food truck, Mobile Nauti, which topped Zagat's ratings of New York's food trucks for two consecutive years. For Holden, it's clear that his food truck is "more difficult to manage" than his restaurants. He says that his truck "has been more of an outreach tool than a cash-flow tool. There are a lot of inherent struggles that come with operating a truck. You can't determine what the weather will do or parking issues. It's a difficult business to build stability in, and if you can't build stability in, it's harder to staff."48 David Schillace owns New York's Mexicue restaurant, with two brick -and -mortar locations and a food truck. Based on his experience, "Hands down, bricks -and -mortar is easier." He explains, "Running three or four trucks, then working sixteen hours a day, is a nightmare. And it's still not going to make you rich." He notes that finances are a lot less predictable and stable with food trucks because people tend to order more food at a restaurant than at a food truck .49 In sum, running a food truck is hardly an easy job. Indeed, given all of the difficulties encountered by food -truck owners, it isn't surprising that many of them want to transition from the food -truck business model to the more stable restaurant business model, where issues such as the weather and inventory limitations are no longer constant obstacles so MYTH #5: Food trucks are unsanitary "roach coaches." REALITY: According to the available evidence, food trucks are generally just as clean and sanitary as restaurants. Just like restaurants, food trucks are subjected to health inspections on a regular basis. It is often the case that food -truck operators are inspected more frequently than their brick -and -mortar counterparts. 51 Indeed, for a forthcoming report, the Institute for Justice reviewed health department sanitation grades in Los Angeles from May 2009 through May 2012 and found that, on average, the food trucks in that city are just as clean and sanitary as restaurants. MYTH #6: Food trucks cause harmful sidewalk congestion. REALITY: No evidence supports the assertion that food trucks cause harmful sidewalk congestion. Although critics of food trucks complain that they cause harmful sidewalk congestion, there is no evidence to support that claim. To test it, the Institute for Justice collected original data in Washington, D.C. Researchers measured foot traffic and congestion in locations where food trucks were present on several different days, in different locations, and during the busy hours surrounding lunch. They found that the presence of a food truck did not drastically increase foot traffic on the sidewalk. In fact, the average time it took a pedestrian to travel the block varied by only one second when a food truck was added." Furthermore, the researchers documented a phenomenon that is common to anyone who has seen a food truck in action: Customers spontaneously form a single -file line alongside the edge of a sidewalk so that other pedestrians have plenty of room to pass by. Because it is in the interest of the food trucks to maintain positive relationships with neighboring businesses and the community, food -truck owners and operators encourage their customers to keep their lines orderly. The Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington has formalized this practice by adopting a code of conduct in which they have pledged to "mak[e] regular announcements reminding customers in line to keep the sidewalk and any building entrances clear so as not to impede public access."53 And, of course, cities can pass a law, like Los Angeles has done, that instructs food trucks not to operate in a manner "which will interfere with or obstruct the free passage of pedestrians or vehicles along any such street, sidewalk or parkway." 54 MYTH #7: Food trucks create a special trash problem because their customers are especially prone to littering. REALITY: Food -truck customers are not especially prone to littering, and food -truck operators act responsibly to ensure that trash is properly disposed. Food trucks' customers—just like the customers of fast-food restaurants and people who eat their packed lunch outdoors—have the potential to generate litter after consuming their food, but there is no evidence that food -truck customers are more likely to litter." Food trucks are generally required by municipal laws to carry a trash receptacle for their customers' use or to pick up any litter near the truck.56 Moreover, food -truck operators often go beyond the requirements of the law to ensure that they leave the areas in which they operate cleaner then how they found them. 57 Conclusion Food trucks do not have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants. The restaurant business model is more favorable than the food -truck business model in several ways, and food trucks actually help the local restaurant industry. There is no basis for the argument that restaurants need government intervention to "protect" them from food trucks. (And, as several federal courts have recognized, regulation for the sake of mere economic protectionism is constitutionally impermissible.I Nor is there any basis for the notions that food trucks pose some special threat to public health and safety. Instead of creating public policy based on these myths, elected officials should allow food trucks to operate freely within their cities, subject only to reasonable health and safety regulations. Doing so is good for the local entrepreneurs, the local economy and the local community. For guidance in creating a good legal framework for food trucks, see the Institute for Justice's most recent legislative report, Food Truck Freedom: How to Build Better Food Truck Laws in Your City. For more on the benefits provided by food trucks and other street vendors, check out the Institute's 2011 report, Streets of Dreams: How Cities Can Create Economic Opportunity by Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending. Both of these reports are available at www.im.org/vending. Endnotes 'Bert Gall is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. He directs IJ's National Street Vending Initiative, a nationwide effort to vindicate the right of street vendors to earn an honest living by fighting unconstitutional vending restrictions in courts of law and court of public opinion. Lanc6e Kurcab serves as the Institute for Justice's outreach coordinator. Through her outreach efforts and grassroots organizing, she helps entrepreneurs fight for their right to earn an honest living free from protectionist regulation. z Norman, E., Frommer, R., Gall., B. & Knepper, L. (2011). Streets of Dreams: How Cities Can Create Economic Opportunity by Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.ii.org/images/pdf folder/economic liberty/atl vending/streetsofdreams webfinal pdf. 3 Common reasons restaurants fail include not having a clear strategy, lack of flexibility, location, lack of capital, lack of knowledge and poor communication with consumers. Parsa, H. G., Self, J., Njite, D. & King, T. (August 2005). Why Restaurants Fail. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 304-322. 4 About Los Angeles Food Trucks. Roaming Hunger, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://roaminghunger.com/la; (2011, September 11). Zagat Celebrates 25 Years in Los Angeles; 2,027 Restaurants Surveyed by 11,166 Local Diners, Zagat.com, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.zagat.com/nodeL3695295. 5 Gaar, B. (2012, September 15). Food trailers bloom into key piece of Austin's economy. Austin -American Statesman, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.statesman.comznews/business/food-trailers-bloom-into- key-piece-of-austins-econ/nSLPx/. 6 Letter from Pittsburgh restaurateurs to Pittsburgh City Council, October 10, 2012. Gaar, 2012. s Dietrichson, M. (2012, September 19). Houston food truck ordinance taken to City Council. Houston Tomorrow, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/houston-food-truck- ordinance-taken-to-city-counci I/. 9 Harris, G. (2012, October 11). Brick -and -Mortar Restaurants Should "Embrace' Food Trucks. Nevada News and Views, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/17195. to Kettles, G. (2004). Regulating Vending in the Sidewalk Commons. Temple Law Review, 77(1), 31-32. 11 How My Restaurant Launched a Food Truck. NFIB, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http;//www.nfib.com/business-resources/busi ness-resources-item?crosid=60625. 12 Harris, 2012. 13 Batz, Jr., B. & Parrish, M. (2012, October 4). New website, talks, law keep Pittsburgh's food truck scene moving forward. Pittsburgh Post -Gazette, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.post- gazette.com/stori es/I ife/food/new-website-talks-law-keep-pittsburghs-food-truck-scene-moving-forward- 656055/#ixzz2A1 rL5 R51. 14 Rosalez, S. (2012, September 7). What the Truck supports local youth programs. The Ropidian, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://therapidian.org/what-truck-supports-local-youth-programs. 15 Clark, E. (2012, July 11). Hell on Wheels: Why Food Truck Owners Are Increasingly Turning to Brick -and -Mortar Shops. New York Magazine, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://newVork.grubstreet.com/2012/07/food- trucks-tu rn-to-stores-for-convenience-reliability.html. "Lynch, L. (2012, June 29). Michael Rypka of Torchy's Tacos talks Expansion and Secret Menu. Texas Monthly Magazine, Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/eatmvwords/?p=7678 Gaar, B. (2012, September 15). Food trailers bloom into key piece of Austin's economy. Austin -American Statesman, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.statesman.com/news/business/food-trailers-bloom-into-key-piece- of-austins-econ/nSLPx/. 12 Tilak, V. How to be a New England Vegetarian in the winter. The Boston Globe, Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazi ne/2012/11/03/how-new-england-vegetarian- wi nter/g5ts i 4eafXi r W 3vwCaJ k4N/sto rv. htm I. 18 (2012, February 2). How They Work: Clover Food Lab. Wistia, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://wistia.com/blog/how-they-work-clover-food-lab/. 19 History: From Modest Beginnings To The Midwest's Largest Privately Owned Restaurant Group. The Portillo Restaurant Group, Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.portillos.com/history/. 20 Goodman, V. (2012, April 20). Hodges Downtown offers some of the food trucks' playful fare. WKSU News, Retrieved October 15, 2012 from http://www.wksu.org/news/story/31324. 21 Evolved Cuisine. Skillet, Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://skilletstreetfood.com/company.pho. 22 Spiegel, A. (2012, October 10). 22 New (or Newly Improved) Places to Eat and Drink This Fall. Washingtonian Magazine, Retrieved October 29, 2012 from https://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/bestbites/food-restaurant- news/22-new-or-newly-improved-places-to-eat-and-drink-this-fall.php; Washingtonian Staff. (2012,. July 5). Best of Washington 2012: Best Meals on Wheels. Washingtonian Magazine, Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.washingtonian com/articles/best-of/best-of-washington-2012-best-meals-on-wheels/index php. 23 Interview with Mike Lenard, owner of Torchy's Tacos, November 5, 2012. 24 Courtis, J. (1983). Business Goodwill: Conceptual Clarification Via Accounting, Legal and Etymological Perspectives. The Accounting Historians Journal, 10(2), 1-38. This article reviews what attributes lead to business goodwill; location Is prominent among those attributes. 25 Clark, 2012. 26 Clark, 2012. 22 Myrick. R. (2012, October 91. Prepping Your Food Truck for Winter Storage. Mobile-Cuisine.com. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://mobile-cuisine.com/under-the-hood/food-truck-storage-tips/. 28 Myrick, R. (2011, December 15). Winter Food Truck Safety Tips. Mobile-Cuisine.com, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://mobile-cuisine.com/under-the-hood/winter-food-truck-safety-tlps/ Myrick, R. (2012). Running a Food Truck for Dummies. P. 216. 10 29 Trattner, D. (2011, September 28). Along for the Ride. Cleveland Scene Magazine, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/along-for-the-ride/Content?oid=2737264. 30 Gall, B. and Frommer, R. (November 2012). Food Truck Freedom: How to Build Better Food Truck Laws in Your City. P. 18, from www.ii.org/vending. 31 Fine, G. (1990). Organizational time: Temporal Demands and the Experience of Work in Restaurant Kitchens. Social Forces, 69(1), 98-99. The author notes that general lunch and dinner hours are between 11 a.m.-2:30 p.m. for lunch, and 5 p.m.-12 a.m. for dinner. 32 Weber, D. (2012). The Food Truck Handbook: Start, Grow, and Succeed in the Mobile Food Business. P. 14; Clark, 2012. 33 O'Toole, M. (2010, September 20). Path to Liquor License Often Bumpy. New York Times, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://eastvillage.thelocal nvtimes com/2010/09/30/path-to-liquor-license-often-bumpy/. 34 Food trucks cannot obtain liquor licenses in most jurisdictions, and the handful of jurisdictions in which trucks can obtain a liquor license have only granted them to trucks or carts that operate in a single location and are able to provide a defined outdoor dining area. See, e.g., Collins, G. (2011, June 9). What's Always Been Missing in Food Trucks: Alcohol. The New York Times, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from htti3://dinersiournal.blogs.nvtimes.com/2011/06/09/what-youve-always-wanted-in-a-food-truck-booze/ Rayle, S. (2012, April 23). Cartlandia—Portland's food carts gain a year-round liquor license. Examiner, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http•//www examiner com/article/cartlandia-portland-s-food-carts-gain-a year round liquor license. 35 Gail and Frommer, 2012. 36 A helpful collection of links to state government websites detailing the tax obligations of small businesses can be found on the website of the U.S. Small business administration at http://www.sba.gov/content/learn-about-vour- state-and-local-tax-obligations. Information on the federal tax obligations of employers can be found In the IRS Employer's Tax Guide at http://www.irs.gov/uac/Publication-15-%28Circular-E%29.-Employer%27s-Tax-Guide. 37 Myrick, 2012. 38 Gall and Frommer, 2012, p. 26. 39 Myrick, 2012, p. 32-33. 40 Myrick, 2012, p. 217. 41 Weber, 2012, p. 100. 42 According to Matthew Geller, CEO of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association, "Most events charge 10% which drastically eats into [food trucks'] margins. Lots can cost $25 to $200 just for the privilege of serving hungry customers." Interview with Matthew Geller, November 8, 2012. 43 According to Matthew Geller, CEO of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association, "Many food trucks have multiple business licenses and health permits. In cities like Los Angeles, many of the trucks must obtain multiple city permits in order to serve the demand around Los Angeles County. Most trucks in the area have eight business licenses with an average cost of $250. Many trucks also serve multiple counties. Each county 11 requires a county health permit. Many trucks have two or three health permits with an average cost of $750 each." Interview with Matthew Geller, November 8, 2012. 44 Daniels, L. (2012, June 4). Dreaming of Starting a Food Truck? First Read This, Then Figure Out Your Goal. Dallas Observer, Retrieved November 8,. 2012 from http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/citvofate/2012/06/dreaming of starting a food tr php. 45 Clover Food Truck 101. CloverFoodLab.com, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.cloverfoodlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Food-Truck-101.pdf; Myrick, 2012, p. 10-11; Interview with Jon Goree, co-owner of Seoul Food, October 20, 2012. 46 Gold, J. (2010, February 26). 99 Things to Eat in L.A. Before You Die. LA Weekly, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.laweekly.com/2010-02-26/eat-drink/99-th i ngs-to-eat-in-I-a-before-you-die/10/%20mo % 20chlca/. 47 Oches, S. (2012, October). Pedal to the Medal. QSR Magazine, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.gsrmagazi ne.com/executive-interviews/peda I-metal?page=2&microsite=575. q8 Zionts, S. (2012, March 1). Food Trucks' Rocky Roads to Success. Fox Business, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://smallbusiness.foxbusin ess.com/entrepreneurs/2012/03/01/food-trucks-rocky-roads-to-success/. 49 Clark, 2012. so Moore, G. (2012, August 17). Free lunch in the Financial District? Not at these food trucks. Boston Business Journal, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http:/Zwww.bizwournals.com/boston/blog/bottom line/2012/08/food truck-regu I ati on s. htm I?p age=al I. 51 Norman, Frommer, Gall and Knepper, 2011, p. 32; Armour, S. (2012, May 9). Gourmet Food Trucks Fight Inspectors' Perceptions. Bloomberg Businessweek, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www businessweek com/news/2012-05-09/gourmet-food-trucks-fight-inspectors-perceptions#p1; (2012, July 19). Food Trucks Inspected for Safety," WENS-10TV, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/07/19/columbus-food-trucks-inspected-for-safety html. 52 Norman, Frommer, Gall and Knepper, 2011, p. 32. 53 Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington/D.C. Food Truck Association, Food Truck Code of Conduct, Retrieved October 18, 2012 from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=i&g=&esrc=s&sou rce=web&cd=1&cad=ria&ved=OCB4QFIAA&url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww dcfoodtrucks org%2Fdl%2FDCFTA Application pdf&ei=1FmBU17iG6fCOQGOgoCQBA&usg=AFQiCNFLCc fio82QmZe kfmpbbZU U7gQ&sig2=nSOR5aCeFNXFRaRwVMhmVA. 54 See L.A. City Code § 56.08(c) 55 Hermosillo, J. (2012). Loncheras: A look at the stationary food trucks of Los Angeles. Masters Thesis; Los Angeles University of California. P. 8. Although police and city officials complained that loncheras increased litter, this is "contradicted by the reputation many seem to enjoy among their neighbors for maintaining their areas clean." 56 Gall and Frommer, 2012, p. 21. 57 The Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association takes it upon itself to pay for street cleanup after First Fridays and other community events in which food trucks participate. Interview with Attorney Jeffrey D. Dermer, 12 counsel for the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association, November 6, 2012. The Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington requires members to "keep the area around [their] vehicle clean and remove all trash at the end of [their] service period, leaving the location cleaner than when [they] arrived." Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington/D.C. Food Truck Association, Food Truck Code of Conduct, Retrieved October 18, 2012 from http://www google com/url?sa=t&rct=i&a=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=ria&ved=OCB4QFiAA&url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww dcfoodtrucks org%2Fdl%2FDCFTA Application pdf&ei=1FmBUJ7iG6fCOQGOaoCQBA&us¢=AFQiCNFLCc fio82QmZe kfmpbbZU U7aQ&sis2=nSORSaCeFNXFRaRwVMhmVA. 58 See, e.g., Merrifield v. Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978, 991(9th Cir. 2008) (striking down regulatory regime because it "was designed to favor economically certain constituents at the expense of others similarly situated, such as Merrifield"); Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220, 229 (6th Cir. 2002) (invalidating a rule permitting only funeral directors to sell caskets because it was a "naked attempt to raise a fortress protecting the monopoly rents that funeral directors extract from consumers"); see also St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille,—F.3d—, No. 11-30756, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22060, at *4 (5`h Cir. Oct. 23, 2012) ([N]either precedent nor broader principles suggest that mere economic protectionism of a pet industry is a legitimate government purpose.....") 