e e I hereby call to order the Roseville city council meeting for Monday September 9th 2024 Mr cman would you call the role please council member Aton here council member SCH here council member gra here counc member St here R here uh and with us at the D by way of uh introductions we've got our City attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the end of the Das uh and our city manager Pat trudon who's on my left at the other end of the Das uh and other uh staff uh department heads guests and others will be introduced as various agenda items uh come forward uh we would ask folks if you have a cell phone to uh assure that it won't disrupt the meeting by either silencing it or other means uh and I should note uh for members of the public we do have meeting materials in the back of the room on the table under the clock uh there is a complete set of all the materials in a three- ring binder which is uh to be shared by everyone and then we also have individual copies available of the agenda for this evening's meeting uh with that a bit of housekeeping uh we'll go ahead and ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all next on our agenda is consideration of the agenda this evening and I'll start uh as I always do with staff to see uh Mr Treon are there any changes that staff would like to make to the agenda this evening uh Mr Mayor I just like to bring up item 7D which was considering a city council appointment to the community of the Rams County League of local governments as I communicated last week we did put that on the agenda without understanding that um council member schroer obviously is our Representatives our LG is also serving on the subcommittee it was based on an email we got separately from another member of that committee so there's no need for uh the council take action so anybody want to just take that off tonight for consideration all right we'll note that um are there any uh Council requested changes to the agenda or items that the council would like to have removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration do not appear to be the case uh is there a motion from the council with respect to the uh proposed agenda this even evening so moved would you like to move with any changes I would move with removing D got it second all right it's been moved by uh council member gra seconded by council member Aton to approve the agenda with item 7D removed from the agenda is there discussion on that motion May did we want to give opportunity for the public to remove anything from the consent oh I forgot about that thank you um it so rarely happens that I I I forgot to do that but I do want to check with members of the public if you're here this evening for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda which is the consent agenda items 10 a through I it's on the bottom of page one uh this would be an opportunity to let us know and we can take that item up separately so that you can make your comments or ask your questions earlier in the meeting uh rather than having to wait to the end uh is there anyone here this evening for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda under the consent agenda does not appear to be the case uh with that then we've got the motion before us thank you council member St uh no discussion as I understand it all those in favor of approving the agenda with the item 7D removed signify by saying I opposed that passes unanimously we have our agenda for this evening next on the agenda is uh our first opportunity for public comment in tonight's meeting and that is an opportunity for general public comment uh specifically on items that are not on this evening's agenda uh when agenda items come up and there is an opportunity for public comment that would be the time to speak to those items but we do always provide an opportunity at the start of each meeting for general public comment on items once again that are not on our agenda this evening uh but may be of interest to people in the community or related otherwise to City business I'll check is there anyone here this evening who wishes to speak under general public comment it does not appear to be the case uh with that then we'll uh proceed to uh the rest of our agenda the next on our agenda is recognitions and donations and we have one item this evening which is to recognize and AC accept a very generous gift to the police department and I'll recognize and turn it over to our police chief Erica shider to uh introduce this item for us this evening Chief sh thank you good evening I appreciate being able to be here tonight and recognize really a a um extraordinary member of our community uh Pat Harris uh Pat has been a dedicated supporter of the police department for many years um she's really helped um improve our shop with a cop program and really take it to the next level where not only are we able to support the children but we've also been able to support the families uh based on her financial support one area where Pat has been really passionate about is being able to support people in our community who are going through tough times or experiencing um homelessness and so she recently made a $10,000 donation to the police department that specifically is being being earmarked um to help individuals that are going through tough times thought it would be uh good to highlight some of the stories of how her financial support has already helped people um she's been supporting for a number of years um and so just a a few stories we had a human trafficking case at one of our hotels uh last year where it was a young uh woman that uh we were able to rescue they had to take her phone because it was evidence and it was going to help in the prosecution of her traffickers but now you have this victim who doesn't have a phone and if you can imagine how difficult it is to get out of this get a hold of your family um and that's not something that we'd be able to easily go by and so we were able to use Pat's donation the money that she had previously donated to the police department to go get that victim a phone so that she could uh maintain contact with her support another recent story is we had a individual that was um experiencing homelessness that our uh homeless Outreach worker