i am calling the wednesday august 31st 2022 code review task force meeting to order at 5 30 pm uh the clerk will please take roll tim hall donna jensen here golden embarra hi cody andrew i'm gonna learn one of these days i keep trying andrew here nancy nice to meet you here michael bryan steve roush president shelly board here sarah albrecht joshua walls okay members of the public may attend in person or participate online at zoom dot us slash join meeting id 846-1495-6750 you log into the meeting please use the chat feature to tell the moderator if you wish to speak to an item more information is available in the agenda packet and on the city's website now on to the agenda item one is the adoption of the agenda city clerk does staff have any changes to the agenda nothing from staff any task force members have changes may have a motion to adopt the agenda motion to adopt to adopt the agenda all those in favor please say i and raise your hand close opposed may raise your hand motion carries item two of the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the july 7th meeting does staff have any changes to the minutes to approve the minutes all those in favor please say aye and raise your hand no she carries uh number three review outstanding items uh michelle i believe you have an update on the task force timeline yeah in your packets you i put in there a timeline this is something that we use with our staff to kind of keep track of when things are coming before the before the task force and so that staff know when we should start reviewing those chapters for before you have to go through them um so i put this in there it this is a member nice student's request to talk about the timeline and definitely this timeline has taken longer than expected so um this is just kind of a what was it in this packet here yeah no that's the one i handed out the one that was online okay did you i did that is a paper copy available i didn't you didn't see it in the packet okay i assumed it will be here so i didn't okay i did not make copies of this but that's probably something we could do okay and uh why don't i do that and other than that i've got it right here but basically it's showing us that um you know we kind of thought that we would be taking some of the chapters more than one at a time and that's really not happening we're kind of going through some of these deeper chapters some of them are even taking more than one meeting right particularly like the liquor licensing that one took a lot of time so um i and i think nancy did you want to talk about bring up why or what your concerns are yeah we uh as a group decided kind of how we would review things and the time we would take to review and i just wanted to make sure that everyone was still on board we didn't necessarily know the ramifications of some of those decisions i would say the group decided that um careful review and thoroughness were of a higher priority than expeditiously moving through um i wasn't necessarily on that side but uh i'll go with the group so it's uh seeming indeed uh that it would be perhaps up to maybe another year if we continue at this pace and i just wanted to see the mood of the group if everyone has that same understanding expectation and if that's all great with everybody or if there was any thought of changing how the review process goes that's why i asked for that i appreciate it well nancy do you have an opinion that you'd like to share my opinion would be that we reduce perhaps some of the i'll just call it thoroughness um extremely careful review almost word by word by word and consider a different way of a slightly different way of doing it that would be my opinion okay michelle i just wanted to say if it's something that the members are open to i could try to expedite some things by saying if there was some question about it it could be if there are things that need to go back instead of discussing them so thoroughly on the night of i could bring back more information so that the group might make a quicker decision you know how we bring back for instance the the pawn shops and resellers tonight how we brought back some of those things that there was some back and forth on with more review for things that we need more review on maybe we send those back for research faster and i mean or we could consider calling a question i mean making a decision faster if if there's if everybody feels like they've been heard i mean we don't want to keep people from being heard but we want to if we just trying to think about this expeditiously so if anybody else has any other suggestions we're open to hearing that steve i don't think i want to go for another year i think we should readdress the schedule and the number of chapters per meeting and make sure we're hitting the right tact and if that dictates a different level of thoroughness or requires more pre-work or more clarity you know so be it but i don't think we want this to go another year okay others opinions michael um when i originally signed up i was open to go however long you could but my heart and liver failure are now terminal and i'm on my last evaluation for heart and liver transplant in tennessee and if that doesn't fall through um i'm probably going to move back in with my mother in california because i can't take care of myself anymore and if i do get listed i'll be moving to tennessee or close to it so either way in probably the next couple months i won't be available anymore so i don't know if that changes anybody's decision on things but it just makes it so there's maybe more take difficult for him if there's one last person i don't know well thank you for sharing this i am sorry for the circumstances brought you to that and wish you full recovery but we'll look forward to having you with us as long as uh you're willing and able and of good spirits to do so um my opinion would be that when i signed up for it i was told that it'd be a two-year commitment and so that's kind of what i've been imagined um and when i think you know we're in title three and there's 11 titles well that's a lot but as i've looked at some of the other things like particularly the fire regulations i i expect title v personally to go by pretty quickly because we're not firefighters and um much like the building code section um where um i forget who the city engineers name is but he explained to us that the the code that we had reviewed was not a matter of life safety we weren't making decisions on how should a building be supported so that people don't die but more other policy decisions i think that some of these other things uh like specifically the building regulations like the building code and some things related to that i think will probably go pretty quickly because we don't really have uh in my opinion that much to add that hasn't been recovered by state law otherwise i think the police regulations the health and sanitation um [Music] sections those will probably be the the biggest ones we we aren't slated to review titles 10 and 11. um so i think that police regulations title six title seven title nine maybe title eight to some degree um will be the the pieces that we have more thorough review on but i would you know i think that there will be certain things that we are able to just read and or more or less just go right through because it's probably not a part of the part of the purpose of of this committee's existence is to add the human lens to it and i think that probably i will suppose that the fire code is probably sufficient as it is and that whereas you know because the community members don't really engage in that as they do with things like title three so that's i i'm open to ideas for maybe more pre-work or how to engage more chapters um but uh i'm i am committed to two years myself i also was committed to the two years for the task force um i am also willing to go longer i think words matter and especially in our culture right now words matter more um and i think that we need to take a look at it thoroughly it doesn't mean we need to discuss every single bit thoroughly every time i think there are different ways we could do it that might move quicker but it also means people need to come prepared do the pre-work in advance get it to the city staff well in advance so they can do the turnaround so that we can move quicker um i don't think that we can just skip sections and not discuss them because we've had disagreement even in this group so i'm willing to commit to whatever time it takes but i also want to be efficient don i think we're you're the only person we haven't heard from specifically i'm with the same it's whatever commitment it needs but i understand we need to expedite but also go through it carefully so that we're not missing any parts of it but i agree that they're going to be sections that we were aware of them with the fire codes and stuff like that but that that should speed those things up a bit more on it so i think just a commitment to maybe a little more pre-work a little more defer back to them for finding out more information versus extended debating on topics so when we find topics that get a little more contentious we maybe need to go hey time out let's put this one back bring it back versus keeping the debate going on could we do more pre-reading like get ahead um just like these sections instead of two chapters maybe work three chapters right we could read and maybe have any big questions or major disagreements prepared ahead of time like we're discussing this one but she was pre-reading she's already read the rental code she may or may not have done her comments but if we're committed to being ahead and having comments in maybe within a week of the meeting instead of two weeks which might be a challenge for people i don't know everybody's scheduled but we could move faster that way i think as far as city staff opinion uh have have members been oh maybe use the word timely in providing feedback or are you noticing late feedback that then makes the review process no not typically okay but you know there's a bit of a crunch around it when we have to get our work done as well and then sometimes things come up like for instance with the rental licensing chapter we had a recent fire at an apartment building and now the fire chief has asked to have some significant input into the rental licensing process because of that good um so i'm going to be very arbitrary and abstract but if we were to take on maybe 30 more material every time would that how would that impact the city's ability to provide the meaningful input and prepare and not add to the workload i think i think that um staff will be able to keep up with whatever the task force is doing and basically we've been adjusting as as you're if you slow down we slow down if you speed up we speed up so and i think that we will continue to be able to do that going forward but maybe maybe we will just like i said if we can those things that have some unknowns to it that we need to kick back for more research instead of debating those let's wait till we find that information out and then the debate may take a lot less time with with more information and if the task force wants to like for instance if we run late this evening maybe we extend it a little longer to get this chapter done that type of thing might help you know when we need to and we don't anticipate that but it does happen sometimes yeah i think we've only gone long once and that was actually last month um do uh do any of our other regular uh participants dan or council or chris do you generally have any uh thoughts you'd like to share on the topic i'm gonna echo what uh michelle said already is we're gonna have sections i don't think we're gonna have a whole lot of questions for i mean when we start looking at business regulations things that have a lot greater impact on the community we're going to spend more time on them but there's other things in there that i think everybody's not going to have a whole lot of suggestions on it it'll go quicker some sections you think you're going to go through fast i'm not sure you will okay we went through all these i mean so it's uh you know the building regulations the thing that stands out is multiple dwellings in our property code maintenance coordinates that's a big subject in the city right now and lots of people are talking to us about it so you're going to be talking about it won't be something that just passes over gotcha maybe on that kind of stuff what you're talking about like the rental licensing of that maybe there's a listing of things that have been brought to you guys that can get taken to us so we can think about that and wrap our heads around it more so to help expedite some of this stuff rather than coming in and going okay here's my grocery list this is what we want to so as you're reading it you're understanding here's the things they're looking at this is maybe some changes and then you can look at it from a different one i never thought of that well how about this kind of a thing so that it's not the parting sprays cold turkey so to speak sure on the and any section we get to like that if there's that kind of input that kind of depth chris then that would be a good one to have a pre list to kind of think about a little more steve yeah background background more background well if you guys are getting q a from the citizens we should be aware of some of those topics for example like allowing parking on the streets at night right i'm not sure which section that is but very controversial i suppose there's really strong one more thing i'd also like to point