13 FOOD TRS i s Better FoodT�"uclLLaw How to Build rn Your Citi D f00D MUCH HOW 10. --- '- , ------------ ---- - ''1R,9I��Aa�ety , -- ---9*4 - ------------ -�, -. Food -Safety i Licensing 1 Hours of ; Enforcement ; ; ,Operatio ; ,.fro � ' i- � ------------ -------------------- � Employee Liability ; Sanitation : ; assurance ; Commissary Requirements 11�; 1 � Refuse D f00D MUCH HOW 10. FpOD TRUCH ow to Build Better Food Truek Laws flin Your City ■/1 by Robert Frommer and Bert Gall l� Institute for Justice IJ November 2012 FOREWORD This report is a project of the Institute for Justice's National Street Vending Initiative, which the Institute created in 2010 to promote freedom and opportunity for food -truck operators and other street vendors. The initiative also seeks to combat anti-competitive and protectionist laws that stifle the economic liberty of mobile -food operators and street ven- dors. Through this initiative, the Institute has successfully fought protectionist restrictions in court, and it encourages cities to instead enact narrowly tailored laws that address legitimate public health and safety concerns while not stifling entrepreneurial drive and opportunity. (For current news about the initiative, go to http://www.ij.org/vending.) In 2011, as part of its educational efforts, the Institute published Streets of Dreams: How Cities Can Create Economic Opportunity by Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending, which for the first time documented anti-competitive laws and regulations that restrict street vendors in the SO largest cities in America. In response to that report and the growing popularity of food trucks, officials and food - truck operators have asked for examples of good laws that allow the food -truck industry to flourish while also protecting public health and safety. The Institute for Justice, drawing on its research of food -truck laws nationwide, as well as its experience litigating vending cases and its discussions with food -truck operators, associations and government officials, created this document: Food Truck Freedom: How to Build Better Food -Truck Laws in Your City. TABLE OF COATEATS Executive Summary 5 Introduction 7 Case Study: Los Angeles - 10 LosAngeles from the Trenches 12 How Cities Should Address Public Health and Safety Issues 14 Food -Safety 14 Food Safety F.nforcentent 15 Parking 16 I1 Original Research on Food Trucks and Sidewalk Congestion 19 Refuse 21 Liability Insurance 22 Hours of Operation 23 Employee Sanitation 24 Commissary Requirements 25 Permitting and Licensing 26 Conclusion 29 EXECUTwE SUMMARY America is experiencing a food -truck revolution. These mobile kitchens are a way for new and innovative chefs who are long on ideas but short on capital to try out new concepts and dishes. Thanks to their low start- up costs, food trucks give new entrepreneurs the opportunity to get into business for themselves at a fraction of what it would cost to open a restaurant. These new businesses offer consumers more dining options, create jobs, and improve the overall quality of life in their communities. In order to foster the conditions that will let food trucks thrive in their cities, officials should remember the two principles of good food -truck policy: 1) no protectionism; and 2) clear, narrowly tailored, and outcome - based laws. The following recommendations—based on the legislative best practices of Los Angeles and other cities that have experience regulating food trucks—exemplify those principles. FOODSRFETY: The institute for Justice recommends that cities follow their state and county health codes. To the extent the county or state food code does not deal with a specific issue, the Institute recommends that officials follow the requirements of Chapter 10 of the California Retail Food Code, which governs food trucks. FOOD -SAFETY ERFORCEmERT: The Institute recommends that cities follow the approach of Los Angeles County, which inspects trucks both when they are first permitted and periodically when they are in the field. Inspectors should hold food trucks and restaurants to the same standards. PRRHIDO: Proximity Restrictions and Restricted Zones: Cities should not pass or retain laws that tell food trucks they may not operate either within a certain distance of a brick -and -mortar competitor or in select parts of the city. Protecting a few select businesses from competition is not a proper government role; instead, cities should regulate only to protect the public against actual health and safety concerns. Distance to Intersections: The Institute recommends that cities follow the example of EI Paso, Texas, which states Allows food trucks to operate on the public way so long as they are not parked within 20 feet of an intersection. Use of Metered Parking Spaces: The Institute recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles by allowing food trucks to operate from metered locations. Duration Restrictions (How Frequently Food Trucks Must Move): The Institute recommends that cities follow the examples of Philadelphia and New York City, which do not force food trucks to move after a certain period of time. Potential Sidewalk Congestion: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles, which specifies only that food trucks not operate in a manner "which will interfere with or obstruct the free passage of pedestrians or vehicles along any such street, sidewalk or parkway." REFUSE: The Institute recommends that cities follow Los Angeles' approach, which requires trucks to "pick up, remove and dispose of all trash or refuse which consists of materials originally dispensed from the catering truck" and to provide "a litter receptacle which is clearly marked with a sign requesting its use by patrons." Cities should further specify the precise distance from the truck for which operators are responsible. LIABILITY IOSURAOCE: The Institute recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles, which does not require trucks to purchase liability insurance beyond the amount required of all vehicles under state law. HOURS OF OPERATIOn, The Institute recommends that cities follow Los Angeles' approach and not restrict when food trucks may operate. EMPLOYEE SAAITATIOn: Handwashing: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles County and the California Retail Food Code, which requires trucks to have handwashing stations if they prepare food, but does not require them on trucks selling only prepackaged foods like frozen desserts. Bathroom Access: The Institute recommends that cities emulate Las Vegas, Charlotte and Portland, Ore., by not requiring that food trucks enter into bathroom -access agreements with brick -and -mortar businesses. COMMISSARY REOUIREMEMS: The Institute recommends that cities follow the example of Portland, Ore., which exempts food trucks that carry all the equipment they need to satisfy health and safety concerns from having to associate with a commissary. For trucks that do require commissaries, the Institute recommends that cities follow Los Angeles County's approach of allowing trucks to share commissary space. Cities, however, should not follow Los Angeles County's practice of forbidding shared commercial kitchens, and should emulate the models put forward by cities like Austin, Texas, and San Francisco, LlcEnsmc: Application Process: Cities should follow the licensing approach of Los Angeles County, which has a simple and straightforward application process. In terms of guidance, cities should emulate Boston and Milwaukee, which have both published step-by-step instructions to guide entrepreneurs through the licensing process. Cost: The Institute recommends that cities should impose a flat annual fee in the range of $200-300, as both Cleveland and Kansas City, Mo. have done. To the extent that a city issues licenses on a calendar year basis, its fee should be prorated so a truck first getting on the road halfway through the year would pay only half the full -year amount. Who the License Covers: The Institute recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles County by licensing the overall vending business rather than the individual vendor. Limits on the Number of Permits Issued: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles and not limit the number of food -truck permits. The specific laws and regulatory ma- terials upon which these recommendations are based are discussed thoroughly in the pages that follow. Cities should implement these recommendations, which will both protect public health and safety and allow food -truck entrepreneurs to create and run businesses that will createjobs, in- crease customer choice, and boost the local economy. FOEEoom InTRODUCTIOn The food truck revolution is sweeping the nation. In 2010, The Economist magazine predicted that "some of the best food Americans eat may come from a food truck. "I That prediction has become true. Gourmet trucks across the country are at the forefront of modern dining, serving affordable and delicious fare that rarely can be found at the neighborhood sandwich shop. In addition, food -truck "rallies" have become popular social events around the country, with events frequently drawing thousands of hungry customers.' These mobile kitchens are also powerful engines of economic growth. Together, food trucks directly employ thousands of people nation- wide, and the trucks, equipment, and food they purchase generate millions in economic activity. In its 2011 research report on street vending entitled Streets of Dreams, the Institute for Justice explained how street vendors, including food -truck owners, are creatingjobs, satisfying customers and generally making their communities safer and more interesting places to live.' Below arejust some of the benefits that food trucks are providing as their numbers grow in cities across the country: • Food trucks createjobs, buy products and services from local businesses, and contribute sales taxes and permit fees to cities. • Food trucks attract foot traffic to commercial districts—which means increased sales and a more vibrant retail - business environment overall. Food trucks serve as "eyes on the street" and make the street a safer and more enjoyable place to visit. Their presence can help prevent crime and revitalize underused public spaces. • Food trucks give entrepreneurs with big dreams, but only a little capital, a way to start their own food -service businesses. In many instances, trucks serve as a stepping stone toward opening a brick - and -mortar space. Food trucks also give existing restaurants a new way to reach their customers. In Part I of this report, the Institute for Justice outlines two important general principles for regulating food trucks, and then discusses how those principles have led to a thriving food -truck economy in the city of Los Angeles, which has the best overall legal framework for food trucks in the country. In Part 11, the report discusses how Los Angeles and other cities have addressed specific regulatory issues based on an Institute survey of the food -truck laws in the 50 largest cities in the United States. Using these examples, as well as discussions with government officials, food -truck owners and other stake- holders, the report then offers recommendations as to what cities' laws are models that other cities should follow. TWO IRIPORTRRT PPoRCIPLES FOR THE Maim OF FOOD TRUCHS In this report, the Institute discusses a variety of specific vending issues. While the details of each city's laws concern- ing these issues may vary, the Institute for Justice has found that the best laws typically follow the same pattern of 1) not protecting incumbent businesses from competition, and 2) providing clear, narrowly tailored and outcome -based rules that address actual health and safety issues. Given the rapid growth of the food -truck industry, it is little surprise that city officials across the country have started to look for an- Principle ui: No Protectionism swers about how to regulate this new culinary Cities should not pass laws meant to protect established trend. The purpose of this report is to provide businesses from competition from food trucks. Some of the those answers. anti-competitive laws the Institute for Justice first identified 1 Jon Fasmpv, Dealing Delirious, Tat Eomo4r, NoveinherN, 3010, htlp/Aww.ecunomist, caminodell1d9321a. 2 See, a ,Sarah Mat han, Organizers bane to gimeDelmore, D.C.loeJlmckeengetilirn, Bwumnt BaamFaa JuoH e,. June Z, 2012, INnvv,hizlnurnals.comNallimornlnmvsl201]iD6pyorgonizersJmpa'To Inze.billairra. hurl. 3 Erin Nnrmeo, Aahertkommer, Ben Ooll & Gsa Kneppeg Srwers ns Deaa�Hnvr Cmcs Cur Cnesrt Ec...axii Dewmu- emer K,,oiana Dose Fccici omn Benning To Sean Venmvo 120111, hnp:INnvv.ij.prgMrdetsol-0teams4 in Streets of Dreams prevent trucks from operating in certain commercial areas, require trucks to move after an arbitrarily short time, and even stop trucks from operating within a certain distance of their brick -and -mortar competitors. These protectionist laws do not help protect public health or safety. Instead, they stifle entrepreneurship, destroyjobs and hurt consumers both by raising prices and giving them fewer choices a Many of these laws are the result of lobbying by a few politically connected and powerful brick -and -mortar restaurants, which argue that since food trucks don't have the same costs in terms of rent and property taxes, they amount to "unfair competition." Of course, this argument ignores the fact that restaurants have many advantages over food trucks. No food truck, for instance, can offer its patrons heating or air conditioning. Trucks generally can't offer customers anywhere to sit. And since space on a food truck is limited, once a truck is out of forks, knives and other supplies, it's just out; there's no stockroom in the back to turn to. With all these inherent advantages, restaurants don't need the additional advantage of government intervention to "protect" them from food trucks. Furthermore, enacting rules to protect some businesses from competition isn'tjust wrong, it's unconstitutional. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have held that it is illegitimate for state and local governments to pass laws that burden one set of businesses in order to benefit another, more politically powerful, group s 9 Gu.vx Hn,,. &Axwmn Purves O'Bxrtx, Eooxvsuos d62-63 (dp, ed.101311exVlainin0 v�ellare ¢(Ions of Yuvannnem ha,,ws to en b 5 See, a g, Wfra life ins. co ¢Word. 120 U.S. 969 (19851: C,au.les a Gilvs, 312 Fad 22016N Ci, 2002}, Menih& V, tocryeq 5d2 Fad 92819th Cic 20081: Cx a Hamidml 90 F Supp Td 1161, 13.0, Cal. 19991. W's 2011 vending publication, Streets of Dreams Principle u2: Clear, Narrowly Tailored and Outcome -Based Laws Cities should focus their efforts on enacting clear, narrowly tailored and outcome -based rules that address legitimate and demonstrable health and safety concerns. First, any laws that a city enacts should be drafted in a clear and easy -to - understand way. Clear laws are easier for food -truck operators to follow, since they need not guess at what the law requires or prohibits. They make it easier for new entrants to get permitted and on the road. And, lastly, clear laws are easier for a city to administer and create less risk that officials will apply vaguely worded restrictions in an unfair and anti-competitive manner. Second, cities should enact narrowly tailored laws in order not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. In 111 FAEED�m c�3 IMF 1N other words, putting rules in place that go no further than what is needed to solve the particular problem at hand. Overly broad and restrictive regulations don't better protect the public, but they can make running a business more difficult, if not impossible. One example comes up with regard to congestion. In New York City, the areas around theaters can often become quite crowded, particularly as theaters let out. New York's narrow solution is to prevent food trucks from operating at these specific locations during show time. By contrast, turning all of midtown Manhattan into a "no -vending zone" would be regulatory overkill and would appear to be born more out of protectionism than any legitimate concern for public health and safety. Officials should also enact outcome - based regulations, rather than regulations that specify particular methods or processes. Regulations that focus on results are simpler to follow and give food trucks an opportunity to figure out the best way to solve the problem. One example is how cities regulate trash. Although most cities require food trucks to pick up their refuse, a few cities painstakingly detail the kind of trash cans a truck should use and where they must be placed. This top- down approach stops trucks from coming up with creative solutions, and its one -size -fits -all nature means that some trucks will have to carry trash cans that are far larger and more unwieldy than what they actually need. Instead, cities should lay out their regulatory goal and then give the trucks flexibility in how they make that goal happen. Ultimately, the prescription for food -truck success is simple: provide trucks with clear, narrowly tailored and outcome -based rules that address the public's legitimate health and safety concerns, And then step back and watch this new, dynamic industry, with its jobs, satisfied customers and revitalized public spaces, flourish. To see how these two principles have been applied in the real world, look no further than how the birthplace of the modern gourmet food -truck movement—the city of Los Angeles—regulates food trucks. 10 r. . � et'- e •,. CASE STUDY; LOS HGELES Of all the cities in the United States, few are more closely identified with the food -truck revolution than the City of Angels. For decades, "loncheros" served tacos, burritos and tamales to construction crews and the occasional office worker .6 Then in late 2008, two entrepreneurs named Roy Choi and Mark Manguera came up with the idea for a Korean/ Mexican fusion taco truck? Naming their creation "Kogi," the two struggled at first, frequently setting up outside nightclubs in Hollywood.' But soon Kogi went viral after Manguera and Choi started using Twitter to let people know where the truck would be at any given time.' Since then, Kogi has been a wild success and now has four color -coded trucks on the road 10 Other entrepreneurs quickly realized the potential that gourmet food trucks had to offer. Within a few years, numerous entrepreneurs began to roll out their own kitchens on wheels. Now Angelenos have access to trucks selling everything from Vietnamese Banh Mi sandwiches to Hawaiian shave ice and home -style macaroni and cheese. The public reception for the trucks has been overwhelming, and the advent of food trucks has in no way diminished L.A.'s vibrant restaurant culture. Instead, Zagat.com reports that restaurant customers believe that the area's restaurant scene has improved" But a more -vibrant food scene is not the only gift the trucks have given Los Angeles. The growth in Los Angeles' food -truck industry has created hundreds, if not thousands, of newjobs, both on the trucks themselves and also at the businesses that design the trucks, build them, and supply them with the equipment and ingredients that they need. Furthermore, having the food trucks out and about draws hungry customers outside as well, and as urban theorist Jane Jacobs pointed out,"a well -used street is apt to be a safe street."" Lastly, food trucks are entrepreneurship incubators. Food trucks, with their lower capital costs, are a way for chefs to try out new cuisines and new ideas. Those owners who succeed often take their winning ideas one step further by expanding their businesses and sometimes opening brick -and -mortar spaces. As a result of his food - truck success, for instance, Kcgi's Roy Choi expanded his empire into brick -and -mortar locations, including his new restaurant named Chege." The food trucks' success in the city of Los Angeles, along with the great benefits those trucks provide, show that L.A.'s regulatory framework is one that other cities would do well to emulate. What makes Los Angeles a success comes from its adherence to the two principles discussed above. First, Los Angeles' regulations are not designed to stifle food trucks for the purpose of protecting brick -and -mortar restaurants from competition. As discussed above, incumbent businesses often ask local governments to put roadblocks in the way of their new competitors. But Los Angeles' code contains few if any anti- competitive restrictions. Unlike Chicago, San Antonio and New Orleans, for instance, Los Angeles does not say that food trucks cannot operate within a certain distance of theirbrick- and -mortar counterparts. This difference is partially due to an earlier ruling by a California court that such proximity restrictions are unconstitutional" Likewise, Los Angeles does not require that food trucks must be hailed before they stop and serve customers. And it does not artificially restrict when food trucks may operate. Furthermore. California law has helped protect the public against attempts at protectionist legislation. In July 2006, the city of Los Angeles passed an ordinance that ordered food trucks to move every 30 or 60 minutes depending on whether they were in a residential or commercial area.15 The city began to stringently enforce the duration restriction in 2009, but it was soon rebuffed. On June 10, 2009, Judge Barry Kohn of the California Superior Court invalidated the ordinance because it expressly conflicted with the state vehicle code, which permits cities to regulate vehicle vendors only "for the public safety."1fi A similar duration restriction in the Los Angeles County code [ had earlier met the same fate .17 6 Jesus HormosilIn. LOCH ERAS: A laocanxeSaTwueav Fora Tauri ps Ws Nue¢s.Sept 11110, IdIP1Mlabocucla. 