was able to get into housing and then she reported back that she was able to uh or had a job offer from one of the local hospitals but she had to go through some certification and she didn't have money for that course and again that's kind of a unique thing that we don't usually have funding for but because of the donation we were able to get her uh through that class and onto employment we also last winter had an elderly uh individual we did a welfare check um this is the middle of the winter and it turned out she didn't have any uh heat her furnace had had gone down and didn't have any food this is a Friday night so it's really difficult to connect to services on a Friday night but our cat team was able to using the funds that she's provided was able to go by a space heater um at least get her through the weekend get her some food and then on Monday our social workers were able to do additional Outreach and get her connected with um meals and get her furnace back up and running and then just at the last story I'll share is we had a young man that was experiencing homelessness in our community and through a homeless um Outreach worker we were able to get him um into some stable housing he ended up getting a job up north at a camp um and then he came back down to report that he was going into the Navy he was super excited until he reached the roadblock of he had outstanding tickets and so we were able to partner with the local VFW and along with Pat's donation we were able to pay off those minor traffic tickets that were just kind of lingering and he was able to go on and enlist so these are just some of the stories but we're just so grateful for her continued support support um and a lot of the things that we're doing wouldn't be possible without some of that uh financial support that that she's provided we do have some grants but sometimes there's a lot of red tapes with grants and when you're dealing with somebody who's in crisis or has an immediate need we just can't uh say how much we appreciate Pat's uh support um and especially this most recent $10,000 donation that's really going to help people in our community that's all I have I know you wanted to say just a couple words just a few um when I retired in 2019 I was trying to figure out which organizations charitable organizations I wanted to focus on and two events came back to me that involved Roseville police officers uh the first one was my granddaughter had run away from a treatment center and had probably found herself in a hazardous environment where she ran to um and someone from the police had a hunch that they could figure out where she went and they sat in a car outside and I think on the second day they caught her running out of the house and the family he followed him to a McDonald's and then the three two adults in the granddaughter there was some big fight and she started to write away they caught her and they took her home to her dad's house well he worked too far away to get home quickly but I lived just a couple blocks so I walked over there and he was sitting on the step with her and he was she was just crying her eyes out and she was just inconsolable but he was so kind and gentle with her I just I've never forgotten the way he was then the other one was a few years later I was sitting in the backyard of my kind dominium across from Lake Josephine and an officer walked into the backyard and he said do you have an Andy working here living here and I said yeah we have two he said well this would be a elderly gentleman and I said yeah I know who you are he said well I was at B Le and they said he's been coming there every day for breakfast for years which I was familiar with and um he hasn't shown up for a couple days could you go check see if he's okay and I had to tell him that he was in the hospital and he probably wasn't going to be coming back but I asked him to relay a message from us to take to ble staff and let him know that that was the highlight of every single day he didn't go anywhere else and um I was so grateful for them and also for the officer that he went back and talked talk to him and let him know it speaks to a culture it's not just two incidents that happened to me it's the culture of the people that are willing to reach out as well as the Community Action team um much more so now so that that's what that's what prompted me to do this well thank you for your generosity and and for for thinking about and remembering those connections uh it's it's really meaningful as you've heard and no doubt know to the folks in the community that you've been able to benefit and and and make you know positive change in their lives and so uh certainly on behalf of everybody in the community we are very grateful and and very willingly accept uh your generosity and and appreciate all the help that you provide in the community in that way well I worked for 30 years in government and I got a lot of Grants but I know how specific they are how you can use the money so the option to be able to give something and just you leave it up to the Judgment of the people that are trying to care the people who need it at this moment that's what I wanted to be able to do cut the red tape out all together and let them make the decisions great great thank you thank you again you so much M can we get a photo sure y why don't we take a couple moments here for that we'll just break shortly from the meeting here and uh be right back no more okay go down into the darkness with you I'll [Laughter] be we may have to kind of stand all right ready smile three two one just checked it's looking good just a couple more thank you [Applause] [Laughter] [Music] all right we're back from a short break here uh to take a photograph and was pointed out to me during the break we do actually have to take action to accept this uh this uh donation uh and so there is a resolution in the packet and it would be appropriate to move the resolution at this time second all right it's been moved by council member gra seconded by council member hon to adopt the resolution as the attachment in this uh item in the packet to accept the donation once again uh from Miss p with that is there any discussion on the motion maker the motion no it's wonderful all right second