out too that last month several of us did not come prepared we had not turned in homework and it was a first read for some of us i think there were like three of us and so i think it's a responsibility issue on our end as well i know i was one of the people who did not complete the work ahead of time and that could also impact discussion um i had a work crisis and just couldn't get it done so that's also something we can keep in mind as we go through this i think those are all very good suggestions thanks for having the dialogue i think that um that we're involved in good work that our fellow residents and uh people of city deserve thoughtful attention to because they matter and i think that's why we signed up and so thank everyone you know it's been actually i think this is our our year mark now so thank everyone for um the time that you've given um it's been interesting and i'm i'm excited to see where we continue happy anniversary maybe one other thing if we want to take one more chapter per meeting and catch up or whatever that is maybe we need to plan for an extra hour and if we end early and early 5 30 what i i personally would not have a problem generally the thought of extending it 30 minutes given my personal schedule but i i would love to know what other people's thoughts are maybe it's maybe it depends if we know that this is a very uh big section and we know going into it versus uh ad hoc decisions yeah yeah i would prefer pre-planning i have animals at all i need to know whether i feed them before or after it sounds sounds silly but it's kind of at that odd time of day sure okay well i think i'd leave that to michelle's discretion if in your years of experience you know this is a big topic and we have a lot to bite off i think sending an email along with the forum asked saying hey this might go a bit long you know we can always we can always end the meeting at 7 30 but if if we can you know be prepared with the thought or we might end up going an extra 20 minutes okay to save a month that might be worth it good you know i was thinking planning ahead some ways to expedite it exploit our discussion for one thing when i signed up i said i'm going to go through all of it and i'm going to go through as thorough as i can so i don't want to let that down you know that should happen you know my desires that should happen but anyway to expedite this one approach could be have say uh two chapters put in there and said and maybe uh the city uh staff might know hey this may be a longer discussion kind of one and this is the shorter one so get prepared for the next one also during the you know like today we will discuss this but hey that next one is the longer one let's have all the questions ready or ahead of time it's some some way of expediting it sure you know i'm not saying you know it should be that way just saying that there and see if it's making a difference and then adjust as needed okay i think that'll conclude that topic that takes us to the final review of title three chapter 24. do city attorneys or staff have any comments i think this was the this is the one that uh so this is not included in your packet tonight and your packet is just chapters 25 and 27 so this was specifically about pawn brokers and second hand dealers the question was there was an outstanding question on uh what we were doing with the bonding and i think that if if you if there were no concerns with the changes to the languages that you saw the yellow highlighted in your backgrounds we had no concerns with that i think there was still just the discussion on whether or not we would add the bond requirement and i believe we have somebody in the audience here that would also like to add input on that correct um is that a yes that's a baby okay well now now or never sort of so well right uh darren and eldon representing america um would you mind coming to at the table and uh thinking in the microphone so we could in between these two commissioners it's fine we're not that formal gary um again darren van holden representing pawn america um i guess a little unsure that that was the only topic maybe on the table for discussion uh tonight um i guess i can keep comments limited to that well i'll i'll give you a point of order right now we're talking about chapter 24. so if you have something about chapter 24 uh if you have other things for sexually oriented businesses or fireworks um let us know i think we're no no we don't okay no i don't no we don't um you know to the to the bond requirement you know a question that occurred to us is what's the trend you know as you look at and think thank you to all of you for taking the time significant to uh to accomplish this uh code review you know what's the intent of that is it the streamline is it to modernize what might the trend be on these bond requirements you know for us it's something that we find in other communities that we do business in it's a fact of life but again why have this if it's not material any longer if other communities aren't adding these bond requirements why go down that road why force others to do it that does tie in in our mind to you know as you look at the change potential changes to the definitions of second-hand goods you know are more people or fewer people falling under regulation in terms of needing to be licensed as such that you know what size businesses are those is that bond sufficient is that even an issue that the city or law enforcement finds you know that the transactions occur and see themselves uh come full circle to the point where you know getting into that whole issue is even relevant right um are there other similar transactions that go on generally in business that there is no bond requirement for but yet the similar a similar transaction or misstep might occur i think there are some recent skid steers that may have been uh sold that you know weren't owned as such and you know maybe that falls on i mean they're not titled items either you know we see lawn equipment you know one of the things that we we have always advocated for is just as as level of a playing field as possible within the communities in which we do business for those that trade in second-hand goods and you know what's the climate with that what is it that law enforcement is seeing as problem items are those captured under the second hand goods uh definitions um you know we get into and are happy to report all the transactions that we have to law enforcement and we just hope that others are in the same boat um you know again that that playing field is level and all these transactions are being reported to law enforcement to ensure public safety better public good right so just some comments along those lines i don't think there's a whole lot that that you guys are are touching that you know that we would have issue with um just generally supportive of the effort to to streamline modernize keep things up to date uh but would certainly note you know the challenge that you all have ahead of you to go through all this referencing or thinking back to all the times that you know we've engaged in reviewing certain sections of code and how much energy goes into that and you know what are the unintended consequences of you know changing this one line and how that reads um you know i'm talking looking to the attorneys here but you know just so that again everybody stays on the same playing field as much as possible and uh you know that we don't create hardship for for certain companies that you know might only be touching this stuff and are they really under the regulations now or aren't they going forward same question um i guess that'd be the only thing i'd say at this point happy to answer any questions if there are some shelly what exactly is your relationship to pawn america uh they're a client of mine okay and you are their attorney you're an attorney just uh used to work with the company and represent them with some municipal issues as they come up licensing and so forth right um and are you asking to have a removal or a waiver of the bond requirement no just level playing field and if it's even required you know what what's the current trend um you know of course we wouldn't we don't want to tie up anything additional than what we than what's needed you know do these issues show up right now in the city of burnsville is this a requirement that we need you know is it just that something flags in other communities that these bond requirements exist you know and and hey you know maybe we should do it too um you know is there evidence that that that the surety is is being needed is is it necessary is it a level playing field with other industry business sectors retail sectors where similar transactions may go on and no requirements in place right so posing the question we can go either way right okay understood thank you i just want to understand the ask so maybe the question you raised darren is are there other second-hand good businesses in burnsville that aren't under this chapter or aren't subject to this bond question what are the regulations in general right correct are you aware of something again depends you know this is where leaning a little bit on law enforcement experience to help answer that you know what else comes up that that could fall into this certainly second hand goods are buttons sold every day right occasionally some of those aren't lawfully owned and they're presented as such you know and though that doesn't necessarily happen in our world it can that's why all these regulations are in place right um you know as you look at it like electronics for example if you want to look at what's included or has been typically included right electronics and audio visual equipment does that include game systems and games you know that's not defined as we see it depending on how that's read right we report all those transactions we report every transaction there could be others out there that you know might be involved in those types of transactions gamestop is that kind of what you're saying something of that sort sure you know and are they reporting i think you know i think uh something shy at ten businesses and burnsville are licensed as secondhand goods dealers right now you know we don't really know i mean even years ago it was always tough to get an accurate read on who else doing this because people choose to do it coming and going you know they might do some used business in this sector that you know nobody really discovers right so um i i think you know the greatest uh just the partnership with law enforcement to understand what they see on a day-in day-out basis and are these issues still relevant in terms of the bond requirement and so forth you know is it a problem if it's not a problem let's modernize the code not included by creating an additional requirement where there's no need to do so again i don't have the background other than what i saw um you know in the background that you guys had today from a few other communities as to why they do it not speaking about experience or frequency of use right uh we don't have a law enforcement partner here tonight that can speak to the law enforcement issues and i certainly won't attempt to either to your general comments about modernizing code i can say that we have to find a couple of other items as second hand goods that weren't previously defined specifically home appliances and game cards um i would imagine that means like pokemon that type of thing is that what that means we had we were scratching our heads not like also not like your bicycle you know 52 card not that but the you know the collector cards that sometimes can be worth some significant money um and uh in addition we've also um clarified the language around what is a recorded or reportable transaction and clarified that uh that an exemption to this is the bulk the purchase or consignment in bulk and retail sale of new or used merchant merchandise from a merchant so to clarify that uh the business to business type transactions are not uh i would say that we've decreased the scope there and less of the burden the only burden that i am particularly aware of that we are considering um adding is the bonding issue as i've read through uh as i've read through the section um i don't know if city disagrees or if anyone disagrees with that statement but i think the other things that we've tried to modernize is that we are standardizing on the ars and that you can certainly use paper forms as necessary to expedite your internal processes but you have to use the ars ultimately so i think i think those are pretty much the major changes um and they'd be highlighted in yellow in our packet would there be new potential licensees with the addition of those two new categories of home appliances or game cards i don't think so and you know because again to us you know if we're focused on level playing field and you know not that that's anyone else's obligation to do so but some degree equity across the second hand goods market within burnsville right i don't even know the technical term but what a what a manufactured gemstone fall under the uh regulations as they exist right now you know that's a new thing could you define that term for me i'm not sure fake stones fake diamonds or manufactured diamonds there's still a fair amount of there's significant value in those items okay but do they qualify under the definition as something that would be required to be reported on or or hit that uh that milestone right so again to us it's about who falls under the licensing requirement under the definition of those second-hand goods you