12 SbAJens Jnmaa,Txs D.. aoo brt or Gus, Avse,cnry Cma39119321. adu/publisationsac porodLocOeres.pol 13Chego1, hop //eatclie gotoml. 1 Jassha GelCKaglflown BBO,alow frock brollglllro you byTxIDer, LA, iers, role, 11,2N9, hltp•Idauw.la0mes.mw IeaWrpvlalo-kogil l-20091rb11,0,d)11259s1ory 11 People a Ala Calm Careen r 9.169 Cal. fl,V.919(Col . AVP OaPt SUPe, Cl. 1919). 9 Mwdg Sbiadlec Rid, Saogo, osh K11j Zem.cmy Apr. 6,2005.ATP ihwsr.rO)LroadbUcoi11r elsba"rah-od 15L0.C1y Code 3A0)31h1311n. 9 Jessica Gift, KogiKarean BSO. a taro borkbrochno yuuby fiettec LA.Tres, Feb. I1,2fl09, httpiAwwJadmeseew 16 Cel Vehicle Code 41N551hl; Pressgelease, UCLA Sollml of Law,VCLASchoolo/ Law Cliniaolneemd 9ra"na ea on tealmevla to soon l-20031ebl 1,O,171256,s,ey ehalleo,h, enceRy Way Angeles eilyroiis,ei a loolemenred agamtlaed rocks, Juan 1y 2009. hep/Awaidaw. prig.eduhews-roodia/Pages/Neses oe lNesion 437. 10 Kogi SBO -To -Go, lab:btogibbq.coml. 17 People u. Gamin, No.OEA06311 at 6 (Cal. Sup. Cl Aug. 27,20091 17eforring t9 Los Angeles County Code 17,62,0701, 112agaecmn,Zagar Celebrates 25 years in Los Angelo;2,02) Hasrewams Survayed0y21,166kopalOiners, Sept. ll, 2011,hep:lAxvuzaeat.cominode/Ya95295. 10 F0O TAW Second, the laws that the city of Los Angeles does have in place are generally narrowly tailored to deal with actual health and safety issues, straightforward, and focus on results rather than on methods and processes. Together, the state, county and city have established rules to govern, among other things, what facilities and equipment a truck must carry on board, how it prepares food and where it may operate. In Los Angeles, the law does not micromanage trucks; instead, it merely requires that they obey the traffic rules applicable to all vehicles,18 follow basic safety precautions'' and pick up after themselves?° That said, some provisions of Los Angeles' laws are overly burdensome. The city's requirement that trucks not park within 100 feet of an intersection '21 for instance, seems excessive, particularly since other communities allow for much more reasonable distances.0 USI1113 LOS RRGELES RS R STRUM POW Although they are not perfect, and have been the subject of fights both in council chambers and the courts, Los Angeles' food -truck regulations are generally a success. Los Angeles has avoided protectionist laws in favor of clear, narrowly tailored and outcome -based health and safety rules, and its approach should serve as a starting point for cities that are drafting their own food truck laws. On the next two pages, the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors' Association emphasizes the benefits of the approach. Then starting on page 14, the Institute for Justice will discuss various food - truck topics and explain where L.A. has done well, where it has gone awry, and where other cities might have a superior approach. The Institute will then go on to provide specific recommendations that cities can adopt to address the main public health and safety issues concerning food trucks. 18 LA. City Code § K731h 112)191. 19 LA. City Code § 80.)3Ib)(2)IC11requiring that truck operators only serve customers from fen side of dee truck abutting She sidewalk) 20 LA. City Code§ 80J31b11211E1. 21 L.A. Car, Code 90ANdL 22 See, e.g., n Pace CRY Code § 11A8.02010 Iraqueneg IbaElmcks not operate whin Xfeet of an intersection)) 11 Los Angeles from the Trenches by Matt Geller, CEO, and Jeffrey Dermer and Kevin Behrendt, Counsel, Southern California Mobile Food Vendors' Association Southern California is the most mature mobile -vending market in the United States. The traditional taco trucks, or "loncheros," have been a familiar sight in California for generations. As a result of this unique history, Southern California and Los Angeles are more comfortable with mobile vending than perhaps other parts of the United States. Furthermore, this experience has left Los Angeles with the most well-developed and mature set of regulations in the country. But none of this came easily. Over the years, public -interest advocates have fought tirelessly in the courts, in the state legislature, and in local government halls for a more reasonable regulatory environment for mobile vending. Other states and cities would do well to avoid these battles and instead simply "cut to the chase" by repealing any protectionist laws on their books and passing narrow regulations that deal with actual health and safety issues. By emulating the best parts of Los Angeles' regulatory landscape as described in this report, officials throughout the country can make sure that trucks comply with the law and that consumers and residents are satisfied. Below, we briefly describe how Los Angeles' unique regulatory landscape has evolved and the economic and social benefits that it has helped produce. Mobile Vending in Los Angeles Historically, mobile vending in Los Angeles was primarily a business for recent immigrants. Many of the taco trucks of the 1970s and 1980s were founded and run by Mexican immigrants, These trucks faced discriminatory enforcement of the laws and, in some cases, outright attempts by city officials to shut down mobile vending in many communities. Those pioneers fought back by pairing with civil-rights lawyers to push back on the most egregious of these laws, including one that prohibited food vending within 100 feet of a restaurant's front door." The current state of regulations is a testament to those advocates. Another key to California's vending landscape came in 1984, when the California Legislature passed a landmark provision telling cities that they may only regulate mobile vending "for the public safety."" One year later, the Legislature went one step further by preventing cities from instituting outright bans on mobile vending for any reason: s This law has helped food trucks fight back against anti- competitive restrictions at the city and county levels, 23 People a Ab Cane Caleang Co. 159 Cal. Hpir 4751CeI. App. Be I] Super U 1979E 24 Cal, Vehicle Code 4224550d. 25 Mor spacifirapv.@x1989 nniendmentansealion2245g,emavadtl,a final aemancn Asld,soelian B), 111101 pievlppelyreed'.-An ardivanae n, eellnhan edepled pnrsnaram this sehdlvlsian mayprobibll vending (rama vehicle upon a s"eaC The late 2000s saw the rise of the modern gourmet food truck. In the past, food trucks had primarily served construction workers on job sites. This business model worked well during the boom times, but the real-estate collapse of 2007-08 meant that there were few construction sites to service. Faced with a massive excess capacity of catering vehicles, many entrepreneurs bought trucks and repurposed them. This was helped, in part, by the fact that Los Angeles is home to a family -business culture and a large 12 �1f1 EREE00(A - number of different ethnic groups, many of whom brought new food concepts to this emerging industry. But the growth in this new industry ruffled some feathers, including corporate quick -serve restaurants and the commercial developers who rent to them. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, these forces made a concerted effort to pass new protectionist laws in the city of Los Angeles and elsewhere. Although Los Angeles itself refrained from enacting any new anti-competitive restrictions, some other municipalities in the area passed restrictive vending laws and began to enforce anti- competitive laws that were already on the books. It was against this backdrop that the food trucks in Southern California joined forces to create the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association. Only two years old, the Association has grown from 30 initial members to over 150 members. Through education, lobbying and litigation, the Association has sent a clear message to regulators that consumer choice and entrepreneurship should come first. 13 Thankfully, forward-looking officials in Los Angeles have heard this message, embraced it, and now see the benefits that come from giving food trucks the freedom to operate. This hands-off approach has spawned an entirely new food - truck industry, with many companies now building and customizing food trucks, supplying graphic wraps for new entrepreneurs and selling technology to help consumers both locate their favorite trucks and order from them. The number of trucks has grown, leading to hundreds of newjobs. And the increased competition has pushed everyone, both food trucks and brick -and -mortar restaurants, to cook and serve food that is better tasting and a better value. Competition is what makes America great, and Los Angeles' regulatory model wisely embraces that competitive spirit and rejects the idea that the government should protect certain businesses at the expense of consumers. The city's approach to regulating food trucks has worked for Los Angeles, and it can work for your city as well. HOW CITIES SHOULD ADDRESS PUBLIC HEALTH ADD SAFETY ISSUES In the following pages, the Institute for Justice discusses how cities should address some major topics surrounding food trucks, including these health and safety issues: Food Safety Food -Safety Enforcement Parking Refuse Liability Insurance • Hours of Operation Employee Sanitation Commissary Requirements Licensing For each issue, the Institute will describe the applicable law in Los Angeles and explain its advantages and drawbacks. It will then examine how other cities address the issue and explain why those other approaches are better or worse than what L.A. does. Finally, the Institute will recommend what law cities should adopt and give reasons for that recommendation. Throughout, the report will provide citations to the pertinent laws. 26 Cal. Health and Safety Cade tg 113700 01504, 2l Cal. Heath and SaNty Coda 41 f42agal (stating det, *HRI mobile food facilities and motile supportunds shall meat the applicable requiremam In Chapters Ito 8, Inclusive, and Chepler 13, unless speailically exempted from anv olthaa Wovisinna'I. 20 Cal. Health and Safety Cado4114NI. NCA Heath and Safety Code 4I I033(b)(11. 30 Cal. Health and Safety Cade t 11011. 31 Cal. Health and Catchy Code 4112328(h1101. FOOD SAFETY HOLO LOS AAGELES REGULATES FOOD SAFETY: The city of Los Angeles does not regulate the design of food trucks, how they store and cook food or what procedures they must follow in cleaning their equipment and utensils. Instead, this function is performed by the Los Angeles County Health Department, which administers the rules set forth in the California Retail Food Code.'° That code prescribes how all food businesses, restaurants and food trucks included, must be designed and run. While the Food Code has general rules that are applicable to all food sellers," it also contains food -truck specific rules. The code, for instance, specifies the requisite amount of aisle space within the cooking portion of the truck2S and mandates that utensils be secured so they are not thrown about while the truck is moving.29 The code also imposes different requirements on trucks based on what the vehicle will be used for. If food will be prepared and cooked on board a food truck, for instance, the code requires that the vehicle be equipped with both warewashing and handwashing sinks30 and that any deep fryers be sealed using a positive air pressure lid 31 Trucks that do not prepare and cook food need not meet these requirements. HOW OTHER CITIES REGULATE FOOD SAFETY: As in Los Angeles, in most cities the regulations concerning food safety aboard food trucks come from state or county retail -food codes. In Phoenix, for instance, the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code governs how food trucks are regulated .32 That code requires that trucks follow the general provisions that are 22 klarimpa County Eavironmmncel Heald, Code, 14 applicable to brick -and -mortar restaurants, but it also imposes some additional, food - truck specific regulations. Likewise, the regulations that govern food safety for food trucks in Indianapolis are governed by the retail food establishment sanitation requirements of the Indiana Administrative Code, which govern both mobile and fixed - location food providers." Often the design and construction requirements for a food truck turn on what the truck will be used for. New York City, for instance, has two different sets of regulations for food trucks based on whether the food truck will be selling food that requires any cooking or processing in the vehicle (excluding the boiling of hot dogs). The two categories are subject to different requirements, which are a mix of state and local sanitary and health codes .31 Likewise, the food -truck application for Portland, Ore., details four classes of vehicles and the specific requirements that apply to each class 35 IOSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RECommEnORTI00: The Institute for Justice notes that most municipalities follow the food -safety rules established in county or state food codes, which are typically based on industry best practices. To the extent the county or state food code does not deal with a specific issue, the Institute recommends that officials follow the requirements of Chapter 10 of the California Retail Food Code, which governs food trucks 35 Furthermore, cities drafting their own regulations should, as the California Retail Food Code does, customize those requirements based on what the truck will serve. Safety or cooking equipment that is necessary for a truck where food is prepared may well be unnecessary for a truck that sells only prepackaged food or ice cream. Regardless of what law a city follows, though, it should lay out what precise steps operators must take. Having officials rely on informal customs and standards that are unknowable to those on the outside unnecessarily increases both uncertainty and costs to would- be entrepreneurs. FOOD-SAFETYEnFORCEMEM HOW FOOD SAFETY IS EOFOACED UI LOS ROGELES: Los Angeles County is the government body responsible for administering the state retail -food code and inspecting food trucks." Its rules call on county officials to perform unannounced field inspections of trucks. In early 2011, the county started assigning letter grades to food trucks based on the results of their inspections, which mirrored what the county already did for brick -and -mortar restaurants 33 Food trucks must display the grade they received on their vehicle 39 Food truck owners have largely welcomed this change, which gives them the opportunity to show that they are just as clean and sanitary as their brick -and -mortar counterparts .40 HOW OTHER CITIES EDFORCE FOOD SAFETY: Cities are split as to who inspects mobile food vendors. Approximately half of America's largest 50 cities inspect trucks themselves, while state or county health departments conduct inspections for the other 25 cities. The frequency of inspections similarly varies: While San Antonio conducts "routine, unannounced inspections" of food trucks,41 Albuquerque, N.M., inspects trucks at least twice a year based on the "past compliance record of a food establishment and the risk presented to consumers by the menu items provided by the specific food establishment. "42 Inspections in most cities are 331ndiaoa State 0eparanent of He Him, Lend Foad fsmhli4hment Saniumn n Aeb eirements, mtplNwm. PgoviH fleel410_iee_1-94.01. 34 Sum Now York City Oepanmem at llealth and Mental Hygiene Mable Vending Perm Inspaceon Riameneumme, hhplAswrr.ny.pvfi lmlldobldowaloaddpVpermiVaif—cartloick—inapectinn.pdf. 35 SeeMili Food Un@Plan former PAekeS httpUweb.inulmo.usrsltegdelaulUedesAmalihldocumentslmfo-,plen- fewem.pdf. 36Cel. Health and Salary Cade §4114294 ebsmq. 31 LA. County Cade §4 9.04.4115, 8A4.152. 15 38 i men Lin 11,A drive to ded, food books in LA. Comi LA duan, Sept. 14, 2010, hi ",deifatireas. . room LilemiI 4Aarm [d2 a e-load-trncks-201W 914. 39 L.A. County Code 18,011 40 See L'sa Jennings, LA. toad ameAs a time radergrade inspocfion rei Ni S He,Anve New, Oe110, 201 help '1lnm.nom1motlom-laedtmcke emal-bad, gandr-iameamedreali 41 San Antanlo City Code § 13 621k1. 42 Albuquerque City Code § 9 61-6. unannounced 43 and most are conducted by the some officials commercial areas; instead, it merely states who inspect brick -and -mortar restaurants .44 that food trucks cannot operate within 200 feet of certain park 54A or near the Pacific Ocean.41 IASTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RECOMMEA0RT100; Of the existing laws concerning food -safety enforcement, the Institute for Justice recommends that cities generally follow the approach of Los Angeles County45 In a forthcoming report, the Institute for Justice compares the inspection grades of restaurants and food trucks in Los Angeles and finds that the city's food trucks are just as clean and sanitary on average as its restaurants. Furthermore, cities should consider following Albuquerque's approach of taking a truck's inspection history and the food it serves into account when deciding how frequently to inspect it. The Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association, in a similar vein, has suggested that trucks that get two "A" grades in a row should receive a "Certification of Excellence" that reduces their inspection rate to only once per year. This approach makes sense, since inspectors generally should spend less time on trucks that pass inspection with Flying colors and instead focus on food trucks or restaurants that have a history of problems. Finally, inspectors should hold food trucks and brick -and -mortar restaurants to the same food -safety standards. PRRHInG HOW LOS AAGELES DEALS WITH PARHIAG; Proximity Restrictions and Restricted Zones: The city of Los Angeles does not prohibit food trucks from operating within a certain distance of brick -and -mortar restaurants. Likewise, the city does not restrict food trucks from operating in popular 43 See, Ad. City of Kansas City, Food protection frequenti asked quasters, hnplAw✓{kcmomglheahh.nslAneb/ Iaodlagsa8. 44 See, A. Las Vegas City Code § 6.02020. 45 LA. Cmmry Code A§ 8.04.405.8.04.152. 46 LA, City Code A 80.731b11211A11411i1. 49 LA. City Cade §42, 1 SM. 48 LA. City Code A 80]31b1121101. 