or Council discussion appreciate all right we've got the motion before us once again to accept that donation all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously and it's Now official and with that may then oh council member strong I would love to I know that other folks have asked if there was an opportunity for them to do something like that um it would be great if maybe we could talk about some kind of fund or something that people in the community could contribute to something like that in the future to help this well I think because of the donation the fund already exists it would just be a matter of following her example and providing uh additional resources to that fund so this is this is one of the reasons we uh we highlight these donations is to set the example for others in the community the Myriad of uses is really contact the uh the police chief probably or the assistant chief or the city manager right or the city manager it all it all goes to the same place roughly uh and oh I did want to just uh if you can indulge me for just a moment uh this wasn't on the agenda I attended an event on Thursday at Central Park which was for the Roseville Senior Softball Association over something around 400 members all of course who are seniors of various ages including a handful of people who are in their 90s uh which was very impressive to see uh and the only and certainly I wasn't there in any softball related capacity or senior related capacity although although I probably qualified but um they were very generous to uh provide recognition to the uh City Parks and Recreation maintenance staff who maintains the fields that they play on in Roseville and they uh had a plaque that they presented uh which is presented to the orange shirts as they call them who are the people in the Parks and Rec Department who do all that field maintenance and this is going to be hanging uh in the maintenance facility for uh all of the uh folks that did that work uh for the uh Softball Association as well as for everybody else who uh you know participates in programs at Roseville Parks but I did want to take a moment and publicly uh add my thanks to theirs wow look at that that must have been a shot from earlier in the meeting well done all right uh so thank you for that Indulgence on that I did want to take a moment to do that and not wait to the end of the meeting with that then we can proceed with our business items this evening uh and our first business item uh is item 7A which is to discuss uh possible ways forward uh related to regulation of Canabis in the City of Roseville uh and I believe to kick off our conversation this evening we'll turn it over to our City attorney Rachel Tierney but we also do have some zoning related uh discussion uh and we have Janice gunlock here our community development director as well uh so with that I'll turn over to miss tiie to kick it off thank you um nice to talk for a little bit um gonna kind of do a little background and then walk through this um but please interrupt with questions but just to frame up the conversation today this is probably the first of many conversations we're going to have about these regulations um we're really seeking guidance from the council so we can come up with a first draft of probably more than one ordinance they'll be separated um and then and then get your review and comment and thoughts on those drafts as we refine exactly what's possible also um you may ask me questions and I may say I don't know that's going to happen probably more than we're all comfortable with with but this is a new area of law there isn't a a there's there's a fair amount of guidance a fair amount of State regulation but then there's some holes in that regulation and so we're going to have to decide um you're going to have to decide as a group um what priorities you have and and whether you want to push the envelope or or stay on the safe side and and we'll just have to walk through that together and figure it out um but just to get started a little bit of background um where we got remember when we started with edibles THC Edibles well that's where we started in 2002 and then in 2003 uh the legislature passed the Cannabis act which is when they legalized adult use cannabis and set up the framework that we're all working under 2023 right 20 you said 2003 y may seem like 20 years ago I meant 2023 thank you I was trying to figure that out um 2024 they made some updates to those um the Cannabis act and now we're acting under that um I expect though that there will continue to be amendments to the Cannabis act probably in every legislative session so um just like we change our liquor ordinances and tobacco ordinances frequently I think you should expect that that is how this ordinance will work as well um we do have some regulations in Roseville right now one we you are require a license to sell edible cannabinoids canab yes cannabinoids um THC Edibles the name keeps changing now under our new system those are known as lower potency hemp Edibles or lphe for those who like to abbreviate um your current ordinance caps the number of licenses at eight that cap doesn't apply to um people selling Edibles at umor bars and bars and Liquor Stores um after the Cannabis act then we didn't apply to liquor licenses um you have prohibited smoking in a public place you included tobacco and marijuana in the kinds of smoking that are prohibited in public places and then finally you do have a moratorium on operation of cannabis businesses that moratorium expires under state law January 1st of 2025 so our goal is to have all of these regulations in effect by the time that expires office of canab cannabis management that is the state office that is in charge of these regulations they have produced some guidance for local governments they published some rules they published a model ordinance we're working off that guidance um and they have been in existence since July 1st of 20123 um their their first round of rule making came out I think in July the comment the comments are closed but I don't think there have been any amendments to those we will continue to watch those and those may drive some of the changes that we recommend or may may we may recommend changing a decision