Council gives initial OK to food trucks on private property

Food trucks could be coming to a private parking lot near you.
The Custer City Council at its April 3 meeting gave unanimous approval to amending the city’s Ordinance regarding transient merchants, adding a section that would allow mobile food vendors to set up on private property.
The motion to pass a first reading of the amended ordinance passed without any questions or comments from the audience or discussion by the council.
The ordinance states the food truck cannot encroach into any city right-of-way (unless it’s a special event where a road is closed for vendors) adjoining the property on which it sits, and if requested by the city the vendor must be able to provide a vending permit and proof of the property owner’s consent to operate on the property.
The ordinance also states the vendor cannot block traffic in any way and that the vendor must provide a private trash bin that is no less than 13 gallons. Umbrellas and canopies must be secured for weather, and the trucks cannot sell alcohol. The trucks cannot be permanently located on any property and cannot hook up to city sewer.
All food trucks must have insurance coverage, and they cannot operate within 300 feet of any event held in the Central Business District without written permission from the event sponsor. There is also a limit to the signage the food trucks can put out, and they are prohibited from broadcasting music from the truck.
Cost of the permit is a $300 annually. There is no limit on the time a food truck can spend in city limits spelled out in the ordinance, again provided it does not permanently locate on any one property.
The proposed ordinance amendment must pass a second reading at the next council meeting, which is April 17.
The council also heard from Trent Bruce of DGR Engineering at the meeting, who updated the council on the progress of its ongoing wastewater treatment plan upgrades, along with talking about additional funding the city received from the state for the project.
Bruce has helped steward the city through the project, and told the council it received the $5.596 million in funding it requested from the state to bridge the gap between the funding the city had already secured to complete the project to the amount of money now needed for the project. Best of all, Bruce said, the state is giving just over $3 million in principle forgiveness in regards to the money.
Bruce said construction on the plant renovations continues to progress and is still ahead of the completion dates, although the recent weather has slowed down progress somewhat.
The council approved a $35,000 purchase on private property just east of Spring Place for installation of utilities for the project, which Bruce said was a cheaper option for installation due to the narrowness of the right of way for Spring Place and the volume of utilities already within that right of way. Bruce said the $35,000 price tag was fair and reasonable considering the additional expense the city would have incurred had it proceeded with construction within the right of way.
Rob McWhorter also addressed the council, once again imploring the council to take an official stand against the exploratory gold mining project planned for the Custer area.
“This resolution will put F3 (the mining company) and the Forest Service on notice that Custer County and Custer City residents are going to insist on full environmental disclosure for this  drilling program and the associated mining activity,” he said.
McWhorter said the city and county stand to benefit little from the mining, which he said could affect the area’s tourism industry. He added there are many Custer residents opposed to the mining, pointing to the 324 who have registered comments with the Forest Service regarding the project.
“In a nut shell, this project is not suitable for the location chosen,” McWhorter said. “A large hard rock mine in the three mile area and extending area is totally incompatible with the established neighborhoods. We’re not asking the council to do anything more than formally tell the Forest Service that we want full disclosure under the National Environmental Policy Act.”
McWhorter said F3 needs to initiative an extensive outreach program to answer questions, saying the public is not getting its questions regarding the project answered.
“As for F3, it appears they are simply going to stonewall us,” he said.
Alderwoman Jeannie Fischer said submitting written comments to the Forest Service would be more affective than passing a resolution, because it becomes a part of the official project record and the comments must receive a response. The public has until April 10 to comment on the proposed mining.
In other news from the April 3 meeting, the council:
• Declined a request to waive the snow removal abatements that have accumulated at 604 Mt. Rushmore Rd. The city has removed the snow from in front of the building five times since December, at a total cost of $935.
• Heard a request from Lester Wise to look at the town’s sanding policy in the winter, particularly at the intersection of Sidney Park Road and Park Avenue, where he said he and his wife recently suffered a debilitating car accident.