49 Id. Distance to Intersections: Food trucks in Los Angeles must follow all traffic rules and any stopping, standing or parking prohibitions as provided by the State Vehicle Code.48 They must also follow the traffic regulations in the Los Angeles Municipal Code that apply to all vehicles .49 In addition to those state and municipal traffic laws, food trucks may not park within too feet of an intersection.50 The 100 -foot prohibition is far larger than what is needed to accommodate any congestion or visibility issues. For many smaller blocks, the restriction makes it difficult, if not impossible, for trucks to legally park and serve their fare. Indeed, it appears that Los Angeles recognizes the difficulty with this approach; according to the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association, the city of Los Angeles does not actively enforce its loo -foot restriction. Use of Metered Parking Spaces: The city of Los Angeles permits food trucks to vend from metered public parking spots for the maximum amount of time listed on the meter.51 Duration Restrictions (How Frequently Food Trucks Must Move): The city of Los Angeles previously restricted how frequently food trucks had to move. Under its old law, food trucks could only stay in one spot for 30 minutes in a residential area, or 60 minutes in a commercial one .12 They then had to move one-half mile away and not return for 30 or 60 minutes, respectively.53 A Los Angeles Superior Court judge invalidated this duration restriction in 2009 and it is no longer enforced.54 50 LA. CIIV Code A 80231b11211AR31. 51 See LA. City Cade§ 80a3isl2dir. 52 LA, City Code 4 813.2311: 211F1. 0 At N Press Release, UCLA "heal nl Late Clinical Program Ma Case Challsegie, Wines, of Ins Angeles CityZeinsice lmplorran d Against Taco Lucks. alone 10, 20091, tftWAnuulaw.ucla.edu/nows media/PageslNem. espxlNews10=131. 16 — FREEDOni Potential Sidewalk Congestion: The city of not specify any minimum distance a truck must be from Los Angeles does not mandate that food an intersection, instead merely requiring that a truck not trucks park and vend only at sidewalks of vend "in a congested area where the operation will impede a certain minimum width; instead, it states pedestrian or vehicle traffic."58 And of those cities that do that food trucks should not operate in a way provide for a minimum, the required distance ranges from 20 that blocks the public right of way.55 to 50 feet 59 HOW OTHER CITIES DEAL WITH PRAWN: Proximity Restrictions and Restricted Zones: In Streets of Dreams, the Institute looked at how many of the largest cities in the United States imposed restrictions on where food trucks could operate. In all, 20 of the 50 largest U.S. cities told food trucks to stay a certain distance away from their brick -and - mortar competitors, while 34 cordoned off parts of the city, often prime commercial areas, from vending 56 Proximity restrictions exist solely to prevent one business from being able to compete with another, which simply is not a legitimate government interest. Indeed, virtually every court to consider one of these laws has held them ,I to be unconstitutional and struck them down .57 Although not as transparently protectionist as laws establishing proximity restrictions, laws that create restricted zones are often protectionist in effect due to their breadth. Typically, congestion issues are fairly localized at particular intersections or on particular streets. But rather than take a narrow approach, restricted zones prohibit all vending in large swaths of a city. Regulations that exceed their required scope look like less of an honest attempt to solve a real problem and more of an attempt to keep food trucks from competing. Use of Metered Parking Spaces: Most cities in the United States allow food trucks to pay for and operate from metered parking spaces for the amount of time listed on the meter. One notable exception to this is Pittsburgh, which says that food trucks "shall not park any vehicles for the purpose of vending, or place any materials in on -street metered parking spaces."60 And in New York City, a controversy has erupted over whether food trucks may vend from metered spots. The city's transportation regulations state that "[n]o peddler, vendor, hawker or huckster shall park a vehicle at a metered parking space for purposes of displaying, selling, storing or offering merchandise for sale from the vehicle ."6I A food truck sued, arguing that its food was not "merchandise" for purposes of the law. A New York trial court ruled for the city in May 2011 62 and that ruling was upheld the following year.°' Duration Restrictions: As discussed in Streets of Dreams, 19 of the 50 largest U.S. cities mandate how frequently a vendor must move, regardless of whether he or she is vending from a metered space or what the time limit for the space, if any, might be 64 Those laws require vendors to move once every 15 minutes to two hours;6s in some instances, vendors who have moved are not allowed to return to their original location for a specified amount of time,66 These laws are counterproductive, and should be scrapped, Forcing vendors to move regularly makes it difficult, if not impossible, to run a profitable business. Short time limits also pose a safety hazard, since it pressures cooking trucks into moving before their equipment has completely cooled. And by requiring trucks to constantly be on the road, laws like these make congestion worse, not better. Potential Sidewalk Congestion: Most cities deal with potential Distance to Intersections: The 100 -foot sidewalk congestion issues as Los Angeles does, by simply restriction that Los Angeles requires food requiring that food trucks not operate in a manner that blocks trucks to follow is much larger than similar or inhibits use of the sidewalk by pedestrians. Fresno, Calif., laws in other major cities. Many cities do for instance, states that "[n]o mobile vendor shall block or 55 Seo LA. ON Code §56.0510. 56 SIPF£T6 or peva¢ 16, 20 (Ju1y20111. 5 See, eg, People I: A1,Cada Camring, lig CtiLPpe.47509291: Ouerlainn Was, 42A.C.2d IMMN.Y.S]d 310 R73 ofrd,Naahein i, Gudsag34N.Y2d 636(19]11 Thmldurhird Comft Co. u. CiryolCbie, Wse No. 0529➢(0ct15 1966), 58 Las Voges City Cade 46.BVIXA1121. 59 See, e.g., EI Paso City Code 412.46026101(20 fear; Mwea, olis City Code § 188,480171 (30 fai San Antonio Cay Coda513-6 1151(50 faet6 17 60 Pittsburgh City Code §119.05A1d1. 6) N. Yolk Cay 0epanment of Transpostalm Negulafiuns 94-OBIhI191. 62 Glenn CAL, Fund Push Shonodke. Mulaous, Y.Tk,•as, June 28,NII,hnpJAwnunNimesmmR01Ii06RWdining! IgId unuas ltnpad-Iln,ll-mvJleea1.hN112 r -+i 63 ManmV v Ciryaoiaw rod, May 5.2012, hup9caselaw.findlaw.cam/npsupreme-gonrt-appellate d. i se,,N 05 lere1. 6f StaMs ovoasnus 231Jory20111. 65 See Calwnbus Cay Catle 42151.15(15 oo nuteel:las Vegas Cap Code § 6.55.020(A)12)130 nnnusoshCni ago City Code 41-381I5(b) Nuo h ... ol E6 Sol, 19, Sacramonlo City Cada4568.1)0(sunning Ihmyending yehidu Indynot mums to original location ndl the ueu dayl. obstruct the free movement of pedestrians or vehicles on any sidewalk."6' Las Vegas, Nev., similarly says that no mobile food vendor shall "[v]end in a congested area where the operation will impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic. o6' And Philadelphia states that food trucks should not "increase traffic congestion or delay, or constitute a hazard to traffic."69 IDSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AECOMME0DATION Proximity Restrictions and Restricted Zones: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles by not prohibiting food trucks from operating within a certain distance of brick -and -mortar restaurants. The first lawsuit the Institute for Justice brought as part of its National Street Vending Initiative was against EI Paso, Texas, which enacted a law that kept food trucks from operating within 1,000 feet of any fixed business that served food.- In response to the lawsuit, EI Paso quickly backed down and dropped its anti-competitive restriction. The Institute for Justice also recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles by not establishing broad zones where food trucks may not operate. As discussed at the beginning of this report, cities should strive to enact narrow laws that address the particular problem at hand but go no further. New York City, for instance, does not have any blanket prohibitions on where food trucks may go; instead, it proscribes vending only at certain specific times and locations based on demonstrable congestion concerns. The Institute for Justice recommends that other cities do the same. Distance to Intersections: Of the laws dealing with traffic, parking, and congestion issues, the Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of EI Paso, Texas, which states that food trucks "shall be allowed to stop, stand or park on any public street or right-of-way, provided this area is not within twenty feet of an intersection, such vehicle does not obstruct a pedestrian crosswalk and the area is not prohibited to the stopping, standing or parking of such vehicles."" This rule is clear, definite, and easy for food trucks to follow. The Institute for Justice does not recommend that cities follow Los Angeles' approach of prohibiting food trucks from parking within 100 feet of an intersection. Cities should not regulate more heavily than necessary, and Los Angeles' 100 -Foot restriction is excessive compared to what other cities prescribe. 67 Fresno City Code 49-116IIhl. 69 Las Vegas City Code 4 6, 550)010.1121. 66 Phdadel des. City God. 442031211d1. 76 EI Paso Vending, The lasnwle for Joanne, hap#wsv.ij org1o1 paso-vending. 718 Paso Cry Code§ 124662IXC1. Use of Metered Parking Spaces: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles and virtually every other major city by allowing food trucks to operate from metered locations provided that they pay the requisite fees and follow any time limitations associated with the location. Food trucks are miniature commerce centers, and letting them pay for and use parking spaces both enriches the city and helps consumers find the trucks that they want to patronize. Furthermore, there is no reason to single out food trucks from all other commercial vehicles and impose special burdens on them that the rest do not share. IfJr.3.' - EE1EEt�©m Duration Restrictions: After reviewing laws that govern how long food trucks may stay atone location, the Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the examples of Philadelphia and New York City. Neither city forces food trucks to move after an arbitrary amount of time; instead, they require only that food trucks obey the parking rules that apply to all vehicles. Although Los Angeles does not impose any duration restrictions, that is only because a court held them to be invalid; accordingly, the Institute does not recommend that cities adopt the language in Los Angeles' code; Food trucks responding to an Institute survey pointed out that, for cooking trucks, it can often take up to a half hour to get set up and ready to cook and another half hour to close down the kitchen and get back on the road. As a result, owners universally expressed frustration with duration restrictions, which can make it practically impossible to vend from a modern gourmet food truck. Trucks also complained about the harm to their business's reputation when they have to turn away customers who have patiently waited in line. As one Washington, D.C., entrepreneur put it, "Expecting busy trucks to move with 30 people on line is a burden." For these reasons, the Institute for Justice recommends that food trucks be allowed to stay at one location for at least as long as any other vehicle. Potential sidewalk Congestion: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles, which specifies only that food trucks not operate in a manner "which will interfere with or obstruct the free passage of pedestrians or vehicles along any such street, sidewalk or parkway. "12 A set rule that requires a minimum sidewalk width in some instances can be regulatory overkill, such as in areas with little to no ]t See La Lit, Code 4 M.M) 19 pedestrian traffic, and might be insufficient in particularly crowded areas. Los Angeles' approach is superior because it gives trucks more flexibility while continuing to protect the public right of way. As noted below, the fear that trucks lead to congested sidewalks has little to no evidentiary support. U Original Research on Food Trucks and Sidewalk Congestion Some local businesses that do not want to compete against food trucks argue that letting trucks operate on the streets will increase sidewalk congestion. The argument is that this congestion makes it harder for pedestrians to navigate the right of way and, in some instances, could even lead to safety hazards. This concern is offered as ajustification for laws that prohibit trucks from operating in certain areas of the city or from operating on public property at all. Of course, legislators should only act on these concerns if they are in fact true. But while claims of food trucks creating sidewalk congestion abound, there was no actual evidence showing that to be the case. In fact, the effects of food trucks on congestion had never seriously been examined. So, to find out if trucks really do pose congestion concerns, the Institute for Justice undertook an original empirical research study. On three days in December 2010, January 2011, and February 2011, a'team of researchers from the Institute for Justice observed pedestrian traffic in two areas of Washington, D.C. known as Federal Center and Dupont Circle. Federal Center is an area in Southwest D.C. that is close to several government buildings and a handful of deli -style restaurants. Dupont Circle, which is located in Northwest D.C, is one of the city's busiest areas, with many dining options, office buildings, and retail shops. Both Federal Center and Dupont Circle are near subway stations. IJ researchers measured the amount of foot traffic on both sides of the street. They also calculated how long it took pedestrians to travel from one end of the block to the other. They counted pedestrians on both sides on days when food trucks were present and on days when they were not. The Institute's research showed that the presence of a food truck did not significantly increase foot traffic. In the Federal Center area, the highest amount of foot traffic occurred on a day when no food trucks were present, indicating that other factors impact foot traffic. The data from Dupont Circle reiterated this hurling. The presence of a food truck was associated with a minor increase of pedestrians, just 28, over a two-hour time period, which amounts to arrincrease of less than one percent of total foot traffic. Foot Traffic With and Without Presence of Food Trucks Nor did the presence of a food truck make it more difficult for pedestrians to traverse the sidewalk. Researchers observing Federal Center discovered that it took 42 seconds to travel a sidewalk block when a food truck was present, compared to 41 and 43 seconds when no truck was there. In Dupont Circle, it took pedestrians 74 seconds to cross a block where a food truck was parked, one second less than when no truck was present. 1 t 20`&;h��0C9 ALJ,:.�'ivf3 Dec. 15, 2010 (With Truck) Jan. 13, 2011 (Control — No Truck) Feb. 10, 2011 (No Truck) Federal Center 772 939 673 263 Truck Side 336 296 643 Feb. 23, 2011 (Control — No Truck) 2893 Non -Truck Side 436 _ 410 N/A Feb. 15, 2011 (With Truck) Dupont Circle 1 2921 Truck Side 1043 951 1942 N/A Non -Truck Side 1878 N/A Nor did the presence of a food truck make it more difficult for pedestrians to traverse the sidewalk. Researchers observing Federal Center discovered that it took 42 seconds to travel a sidewalk block when a food truck was present, compared to 41 and 43 seconds when no truck was there. In Dupont Circle, it took pedestrians 74 seconds to cross a block where a food truck was parked, one second less than when no truck was present. 1 t 20`&;h��0C9 ALJ,:.�'ivf3 i qeri�{� r'L/ 4RM lin 0 Average Time for Pedestrians to Travel the Block, hi Seconds December 15, 2010 January 13, 2011 February 10, 2011 (With Truck) (Control — No (Control — No TY.,AA T—AA Takorean (Federal Center)13 ' Truck Side 42 41 43 Non -Truck Side 47 47 46 - February 15, 2011 February 23, 2011 CapMac (Dupont Circle) (Control — No (With Truck) Truck) Truck Side --- 74 — _---- 75 ---- ---- N/A Non -Truck Side 75 76 N/A Lastly, researchers noted that food trucks and customers often work out ways to further minimize any disruptions. At one popular truck, where upwards of 30 people were waiting, researchers saw customers spontaneously forming a single -file line along the edge of the sidewalk, which ensured that there was ample room for other pedestrians to pass by. This example shows that, even if there are discrete situations where sidewalk congestion might be an issue, there are simple and effective solutions that do not require limiting the ability of vendors to earn a living or preventing customers from having access to the delicious food they want to buy. { r' 'Gro t;it� yr ladit {�. 4'yr lli�l'F d f ylr fi\�'y31I1j t ��i 4' i 9 1 9 (I je7p r} 'S(yFw •,^/� t�<"L1 / 1t13 %��W I I�{ .•`F{r {�H6rC,.'y hlA�ldjr�J ��{ji�td\tl�y1''Y!@$iy<balfl�t"Pd��d!}�i.�'.,�r).�Mv <�.'i �I i IDSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AECOMMEDDRTIOD: of the laws that deal with refuse issues, the Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow Los Angeles' approach, albeit with additional language that precisely lays out how for from the truck operators must search for any trash they created.80. The following is an amalgam of language from Los Angeles and Columbus that cities may use in crafting their laws: After dispensing victuals, at any location, a catering truck operator, prior to leaving the location, shall pick up, remove and dispose of all trash or refuse within twenty-five feet of the catering truck which consists of materials originally dispensed from the catering truck, including any packages or containers, or parts of either, used with or for dispensing the victuals. It is reasonable for cities to make food trucks remove any trash they generate from the immediate area surrounding the truck, as is the requirement that trucks give customers some way to discard their refuse. Cities should be careful, however, not to go overboard with these regulations by mandating exactly what type of receptacles trucks must use or how large they have to he 81 LIRBILITY insunnm IRSUARDCE REOUIREfDEDTS FOR FOOD TAUCHS IR LOS RROELES: Like all motor vehicles, food trucks in California must carry liability insurance in order to operate on the public right of way.B2 Food trucks operating in Los Angeles need not purchase any additional liability insurance beyond that amount. 80 LA. Cit, Coda 56e.1311,1121N1{El. Ill An earlier revision of Buffalo's food buck.law, passed in January 2012, required than trucks carry and plow 'boo, 65-gellon g.rhago cans.' After c.,bate h. food -book apc,.Wa, rah. saw the Ia. ae mmeces. sary and unduly hurdensome, tha spa ..... f lhiaor changed the Iangua0a to what ie ralleemd above. Aar.. 8eseaker, RM adfcod truck rules nc.Ad, Tin 8usno N., at 061 Jen. 12,20121. 02 See Cel. Vehicle Coda 5 1656.2 (doeiling minimum Innini t, requirements that Which, ,cawara must unvd. 0 Swen Cfty Code 511-10.abd7) e/ Las Vegas Cary Code 4655080. IOSURRDCE REOUIRERTERTS FOR FOOD TRUCHS IR OTHER CITIES: Most of the city laws surveyed by the Institute for Justice, like Los Angeles, do not impose separate liability insurance requirements on food trucks. Instead, those vehicles may get to work so long as they carry the state -mandated level of insurance to operate on the road. Some cities, however, also require that trucks carry a general liability insurance policy that lists the city as an additional insured. In Boston, for instance, a food -truck applicant must provide a "certificate of insurance providing general liability insurance listing the City as additionally insured."83 And in Las Vegas, food trucks must maintain auto and general liability insurance of at least $300, 000.64 IDSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RECOMITIERDRTIOR: After reviewing liability insurance requirements for food trucks, the Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the general approach of Los Angeles by not requiring that food trucks maintain insurance policies naming the city as an additional insured. Cities are no more liable for injuries caused by food trucks than they are for injuries caused by brick -and - mortar businesses. Additionally, having to name the city as an additional insured causes additional headaches for food trucks, as the practice is out of the ordinary and something many insurance companies are reluctant to do. Unless a city requires that all food service companies doing business within its boundaries carry a specific level of liability insurance, it should follow Los Angeles' approach and not foist additional requirements on food trucks that their brick -and -mortar counterparts do not share. 