we've made even before we pass an ordinance based on further guidance from the OC ocm okay so let's get down to business so we're here to talk about the potential topics for regulation they kind of fall into two buckets one um are zoning regulations which will take place in your zoning code which will come through uh the Planning Commission um the others are just regular regulation which is kind of registration of cannabis businesses and um kind of General compliance related to that registration and these businesses um for zoning compliance uh the first question is where do you want to put it so do you want to create a special cannabis Zone that's an option um the other option which I think most cities are are pursuing is to um classify by the underlying use so there's a bunch of different kinds of license types but they reflect different uses um another option which may or may not land in your zoning code is buffers to separate cannabis businesses from certain uses particularly schools playgrounds uh license treatment facilities um you can also establish buffers um separating cannabis businesses from each other um and then we have the same buffer conversation for low potency hemp Edibles and they could be separated from certain uses or separated from from each other just as background in general cannabis and low potency hemp Edibles are treated separately there are sometimes when they're lumped together in the state law but generally they're treated as two separate uses um registration and compliance um the first big question is whether you want to register businesses all licensed businesses need to be registered they can either be registered with the city and if but the city doesn't want to register then the county has to um registration comes with some responsibilities and some opportun ities and we'll talk about those um you can limit the hours of retail operation those restrictions are delineated right in state law and then um we'll talk a little bit about cannabis events and what kind of Standards you want to impose for those first question um do you want to explicitly list cannabis business types into a particular District or particular districts or would you like to regulate them based on similar uses that are already existing in the city and now I'm going to kick it off to Janice or do you want me to run through this first sure so this isn't an exhaustive list of the licenses I tried to group them so they're a little bit more understandable but there's the kind of regular commercial use which is a retailer license both cannabis retailer low potency hemp edible retailer then there's cannabis delivery service and cannabis event organizer and just I found the term cannabis event organ organizer a little confusing it felt to me like a person is an organizer it's actually how you get permission to host a cannabis event so um when we talk about an organizer we're not really talking about an office somewhere in the city that you're going to Zone but the event itself um and then there are commercial and Industrial licenses which are combination licenses so this is a single business that's able to do cultivation manufacturing and Retail the cultivation and the manufacturing I believe takes place in the same place the retail may be at the same place maybe at another place for there's medical combination which includes all of those and then there's what they call a Meto business which is big and can have up to three retail locations so separate locations and then there's a micro business which would have just one retail location and think of that the comparison I'm hearing is the brwb to to the micro business um then there are some industrial uses this for Roseville that would be indoor so we've got cultivator cannabis cultivator medical C cannabis cultivator low potency hemp edible cultivator manufacturer of the same and then we have Cannabis Testing cannabis wholesaler and cannabis transporter and then there is in the statute an agricultural outdoor cultivator but since Roseville doesn't have an agricultural District you don't have to allow that here you don't have to invent a district to allow a use that you don't currently allow now I defer to Janice yes so this is sort of one of the core functions of the Planning Commission so this is one um particular question that the Planning Commission did discuss in some detail last week um what we did in advance of that meeting is provided the Planning Commission with some staff recommendations about where all these licensed businesses might fit under our existing zoning districts and um we came up with a table and I'll put that in the overhead camera here um the decisions in this chart were based on a few things um one was some of the information contained in the city attorney's decision memo which is part of your packet the other was and sorry maybe that's not super readable but it is an attachment to your packet um the other piece was the um guidance document that OC has put out um and there was another item that we looked at oh we also considered some of the other uses that are permitted in the city that may be similar and so um some of the decisions we made in terms of not permitted permitted conditional Etc were based on that and I'll make the same comparison that the City attorney made with the the brewery or the Brew Pub um so the planning commission did discuss that this table in some detail they um asked a couple of questions but ultimately did not make any changes to the um chart as recommended by staff and we would certainly accept any feedback from you either now or once we put together our draft ordinance all right I think we're just all trying to catch up and and make sure we find the chart and everything in our packet so I just want to note too in this chart you'll see numerous times under conditional or permitted there's a little parentheses that says limited um that is typically referencing some restrictions that are already in our code for example I think on some of the um mixed use or employment districts there are already limitations about how much square footage can be retail for example and so those same Provisions um would apply unless unless for some reason the requirements under state law wouldn't allow us to do that and then