know then with respect to the reporting system somewhat alluded to it earlier that we're happy to and have always reported every transaction we make but under strict reading would we need to i mean we would want to for a variety of reasons but there might be others around that don't want to report any transaction beyond those that are defined as second-hand goods reportable transactions again another question perhaps for law enforcement but just an interesting dynamic does council have any comments on on any of those on the definitional items have we um well the the issue of the the stones or the jewels um i would say the way our precious metals are uh precious gems precious metals and jewelry definitions are written right now um are written in a way that sort of um assumes her natural occurring not mainly fakes or man-made or whatever so we could we could make um an added here tonight that would i'm trying to think of the correct word i don't know what did you use manufacturing and i don't know if synthetic yeah i think that might be uh right we could call it natural precious or synthetic stones lab created yeah go through and that would capture that you know and that's just a for instance but you know that's where the magic kind of is you know from how we view it in terms of what that level playing field looks like right you know it's is it a burden to report it's become so easy and so ingrained in our system that no it's not right um everything's videoed we've got the photographic documentation for all the transactions we do it's a good internal practice that helps from our audit function on the internal side again right does that apply to others you don't know from a public safety perspective we think that adds value to law enforcement to have all those transactions documented you know not sure if the ordinance is constructed right now truly requires that or not um again for you guys to weigh out and make recommendations on right well i don't i think to answer that specific question i don't believe that every single transaction that happens at a secondhand good dealer is required to be recorded is my understanding um there's a certain list of things that we do expect so if i you know i is that a fair statement that's correct that's correct so i think it might be fair for me to maybe say if i bought if i was going to pawnee i was going to bring in a canoe for example that that wouldn't be in the list so i don't know if we're looking to expand to to all items and if that would be so i'll ask that back as a question to you do you think that the list should be longer or is your question we have for years and intend to continue to report every transaction that we have whether it's a video game coming in or a canoe coming in or you know that's um in the spirit of the relationship with law enforcement that's been our practice and for the foreseeable future will remain our practice how's that that works michael so um with the collectible cards thing now people have what they call like lots or whatever like we might have tens of thousands of cards you know because maybe grandfather or something died or whatever if i brought in those 10 000 cards most of them are probably garbage but there could be some good stuff in there that's worth high value would they have to account for every single one of those 10 000 because i mean a lot of those cards would be like if i go to like a magic still like a game stop or like a game store not a game stop and took that in there like i mean i don't they're not gonna account for everything it'll be in their inventory but i'm they're not gonna count every single card like forest from 19 you know 93 or something like this every single one like that um because that would just take literally forever usually if something doesn't have much value it's just like bulk is what they would be considered so is that something that they would have to do is that something was like game stores would have to do to account for every single one or is it like things of certain value that was one of the things i did i didn't no jared or joel do you have comments on that like a game by games by james you know they commonly deal in magic or there's like a magic store in barnesville too yeah because you can have cards that are worth thousands and then but the majority of cards in the game are going to be worth like a penny right so i so i think that that the um that the issue there is that we define the type of entities doing business and recorded or portable transaction but with the inclusion of say the the games the game cards specifically those those like the games by james those wouldn't typically be considered a second to my knowledge they would i don't believe they're licensed as a secondhand good dealer in the city um mr chair with the change to game cards if they're doing the business of game cards then they would be required to get a license from the city they would be required to record or report transactions of the defined second-hand goods and consequently they would unless you have an exception as drafted in the purchase or consignment part of the definition of the transaction have to report them and then i feel like if you do that then almost everybody's just going to go put them on like craigslist or facebook instead like to sell stuff i mean and then you're going to have no way of tracking i would imagine like i would almost think you would only want to track stuff of a certain value but i don't know because the thing is with those things they fluctuate in price too i mean it's like sure for me i think the if i recall correctly the addition of game cards came because um law enforcement informed us that this is one of the categories by which they're that they're seeing a lot of stolen goods so that's why we've added to extent that that's helped but things that need to be recorded would it make sense to put a minimum value on it things over x dollars record it you know my baseball cards from 1969 that for the twins that are worthless probably not worth recording a 50 cent card or a you know a wheat kind of pen you know the old pennies you know there's probably some limit to this thing is probably for efficiency well yeah because the store wouldn't do it it would it wouldn't be worth it for them to ever take in bulk ever again because they pay by it they pay by item is that correct yeah pretty much i mean they'll go through it they'll have somebody like look through it and everything like that sorry what i meant was do they pay by item to put things into the ars not any longer correct i was confused by that also because i think that when we initially the last time this ordinance was overhauled they were paying by item and that's why there was a lot of discussion about it was like a dollar per item i think the system now has been upgraded and i'm not familiar with it by any means but i don't think that they have to pay by item anymore so um for the benefit of others maybe what i know about it is that's correct there used to be a transaction fee on each of the reportable transactions in burnsville's case i think that's been eliminated you know there's been a change in the reporting systems far more electro all electronic now so much easier uh more simplistic to to do which is one of the reasons why we don't mind doing that i won't say incurring that burden but you know it's customary for us at this point has become so much you know it's streamlined it's integrated into our business operation to do so and the cost of each of these electronic transactions is so de minimis that you know we're all right with that you know if there was still a fee structure attached to it then you might have had a different answer earlier about you know what our practices are and you know maybe how we choose to look at that going forward but you know we've truly viewed this as a law enforcement partnership for years you know and the other thing i should mention you know you mentioned craigslist or facebook some of these national databases do scrub and pull from those sources as well so that was one of the compelling features of of going with the hierarchy national databases is that they were able to add in these other platforms that would show up you know that some of the less robust systems of the past just weren't able to do in a timely fashion so between the reduced cost and the increased spread of of what they can look at four items you know when when law enforcement queries that let's populate the databases so a suggestion might be that we would assign a nominal dollar amount per individual item and say if it's less than a dollar that we ignore it and it's not be recorded uh i mean someone's not going to sell a gun for a dollar and guns you have to be ffl anyway so you'd have to register those weapons regardless or perhaps we also also we also consider that uh in in michael's point about a lot and you bring in ten thousand cards and maybe together they're all worth five hundred dollars so we say in a lot then some value over a hundred dollars i don't know that if it's under 100 you don't have to uh record it that's an idea so pass darren a question what value would be what should the threshold be if we do something like this i mean in your business or your your experience with pawn america you know i can't imagine the police are going to get involved for a 35 trading card right there's some unless there was 135 right yeah unless it was a part of some other series of transactions that had um issues also you know i i'm not the best one to answer that question you know because if it's your 34 25 item that's not reported that was taken as a part of you know family heirloom type stuff i don't know right i mean stretching a little bit i mean we're trying to prevent things from happening i think in our world is the goal of reporting all these transactions and making that available you know the number of occurrences that we have you know in burnsville is incredibly small against the total percentage of transactions that's a great thing um not suggesting to change things but what's the right dollar figure i think the category approach is what's used in many other municipalities um you know if there's a de minimis amount where it just doesn't make sense to track you know that almost be a law enforcement question you know what the theory what their theory of policing is or or how they choose to look at that because for us it doesn't matter somebody might send me a different answer which i can forward to you mr chairman and get that out but uh you know we're accustomed to reporting dvds shelly yeah i i've as i've listened to the discussion i've thought of jewelry stores who may sell a used piece of jewelry and not necessarily have a license the game stops who have electronic gaming systems which in some cases have very significant value and according to the regulation and to accomplish the spirit of the regulation i believe that what we have done is write the new regulation updates in such a manner as those places are now required to be licensed and to report these sales to aid the police and to help the community ensure that they have that sense that their goods can be traced in the event that something happens to them so i just had to look back at it because i think gamestop would now be required to be licensed if they're taking in those and they would need to record those transactions because of the type of item because i think that is what it has absolutely and i think that that's intentional i think it's appropriate because pawn brokers have had a bad rap okay and i think that's part of what he's trying to bring to the commissioners here is that they have to do a lot of extra work because of the history and the plague on the pawn industry when you have a game stop who can just as easily take in a stolen gaming system and it would never be recorded so if you're a criminal where are you going to get rid of that of goods those goods same would be true of a jewelry there if there are jewelry stores that are also taking in occasional sales of value yes gamestop is licensed reseller thanks for pointing me but i believe that's because of the video games right not the cards not the cards yeah so there there potentially could be additional resellers that would be added because of this and i i would like to we took the this language straight from the police department home appliances and game cards but i think maybe we should be a little more descriptive and say number one small home appliances what they mean not refrigerators that wasn't what they were they people aren't lifting refrigerators and stuff like that it's it's like the the ninja air fryers and those types of things that are getting stolen and um maybe specifically say collector game cards that and i i'm not opposed to like a dollar amount um i i don't know what you would feel would be fair 20 50 if it's less than you know but like darren said it could be somebody's sentimental i don't think we can really set a minimum amount um and the reason is we don't know what value something really has and it's a big loophole because i think in the end like he was talking about with the cards you've got a lot of 500 cards one of them might be worth 10 bucks today could be worth a thousand bucks tomorrow yeah but you go based on what it is today you wouldn't go based on what at the time of the transaction right but how do you know the value of something and who judges that what's a ninja air fryer worth there's there's pricing guides on like say magic the gathering there's so many different databases you could go there's like coins and