22 FOOD 0J��V40 HOURS OF OPERRTion HOURS OF OPERRTI0010 LOS ROOELES: The city of Los Angeles does not place any artificial limitations on when vendors may operate, which allows food trucks to specialize. Some trucks like PerKup Coffee and Tea Co. may choose to serve breakfast fare, while other trucks may decide to cater to late- night customers, just as others serve bar patrons on Friday and Saturday nights. This kind of flexibility means that consumers will be able to get food on their way into work or on their way home after a late night. In the end, letting trucks choose when to operate leads to more successful trucks and more satisfied customers. HOURS OF OPERRTIOR IR OTHER CITIES: of the So cities surveyed by the Institute for Justice for this report, approximately half prohibited food trucks from operating during at least part of the day. Some of these restrictions are quite minimal: In Austin, Texas, for instance, mobile food vendors are cmiy required to cease operations between the hours of 3 a.m. and 6 a.m.85 And New York City has no blanket restriction on hours of operation, instead restricting vending during certain hours only at specified locationsBA other cities' restrictions, however, are quite onerous. In Phoenix, food trucks may not operate in the public way after 7 p.m. or whenever it gets dark, whichever is later. BJ And in Sacramento, Cali., the city manager requires vendors to limit their hours of operation to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m88 These restrictions do nothing to further public health and safety, but make it that much harder for trucks to succeed. IRSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RECOR MInDRT10R: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow Los Angeles' approach and not restrict when food trucks may operate. Trucks should be free to vend at any time, or at the very least to be subject to the same rules as brick -and -mortar restaurants. To the extent that vending from a specific location at certain times poses actual public health and safety concerns, cities should address the specific problem and go no further. one example of such a narrow approach is Santa Monica, Calif. There, officials were concerned about the large crowds of people coming out of late-night bars on a stretch of Main Street. The worry was that the size of the trucks might create visibility problems for passing automobiles and lead to accidents involving inebriated bar patrons who venture out into the street. Rather than banning all food trucks in Santa Monica from operating at night, the city took a more focused approach by merely saying that on Friday and Saturday nights, trucks could not sell from 1 a.m, to 3 a.m. on the half -mile stretch of Main Street where the bars are located89 Food trucks were able to continue operating on nearby side streets where the city's traffic safety concerns were less. 85 See Ansfin City Cade § 25 2 912001. 86 Seo New York City Beparta eatnl Neshin and Alen eI Hygiene lenerto Mobile Food Vendors 0510612011, available at hnp:Ihmovanyc.gnvinllnVdab/dwmineds/pdUpermiVmMeesvictebatrico,,R V Phoenix City Code § 31-2A.IICl. IS S cramenlo City Code 45.8&110. 89 Jason Islas, Santa Monica Sens Lad Night Food Seeks on Main Svee4 Tee tacone Nevn JM10.20111. hnp:ll txx¢sudsantamaniracoMssm she/1he�ookouUnewsMens20111Novam6er-2011111_10_li Sante Monica_ Bans Lale_Nightivo0_Trucks_on Meiji Sttee4.h1m1. 23 EMPLOYEE SHITATIon SAAITATIOA LAWS 10 LOS AOGELES: Handwashing: One of the simplest ways to prevent disease and contamination is for food handlers to wash their hands. In Los Angeles, food trucks that prepare food on board must be equipped with a handwashing sink for employees' use. This sink must be connected to at least a three -gallon water tank, be capable of dispensing water in excess of too degrees Fahrenheit, and must function independently of the truck's engine.90 Bathroom Access: Los Angeles requires food -truck operators that stay at a single location for more than an hour to have access to a building with toilet and handwashing facilities that is within 200 feet of where the truck is located91 A recent change to the law extends that distance to up to 300 feet for food trucks that pre -arrange and enter into "a fully -executed agreement between the operator and the owner of the restroom facility." Alternatively, trucks may close for 15 minutes every hour to "reset" the one hour clock. During that period, the food truck's windows must be shut, its employees must leave, and the operator must leave a note saying when the truck closed and when it will reopen. SAAITATIOA LAUDS IA OTHER CITIES: Handwashing: Los Angeles' requirement that all trucks have handwashing sinks is by no means out of the ordinary. Almost all cities that regulate food trucks mandate handwashing sinks, with the specific requirements for those sinks differing based on the jurisdiction. For Mesa, Ariz., the handwashing sink must be at least 9" long, 9" wide, and 5" deep.92 And Arlington, Texas, specifies that all food trucks must contain a handwashing station that is equipped with both soap and sanitary towels9' Bathroom Access: Los Angeles is in the minority when it comes to its bathroom requirement. Most cities do not regulate bathroom access, instead trusting food truck entrepreneurs to manage their own bathroom needs. And those cities that do mandate bathroom access are less intrusive. In Austin, Texas, a food truck must enter into an agreement only if it will be in one location for more than two hours. 94 And in Boston, trucks need only show that they have access to dushable toilets and handwashing facilities within 500 feet of the truck if they're in one spot for more than an hour.95 90 Cat Health end Saler,Code 4114325. 31 Col.11eahh and Saler, Code § 114315. 92 Markupa Coner, Envirennia.1,1 Services 0are 0.re. Meal Food Unds 6, hIn, /Avwematiaopa.goWE,vsvel EnAaahh rdf/Mobile%]6Eood%260nN%29English.,rdf. 93 Ciry of Arbor gorn,Texas, R94inenlerds for Mobile FC ad Sa,eiae Troika, one ffw .. ail lnytonvaev/beahN fan d_,norr anres_mobilo.hlmr. 94 Sea Austin Ciry Cade 410&9gA1191. 95 Sao Sarton Ciry Code § 1]-1 Col bN6), IASTITUTE FOR JUSTICE RECOfAAIEADATIOA: Handwashing: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of the California Retail Food Code, which requires trucks to have handwashing stations if they prepare food, but does not require them on trucks selling only prepackaged foods like frozen desserts 96 Typically, the issue of handwashing sinks is governed by state health codes. To the extent that a state health code does not address the issue, the Institute recommends that a city require that "[m]obile food facilities from which nonprepackaged food is sold shall provide handwashing facilities.97 Bathroom Access: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the examples of Las Vegas, Charlotte, and Portland, Ore., none of which requires trucks to enter into agreements for bathroom usage. Food trucks, as a matter of common sense, already provide bathroom access for their employees; they need not be ordered to do so by the government. Furthermore, laws requiring written bathroom agreements dis- courage trucks From exploring new markets and sharing their innovative products with parts of the city that they do not normally frequent. 96 Gal. Health and Salary Cade § 114311 rMolade Mod oe4dies not under a vola! parral, es of January 1.199V, from which nonprepaakaged food Ssold shall provide hantle hing feoilitief, . 97 Saeid 24 -- FREEOOm COMMISSARY REOUIREMEnTS COMMISSARY REOUIREMEATS IA LOS AAGELES: Most mobile -food vending operations in Los Angeles are based out of a commissary, which is a facility at which they can park and clean their truck, store their inventory and do the paperwork that is associated with running any business. The California Retail Food Code and Los Angeles County require that most food trucks be stored and serviced at an approved commissary.98 The only exceptions to this requirement are for trucks that operate from a fixed position at community events, or trucks that engage only in limited food preparation (in which case they may instead be serviced by a mobile support unit).99 With the exceptions noted above, food trucks must be cleaned every operating day and must report to the commissary at the end of each day's operations)00 Although Los Angeles food trucks may clean their vehicles and do their paperwork at a shared commissary, they may not actually do any food preparation there. The reason is a Los Angeles County Health Department rule that says that only the permit holder for a commercial kitchen may use it to prepare food. Matt Geller, CFO of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association, views that position as counterproductive and "a threat to public health because it does not give mobile vendors the option to operate legally in a rented kitchen. This can lead to mobile vendors prepping from home or unlicensed kitchen facilities." He recommends that Los Angeles County create regulations that allow for use of an approved commissary or shared kitchen space. COMMISSARY REOUIREMEDTS IA OTHER CITIES: Most other cities require that food trucks generally associate with a commissary, but some cities' models give trucks more flexibility than Los Angeles does. Under Portland, Oregon's law, for example, a truck need not associate with a commissary if it sells only prepackaged food, in which case it need only be affiliated with a warehouse 101 Alternatively, trucks in Portland "may not be required to have a base of operation if the unit contains all the equipment and utensils necessary to assure" that the vehicle is clean and can safely store and prepare food l02 The state of Florida has similarly proposed regulations that would exempt self-sufficient mobile food vehicles from having to associate with a commissary 1O3 Most other cities also let food trucks and other culinary entrepreneurs use shared kitchen spaces to prepare and cook food. One such city is San Francisco, where La Cocina, a nonprofit "kitchen incubator," offers low-income entrepreneurs shared commercial kitchen space and workshops with such titles as "How to Start a Food Business in San Francisco."104 And in Austin, Texas, another city that lets food truck operators use shared commercial kitchen spaces, a company named Capital Kitchens gives Austin food truckers a choice: They can use the facility as just a commissary where they can clean their truck and store their food, or they can also register the facility as their base of operations, which allows them to prepare and cook food there as well.105 IASTITUTE FOR JUSTICE REcommEDDATIOA: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow Portland's example by exempting food trucks from being "required to have a base of operation if the unit contains all the equipment and utensils necessary to assure" that the truck can satisfy health and safety concerns. Some food trucks are self-contained mobile kitchens that protect against vermin and can refrigerate and freeze food 24 hours a day. Likewise, a truck selling only prepackaged items, like cupcakes, poses no real threat to public safety. Because signing up and working through a commissary can often be arduous, requiring trucks like these to associate with a commissary is both costly and unnecessary. For trucks that are not self-sufficient, the Institute recommends that cities follow the example of Los N Cpl. Health and 6alety Code § 114295. 105 Capital Kllolwns, Mohlle mud Venda,, ht�lYlcapnal-kdxhens.amn/mohde400tl-eantlochlml. 99 Son Cal. Haahh and Celery Code 51142950d,1e1. 109Cel. Health and Safety Cade 55 114]551,1, 114291101. 1010, Admin. A. 333162-0040. 102 ld1see elle 0m9o, Heal@ Andierity Mobile Food Unit 0,o,adan Gende, hop looonmIWfiaodSofatyl0ocnMentalolugaldedadf. 193 Noodle Adminlsbative Code § 61 c-4.0161. 25 104 Lo Cooled, 141p IlvrrM 1JCodo3Sf orgl. Angeles County, where trucks can operate out of their own commissary or a shared commissary, Cities should also let food trucks band together and open their own shared kitchen spaces. Los Angeles County's prohibition against shared kitchens is counterproductive and puts a high roadblock in the way of fledgling entrepreneurs. Instead, the Institute recommends that cities follow the examples of San Francisco and Austin. Texas, which both let food trucks prepare and cook food in shared commercial kitchen spaces. PERMITTinl3 RDD LICEnn HOW LOS RROELES PERMITS ADD LICEDSES FOOD TRUCHS; The Application Process: Before a truck gets on the road, it needs to get both a health permit from the county of Los Angeles and a separate business license from the city of Los Angeles. The health permit requires operators to provide detailed plans for the layout of the vehicle."' It also requires operators to fill out written operational guidelines that lay out the truck's proposed menu, how it will be prepared, and how the truck will wash its equipment and utensils.107 Lastly, at least one person on board the truck must be certified in food safety.10' Although Los Angeles' application process is relatively less complex than the process in other jurisdictions, it is still often hard for would-be food -truck operators to navigate it. This is because, although food trucks in Los Angeles are regulated at the city; 09 county,1' and stately levels, none of those jurisdictions clearly explains how to get a vending I W County of but Angeles "opmLoolot of Public Health, Plan Check (o idelirosfor M.N. Food Foadiliss and Mobile Support LIP, holt>(envm.publichwgh.lacnunty:gov/ehldacsMplYtAN_C"EC.P-GOIOELINES I.pdf. 107 Camecif liah des Geptuonal of iNeRmud"Who"i Gparadmal PinceJure;Llyeprnm.puNiaheahb.laeouutµ gov/e1JJocsviplCalCode W� GM_Proc�pdf. IM County of Los Ana alas GLIP ailment at Public Heath, Mobile Food Facility Infarmalion Packet Operational Honda - P.m. btlpll vuwrvnpuhllnheath.lacounry.g.v/ehltlacslvip/qules_and Hephoons-4.pdf. 109 Sae generalNLA. My Coda §.80.73161. 110 See gunsmith, L.A. County Code Chapter 8.04, III Cat. Health and Safety Code 4114294 Plan, permit and get out on the road. Although the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association"' has helped fill some of the void, Los Angeles should clarify what these fledgling entrepreneurs need to get started. Cost: The annual fee for a Los Angeles County health permit for a food truck ranges from S602 to 5787, depending on what types of items the truck sells 113 The city of Los Angeles does not charge for a business license 114 Who the Permit Covers: Los Angeles County requires only that the operator of a truck have a permit. The employees who help out on the truck need not apply and receive their own vending permit. Limits on the Number of Permits Issued: Neither the city of Los Angeles nor Los Angeles County limit or in any other way restrict the number of food trucks that may apply for and receive a license or permit. HOW OTHER CITIES LICERSE ARD PERMIT FOOD TRUCHS: Application Process: Many cities' actual permitting procedures are more complex than Los Angeles'. In Milwaukee, for instance, opening a food truck means getting a peddler's license that requires the health department to inspect the vehicle. But a would-be operator must also apply for a separate food -dealer license and occupancy permit for the business.115 And that, in turn, requires the operator to apply for and receive a Wisconsin state seller's permit ,I" Altogether, an applicant in Milwaukee must get permission from at least three separate government agencies, each requiring multiple steps, before getting on the road. Ill ltt,Nsoealmfia.mml. 113 LA. County Code 48.04.720. 1145oNhern Callf.rnia. Mobile Foud Ventlmx Association, fAG,htlpJlaocalm(va.canNfagl. 115 City of Milena om, Food Paddler Leena Info famoon. hop'/kiry.milwaukee.g.v/Imagotibrary/Grmipslcdi. cones/FooJPeAAIerAnplicasiongdt. 26 �FtEE®04� Boston's law is similarly complicated. The city has a single application form for mobile vendors; once an applicant submits the form, the Public Works commissioner submits it to various city departments for their review and approval"' But before an applicant submits their application, he or she must first obtain a health permit from the city Inspectional Services Department, a business certificate, a state -issued peddler's license and a GPS contract.t18 Altogether, a would-be vendor in Boston must go to three different city departments, the commonwealth of Massachusetts and a private GPS company before receiving her license. Actually being able to sell from the truck on either public or private property requires entrepreneurs to take several additional steps.119 Although Milwaukee's and Boston's permitting procedures are much more complicated than Los Angeles', both cities provide helpful guidance to applicants. In modernizing its food -truck rules, Milwaukee created a web document that helps would- be food -truck entrepreneurs understand what they need to do to get licensed"' Boston provides similar information on its website"1 Cost: The licensing fees that food trucks pay vary greatly by jurisdiction. In Kansas City, Mo., food trucks have to pay $292 annually for a permit. In Boston, the permit fee varies based on a complex valuation of the public way used by the truck."' And in Cleveland, the annual fee for a food truck is $263.44.111 Who the Permit Covers: Lastly, most cities require only that a food truck apply for and receive a single vending permit, with the truck's employees working under that permit. But Washington, D.C., issues vending permits to individuals, not businesses, and requires that someone with a valid permit be on board the truck whenever it is in operation."' If the food truck's owner cannot be on board himself, then an employee on the truck must have his own separate vending permit. This requirement imposes a significant burden on food -truck owners, who face a huge burden if they want someone else to occasionally run the truck. And Washington, D.C.'s rule limits the opportunities for job creation that mobile food vending can offer. Limits on the Number of Permits Issued: Most cities in the United States do not impose a limit on how many food trucks may apply for and receive a permit. one exception is New Orleans, which states that "the number of [food -truck] permits issued ... shall at no time exceed 100 for the entire city."124 New York City limits the number of permits available to food vendors, including food trucks, to 3,100"6 Although it sounds like a large number, this number of permits is insufficient and has led to the growth of an illegal black market in vending permits. The price on the black market to use someone's food vending permit for two years has reached as high as $20,000 according toa Wall Street Journal investigative article.''' IDSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FlECOf minDATIOD: Application Process: The Institute recommends following Los Angeles County's approach to permitting, which is less complex than the process in other jurisdictions. Most truck operators in other parts of the country report having to deal with two or more different agencies to get their permits, and having it take weeks, if not months, to complete the process. This complexity compounds the confusion that often surrounds the permitting process. As a food -truck operator in Philadelphia, which is known to have a complicated permitting process, said, "The government operates in silos, no agency is coordinated, no one person can give a succinct overview of the entire process, it seems like no one truly understands it comprehensively," Requiring multiple permits from many different government agencies makes it both more complicated and more expensive to get a truck on the road. In terms of clarity, however, the Institute applauds Milwaukee and Boston for clearly explaining how to apply for a permit, and the Institute recommends that other cities publish similar step-by-step instruction guides. Operators across the 117 Boston Cay Cade § 17-10.5. 119 City of Boston, Food Truck Front AppInation Ml 2, harp'/hmvvcrtyn�osrongovllmages_Basumemsl2012%20 Food9;20IIuck%20PafmitY2OApplicatiM 4-12_1am325641,df. 119 ON of Boston, Mobile Food Truck: Chansing a Loc dodo Foryour Food Tock, M1np:IhAwacrlynNoston.gpvl hu sin a'sinmbaeAdmiddsasM1 120 See Pushcarts, Popcorn Tracks and Hsoccoams on Wheels: A Guide far 0,ortraa of Mohile Food Eatahliah- .actsfrom the Cityof Milwaukee Heahb Bepartmam, hnpllcityniilwaukee,gdvllma9eLibrarylGroupYneahh- AA.,a10EN/PBFs1pushoens_ba.Mc, lor_wab_ 201Bpol. 121 Sep Cay of Boston, Maidde Food Truck Permit 0.,,raa, http:IM+wr.ciryvfopslan.goe@usinesslmobilelappfrea- 27 Idnasp. 122 Basion CitJ Coda 41140:9111. 123 Cleveland Of, Coda § 241.05141. 124 BC. Bepao car of Conmmerend Raodamry Affairs Mohile Food Tracklicensing Inlarmation,hop://d.c,gdvl 0CMCRAlfar,busindasldpplyOd,xk.ha,car s,I.....udmema rsaanre.moddk.lood.lruckeb...... Istalir, Natfaod-yuck licenses `are Issuetl to Individeals norbusinessds and Ne tmckmnal be hparaadd by Na indMdual mho isissued the license"1, 125 New0deans City Coda 4 11019 8 61. 126 Neviyod Cny Coda § 11-3011h11211a1 to (6113)111. 127 Smnalhi Reddy, Foes IorFaddCarl Pannus Sk,,asle4 Wau ScauT Jwnne, March 0, 2011, hnlgl/online.wsi. cam/artidel$010091924652A8]0{]59904516139523160651638.M1sm1. country repeatedly complain that the most frustrating aspect of the permitting process is not the specific requirements involved, but the lack of clear, consistent instructions on how to complete them. According to food -truck entrepreneurs with whom the Institute spoke, officials often don't seem to know all the rules, are unhelpful or give conflicting information. Cost: The Institute, after reviewing the cost of applying for vending permits across the country, recommends that cities should impose a flat annual fee in the range of $200-300, as both Cleveland and Kansas City have done. Businesses should not be viewed as a cash cow, and the Institute for Justice recommends that fees be no higher than necessary to cover the cost of inspecting and regulating the food trucks. Furthermore, those fees should be relatively stable and known to would-be truck operators before they enter the business. For this reason, the Institute forJustice recommends that cities not adopt Boston's convoluted fee structure. Who the License Covers: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles County by letting operators decide whether to have a license or permit issued to them personally or to their vending business. Cleveland, for instance, issues food -truck licenses to "vendors," which can be either an individual or the associated businessl2B Brick - and -mortar restaurants need not get a separate license for each shift manager; similarly, taking this simple step will let trucks avoid the time and expense of acquiring a vending permit for each manager who oversees truck operations. Limits on the Number of Permits Issued: The Institute for Justice recommends that cities follow the example of Los Angeles and not limit the number of food -truck permits. Placing an arbitrary limit on how many licenses may be issued does not address any actual health and safety issues. Instead, it acts as a barrier to new food trucks while enriching those few who are lucky enough to have snared a permit. Furthermore, a limit hurts consumers by limiting their choices. Lastly, a cap is unnecessary, as consumer demand will guide how many food trucks will voluntarily choose to operate in a given city. 129 Cleveland Gtv code s 241,011. 28 FOOD TRCµ .t ConCLusion A vibrant food -truck industry benefits everyone. It provides consumers with a wide variety of innovative, inexpensive cuisine that they might otherwise not get to enjoy. It gives would-be entrepreneurs who are long on ideas but short on financial capital a way to pursue their dream. And it can activate underused spaces, bring new life to communities and make them safer, more enjoyable places to live. Public -minded officials who want to make their cities better would do well to encourage food -truck entrepreneurship. Thankfully, this commitment doesn't require paying for an expensive new program or hiring dozens of vending "experts. Instead, cities can look to other cities that have experience regulating food trucks, such as Los Angeles, and then adopt their best legislative practices by implementing the recommendations in this report. By avoiding protectionist restrictions and enacting clear, narrowly tailored and outcome -based laws to address legitimate health and safety issues, cities will enable their residents to enjoy all of the economic and cultural benefits of America's growing food truck revolution. 30 OTHER PUBLICATIORS OF THE IRSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE'S RRTIOAAL STREET UEADIAG IRITIRTIUE Street of Dreams: How Cities Can Create Economic Opportunity by Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending (July 2011) http://www.ii.org/streets-of-dreams-2 Seven Myths and Realities about Food Trucks: Why the Facts Support Food -Truck Freedom (November 2012) hitp://www.i.org/venALng Chicago Food Trucks www.ij.org/CiiicagoFandTriickVideo IJ U1nOIAG UIDEOS Atlanta Vending www.ij.org/freedontjliz/category/51/1T7 El Paso Vending wwto.ij.org/freedonilix/categnr9/43/177 ROBERT FROMMER Robert Frommer is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, where he litigates in defense of political speech, economic liberty and private property. Frommer is lead counsel on the Institute for Justice's lawsuit against the city of Chicago's anti-competitive food -truck law. He is also lead counsel on a lawsuit challenging Atlanta's vending monopoly and is a co-author of Streets of Dreams. Frommer's views have been published in a number of print and on-line newspa- pers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post -Gazette. Beforejoining IJ, Frommer was an attorney with the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. He is a former law clerk to Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Frommer received his law degree magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School in 2004. BERT GALL Bert Gall is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, where he litigates economic liberty, free speech, school choice and property rights cases nationwide. Gall directs U's National Street Vending Initiative, a nationwide effort to vindicate the right of street vendors to earn an honest living by fighting unconstitutional vending restrictions in courts of law and the court of public opinion. In addition to serving as co -counsel in H's current challenge to Chicago's protectionist food -truck law, he also served as co -counsel in IJ's successful challenge to Elfaso's protec- tionist restrictions on mobile vendors, which resulted in EI Paso repealing those restrictions. Gall received his law degree from Duke University in 1999 and his undergraduate degree from Rice Univer- sity. Before coming to the Institute, he worked at Helms Mulliss & Wicker in Charlotte, N.C., and clerked for Judge Karen Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In 2009, Gall was recognized by The National Law Journal as one of its "Rising Stars: Washington's 40 un- der 40," which honored the top 40 lawyers under the age of 40 in the Washington. D.C., area. ACH0011ILEDGEAIEOTS The authors would like to thank the in any food -truck associatiane whose members and officers provided valuable infor- mation and feedback, including Matt Geller, CEO of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association (SoCaIMFVA); Jeffrey Dermer and Kevin Behrendt, counsel for SoCaIMFVA and partners in law firm Dormer A Behrendt; Executive Director Che Ruddell-Tabisola and Doug Povich of the Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington; Rachel Billow, President of the New Orleans Food Truck Coalition; and Rebecca Kelly, President of the Tallahassee Food Truck Association. The au- thors would also like to thank Ion Markman, All Alleyne, Jordan Fischetti, Brad King, Eddie Lowe, Katie McLay, Nick Sibilla, Bryson Smith and Andrew Ward for their help in compiling and analyzing the data underlying this report. Designed by Robyn Patterson. THE InSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that litigates to se- cure economic liberty, school choice, private property frights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government. Founded in 1991, IJ is the nation's only libertarianpub- lieinterest law firm, pursuing cutting-edge litigation in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are denied by the government. Through its National Street Vending Initiative, the Institute for Justice works to defeat anti-competitive restrictions that violate the constitutional rights of street vendors to earn an honest living. d Pike tor STREET Inisl SAFE IHTSII HOW f00D iflUCHS flOD CflfliS SiflCH UP TO flESiflURflOiS 00 Sfl01ifli100 n 4- ;i,. cl ell, f q� a �e 4=�` •o. Wig:, __. __ _ .. _ •r f; r ll(1 BY AnGELA C. ERICHSOA Ij JURE 2014 S"TREET ERTS, SAFE EflTS, HIO UJ FOI OI D 1RUCI�S A(lDl CANS STACK UP 10 HESIAURAOIS OO SA(111A11O(Il BY WIN C EBICBS00 4 Jun[ 2014 IJ E(f ECU WE SUMMRRY Street food, long a part of American life, has boomed in popularity in recent years. Yet an idea persists that food from trucks and sidewalk carts is unclean and unsafe. This report tests that com- mon, but unsubstantiated claim by reviewing more than 260,000 food -safety inspection reports from seven large American cities. In each of those cities, N mobile vendors are covered by the same health codes and inspection regimes as restaurants and other brick -and -mortar businesses, allowing an apples -to -apples comparison. The report finds: • In every city examined—Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washington, D.C.—food trucks and carts did as well as or better than restaurants. • In six out of seven cities—Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami F� J 9 ...X 1 and Washington, D.C.—food trucks and carts averaged fewer sanitation viola- tions than restaurants, and the differ- ences were statistically significant. • In Seattle, mobile vendors also aver- aged fewer violations, but the differ- ence was not statistically significant, meaning mobile vendors and restau- rants performed about the same. The results suggest that the notion that street food is unsafe is a myth. They also suggest that the recipe for clean and safe food trucks is sim- ple—inspections. Just as sanitation inspections help assure the public that restaurants are clean and safe, they can do the same for mobile vendors. More burdensome regulations proposed in the name of food safety, such as outright bans and limits on when and where mobile vendors may work, do not make street food safer—they just make it harder to get. y Y — _ ANNOW THE InSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AAALYZED THOUSAADS OF IASPECTIOA REPORTS COUERIAG MOBILE UEADORS, RESTAURFInTS AAD OTHER PURUEYOR� OF FOOD FROM SEUEn OF RMERICAfS LARGEST CITIES—BOSTOA, LAS UEGAS, LOS AnGELES, LOUISUILLE, MIAMI, SEATTLE An WASHIAGTOA, D.C, 1f THE InSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AAALYZED THOUSAADS OF IASPECTIOA REPORTS COUERIAG MOBILE UEADORS, RESTAURFInTS AAD OTHER PURUEYOR� OF FOOD FROM SEUEn OF RMERICAfS LARGEST CITIES—BOSTOA, LAS UEGAS, LOS AnGELES, LOUISUILLE, MIAMI, SEATTLE An WASHIAGTOA, D.C, WROONflon America loves food trucks. These new mobile vendors are creating jobs, satisfying hunger and making downtowns cool again. But they are not an entirely new concept. Street vending has long been an entry point for entrepreneurship in America. During the Great Depres- sion, Americans pushed carts in the street to sell five cent apples.' Waves of immigrants sold oysters, pickles, kabobs, halal and more. Despite this country's deeply rooted history with street food and America's growing love for food trucks, some peo- pie have claimed that food trucks and food carts are unsanitary and nothing more than "roach coaches." Take, for example, a recent news story by Eric Flack, a reporter for Louisville's WAVE3, who asked if food trucks are "really all that clean?" In an apparent "gotcha" moment, Flack asked Connie Mendel— head of the local office in charge of food inspections—if she ate at food trucks. Mendel chortled at such an idea and said, "That's funny."2 But "all that clean" compared to what? How do food trucks stack up to restaurants? Flack does not ask these questions or compare food trucks to any other food source except for this opinion from Mendel: "We feel you can operate safer from an actual building:'3 Unfortunately, city officials often rely on such claims that brick -and -mortar restaurants are safer to justify restric- tions on both food trucks and carts, including outright bans on mobile vend- ing as well as limits on when and where vendors may sell. These laws not only push food trucks and carts out of cities, they also stifle entrepreneurship, destroy jobs and hurt consumers.° As American culture shifts towards re -embracing street food, this report tests the claim—common but unsub- stantiated—that food trucks and carts are unsafe. The Institute analyzed thousands of inspection reports covering mobile vendors, restaurants and other purveyors of food from seven of Amer- ica's largest cities—Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washington, D.C.5 In each city, mobile vendors are covered by the same health codes and inspection regimes as restaurants, allowing an apples -to -apples comparison of sanitation practices.' The results show that mobile food vendors, including food trucks and carts, are just as safe and sanitary as restaurants— often more so. 5 BION D S To examine differences between food trucks, carts and other types of food establishments—particularly restau- rants—this report relies on inspection data collected from government agen- cies in Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washing- ton, D.C. The Institute requested data going back to 2008 or the first year with accessible data that included mobile ven- dors. Data were collected through part or all of 2012 or, in the cases of Boston and Louisville, through July 2013. In all, the Institute reviewed 263,395 inspec- tion reports across the seven cities. During the inspections, officials count the number of food -safety violations they observe.' For example, inspectors look for minor things like clean counters and proper labeling, bigger concerns like proper food storage and hand -washing facilities, and serious issues such as sick employees and spoiled foods. For each city, the Institute calcu- lated the average number of violations per establishment for each category of 6 food service—food trucks, restaurants and so on. These raw numbers are useful, but not sufficient for determin- ing how mobile vendors compare to brick -and -mortar establishments. Other factors, such as variations in traffic or greater frequency of inspections, could be driving any differences. Addition- ally, any differences in the raw numbers could be simple random chance—it just so happens that during a given period of time when a random group of establish- ments was inspected, one category of food service received fewer violations— instead of a genuine distinction. To control for factors that could muddy comparisons and to deter- mine whether the differences between mobile vendors and brick -and -mortar restaurants are genuine or mere ran- dom chance, this report relies on two types of statistical analyses. The first, fixed -effects OLS regression, provides the average number of violations for each food -service category compared to mobile vendors. In other words, the first type of analysis estimates how many more or fewer violations restaurants would receive, on average, than mobile vendors, after controlling for various factors.8 The second type of analysis, Poisson regression, provides a rate esti- mating how many times more or fewer violations each food -service category would receive, on average, compared to mobile vendors.9 When looking at the rate of viola- tions, keep in mind that the average numbers of violations were low for all types of food service in all cities. Thus, some eye-popping comparisons are not as dramatic as they may appear. For example, it may be startling to see the Boston results below (Table 2) suggest- ing that restaurants received 385 percent more violations than food carts, but food carts averaged just one violation per cart, so 385 percent more is only about four violations per restaurant. In some cities, the data did not make it possible to distinguish between food trucks and food carts, so they were lumped together in one "mobile vendor" category. In others, trucks and carts are separate categories, so separate anal- yses compared each of them to restau- rants, grocery stores and so on. Further details about the analysis can be found in Appendix A, and Appendix B provides full regression results.10 �ESUEIS Across the seven cities, findings were consistent: Food trucks and carts are every bit as clean and safe as restaurants and other types of brick -and -mortar food estab- lishments. As Figure 1 shows, in recent years, violations per establishment were few, regardless of the category of food service. In six of the seven cities, violations by food trucks and carts ranged from just one to four violations per truck or cart, while restau- rants averaged just four to eight. The exception, Seattle, appears to have had more frequent violations for both mobile vendors (nearly 14 per vendor) and restaurants (almost 17 per restaurant), because the city's inspection regime weights each violation more than the other cities. 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 1: Average Food -safety Violations by Category of Food Service ('11-1uly'13) ('09 -July '12) ('09-3uly`12) ('10-]uly`13) ('08-7uly'12) ('09 -July '12) ('1 f-'12) E_zj Hotels Food Carts Food Trucks Pestaurants Other Notes: In Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washington, D.C., the "food truck" category Includes both trucks and carts. Due to differing Inspection regimes, comparisons across cities are not valid. Not only were violations infrequent, but mobile vendors compared well to their brick -and -mortar counterparts, as shown in Figure 1, and this was confirmed by statistical analysis. In analyses for six of seven cities, food trucks and carts had fewer violations than restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. In Seattle, even though mobile vendors had fewer violations on average than restau- rants, upon statistical analysis, the difference was not statistically significant. This means mobile vendors and restaurants in Seattle performed about the same. ` 9 BOSTon The Boston Inspectional Services Department, which inspects all food establishments for potential violations, provided inspection data for 2011 through July 2013. In that time, the department conducted 29,898 inspec- tions of food establishments, including trucks, carts, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores, cafeterias and caterers. Table 1 provides the average number of violations by establishment type. It also breaks out different types of violations as classified by Boston—critical foodborne, critical, non-critical and total. A critical foodborne violation refers to activities that are the most prevalent contributing factors to foodborne illness as identified by the Center for Disease Control—such as not posting consumer advisories and improper labeling of ingre- dients. A critical violation is one that is more likely than other violations to affect the public health—such as unclean food contact surfaces and improper sewage and waste water disposal. Non-critical violations will not seriously affect the public health; these are things such as adequate lighting and hair restraints. 