stamps but as a business owner do you want to try and sort through each single one as it comes in i think that's more of a burger most of them do that already when they're buying cards yeah they're going to look at it because they have like uh what is it not like algorithm but you know where you have a mid price of things and then they'll give you about 60 of that like of what it would sell like online because of course they have to make a profit off what i'm saying is that it applies to one type of goods addressed in the description and if you try to apply a dollar amount it has to be something that works for all of the type of goods in the trade in the list and i don't think that's a reasonable request to put on a business owner to discriminate because that's going to become burdensome and overreach and regulatory nightmare to manage as well i would suggest that we could say five dollars for any item i mean if it's not worth five dollars unless it's a trading card i don't know why they'd be taking it frankly because how are they gonna make much of a profit off of them three dollars because i used to work in the uh in that industry i mean i still kind of do online sales most of the stuff that's stolen is binders and decks um i mean if people can like as we're talking about stolen goods i mean that's typically what it is people are going to steal decks while they're like at you know tournaments or conventions or something like that or they'll steal binders a whole collection yeah a whole collection of stuff or at least like a binder full of stuff and people don't put garbage cards in binders and well decks may have cards that aren't worth very much i mean most decks are probably worth like three hundred dollars in totality at least like we're talking about magic the gathering i don't know pokemon and yugioh that much anymore but i know pokemon's bigger than it used to be and i'm pretty sure those things are probably around 200 300 each if they have like decks or whatever i propose 35 bucks for an individual or a lot so we don't have a lot of transactions of low value being recorded i think that's just a burden on businesses and people could you clarify are you limiting that to cards in particular or 35 in general yep you buy something either a lot of stuff or an individual thing your ninja fryer it's not if the person buying it's not over 35 bucks they don't have to record it i would be um opposed to that in particular for example i have a music box that belonged to my mother it was if it was stolen i think it's worth 25 bucks on ebay right now but it is of immense value emotionally and it's an heirloom in our family it doesn't have monetary value i don't think you can track a person's goods by monetary value and i think that the people in this community would want to see any stolen goods tracked so are there okay i think that jewelry isn't it isn't it is an interesting exception those types of things stands out but um i would i would wonder about power tools and computers and home and home appliances below 35 dollars i it's not to say they don't exist but i don't have a rice cooker my parents passed down um and it's not to say that someone couldn't but but i think that your point about heirlooms i think is is a is a fair point but um i wouldn't consider my vcr an heirloom i consider it antiquated but not an heirloom i think you're right and that's why i asked if it would apply to certain types of goods is uh is there language that our very smart lawyer friends could think of that uh that might satiate this on the fly here um well i think you get into some trouble trying to parse out you know your antiquated vcr might not be a big deal but then when you're talking about electronic audio video equipment you get into your ps5s and whatever and then you're talking about hundreds of dollars so um yep 35 bucks what do you think of the dollar threshold does that make sense to you two lawyers sure just if if i may um erica was just explaining to me that where for all her research through all the different cities that she's looked at none of them had a dollar amount well that's fair so they probably just pass the burden on to the the secondhand goods dealer and say if it's scored everything nothing all of it you can do with that which you like but just for yourself more innovative modern well steve's saying he won't steal for anything less than 35.00 i think that michael you're right that they're going to count every single one and if other cities are not putting a dollar amount and those businesses can still thrive and people can still sell secondhand goods or try to pawn them that means there's still a market for them and is it possible that someone's three dollar trinket might be turned away because they just don't want to deal with it sure but uh i think that if we fall in line with the other cities i think that's probably a reasonable standard to carry to your point on equity on equal treatment um so i like the languages is i'm fine with it personally okay do you mind everything chair do you and members do you mind if i clarify small home appliances and um collector game cards because not not like like uh you know you're playing deck of cards not those kinds of cards that's collectible cards reflected yeah magic the gathering yu-gi-oh pokemon stuff like that like old baseball cards football cards collected but like there's certain things that just are worth nothing really the only reason stores take them on is because every once in a while they can sell them for 10 cents like if somebody needs a forest or something like that they can buy it they may got that for like a quarter of a penny or something like that that's the only reason they would take that on if they have no value like that then why are we wasting so much time on it i i don't mean to use the word wasting derogatorily but i i think that it is if they're not going to deal with them and it's worth a few cents to somebody and they don't want to deal with recording them maybe they're not a marketable good that would be worthy of this unless you do a note that you took in 200 pokemon cards on this date and time from that person ended discussion [Music] are we saying they have to account for every single card though i guess that's what i that's that's the nature of the languages they have several options they can either comply with the statute or they can refuse the good if it's not worth their time i feel like they would do the latter most of the time unless they saw some real value in that lot unless they're making a significant amount of money anyways i don't know because that's a lot in the end that that would cost them to ground ourselves back to why this chapter exists is to protect people and to limit the ability of people to profit from stolen goods so if the good is of no value then it's hard and which is the same reason why we have the exception for when you donate to places because we say well there's no monetary value that you can derive from that so that's why we've excluded them from the list of places that we require to record every transaction i thought that was the whole purpose of putting in a minimum value to record it so you don't have to waste so much time on all the non-value stuff and so you can record the the stuff that is valuable so it'd be easier to record that now i think he's talking about like if i when i get rid of my appliances and different things they're in perfectly good condition but i'm not going to use them and i can sell them but i take them to that second unique or i take them to salvation army or take those appliances then are exempt from that part of it but if i'm going to upon america and i'm going to turn that in because i got a tool i want to get the bucks out of it that's a different transaction because i'm getting something back from it right in money monetarily means otherwise if the donation is a donation there's no money i'm getting back i'm just putting it there so somebody else gets use out of it i'm just saying between the two if people are stealing like a lot of cards or like a binder full of cards maybe they don't even know much about these collectible things so they may not know the value themselves like people will do people break into like car stores you will break into people's you know cars you could have binders of magic cards in there these people may have no idea what the hell magic the gathering is but they know it's probably worth money because they know somebody who maybe played it or something like that or heard of a card so they'll take it to the thing and give them the whole lot of it they're not going to take only single you know cards of it because they don't know anything about it now if they if they do know something about they're only going to take the valuable stuff and just throw away the rest i i think we understand the the buying and lot and i think we've kind of gotten hung up on one type of goods here and i would like to make a proposal that we move on yeah i'd like to make it stable emotionally please oh wait wait actually should vote on that um it needs a second clarification what are we we're tabling this entire no just the discussion on on cards specifically and the enumeration of those eight points there the types of goods so we're including them okay so do you want us to bring this back next month no i don't think anyone wants that um we want to quit talking about it instead of emotion at the table perhaps we just get a motion to approve oh sorry yes i would like to i'll restate my motion if allowed so i don't think we resolve i think we actually haven't resolved the bonding issue though right correct correct so maybe we could talk about the bonding issue or i don't know how to do this separately yeah i'm open to suggestions can someone remind me what the bond is for i and how did you get the material and i don't know what a bond is what why why you have a bond what it protects against what so uh reading through the packet tonight uh minneapolis i think was the only one that was different but the other cities if it it's basically if if some if a pond shop breaks the law and takes something they shouldn't have and they can't give you back that thing because it's no longer there the bond is used to reimburse the person who's who has incurred a loss minneapolis does it a little bit different they as i was reading it they just say if you break the rules we take your money and there's no money that goes to a consumer who's been ridiculous they keep it they just keep it right and it's an incentive to make sure it goes to city council that they don't that they don't break the law so those are the two they take in stolen goods not it and sell it yeah somehow someone finds out about that i would get reimbursed for my stolen item if you made a claim that they yeah can i just clarify a little bit in that process because i started cringing in my chair just a touch i you know it we do our level best to try to determine if an item is believed to be stolen on the front end if we think it is we turn it away or turn it over to law enforcement we report every item again this is us maybe not some of the other licensees but it might be weeks after there's a holding period that we can't touch that item for correct that's spelled out in this chapter it might you know it takes time for somebody to discover that something might be stolen right so to give the process time to function to let that come back items can be held items can be confiscated you know and if that licensee wasn't able to make good on keeping that customer whole that could have bought that item after the fact right then that bond exists we haven't we return items all the time buying back from customers and um haven't had problems with that but that's again just us all right good yeah listening to all this i was thinking uh if there's a system already in place in a particular store for reporting you know it's from what i can see it's not that enormous a task then having a low for 35 or whatever does that make sense you know let's have all transactions be reported because from what i understand it's not that big a deal if you have already a system i don't know that personally but listening to uh people here that's kind of what how i came up with them thank you who's all required to carry the bond then right now every store that does the second hand goods has to have the bond everyone sees every licensee has a bond we don't currently have a requirement for a bond and this was added for your consideration because other cities do carry do do require them and whether or not you felt like it should be added or not nancy i do not feel that it should be added that would be my opinion do you have a reason it just seems superfluous okay if i understand right discussions last time even if you have a bond enforcing that is not an easy thing it's an expensive one it's what i thought i heard last time so what's the value of the bond so what would what would the process be um could someone explain to me um if if i have a good stolen and and i have some sort of reason to have a case against the pawn shop who who sold it then i'm sure they would do their due diligence but if something happens how do i likelihood of that ever happening just seems well the city would be how you would find out that your stolen item was pawned at pawn america in burnsville or some other unscrupulous uh second-hand good seller other unspoken i think that's i think you would find that out that's the question how would how would the bond how would this realistically be executed we had police representative last time that discussed