10 As Table 1 shows, violations were uncommon across all categories of food service, and both Boston's food trucks and carts outperformed restaurants, as trucks averaged 2.7 total violations, mobile food carts—hot dog stands and other sidewalk carts—just one, and restaurants 4.6. The story is similar when looking at different types of violations. Trucks and carts received fewer critical and non-crit- ical violations than restaurants. For critical foodborne violations, trucks and restaurants were comparable and carts received fewer violations, but all averaged less than one violation per establishment. These differences held up under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 2. Results show that Boston's food trucks averaged fewer total violations, critical violations and non-critical violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. On critical food- borne violations, the difference between trucks and restaurants was not statistically significant, meaning they were essentially the same. Boston's food carts averaged fewer total violations, critical foodborne violations, critical violations and non-criti- cal violations than its restaurants, and the differences all were statistically significant. Table 1: Boston Food -safety Violations, 2011-3uly 2013* Average (Mean) Standard Minimum Maximum Violations Deviation Total Violations Food Trucks 2.68 2.90 0 18 Restaurants 4.56 4.46 0 41 Carts 0.98 1.53 0 10 Other 2.67 3.36 0 30 Critical Foodborne Violations Food Trucks 0.87 1.25 0 6 Restaurants 0.84 1.33 0 12 Carts 0.36 0.75 0 6 Other 0.47 0.93 0 9 Critical Violations Food Trucks 0.11 0.32 0 2 Restaurants 0.30 0.55 0 4 Carts 0.04 0.21 0 2 Other 0.17 0.43 0 4 Non-critical Violations Food Trucks 1.70 1.94 0 11 Restaurants 3.42 3.37 0 30 Carts 0.57 1.08 0 8 Other 2.03 2.60 0 23 *Data provided by Boston Inspectional Services Department and based on 296 inspections of 76 food trucks, 17,634 inspections of 2,813 restaurants, 1,447 inspections of 497 carts and 10,521 inspections of other food establishments. Table 2: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Boston, 2011 -July 2013 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* Average Rate of Average Rate of Violations Violations Violations Violations Compared to Compared to Compared to Compared to Food Trucks Food Trucks Food Carts Food Carts Total Violations Restaurants 1.87 more 690% more 3.39 more 386% more Other 0.19 fewer 2% fewer 1.33 more 181% more Critical Foodborne Violations Restaurants 0.03 more 4% fewer 0.45 more 136% more Other 0.37 fewer 48% fewer 0.06 more 28% more Critical Violations Restaurants 0.18 more 156% more 0.25 more 568% more Other 0.03 more 37% more 0.10 more 258% more Non-critical Violations Restaurants 1.65 more1 010/more 2.70 more 535% more Other 0.14 more 19% more 1.19 more 275016 more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Because of the use of two different statistical analyses, the direction and significance for average violations and rate of violations may differ where the differences between trucks or carts and restaurants are small. Full regression results for total violations can be found in Appendix B." 12 1 The Southern Nevada Health District, which inspects all food establishments in Las Vegas, provided inspection data from 2009 through July 2012. In that time, the agency conducted 84,816 inspections of food establishments in Las Vegas, including trucks, carts, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores, cafeterias and food processors. Table 3 provides the average number of violations by establishment type.12 As the table shows, all categories of food service had few violations, and both Las Vegas' food trucks and carts outper- formed restaurants, as trucks averaged 3.3 violations, mobile food carts—hot dog stands and other sidewalk carts—two, and restaurants seven. Statistical analysis confirms these differences, as shown in Table 4. Results show that Las Vegas' food trucks and carts averaged fewer violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Table 3: Las Vegas Food -safety Violations, 2009 -July 2012* Trucks Average (Mean) Standard Violations Deviation 3.27 i Minimum 4.88 Maximum 01 31 Restaurants 6.99 6.78 0 89 Carts 2.05 3.62 0 46 Other 4.39 5.08 0 100 *Data provided by the Southern Nevada Health District and based on 494 inspections of 163 food trucks, 42,611 inspections of 8,670 restaurants, 1,993 inspections of 602 carts and 39,718 inspections of other food establishments. Table 4: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Las Vegas, 2009 -July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. 14 UAFORTUAATELY, CITY OFFICIALS OFTEn RELY OA CLAIMS THAT BRICH-AAD-MORTAR RESTAURAATS ARE SAFER TO JUSTIFY OUTRIGHT BAnS OA MOBILE UEADIAG AS WELL AS LIMITS OA WHEA AAD WHERE UEf1DORS MAY SELL. THESE LAUDS AOT OALY PUSH FOOD TRUCHS An CARTS OUT OF CITIES, THEY ALSO STIFLE EATREPREAEURSHIP, DESTROY JOBS AAD HURT COASUMERS. r%eda- L 15 9U' 16' A$ 1✓ ._. �R=.— ''.w4� — --._. _ ...rte • ,�. T:. A THOSE POLICYMAHERS COf10ERnED ABOUT HEALTH Ann SAFETY, THEY SHOULD EASURE—THROUGH InSPECTI0f1S—THAT MOBILE FOOD UEnDORS ARE HELD TO THE SAME SHAITATIOn STA(IDARDS AS RESTAURAnTS, In THIS WAY, THE PUBLIC CAA EAJOY FOOD FROM UEnDORS THAT IS BOTH DELICIOUS RAD SAFE WHILE ALLOwinG EnTREPREAEURSHIP AnD ECOAOMIC GROWTH TO THRIUE. J LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles County Depart- ment of Public Health, which inspects all food establishments for potential violations, provided inspection data for 2009 through July 2012. In that time, the department conducted 45,611 inspections of Los Angeles' food estab- lishments, including trucks, carts and restaurants. Table 5 provides the average number of violations, showing that violations were uncommon across all categories of food service.13 Both Los Angeles' trucks and carts outperformed restaurants, as trucks averaged 3.6 violations, mobile food carts—hot dog stands and other sidewalk carts -2.4, and restaurants 7.8. These differences held up under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 6. Results show that both Los Angeles' food trucks and food carts had fewer violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Table 5: Los Angeles Food -safety Violations, 2009 -July 2012* *Data provided by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and based on 2,928 inspections of 601 food trucks, 42,089 inspections of 7,542 restaurants and 594 Inspections of 236 carts. Table 6: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Los Angeles, 2009-3uly 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. 17 LOUISUILLE The Metro Health and Wellness Department in Louisville, which inspects all food establishments for potential vio- lations, provided inspection data for 2010 through July 2013. In that time, the department conducted 34,500 inspections of food establishments, including mobile food vendors, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores, caterers and cafeterias. The department does not distinguish between food trucks and mobile carts, so they were analyzed together as mobile vendors. Table 7 provides the average number of violations by establishment type.14 As the table shows, violations were rare across all categories of food service, and Louisville's mobile vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 1.9 total violations and restaurants 4.4. Statistical analysis confirms the difference, as shown in Table 8. Results show that Louisville's mobile vendors. averaged fewer violations than its restau- rants, and the differences were statisti- cally significant. Table 7: Louisville Food -safety Violations, 2010 -July 2013* *Data provided by Metro Health and Wellness Department and based on 648 inspections of 117 mobile vendors, 16,958 Inspections of 2,540 restaurants and 16,894 inspections of other food establishments. Table 8: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Louisville, 2010 -July 2013 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. MIAMI The Florida Department of Busi- ness and Professional Regulation, which inspects Miami food establishments for potential critical and non-critical violations of the food code, provided inspection data covering 2008 through July 2012. In that time, the depart- ment conducted 25,463 inspections of food establishments in Miami, including mobile vendors (the department groups together food trucks and carts) and restaurants. Table 9 provides the average number of violations by establishment type. It also breaks out different types of viola- tions as classified by the department— critical, non-critical and total. Critical violations refer to both foodborne illness risk factors (such as foods improperly cooked and toxic substances stored improperly) and violations pertaining 20 to safety and good business practices (such as an unsafe water source and not displaying a current license). Non-critical violations, such as poor maintenance of surface areas and improper storage of cleaning equipment, are generally target- ing preventive measures. As Table 9 shows, both categories of food service saw few violations and Miami's mobile vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 3.7 total violations and restaurants 8.2. The story is similar when looking at differ- ent types of violations. Food trucks and carts received fewer critical and non-crit- ical violations than restaurants. These differences held up under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 10. Results show that Miami's mobile vendors averaged fewer total viola- tions, critical violations and non-critical violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Table 9: Miami Food -safety Violations, 2008 -July 2012* Average (Mean) Standard Minimum Maximu Violations Deviation Violations Mobile Vendors 3.71 3.62 0 31 Restaurants 8.15 7.97 0 69 Critical Violations Mobile Vendors 3.31 3.15 0 26 Restaurants 5.43 5.39 0 47 Non -Critical Violations Mobile Vendors .40 .94 0 10 Restaurants 2.72 3.25 0 36 *Data provided by Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and based on 1,627 inspections of 730 mobile vendors and 23,836 inspections of 3,959 restaurants. Table 10: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Miami, 2008 -July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* Total Violations 4.19 more 117% more Critical Violations 1.96 more 61%. more Non-critical Violations 2.24 more 597% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results for total violations can be found in Appendix B. 's 21 SEATTLE The King County Board of Health, which inspects all food establishments in Seattle for potential violations, provided inspection data for 2009 through July 2012. In that time, the board conducted 34,122 inspections of Seattle food estab- lishments, Including mobile vendors, restaurants and hotels. The board uses mobile food service as a classification and does not separate trucks from carts, so they were analyzed together. Table 11 displays the average num- ber of violations by establishment type.16 As the table shows, Seattle's mobile vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 13.6 total violations and restaurants 16.9. However, these differences disap- peared under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 12. Results show that the difference between Seattle's mobile ven- dors and restaurants was not statistically significant, meaning that mobile vendors and restaurants performed essentially the same. It is worth noting that Seattle's higher levels of violations, compared to other cities, likely result from an Inspection regime that counts each violation based on the severity. For example a non-criti- cal violation may count as two, whereas a critical violation may count as 15, ti� Table 11: Seattle Food -safety Violations by Establishment Type, 2009 -July 2012* *Data provided by King County Board of Health and based on 1,143 inspections of 139 mobile vendors, 32,230 inspections of 2,762 restaurants and 749 inspections of 63 hotels. Table 12: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Seattle, 2009 -July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. WRSHIf1mn, D.C. The Washington, D.C., Department of Health, which inspects all food establish- ments for potential violations, provided Inspection reports for 2011 and 2012. In that time, the department conducted 8,985 inspections of food establishments, including mobile vendors, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery rodents and improper disposal of sewage and waste water. As Table 13 shows, violations were uncommon across all categories of food service, and D.C. mobile food vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 1.8 total violations and restau- rants 4.3. The story is similar when looking at different types of violations. Mobile vendors received fewer critical and stores and wholesalers. The Department non-critical violations than restaurants. does distinguish between food trucks and Statistical analysis confirms these carts; however, the populations were too small to analyze separately and so were combined into one category. Table 13 provides the average num- ber of violations by establishment type. It also breaks out different types of violations as classified by D.C.—critical, non-critical and total. Critical violations refer to both foodborne illness risk fac- tors and public health interventions, such as foods cooked improperly and failure to display consumer advisories. Non-critical violations refer to good retail practices, such as the presence of insects and differences, as shown in Table 14. Results show that D.C: s mobile vendors averaged fewer total violations, critical violations and non-critical violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Note that while restaurants and other brick -and -mortar establishments received an estimated 10 times as many critical violations as vendors, this difference is not as large in reality as it may appear. Mobile vendors received a tiny fraction of a violation per vendor, and the other categories received fewer than two per establishment. Table 13: Washington, D.C., Food -safety Violations, 2011-2012* Average (Mean) Standard Minimum Maximum Violations Deviation Mobile Vendors 1.81 1.31 0 7 Restaurants 4.27 4.74 0 1 40 Other 3.83 3.84 0 1 22 Critical Violations Mobile Vendors 0.12 0.41 0 2 Restaurants 1.80 1.97 0 14 Other 1.45 1.63 0 10 Non -Critical Violations Mobile Vendors 1.69 1.14 0 6 Restaurants 2.47 3.26 0 26 Other 2.38 2.75 0 16 *Data provided by Washington, D.C., Department of Health and based on 133 inspections of 102 mobile vendors, 7,749 Inspections of 2,762 restaurants and 1,103 Inspections of other food establishments. Table 14: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Washington, D.C., 2011-2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* Average Violations Rate of Violations Compared to Compared to Mobile Vendors Mobile Vendors - -- — Total Violations Restaurants 1.63 more 94% more Other 1.55 more 89% more Critical Violations Restaurants 1.30 more 1,066% more Other 1.12 more 934% more Non-critical Violations Restaurants .34 more 23% more Other .44 more 28% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results for total violations can be found in Appendix B." 25 COULUSM Thanks to low start-up costs, street vending is an ideal opportunity for entre- preneurs with big ideas but little capital. Not surprisingly, following the recession, the number of food trucks on the streets exploded, with vendors selling everything from ice cream and hot dogs to creme brOlee and sushi. Consumers appreciate the diverse menus, low prices and conve- nience of mobile vendors. In the seven cities studied here, street food is every bit as safe as food from a restaurant. In each of these cities, food trucks, carts and restaurants are held to the same sanitation stan- dards, and trucks and carts did just as well if not slightly better during sanita- tion inspections than restaurants—and violations by all types of food businesses were rare. The notion that food trucks and carts are unsafe is simply a myth. Sensationalist news reports like the WAVE3 story misinform both the public and policymakers. The WAVE3 report caused an uproar, with custom- ers who bought tickets to an upcoming food -truck festival asking for refunds and some vendors saying new custom- ers are now more reticent to try their products." Such misinformation has 26 also been offered to justify laws that unfairly restrict mobile vendors' ability to compete. But this report shows that it makes no more sense to shut down or burden food trucks or carts with anti-competitive regulations under the guise of food safety than it would to shut down or burden restaurants, hotels or grocery stores. It shouldn't be surprising that food trucks and carts are just as clean and sanitary as restaurants. Both business models rely on repeat customers, and few people are going to eat twice at a place that made them ill. With the rise of social media like Yelp, word of mouth about a business—whether good or bad—spreads further and more quickly than ever before. And one advantage of food trucks and carts is that it is easier to watch as your food is being prepared—something you simply cannot do at most restaurants. So consumers can rest assured that food trucks and carts are as clean as restau- rants, and in fact are often more so. For those policymakers concerned about health and safety, they should ensure—through inspections—that mobile food vendors are held to the same sani- tation standards as restaurants.19 In this way, the public can enjoy food from ven- dors that is both delicious and safe while allowing entrepreneurship and economic growth to thrive. ilk In THE SEUEn CITIES STUDIED HERE, STREET FOOD IS EUERY BIT AS SAFE AS FOOD FROM A RESTRURAnT. THE nOTIOn THAT FOOD TRUCHS AAD CARTS ARE unSAFE IS SIMPLY A MYTH. a. 7 1p t fiPPE X Do METHODS To isolate the influence of establishment types (R) on the inspection scores (Y) received, these analyses measured differences using OLS regression with fixed -ef- fects. Inspection scores were regressed on establishment types and dummy variables representing day of the week (0), month (X) and year (4). Weekday, month and year reveal variability of inspections across time. Seattle and Washington, D.C., include a risk variable (W), which those cities use to Identify the potential risk associated with an establishment dependent on the manner in which it prepares and serves food. For example, high-risk categories Include establish- ments that handle raw Ingredients extensively, like most sit-down restaurants; moder- ate -risk categories include establishments that have limited preparation, like a deli or coffee shop; and low-risk categories include establishments such as hot dog stands and convenience stores that primarily serve prepackaged or limited preparation foods. An establishment can be inspected once or multiple times in one year with little consistency across establishments. Additionally, the type of food served at or from an establishment determines the level of detail required during a health inspection, which means not all the inspection categories apply to every establishment. The establish- ment fixed effect (0) isolates and eliminates the individual specific differences.30 Because sanitation scores are a count of the number of violations during an inspection and most inspections have few violations, a Poisson regression was also used. As with the OLS, inspection scores were regressed on establishment types and the time dummy variables. Standard errors were clustered by establishment to account for multiple Inspections per business. The following is the OLS model for Boston: Y=(io+(3, (restaurants) +P, (other)+0+X+S2+m+C The Poisson model is: In (Y)=Ruta, (restaurants)+ 0, (other)+O+X+R "Y" represents inspection demerits with zero or no demerits being the best score. The 28 reference year is 2011 with the analysis covering 2011 through July 2013. 431 represents the coefficient for restaurants, and R2 represents the coefficient for grocery stores, cafete- rias, caterers, etc, The models were run separately for food trucks and carts. The OLS model for Las Vegas is: Y=(ia+431 (restaurants)+ 0, (other)+0+X+92+(D+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=43o+431 (restaurants)+R2 (other)+O+X+4 "Y" represents inspection demerits with zero or no demerits being the best score and up to 100 demerits being the worst score. The reference year is 2009 with the analysis covering 2009 through July 2012. 