how that how the tracing of goods and they pop up sure so she might or you might have a stolen good that you've reported and all of a sudden it shows up in this system that they right but the bond is for those things so the policy right so the police would never be recorded anywhere unless it you don't know about it so it's past your your window of time i don't think it's something that happens that often on that because of the recording process already in place for that part of it whether the bond makes sense or not i think at this point just because other cities have doesn't necessarily mean uh because one doesn't mean the other should have to do the same if the system is working at this time for what that would cover i don't see a reason to just add in something else right now if you're already having just to make sure that everybody has to do the recording properly and keep the records on it rather than adding in another step in that if it's not needed has the city had incidents where they feel like they might need to enforce a bond against an existing licensee joel actually the opposite it was not put in in 2010 because the city felt that there wasn't enough to justify it given the history of operations like blonde america or others within the city the city did not have a problem with that and there is the practical issues as members have identified with executed so it was an intentional mission back in the in the last revision and has things changed enough in your knowledge to since the 10 years i haven't heard anything from police on recovery of an actual item or that someone has been left without reimbursement from someone who didn't report an item or didn't expect so i i haven't heard of anything that would would change that but on the other hand other cities and staff have indicated routinely put that in there and the bond does have one other kind of secondary effect it is a financial determination for the business to be insured by a surety company they will not just issue a policy for joel's goods without joel being able to establish financial um so it's history and credibility to warrant that trend so it's like getting a mortgage you know it does it does theoretically limit the number of businesses you might get because they would not be able to enter if they don't have a history that authorizes an insurance company to be confident that you're in a surety bond but as a practical matter burnsville hasn't had that problem either okay shall we based on the discussion it seems that there is relative agreement here except on a couple of points i would like to make a motion that we do not require a bond at this point okay so remove 324 41 bond required in its entirety okay i would second that all right i have a question on a different section on a revision that was included so okay well is this two separate i didn't know if we were doing that you could amend it but it might be easier if we just handle the bond issue perfect yep nope so uh the motion as moved by shelley executed by andrew is to remove the bond requirement section 3241 from the text so there would be no bond required um it's not a it's not a uh it was not in the code so we're just not adding it all those in favor of the motion raise your hand and say goodbye to saying aye aye aye all those posts raise your hand say nay all right the eyes have it so please strike the bond requirement nancy um i don't have the text in front of me i just made a note that uh section 3 24 9 it appeared that we removed the requirement to have a bunch of descriptors of the customer and instead uh just left in that things we talked about that they have appropriate government id and that the id number be recorded can i assume that because we have that id number we don't need to keep track of what we think they weigh and how they are what color their skin is i think you were actually the one that requested that removal because it seemed absolutely advanced if that was indeed i guess our understanding from the last discussion was that the general consensus to remove it this wasn't great yeah yeah okay i think we agreed with you on that yep all right um i would move to pass to accept 324 as amended as published in the packet um except the information accepting the changes that we've just made i'll second okay uh any debate on that okay all those in favor of passing 324 has presented and amended tonight please raise your hand same time saying aye guys have it thank you buddy we're just getting to the fun stuff fireworks thank you for uh coming tonight should be able to pawn fireworks okay so that takes us to item five reviewing uh questions and comments from uh the task force um that was in the packet tonight do you see the attorneys and staff have anything to add nothing from staff to any task force members have further comments okay that'll take us to the review of title three chapter 25 through 27 which is our handout tonight so i uh [Music] we didn't get very far on it um i had made a an argument um about the justification i included in this month's comments um my changed opinion after having conversation and doing some more research so i believe that we should leave even though i do find flaws in the research i believe that that the supreme court is upheld that empirical evidence is not required that that a reason justification is sufficient and i would say the city has a reason justification if you look at specifically the city of elko versus abed he was that that person was given the opportunity to to refute the evidence that was provided by the city and basically just said it's junk science and the supreme court said not good enough there are cases however where the supreme court particularly in i think it's abilene kansas county commissioners they ruled against the body because their research uh was only urban focused and the setting was rural and so they said hey you provided justification that this was insufficient and they overturned it so that leaves us at a spot where uh if someone would like to challenge the ordinance in court they can and they can present their case there but i think i agree with jared and joel that it should remain in its entirety in this section so that takes us to reviewing 325. um okay yes sir let me ask a general question a lot of words here i assume minnesota has statutes we need to replicate them or we can't just by def by referral they don't simplify or they don't have that's why we minnesota doesn't have a bunch of stuff on this topic and the supreme court specifically said that each municipality has to provide an articulated reason justification which is what all of b is okay for why they have the right to regulate sexually oriented businesses perfect but the actual regulations also need to be local yeah crazy yeah gotta love legislators there's not always logic behind decisions it seems sometimes [Music] remember right some of the studies are questionable they are yep um so but there's nothing else to fall back on it's kind of hard yep yeah yep i i um if you get a chance to read my one page review i think that i would answer those questions i but i i agree but basically the supreme court said that it's okay as long as it's reasoned and articulated uh it doesn't have to be empirical um and if you can provide legitimate counter-argument in court then then they consider that and and some cases have ruled with the uh the opposing party not the municipality [Music] um so if we change if we i guess we don't have page numbers here but if we look at uh v7 there's a comment that adult use license is not really defined so is that uh i think that's correct there is no definition for adult use license i think that that's a good point that's not the language isn't consistent there and we should say sexually oriented business license okay yep uh related in seven i was you know it says certain crimes but doesn't really say what the certain crimes were maybe i'm missing something later in the later in the chapter joel or jared do you think that we need to enumerate certain crimes or reference them well this is just the preparatory language i don't think here we can use when it gets down to um licensing and i think we have that in there um in terms of felonies and things like that um it's like it's all enumerated later in okay okay um and then on uh the definitions of sexually oriented business there's common appears we're using sexually oriented businesses as the main driver and sexually entered mattel nude model studio sexually oriented theaters etc fall under this is that what we're trying to do i was just kind of curious in general why did we why did we remove things like sexually oriented sauna that keep sexually oriented theater because it was not referenced okay throughout the document gotcha so that the sauna was the only definition so i removed that because it wasn't referenced in the body of the document okay is there uh is there utility in keeping the definitions chair um i don't know uh in particular about sexually origin sauna versus some of the others but if uh and erica maybe you can comment on this but when i took the you know sort of the sexually oriented business and took some of those definitions nude model studio sexually oriented motel i don't know if those were also only in the definition section yeah when i go through i search the document to see if they're referenced any other place [Music] so sauna is the only one that wasn't referenced oh we had cabaret yeah conversation cabaret parlor yep yeah but if also if the task force wanted to regulate those businesses to the extent that they exist you could define them in your definition section then include them in the definition of sexually oriented business and then it would then be regulated by the rest of the check i think that makes sense okay moving to 325 3 as it's been renumbered license required d i made a comment that i was i was a bit confused on how we had settled on a 10 or greater interest um do we what do we do like for liquor licenses is it is it a percentage or do we just say anyone i'm not aware that it has a percentage i think anyone who is who is a partial owner in a look for a liquor license oh yeah it's ten percent is it ten or so i didn't know i'm it's ten percent okay yep okay um jared you said you had something on the previous page yes um remember nice june it pointed out then it's in the definition for specified sexual activities b it says sex acts normal or perverted uh recommended just striking normal or perverted and just including um did that make sense where are you specified sexual activities b it's in the definitions and strike normal or perverted i think i had a comment on that as well um that clarified it without using um judgmental terms do you have that comment i don't see it in in this um are you are you okay if we just strike it and so the b would say sex acts comma actual or simulated comma including intercourse oral copulation or softening i think i had proposed sex acts of any type because i i think that may actually give us a little more i don't remember it off the top of my head now did my let my comment come with me but i don't see it in here um if we jump to 325.4 issuance of license steve has suggested adding a requirement for standalone building so closer than three quarters a mile from similar businesses similar to liquor law but not the tobacco law correct um you can smoke it but do we have a so this is the real term i'm not just making this do we have an erogenous zone in princeville that's that is what it's called uh we're where these types of businesses are specifically zoned zone where they're allowed because the court requires us to have to provide a reasonable opportunity for the location of buildings so i believe a highway commercial i don't know what the exact destination is is one of the areas that we specifically acknowledge and would be allowed to have them some of our industrial zones similarly would be allowed to have them but i can't recall exactly what the zone designations are but that's basically consistent with what other cities have done not the um i think minneapolis was the only city that recently contemplated the combat zone boston or new york kind of approached from the 80s or so which is specifically make them all be in the same spot so you can focus on this internationally known perhaps concentration of the businesses but most cities try to keep them out of the general commercial retail business with the exception of minneapolis i would uh i would like to see a stick with the current zoning requirement i think that that puts it pretty solidly not in residential areas and i would be concerned although there's not many or maybe not even any sexually or any businesses by our current definition i'd be certain if we start adding the other requirements that we risk them not like being able to exist uh except for maybe one i don't know how big the zoning is for for those areas can we do it that way then and specify where they can be with this zoning comment you made because that's not in here no right that's it that's entitled title title can we discuss that a little more though i i'm kind of intrigued by your suggestion because when you when you look at the community and if we felt liquor was hazardous and having these in close proximity to each other this was also something that we felt strongly enough to regulate in our community would we not also want to limit them in a space way to restrict that i'm intrigued but i guess i'm kind of interested in hearing more of the thinking that you're proposing steve my thinking was if it's if that's what we want for liquor and liquors as some things we spent hours talking about i don't know why this is different but i didn't know that there was zoning around it i thought it was like the wild west so i said that we're gonna put we gotta we gotta put a box around it somehow so you have it with the zoning man so just knowing that there is zoning change your opinion yes i didn't know that okay because it wasn't in here yeah it's in our zoning code it's identified by the type of business and where they can be um and we won't see the zoning code because that's going in front of the planning convention for those edits can we put common and then location is controlled by um zoning or something just so when people read through this okay there's a box around it somehow because right now it doesn't read that i guess there's no constraints i think so you could put it next to getting bond you know i think that makes sense but i think that the the action element will be when if someone wants to open a business they'll have to apply for a license that point they'll know they'll be told explicitly what the zoning ordinances are i think that that michelle so i'm looking at the code now in title 10 and it says that the sobs need to be 700 feet from residential they need to be 1 000 feet from youth centers schools religious institutions day cares and other sexually oriented businesses 12 000 feet so and uh not three-quarters mile but no two may be located in the same building or on the same property i i didn't get to where the zoning was but i found this right away and i thought you'd like to know that that is covered in title 10. so if we wanted to make a suggestion to the planning commission that they have a further distance from schools that would be the appropriate place to take that right now it's a thousand feet which is almost half a mile right maybe just for other debate uh you said other cities does minneapolis they all put them in one spot so there's two leading theories on it one is you split them up the other one's called the combat zone what joel referred to and i don't think there's a definitive boston specifically i read about it and they did the combat zone model and there wasn't a particular finding that that was particularly more effective at limiting vice associated or secondary effects associated yeah then spreading them out across the communities no clear path all right and it does look like it's permitted in the b3 general business district zone aware b3 general business district county road 42 is that what that is i don't think that i think that i i'm not good with the zoning gonna have to help me with the zoning does that mean i think it's highway 13 would be considered like a but i would have to pull up a zoning map to know that for sure maybe uh maybe as an action item for for next time when we do the final review would it be possible to get a picture of where they're allowed and if any exists i don't know if they do where they currently are in the city and i don't know if this is something dan do you interface with the was it the planning commission we do but maybe that we have a concern around this topic and how what kind of box is put around it just that they consider it in light of and my point is in light of what we did with the liquor as far as you know how many how far apart standalone buildings kind of what's the thinking around this particular topic and the zoning around it okay have they done their review already no i think they haven't started that review no they've started but i don't know how far along they are they sent out that survey that regina told us about a couple months ago i would like to add add some commentary there if it's general business zoning i would like to explicitly make sure that they cannot exist in a mall where it would be easy for people to unintentionally wander in and by that i mean children or see things that they shouldn't our stores that just self pornography or uh sex toys are they listed specifically sexually oriented businesses maybe that's a no i don't think so because it's a significant portion of its floor area you might have magazines the answer is it depends mr chair okay the magazines are always covered i think if we could see where they're zoned right now does anyone know if burnsville has in except for the building that's on the way to menards that sometimes says sex stuff toys or what have you it has it varies sometimes it's used cars use cars and sex toys i didn't even know that do we have any license no uh d are you very good at that i i did find this the code in title 10 that says retail merchandise as permitted anywhere retail is otherwise permitted should they devote less than a substantial or significant portion of the floor area to the well i don't know that's what it says there so someone could have a have a uh a book shop in say the mall and have a rack for pornography and that would be not substantial and it is a retail space so they'd be allowed to be there i think of um spencer's is exactly what i was thinking when i was a teenager you know they existed in the malls and all the kids went there to look at the toys and it was a big deal as a teenager and i don't know if they still exist they do they still exist because my daughter took me back to the back section hey mom look at this and i'm like oh my god okay and if it's so if it's and oh my god it's a significant amount of their floor space it's all the way in the back and then you wouldn't until you physically get back there you don't you get all the other stuff up front you have to physically go all the way to the back of the store but it's still in place it's still open the guys is a gift shop and they have have all the sexually oriented stuff in the back and there's no way to restrict a teenager from going into a gift shop per se but i don't know that we need that in our community honestly i have grandchildren coming up to that age i'm like yeah no legally however you can't you can't just say right your kind of but we can restrict their locations to places where we would not have youth hanging out and congregating that's why i was intrigued by stephen's comments zoning's covering it otherwise put a box around it somehow that was my point yeah um in 325.4 i had a couple of questions on set uh a7 uh and on ten about we use the words reside and it's not clear what that literally means like if someone lives there one day a week is that residing we also use words like spouse and what if they're not married so i'm wondering if someone could provide help me understand the point of the residing comment or the concerns about spouses convicted of crime yeah i think that we eliminated the reference to the spouse or residing in it or whatever when we went through the massage and i would recommend we do the same with this yeah isn't it someone could use it as a roost to get around it right that was if i've been convicted i'm going to just put it in yeah and i thought we'd that was what we did in the massage right i think the reason we got rid of massages because it could put you could potentially see a couple that one did do something wrong but the other one should not be penalized for their massage license if they're both massage therapists i guess that's up to the task force members if you feel the same about this i guess i don't honestly because this is a business license not an individual license we don't license people for today um it was struck for the massage establishment not just for it's not for the therapy license but for the establishment so the significant other that you were living with if i was denied or my license was revoked the person that i was living with still i could get one under theirs but that was that was removed but you're still not a licensed therapist so you couldn't even work there right but i could be running it under the guise of right just the person that i'm living with but that was removed from the massage establishment part of the code i guess i'm not feeling the need to be consistent for consistency's sake in this particular matter personally but that's just one opinion well i i i understand that point i think that we were the undertone of the conversation about massage businesses as we were concerned about prostitution so i mean this seems as as relevant as that um i i guess i'm curious if someone uh i'll ask this to the lawyers if if if someone is doing is the effective controller of the business but they've been forbidden uh to do that so you have a maybe a married couple and the husband's been charged with a crime related to this but and he's not technically on the business license but for all practical purposes and intents he's running the business um does the city have recourse to go after them or could have well it really depends on what the code says if we're talking about an issue where you know you have a distinction and i think we we've talked about this in other code sections of the real person and interest who has an actual ownership interest in the business or is running the business day-to-day that kind of thing and i think that's what this provision is is trying to get at is that if you have already revoked a license for a legitimate reason you don't want them to come back and get a license under the guys of of someone else um and so the task force has to consider whether or not that that's a a decent regulation to have and whether or not um i'm gonna keep that in michelle and i'm trying to remember if that was in here but i don't remember reading it what i i was just recalling from the massage lessons is if we we said if they that we they would not get a license if they were not they act uh i'm trying to remember what the language said i'm sorry like the real party if they're not the real interested party right and so we can look up that similar language and maybe replace that with with where this is yeah i think i'd like to see that because i mean spouse or domestic partner or boyfriend girlfriend or just my brother or sister i mean anyone could be a straw runner and i think that's why the residing with was actually insert if you're living with somebody and residing implies residents and you know what percentage of your time i'll leave that backwards but um if there's a better word would we need to define reside or is it just defined okay yeah let me be pedantic for one second if someone comes over once a week and they sleep over is that residing no no okay thank you moving on okay so we are looking for i believe we're looking for some proposed language uh from michelle to clarify the spouse thing to be more aligned with how we determine it for the massage parlors yes okay i think that that jumps us forward very far very far nice yes how many pages uh so that that does take me specifically to 325 8 and subsection well f i guess which references subjection d7 um i was confused having read through this because it says it does not apply to sexually oriented motels but could someone explain not what sex currents and mattels are but do we prohibit them do we do we allow them and i i was confused by it saying it does not apply to uh if that meant that so 325 eight oh sorry yeah eight and then okay and then go to the next page and then look at f it says d7 does not apply that makes sense so what was your question there andrew are sexually oriented hotels allowed yeah i would think by by the way the language is written i assume so they're renting a room for an hour as an adult they can do what they want in that room they can't restrict what you do in a hotel room or a motel server it said 10 hours yeah if you if you rent it for less than 10 hours right yeah because it defined it as that but i it was i'm still a bit fuzzy then is that correct that we we do allow sexually oriented hotels okay a chair just to be clear i think is that one of the definitions that got struck and then needed that number maybe maybe not because it's already there was 10 hours or yeah it's still there so it's not been is that struggled fantasy suites no that's not that's gone but that was one no no no such place exists i feel so naive why do we allow motels to be rented for less than 10 hours then like if we're if we are regulating time manner in place why not make it a full 24 hours i maybe i'm very dense here it's how prostitution is conducted in general they would rent for a period of less than 10 hours and they would have multiple turnovers to the um premise that they're renting in a 24-hour period and that is the whole purpose of capturing those as i read it that that makes sense i'm i'm confused why we permit that well if you have a business travel that comes in a town checks into the best question at 11 o'clock and leaves at 7 in the morning they're there less than 10 hours and we're not going to prohibit them from doing that okay thank you yeah they turn the room over in the morning and yep again you may be there seven hours boom it's gone again okay thank you um that takes us to 3 25 11. there's a so transfer of license a a license shall not transfer a license to another licensee excuse me nor shall a license you operate that's actually our business under the authority of a license any place other than uh their designated location uh sarah was wondering if we need to have another exception similar to what we did with several other businesses about what we do in the case of the death of the uh the licensee where we give them a grace period of x amount of days or [Music] that would be logical yeah it would be can we put that in the general license section i thought we discussed that at one of our meetings where that was something that would apply to