0, represents the coefficient for restau- rants, and 02 represents the coefficient for grocery stores, processors, cafeterias, etc. The models were run separately for food trucks and carts. The OLS model for Los Angeles is: Y=43a+431 (restaurants)+O+X+92+cp+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=R,+(31 (restaurants)+O+X+92 "Y" represents inspection demerits where zero is the best possible score.21 The analysis is from 2009 (the reference year) through July 2012. 431 represents the coef- ficient for restaurants. The models were run separately for food trucks and carts. The following is the OLS model for Louisville: Y=43o+431 (restaurants)+432 (other)+O+X+n+m+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=P,+431 (restaurants)+432 (other)+U+X+92 "Y" represents inspection demerits.22 The reference year is 2010 with the analysis covering 2010 through July 2013. P, represents the coefficient for restaurants, and P2 29 represents the coefficient for grocery stores, cafeterias, caterers, etc. The OLS model for Miami is: Y=(3o+(3, (restaurants)+O+X+4+tV+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=P,+(3, (restaurants)+O+X+n "Y" is the number of violations coded consistent with the other cities above, and (3 represents the coefficient for restaurants. The analysis is from 2008 (the reference year) through July 2012. The OLS model for Seattle is: Y=(io+j3, (restaurants) +P, (hotels)+O+X+.Q+W+m+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(3,+R, (restaurants)+P, (hotels)+O+X+32+W 30 "Y" is the number of inspection demerits with zero being the best possible score. The reference year is 2009 with the analysis covering 2009 through July 2012. P, represents the coefficient for restaurants, and P, represents the coefficient for hotels. Seattle also has a risk rank fixed effect (4P). Seattle ranks establishments that sell pre-packaged food with limited preparation as the lowest, one, and establishments with complex food preparation and storage as the highest, three. The OLS model for Washington, D.C. is: Y={3o+(i, (restaurants)+ P, (other)+o+X+sa+w+m+C The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(3o+(3, (restaurants)+P, (other)+O+X+SZ+W "Y" is the number of violations. The analysis was run for 2011 and 2012. p, represents the coefficient for restaurants, caterers, cafeterias and hotels, and (i2 rep- resents the coefficient for grocery stores, corner stores and wholesalers. Like Seattle, Washington, D.C. has a risk rank fixed effect (LP) based on the District's ranking of establishments, where one is the least risky and five is the riskiest. i 31 Restaurants Other Weekday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Month February March April May June July August September October November December Year 2012 2013 Intercept sigma_u sigma_e rho 32 flPPEnO B: REGRESSM ouTpuT Table 15. Boston Food Trucks Coefficient Robust SE p 1.872 -0.187 -1.399 -1.514 -1.523 -1.413 -1.447 -2.507 -0.046 0.329 0.088 0.284 -0.077 -0.517 -0.140 -0.402 -0.153 -0.341 -0.273 0.461 0.335 3.529 2.471 3.012 0.402 0.253 0.00 0.251 0.46 0.909 0.12 0.906 0.10 0.907 0.09 0.908 0.12 0.907 0.11 0.944 0.01 0.117 0.69 0.126 0.01 0.135 0.51 0.126 0.02 0.133 0.57 0.130 0.00 0.132 0.29 0.123 0.00 0.128 0.23 0.141 0.02 0.152 0.07 0.095 0.00 0.116 0.00 0.978 0.00 Coefficient Robust SE 0.527 0.107 -0.020 0.109 -0.261 0.287 -0.284 0.287 -0.298 0.287 -0.240 0.287 -0.253 0.287 -0.867 0.324 -0.094 0.040 0.095 0.039 0.058 0.041 0.138 0.037 0.006 0.040 -0.111 0.042 -0.021 0.042 -0.151 0.043 -0.027 0.041 -0.027 0.044 0.009 0.048 0.148 0.028 0.129 0.034 1.178 0.315 r. 0.00 0.86 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.40 0.38 0.01 I 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.89 0.01 0.62 0.00 0.51 0.54 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 16. Boston Carts 33 Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 3.391 0.092 0.00 1.580 0.079 0.00 Other 1.334 0.087 0.00 1.033 0.082 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.231 0.149 0.12 0.438 0.171 0.01 Wednesday 0.123 0.147 0.40 0.415 0.171 0.02 Thursday 0.118 0.147 0.42 0.404 0.171 0.02 Friday 0.226 0.147 0.13 0.462 0.171 0.01 Saturday 0.181 0.148 0.22 0.447 0.171 0.01 Sunday -0353 0.222 0.11 -0.099 0.235 0.67 Month February -0.032 0,115 0.78 -0.090 0.040 0.03 March 0.358 0.126 0.00 0.101 0.039 0.01 April 0.102 0.131 0.44 0.058 0.041 0.16 May 0.269 0.122 0.03 0.135 0.037 0.00 June -0.058 0.129 0.65 0.012 0.040 0.76 July -0.492 0.126 0.00 -0.111 0.042 0.01 August -0.145 0.127 0.25 -0.031 0.042 0.47 September -0.393 0.122 0.00 -0.150 0.043 0.00 October -0.160 0.127 0.21 -0.027 0.041 0.50 November -0.330 0.138 0.02 -0.033 0.044 0.45 December -0.231 0.150 0.12 0.017 0.048 0.73 Year 2012 0.450 0.092 0.00 0.145 0.028 0.00 2013 0.318 0.113 0.01 0.124 0.034 0.00 Intercept 0.387 0.182 0.03 -0.573 0.165 0.00 sigma_u 2.324 sigma_e 2.970 rho 0.380 33 Table 17. Las Vegas Food Trucks 34 Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 3.575 0.287 0.00 0.732 0.096 0.00 Other 1.085 0.286 0.00 0.267 0.096 0.01 Weekday Tuesday 0.375 0.291 0.20 0.113 0.055 0.04 Wednesday 0.191 0.291 0.51 0.078 0.055 0.15 Thursday 0.123 0.290 0.67 0.064 0.055 0.24 Friday 0.048 0.290 0.87 0.051 0.055 0.35 Saturday -0.371 0.289 0.20 -0.026 0.055 0.63 Sunday -0,239 0.310 0.44 -0.051 0.060 0.39 Month February -0.064 0.079 0.42 -0.006 0.015 0.68 March -0.161 0.079 0.04 -0.022 0.015 0.15 April -0.105 0.085 0.22 -0,015 0.016 0.37 May 0.030 0.088 0.74 0.015 0.016 0.36 June -0.055 0.082 0.50 0.003 0.016 0.83 July 0.166 0.087 0.06 0.040 0.016 0.01 August 0.322 0.095 0.00 0.076 0.018 0,00 September 0.028 0.086 0.74 0.013 0.017 0.44 October -0.176 0.087 0.04 -0.020 0.017 0.25 November 0.100 0.102 0.33 0.035 0.019 0.07 December -0.124 0.104 0.23 -0.007 0.020 0.72 Year 2010 0.107 0.039 0.01 0.021 0.008 0.01 2011 0.544 0.045 0.00 0.100 0.009 0.00 2012 1.306 0.060 0.00 0.231 0.011 0.00 Intercept 2.758 0.409 0.00 1.073 0.111 0.00 sigma_u 1.578 sigma_e 5.558 rho 0.075 34 Table 18. Las Vegas Carts 35 Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 4.711 0.112 0.00 1.214 0.054 0.00 Other 2.221 0.110 0.00 0.748 0.055 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.359 0.276 0.19 0.110 0.054 0.04 Wednesday 0.181 0.275 0.51 0.076 0.054 0.16 Thursday 0.118 0.275 0.67 0.063 0.054 0.24 Friday 0.038 0.275 0.89 0.049 0.054 0.36 Saturday -0.362 0.274 0.19 -0.026 0.054 0.62 Sunday -0.204 0.295 0.49 -0.044 0.059 0.46 j Month February -0.061 0.078 0.43 -0.005 0.015 0.71 March -0.160 0.078 0.04 -0.022 0.015 0.14 April -0.106 0.084 0.20 -0.015 0.016 0.34 May 0.038 0.087 0.67 0.016 0.016 0.32 June -0.049 0.081 0.54 0.004 0.015 0.82 July 0.176 0.086 0.04 0.042 0.016 0.01 August 0.340 0.094 0.00 0.080 0.018 0.00 September 0.059 0.085 0.49 0.019 0.017 0.25 October -0.170 0.087 0.05 -0.019 0.017 0.26 November 0.130 0.100 0.19 0.041 0.019 0.03 December -0.107 0.103 0.30 -0.003 0.020 0.88 Year _.. _.. 2010 0.107 0.038 0.01 0.021 0.008 0.01 2011 0.549 0.044 0.00 0.103 0.009 0.00 2012 1.300 0.059 0.00 0.233 0.011 0.00 Intercept 1.618 0.294 0.00 0.591 0.076 0.00 sigma_u 1.569 sigma_e 5.524 rho 0.075 35 Table 19. Los Angeles Food Trucks 36 Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 4.484 0.143 0.00 0.786 0.049 0.00 Weekday Tuesday -0.313 0.424 0.46 0.145 0.074 0.05 Wednesday -0.233 0.421 0.58 0.145 0.074 0.05 Thursday -0.187 0.420 0.66 0.144 0.074 0.05 Friday -0.242 0.421 0.57 0.133 0.074 0.07 Saturday -0.206 0.426 0.63 0.122 0.074 0.10 Sunday 1.110 0.516 0.03 0.248 0.089 0.01 Month February 0.124 0.115 0.28 0.012 0.017 0.45 March 0.101 0.097 0.30 0.018 0.015 0.23 April 0.041 0.102 0.69 0.006 0.015 0.71 May -0.021 0.097 0.83 -0.006 0.014 0.70 June 0.081 0.110 0.46 0.018 0.016 0.26 July 0.251 0.128 0.05 0.030 0.018 0.10 August 0.326 0.123 0.01 0.033 0.018 0.06 September 0.533 0.121 0.00 0.069 0.017 0.00 October 0.282 0.135 0.04 0.025 0.019 0.19 November 0.104 0.132 0.43 0.011 0.019 0.55 December -0.141 0.120 0.24 -0.004 0.018 0.81 Year 2010 -0.402 0.067 0.00 -0.056 0.009 0.00 2011 -0.701 0.070 0.00 -0.094 0.010 0.00 2012 -0.829 0.090 0.00 -0.102 0.013 0.00 Intercept 3.721 0.450 0.00 1.178 0.091 0.00 sigma_u 2.430 slgma_e 4.633 rho 0.216 36 Table 20. Los Angeles Carts 3% Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 5.648 0.237 0.00 1.214 0.105 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.254 0.393 0.52 0.264 0.074 0.00 Wednesday 0.440 0.391 0.26 0.275 0.073 0.00 Thursday 0.436 0.391 0.26 0.268 0.073 0.00 Friday 0.443 0.390 0.26 0.265 0.073 0.00 Saturday 0.402 0.394 0.31 0.245 0.074 0.00 Sunday 0.843 0.492 0.09 0.265 0.091 0.00 Month February 0.130 0.116 0.26 0.013 0.016 0.43 March 0.131 0.097 0.18 0.020 0.015 0.16 April 0.040 0.101 0.69 0.005 0.015 0.74 May 0.024 0.097 0.80 0.000 0.014 0.98 June 0.232 0.111 0.04 0.037 0.016 0.02 July 0.321 0.132 0.02 0.036 0.018 0.05 August 0.342 0.126 0.01 0.032 0.018 0.07 September 0.452 0.119 0.00 0.058 0.017 0.00 October 0.289 0.138 0.04 0.025 0.019 0.20 November 0.034 0.123 0.79 0.003 0.017 0.85 December -0.155 0.121 0.20 -0.004 0.018 0.84 Year 2010 -0.468 0.069 0.00 -0.064 0.009 0.00 2011 -0.849 0.070 0.00 -0.113 0.010 0.00 2012 -0.958 0.091 0.00 -0.118 0.012 0.00 Intercept 1.996 0.458 0.00 0.635 0.127 0.00 sigma_u 2.454 sigma_e 4.520 rho 0.228 3% Table 21. Louisville Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) 38 Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 2.441 0.164 0.00 0.826 0.076 0.00 Other 1.354 0.166 0.00 0.596 0,077 0.00 I Weekday Tuesday 0.200 0.243 0.41 0.030 0.112 0.79 Wednesday 0.177 0.247 0.47 0.024 0.113 0.83 Thursday 0.102 0.246 0.68 0.016 0.112 0.89 Friday 0.095 0.256 0.71 -0.017 0.114 0.88 Saturday -0.019 0.273 0.94 -0.051 0.117 0.67 Sunday -0.044 0.215 0.84 -0.101 0.116 0.39 Month - - - - - --- - February 0.000 0.101 1.00 0.023 0.032 0.46 March -0.158 0,095 0.10 -0.058 0.032 0,07 April 0.151 0.141 0.28 0.069 0.035 0.05 May 0.208 0.188 0.27 0.067 0.043 0,12 June 0.060 0.113 0.60 0.027 0.030 0.37 3uly 0.009 0,097 0.93 0.009 0.029 0.75 August -0.356 0.222 0.11 -0.090 0.079 0.26 September 0,201 0.117 0.09 0.107 0.033 0.00 October 0.070 0,112 0.53 -0.009 0.034 0.80 November -0.099 0,103 0,34 -0,040 0.032 0.21 December -0.060 0.106 0.58 01005 0.033 0.88 Year 2010 0.719 0.073 0.00 0.201 0.026 0.00 2011 0.606 0.113 0.00 0.160 0.037 0.00 2012 0.282 0.068 0.00 0.062 0.025 0.01 Intercept 1.352 0.346 0.00 0.523 0.137 0,00 sigma_u 1.913 sigma_e 3.729 rho 0.208 38 Table 22. Miami Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) 39 Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 4.191 0.126 0.00 0.773 0.032 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 2.922 0.378 0.00 0.868 0.105 0.00 Wednesday 2.524 0.371 0.00 0.826 0.105 0.00 Thursday 2.606 0.372 0.00 0.841 0.105 0.00 Friday 2.529 0,377 0.00 0.826 0.105 0.00 Saturday 2.205 0.374 0.00 0.775 0.105 0.00 Sunday 0.732 0.515 0.16 0.354 0.136 0.01 Month February 0.308 0.211 0.15 0.060 0.029 0.04 March 0.228 0.218 0.29 0.052 0.029 0.07 April -0.482 0.212 0.02 -0.042 0.031 0.18 May -1.080 0.213 0.00 -0.106 0.031 0.00 June -1.730 0.201 0.00 -0.255 0.031 0.00 July -0.215 0,231 0.35 -0.011 0.030 0.72 August -0.391 0.241 0.11 -0.023 0.032 0.47 September -0.565 0.239 0.02 -0.054 0.032 0.09 October -0.522 0.242 0.03 -0.053 0.032 0,10 November -0.598 0,272 0.03 -0.049 0.036 0.17 December -0.852 0.257 0,00 -0.107 0.035 0.00 Year 2009 -1.368 0.151 0.00 -0.154 0.017 0.00 2010 -1.487 0.225 0.00 -0.175 0.027 0.00 2011 -3.323 0.150 0.00 -0.435 0.019 0.00 2012 -3.495 0.213 0.00 -0.466 0.027 0.00 Intercept 3.533 0.438 0.00 0.761 0.112 0.00 sigma_u 2.877 sigma_e 6.570 rho 0.161 39 Table 23. Seattle Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) Coefficient Robust SE P I Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants -1.505 1.368 0.27 -0.094 0.111 0.40 Hotels -6.893 1.589 0.00 -0.915 0.191 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.103 2.951 0.97 0.292 0.256 0.25 Wednesday -0.849 2.963 0.77 0.264 0.256 0.30 Thursday -0.251 2.980 0.93 0.270 0.257 0.29 Friday 0.741 2.964 0.80 0.387 0.257 0.13 Saturday -0.596 3.003 0.84 0.279 0.257 0.28 Sunday -0,315 3.358 0.93 0.120 0,283 0.67 Month February -1.626 0.934 0.08 -0.085 0.070 0.22 March 0.898 0.932 0.34 0.102 0.078 0.19 April -2.009 0.894 0.03 -0.113 0.067 0.09 May -3.274 0.893 0.00 -0.286 0.072 0.00 June -2.652 1.026 0.01 -0.158 0.073 0.03 July -0.298 1.232 0.81 0.011 0.099 0.92 August -1.090 1.257 0.39 -0.028 0.090 0.76 September -5.733 1.042 0.00 -0.400 0.083 0.00 October -6.436 1.009 0.00 -0.522 0.093 0100 November -5.098 0,976 0.00 -0.428 0.083 0.00 December -5.743 0.982 0.00 -0.409 0.084 0.00 Year 2010 -0.135 0.621 0.83 0.007 0.056 0.90 2011 -0.801 0.585 0.17 -0.006 0.054 0.91 2012 -0.318 0.745 0.67 0.061 0.060 0.31 Risk Rank 2 -3.243 0.822 0.00 -0.567 0.140 0.00 2/3 -8.459 1.727 0.00 -1.243 0.347 0.00 3 5.419 0.760 0.00 0.506 0.104 0.00 Intercept 12.828 3.140 0.00 2.313 0.267 0.00 sigma_u 8.730 sigma_e 15.340 rho 0,245 40 Table 24. Washington, D.C., Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) Coefficient Robust SE p I Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 1.630 0.151 0.00 0.661 0.088 0.00 Other 1.550 0.169 0.00 0.636 0.092 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.732 0.918 0.43 0.224 0.305 0.46 Wednesday 0.837 0.913 0.36 0.325 0.148 0.03 Thursday 0.641 0,912 0.48 0.370 0.148 0.01 Friday 0.945 0.917 0.30 0.329 0.148 0.03 Saturday 0.739 0.919 0.42 0.399 0.148 0.01 Sunday 0.859 1.575 0.59 0.327 0.148 0.03 Motitft. - � February 0.113 0.258 0.66 0.248 0.182 0.17 March -0.024 0.248 0.92 -0.006 0.059 0.93 April 0.021 0.255 0.94 0.025 0.034 0.45 May 0.061 0.233 0.79 -0.013 0.032 0.67 June -0.142 0.241 0.56 -0.017 0.033 0.60 July 0.337 0.263 0.20 -0.006 0.032 0.85 August 0.396 0.246 0.11 -0.021 0.034 0.53 September -0.287 0.243 0.24 0.069 0.033 0.04 October -0.349 0.230 0.13 0.065 0.031 0.04 November -0.418 0.230 0.07 -0.089 0.033 0.01 December -0.524 0.252 0.04 -0.104 0.032 0.00 Year 2012 -0.586 0.088 0.00 -0.147 0.033 0.00 Risk Rank 2 0.489 0.192 0.01 -0.174 0.035 0.00 3 1.344 0.193 0.00 0.374 0.063 0.00 4 2.051 0.273 0.00 -0.164 0.012 0.00 5 -0.162 0.472 0.73 -0.046 0.168 0.78 Intercept 1.110 0.934 0.23 0.168 0.055 0.00 sigma_u 0.000 sigma_e 4.719 rho 0.000 41 1 Public Broadcasting Service. "Timeline of the Great Depression." http://www. pbs. org/wg bh/a m eri ca nexperi ence/fea- tures/timeline/rai Is -timeline/. 2 http://www.wave3.com/ story/22818583/health-department- worried -a tory/22818583/health-department- worried-a bo ut-food-truck-sa n I ati on - safety. 3 http://www.wave3.com/ story/22818583/health-depa rtm ent- worried-a bout-food-truck-sa n i atio n - safety. 4 Norman, E., Frommer, R., Gall, B., & Knepper, L. (July 2011) "Streets of dreams: How cities can create eco- nomic opportunity by knocking down protectionist barriers to street vending." Institute for Justice: Arlington, VA. 5 Initially Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle and Washington D.C. were cho- sen from the 50 largest cities in the U.S. because their sanitation records were accessible and Included ways to distin- guish by establishment type. Later both Boston and Louisville were added after news reports suggested that food trucks 42 performed worse than restaurants during inspections. 6 Local codes are governed by state sanitation laws, which are mainly con- cerned with cleanliness, food sourcing and storage, food temperatures and employee health and knowledge. They also address vermin, refuse, consumer protection, utensils and equipment. Additionally, the seven municipalities studied all require food -truck and cart owners to work out of a commissary— shared commercial kitchen—where they must store food, containers and supplies as well as prepare food, clean utensils and dispose of liquid and solid waste. The commissaries, like restaurants and mobile vendors, must pass periodic health inspections to remain open. 7 In Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville and Seattle, violations are given demerit values depending on the severity of the violation. For example, a foodborne violation may have a demerit of five whereas a business practice violation may have a demerit of one. In these cities, the sum of the demerits is the number provided by the agencies and is reported here as number of violations. 8 Analyses controlled for when an establishment was inspected—day of the week, month and year—because variations may occur with higher traffic and lower traffic days and with sea- sonal and yearly fluctuations in demand, weather, foods, pests and other fac- tors. The analyses also controlled for each individual establishment because some businesses may be inspected more often or have consistent issues based on something other than the type of food establishment they are. The analyses for Seattle and Washington, D.C., also controlled for risk categories assigned by the cities. These categories are assigned based on establishments' methods of food preparation and deliv- ery—pre-packaged versus fresh food, ice cream versus warm lunch entrees and so forth. Analyses controlled for these categories so that an abundance of high-risk, and therefore potentially high -violation, establishments in one category would not skew results. 9 The Poisson regression is commonly used for analyzing count data, which we have here (i.e., counts of viola- tions). However, the results of OLS regression tend to be easier to under- stand and are included here for ease of interpretation. 113 The full regression output for mod- els in Boston, Miami and Washington, D.C., using the numbers of critical and non-critical violations can be supplied upon request. 11 The full regression output for the models using the number of critical foodborne, critical and non-critical violations sepa- rately can be supplied upon request. 12 The number of violations here is actually the number of reported demer- its, where more severe violations receive more demerits. 13 The number of violations here is actu- ally the number of reported demerits, where more severe violations receive more demerits. 14 The number of violations here Is actu- ally the number of reported demerits, where more severe violations receive more demerits. 15 The full regression output for the models using the number of critical and non-critical violations separately can be supplied upon request. 16 The number of violations here is actu- ally the number of reported demerits, where more severe violations receive more demerits. 43 I? The full regression output for the models using the number of critical and non-critical violations separately can be supplied upon request. 18 http://fatlip.leoweekly. com/2013/07/26/i nspecti on-scores- sugg est -I ou isvi I le-food-trucks-arent-as- sca ry-a s-wave3-th i n ks/. 19 For more information on good food - truck laws see: Frommer, R. & Gall, B. (November 2012) "Food -truck freedom: How to build better food -truck laws in your city." Institute for Justice: Arling- ton, VA; http://Ij.org/vending. 44 20 The OLS models were also run with- out the establishment fixed effects and the Poisson models were run with establishment fixed effects. The results of these models were not appreciably different from the ones used in this report. These results can be provided upon request. 21 These values were transformed from the original grade that removes demer- its from 100. 22 These values were transformed from the original grade that removes demerits from 100. R O E L R C. PUSH Angela C. Erickson is a research analyst at the Insti- tute for Justice, where she works with the strategic research team conducting original social science research. Before joining IJ, Erickson was a research assistant at the Cato Institute. She holds a Master's in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and received a Bachelor's degree in economics and political science from Beloit College. W o OUT DLJ The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that litigates to secure economic liberty, school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government. Founded in 1991, IJ is the nation's only libertarian public interest law firm, pursuing cutting-edge litigation in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are denied by the government. The Institute's strategic research program produces high-quality research to inform public policy debates on issues central to IJ's mission. Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 www.1j.org I T f 703.682.9320 .682.321 J f703.682.9321