any licenses the city issued and we might want to consider that i i think we i ever sort of recall having that conversation like a counterpoint to that was that in some cases license fees are refundable at least partially as required by state law but in other cases we just keep it right so i think we have to do it per the section but just keep the language the same as what we've done in the past okay so so i think we're in a consensus to add add similar language to what we've previously experienced around the death of the licensing something i had a comment about square footage but i i'm not seeing that in here so that's right underneath 3 25 12. do not see any square footage mentioned in 3 25 12. yeah see the note about it and i had a question about that also but i'm not finding the did you continue maybe that comment got added to the wrong location yeah i think um 325 13 regulations pertaining to the exhibition of sexually explicit films this is where you're coming along so if i it's like i put it on the spot okay so just a little further numbers get there 13 25 13. oh the next one yeah okay the next one yep uh so i was uh i was confused on a couple of things um it's oddly specific but specific i guess is fine uh are viewing rooms of 100 square foot allowed and do they have to have a manager station and why can't the manager station not exceed 32 square feet have you ever seen my understanding is there are some very um unsavory types of activities that can happen in uh private viewing rooms and yeah really and that that would be the point of requiring square footage to prevent that so mike i agree with your your understanding of that my question is why so i what i'm reading is if you have these viewing booths they can't be bigger than 150 square feet and then the manager station can't exceed 32 square feet they can't be less than 150. which what sorry less than 150 you're right nancy i'm sorry they can't be less than 150 square feet and then the manager station can't exceed 32 square feet but i'm confused why it would be you can't have a manager station less than like maybe i'm very dense i apologize be a hundred square feet of a manager's station 150. i didn't understand that either but somewhere along the line that must have made sense but no idea unless they're trying to keep the manager area keeping for manager area duties and nothing else since it's a smaller area i don't know the history of why that was added yeah i think donna's got a good guess what what is that 32 square feet what is the impact on that of that i cannot think of an impact is it correct in assuming the goal of the statute is to restrict the types of activities that can occur in one of these explicit film theaters and that the space limitations are tied to some basic presumptions about what could occur in private spaces that we do not want to have occurring in our community in these types of spaces i think that's correct that was tough to figure out how to say it [Laughter] okay well i won't i won't uh i'll leave unable to discern why the 32 square foot manager station is is important or that none of us know the history of why that's there can we strike that sentence certainly yeah i think could we just say a manager i mean i think that the point is that you have to have a manager's station which would i would assume means it has to be manned uh i mean that would seem to make sense otherwise what's the point well it has to be included in the diagram already okay um and stuff like that so you'll have multiple computers and they'll all be on there and that's considered sex work or whatever now say somebody did that in their home would they need like a license if i had like four different people or if i had my own life studio or something like that like inside the house would you have to do the license for that would it have to be in a certain zone because that's probably going to be residential or would i have to go into this you know zoning area and make the studio for that i mean either because the only thing that all that stuff is like exponentially i mean it's huge it's only fantastic right now and now there's um i mean what he's talking about is um pornographic webcam modeling that happens generally i guess in people's homes although it could happen anywhere i suppose in the manager station for all we know so i think the question is does any of our city code regulate or have the right to regulate those types of enterprises and the answer mr chair short version is yes and hopefully coconut grove florida had the issue where the establishment was basically a big brother-like dorm with cameras and then people could and the argument there is that it's operating a business a theater um or studio out of a home and would not be a qualified home occupation under the burnsville cohort and that would be the position we would take it is a business use of a residential home and it's not listed as an allowed home occupation whether that would be sustained i don't know it has been that is what other cities have tried to do in addressing those specific types of situations and that's what i would surmise we would do as well so if i can clarify something then if if it was uh say one person in their the privacy of their home but they are explicitly operating a pay-for-view pornographic website where they model in their home would you include that in that definition yes possibly okay thank you that's not enough it's not an authorized home occupation okay uh so that comes under the that's a whole can of worms yeah that i don't think we want to tackle that in city code i mean i think there are constitutional protections and other things that we would need to you know i don't want to fight that yep because it goes a full range of you got feet you got hands you've got the whole body you've got some this and that and the only fans is a whole gamut of range on it and it is it can be whatever that somebody likes and it makes money on it but that's typically what oldie fans is it's it's whatever works for them to keep it going with the base well and you don't try to regulate how i work out of my home as a home office working for another employer why would the city do that typically in most home occupations it deals with the externalities of the activity the number of vehicles trips generated noise and those things and you're correct if not if someone is operating a unauthorized home occupation in a very quiet non-disruptive manner neighbors don't know the city doesn't know and you know i'm just thinking the whole world went work from home a couple of years ago and we didn't require those people to get licensed and nor would you presume that that was an unauthorized use of the property well technically it might be those people probably aren't going to get i mean only fans has had sex trafficking involved with it though too where people will bring in other people and of course and do that like under a whole house i mean there's been i don't know how easy it is to get around the over the team thing and all that stuff but i know there's already been people who have like been raided and stuff for this that would be regulated under regular uh criminal activity though i would think um okay well i'm gonna i'll call the question on that line of discussion i think that or just leave it as uh the city may decide to pursue it but i'll leave that to the city uh in a court case i guess i'm good with that okay uh jared had another point on the section what was the section yeah the previous page which is 325 12. okay section c okay um section c two um this was pointed out by member nice junior this is the bottom uh person under 18 years was in a restroom not open to public view or persons of the opposite sex uh remember nice student just suggested cutting out per persons of the opposite sex and just saying in a restroom not open public view period yeah i think it makes sense yeah i'm good that makes sense good one okay yes have a general question maybe this was answered before but in most many of the sections you say ordinance 588 10 16 95 something like that now when you and enact this do you still need that ordinance or take all the ordinance out here are we replacing the ordinance i'm i didn't check this against the ordinance what's the intent of that having it sure i'll answer that that refers back to when that regulation was first adopted so it was adopted in ordinance 588 in 1995 and then put in our city code of ordinances that we have online so this particular amendment that we're doing here is going to have an ordinance number that will be listed so all these ordinary numbers here in the bra in the parenthesis this can be struck out because we don't need it here because it's at some point point in time we needed it but now that you are doing it we don't need it is that we're kind of ignoring those ordinance references for the purposes of our review review okay michelle maybe and i think you said that was when it was first adopted and typically i believe it's the most recent change to this section correct sure well it's a i mean it depends on what the section is if you have multiple ordinances our new system now actually tracks every change so we have a new system for our city code and it tracks every change and and you can go back and see every change going back uh from when we started the new system so we actually have a better system now that keeps track of those numbers much better so does that mean that this number these ordinance numbers will disappear or will still be here they will still be it would still be in there as the reference to that before it was changed right right what i'm afraid is that we changed something from that ordinance and uh so the which takes precedence whatever is in effect yeah right but uh since you are putting it here this ordnance number is that this uh current code plus that ordinance you know how does that what this draft will replace the existing code right that's yeah that's i think it's fair to say that the ordinance number will be updated so that there won't be confusion as to what the law is yep okay so this ordinance number will be updated with the new ordinance the new ordinance new one but why do you need that than the ordinance number we'll keep that number for reference for reference okay sorry about that okay um are there any other comments on sexuality businesses all right nancy um oh no i've moved on fireworks but so 326 fertilizer has been uh been struck him that takes us to fireworks um i don't actually see any comments are there questions on uh i had uh submitted comments but i had to but they were not attended to so i have just two small grammatical yeah that's why i've been referencing your comments nancy throughout right yeah but and i can go through those or you can go through those right now all right 320 seven seven z it says all facilities who obtain it should just say which since facilities are not a person and i had a general question about the um it says they have to record this and that and this and that and including the quantity of fireworks and i thought uh just is that when they open the store or what they plan for their inventory or i don't know how you have a retail store tell you the quantity of their entire work so i didn't know if there was some other way you quantify what uh what exact point uh what which what well uh c the same uh 3 27 7 c thank you second sentence the list shall document the name weight and quantity of the fireworks to have the permit issued i did not know what that meant quantity that you plan to buy quantity that i think this is really my un uninformed opinion is that this is related to the material have on hand because it's it's listing next to it the material safety data sheet so so probably from your order sheets that you what you ordered is automatically the quantity of so many would you order it before you get your permit and we have a mr nelson the assistant chief there he is what are you doing uh yes that is correct the reason why that those are on there is so that we know the total quantity on hand one second hold on we can't hear you we got to get the volume in the room my comments didn't make it in here it's right here i don't know why okay i'm doug can you speak now yes can you hear me yeah okay so that is correct the reason for that in uh in c is so that we know the total quantity on hand if there is a if there's a problem uh inside the store then we would have the msds sheets we would have the shipping papers and we also use that to verify that they have the right type of fireworks that they're not selling illegal fireworks that they're minnesota specific and most of the things that you're seeing in there uh that comes uh most of that comes right out of different state requirements and nfpa requirements so a store would put all their inventory in and then apply for the permit yeah typically what happens is they apply for the permit ahead of time and then the state the store orders it from fireworks retailers that send it out and so that the retailers are the ones actually submit doing the bulk of the paperwork submittal and so that's some of the stuff that they would send ahead of time so that we would see that we normally get that paperwork several months in advance and then we know what they're getting we review through it then we issue the we issue the permit and we hold it until we actually do the on-site inspection and then we go through the list that they have and with our inspection we take a look to verify that we're seeing what they said they have and we're also making sure that they have the the correct type of fire extinguishers and if everything looks good uh then at that point we hand them their permit and they're good to go okay okay um other questions comments on fireworks i had one that go ahead you've got my comment yeah i mean go for it okay um so just for the task force to be aware because there was a couple comments that that weren't in the packet um there was some miscommunication about whether or not we had new comments from the last round and so we missed being able to to put them in the pack at this time um so remember ward had a comment on 327.3 per minute required questioning um a1 manufacturer store or cell consumer fireworks and what store meant um i i think assistant chief may have addressed that a little bit in his comments but maybe you could say store for later distribution or sale yeah i think that was my concern was you know i could very easily buy uh i don't know 200 grams or 100 grams of this that's not a lot of weight and be having a fourth of july party but i might buy the fireworks in may for example because the sales have started and technically the way it's worded i would be required to obtain a permit to store those so i wanted to make sure that we weren't inadvertently make it impossible for people to have them for their intended purpose by requiring a permit for your average person who purchases some fireworks for a holiday gathering these aren't these are not purchase requirements these are for uh people that sell right right but that isn't stated doesn't want the language to include the consumer knowledge catch the consumer up in the regulation after they purchase the item for their personal use so i would i would like for future sales yeah i would like to propose that we accept your modified language in there um that meets what i was looking for store for later distribution or sale could even add with the intent um we're ready to move on i got another one from 327.4 permit application um i believe this is the um third sentence no second sentence which starts with the determination by the fire marshall uh member ward just pointed it out as a very uh confusing sentence and has a suggested change which is prior to processing the application the fire marshal shall verify that the location where consumer fireworks are stored does not endanger any person or property and that the persons in charge of the selling or storage of consumer fireworks are competent and trained to handle fireworks i just thought it was like an overrun sentence there that made no sense i like it i like it very good okay do you guys have that i'm not seeing that sentence in here uh in the paperwork that i'm looking at that was the rewrite yep second sentence of determination by the fighter marshall yep that's right i'm looking at that jared he hasn't reorder the sentence and take the last phrase and move it in front and then it flows better it's a better structure it's you won't see it in writing it's proposed on a different piece of paper gotcha okay [Music] all right i would uh like to make a motion that we submit that verbiage for him to look at and bring it back next time and if we feel the need because i i do not want the fire marshal to not have to see it it doesn't make any substantive change it's just better sentence okay yeah it's just yes the only difficult piece with that is is the people selling the con you know so if you're thinking about this we want to be careful with that as well because you have stores like walmart and target and others that are selling it that um they're literally just displays and so if you have a 16 year old kid they don't have any training on fireworks and most stores aren't going to do that where they might where you might see that is if you have the standalone tents that we know we only normally have two of those a year in town those people obviously are trained and competent in the sales of fireworks but the ones that are handled by menards employees and targets and the walmarts of the world um they would be impossible that would be an impossible threshold to make sure that all their employees are trained and so the part of the inspection piece is we make sure that they're in a uh we make sure they're in plain view of staff so that they're not buried in the back of the store where kids can get back there and start lighting them on fire undetected i'm going to do that at narcissism oh yeah i think we lost your audio there yep uh no he's he's not muted so my question is uh does the walmart and all those people who sell they have to have the license to do this let's wait until we get some cheap nails yeah he was talking about the training but even the license can we wait till we get the chief back yeah right now i i don't so it's on his end doug say something you guys hear me yeah okay um so i didn't hear your i could hear most of what you said but that last gentleman that asked the question i i could not hear that yeah i'll repeat that i think it is me who's asked whether the walmarts and the other stores do they have do they have to have a license or do they get licensed to sell this yes they have to have a permit to sell fireworks okay okay but the next question was uh your question your comment to us about training the people who handle that correct uh it would be an impossible threshold for walmart and target and menards and some of the other stores that sell them um to to possibly get all their potential cashiers trained these are normally just stand-alone displays where the consumer goes and picks up the firework puts it in their cart brings it up and then the person rings them out and out the door they go um it would not be realistic to expect that all the employees are trained in that um we're at an outside tent sale where that's all they're doing is selling fireworks that that's a little bit different animal those people that sell those they tend to understand their product very well doug do we need to make a change because the the edit that we just that i just read aloud doesn't substantively change that sentence it just it just rewords it and makes it more clear um so that second sentence which starts with the determination from what i hear you saying maybe that's too onerous for the walmarts and the targets it's it's it is i honestly in my opinion in my years of doing this the reality is you're not gonna they're not possibly gonna train all their employees this is not possible and so i don't know that we even include that language i would have a strong objection to not having some basic safety training if you're selling a product you should have some basic training on that if you are stocking it on shelves or handling it through a checkout process i mean most i mean even osha i think requires some workplace safety items so i don't think that training would be out of line and i don't disagree with what you're saying the reality is we don't have a way of tracking all the employee training records to find out if they do that okay that makes sense yeah can we then change it to somehow rather i'm just thinking loud now here as to there should be enough people in the store who are trained or you know something of that sort that there's some trained supervision in the store not necessarily all the all the specific employees so there's somebody normally they were hand trained normally when i when we go out to do these inspections before we hit permit we are meeting with the store manager and so we're having these safety discussions either myself or my inspectors of making sure that the proper fire extinguishers are in place we make sure that the packages that they're selling are not opened that they're sealed the one thing you don't want is you don't want to have fuses hanging out where somebody can easily light them we just talk about you know what happens if uh and the expectation is that they are passing that information along to their their employees at a at a supervisor's briefing of some sort but we are not there with a with a register making sure every employee is on that same page that's that that ultimately falls to the store to do that sure um i think what i recommend is that that we'll we'll work on that sentence that we'll we'll um speak with with doug and try to figure out a kind of a happy medium here um and propose that as part of the final version of this chapter does that make sense yeah absolutely yep am i correct in reading this that generally speaking this 327 is all about consumer fireworks as defined and excludes if you look at minnesota statute 624 like 20-24 it defines fireworks so like roman candles bottle rockets those are illegal and you cannot possess them in any amount in the state that's correct that is correct that's a misdemeanor to be in possession of those okay thanks uh there was one comment that we had from the from a person in the city who said please make it illegal to shoot off fireworks after 11 pm and i would like to comment they're already violating law because they're certainly shooting off the bigger fireworks so not necessarily fire yeah you're trying to regulate that is not something that's i know it's a noise i wish for the same thing but i understand why we wouldn't put it because i know when i see them above the trees i'm like yeah that's not legal or whether you can get them there in time or not well then even some of the legal ones are loud and at this time we're regulating more the this this the permitting of the sale of fireworks yes and not like the users you know this would be like a disturbing the peace kind of noise it comes up at a later title okay last sentence public display of fireworks now so not requiring specifically referencing 327.9 public display requires a permit so does that imply that a private display does not and what is the price what is the difference between one and the other yep that's correct the public display of fireworks they can be anything from a theatrical show where it's using fountains and that type of thing and those are regulated we don't allow those inside of buildings up to the fireworks like we have here at the fire muster that those are those actually get a different separate permit and the requirements for that are actually based on the minnesota state fire code and so they have very stringent requirements on fallout distances and uh and things like that so the the the big display things that we have in town firebuster and then the uh new year's eve one at buck hill they submit permits to the fire department we do the plan review on it then we issue the permit for those and then i go and do the site inspections the pre-shoot before they shoot to make sure that um mortars are angled the correct way and that they have the safety things and those people all have to be licensed by this minnesota state fire marshal's office okay okay thank you so so that's the public display now if i do something in the back my backyard or front yard is that a public display or a private display it may be illegal right it's probably illegal because the state statutes regulate that consumer fireworks are the really small things everything else is fireworks yeah for the big stuff you have to have a license regardless so i think that maybe the word public is superfluous there because it's really the display of fireworks requires a permit which is in minnesota statutes illegal displays okay that's that's fireworks as opposed to consumer correct yeah consumer fireworks are the small things and you don't have to have a permit for that but you can't do it like within 100 feet of the building or the section right above but those are consumer fireworks jared you had one final amendment yeah in the section right above 327-8f um and i can't remember if this was a member ward or nice dune um the end of that sentence juveniles may not possess consumer fireworks unless under the direct supervision of an adult as opposed to a responsible adult okay yeah responsible i don't know whose it was okay good yours defining that [Laughter] all right well i think that's it on fireworks anything else all right thanks dad um so let's see review that that takes us to miscellaneous items the next code review task force meeting will be september 28th 2022 5 30 p.m here in the council chambers meetings will typically be held on the last wednesday night of each month in 2022 our homework is to review title 3 chapter 29 tree contractors which is provided in your packet comments are needed by august 14th title 3 chapter 28 rental licensing was not ready for review but can be sent out soon depending on status michelle i'll just add a little note to that as we were working through this we realized we needed more time for rental licensing working with the fire chief to make some of the updates that he thought really needed to be added and so we may substitute rental licensing for a different chapter instead is so that we will have so we will not be too short on the time for the next one so i'll go through the chapters i'll talk with the fire chief and everything and make sure that we get uh know the the right timeline and be sending out probably an additional chapter or two depending on the size for the next meeting so will you be able to give that to us in the next week yes that was the i might would anticipate that we would try to get something done by early next week all right thank you did you say there i know what i thought you said they were due 8 14 you meant 9 14 i assume yeah nine's working yeah oh they're due uh they were due last just a couple weeks ago guys so let's get on september 14th um all right there are no additional items so the meeting is adjourned thank you for being with us you