for those that are listed as conditional whether you keep with this list or come up with something different there may be a need to create some additional restrictions or conditions with them but again depending on the city attorney's advice and what the state law allows us to do if I remember the information the Planning Commission essentially passed forward the list as presented as their suggested recommendation that's correct yeah I think the high level question is is whether this is the approach that makes the most sense or whether you want to get creative I think most cities are following this approach it makes a lot of sense so the the the different conditions that are being applied to cannabis retail are the same as you're applying to other kinds of retail so if there's a reason you want treat it differently then that's a good conversation to have I do think that if you the one of the things in your packet is the model ordinance and materials from the ocm and Pages 13 and 14 I think do a good job of summarizing the uses and then also identifying different Municipal considerations for you to have in mind those would be the kinds of things that you might want to look at and say gosh you know it you know and several of them identify odor as issue you know maybe you want to give some real thought to that and whether that means you want to make sure it's within a certain distance from uh residential use or something like that that that would be where you would say we may want to treat cannabis uses differently for certain uses for this reason and so then we could work on Crafting particular conditions that would be unique to cannabis uses to address some of those concerns right and just on that very topic because I did catch that in the information from ocm um I did look up what our our current zoning code talks about odor because that was a topic that came up in a development proposal a number of years ago that we we spent some time updating our zoning code to talk to those issues and basically our current code language says odors uh or that's the heading uh the the emission of odorous matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable beyond the boundaries of the immediate site is prohibited so it seems like we've already got some zoning controls related to odor and and a number of other issues already sort of in our code so I don't know that we need to go beyond that but I guess that's the question we have to answer uh but I did want to provide that information in case folks weren't aware that that was already part of our code might be worth referencing it though uh well that's interesting too because um you know we don't like for the reference to uh an industrial manufacturing facility we don't say you know and by the way if has odor checked this part of the code for each of those different types so I don't know that I it's not saying it's a bad idea but I'm just trying to think about how we might or whether we need to specifically talk about this type of use in a different way than other types of uses I just don't know um thoughts from the Council on more about this approach with the different uses in different districts and whether we have any other considerations that we want to talk about uh council member strong I do want to make sure we bring up the odor because if someone was um particularly sensitive to the smell um it would be unfortunate if you had just invested a big um something you know amount of money and time and effort into place in a strip mall and suddenly your next door neighbor um is you know is Distributing um and so I just want to make sure I realize that it's supposed to be not um consumed on site but um it does bring with that the possibility of odors that will travel with the person so um you know it it's a it's a bigger issue because it's a lot more odorous than many things um well and and to be clear the the the they talked about odor with relation to cultivation manufacturing and not really to uh the retail sales side of it so now event might be a whole other thing thoughts uh council member Aton I would agree with the approach that went through the Planning Commission and is here in front of us I think that we should stick with that because it follows our current stuff we're not making up new stuff that can be a problem for others to understand for staff to understand so I would agree with that approach I I agree that odor is a thing that we can talk about in and I think you brought up the two it's the micro business and then it's the events that we'd want to talk about I appreciate that we have something already to to look at in our code so I think that's important piece to lean on whenever we do that that doesn't mean that we couldn't put like specific conditions in addition to that under the conditional use approval where we have conditional uses um we've always got that too council member shorter uh I would agree I think we um this approach makes sense because you know zoning can get Complicated by itself and why do we even want to put another layer on here as long as we can address most issues through this I think that would be the way to but again that odor was one of the things I had on my list of things to bring up as well is um and you know and I had read to where you mainly the manufacturing and um growing yet the the event one um I wasn't exactly sure how we would um address that because if you have an event how how how do you control odor I I guess that one I'm a little puzzled about Council memb John we'll get to events but one of the the the things within your Authority is to prohibit onsite consumption during events um or to restrict where it can happen during events you can also restrict where events occur so so you do have some way to regulate in those areas and the other thing about events is um that wouldn't necessarily have to be a zoning ordinance that could be a regulatory ordinance so if you learn that wow we've been allowing events in Parks just for example um we need to stop doing that because that you know the the smell drifts over to the playground just silly example but you can learn from what works and what doesn't work it's much easier in a regulatory ordinance than a zoning ordinance where we're establishing a use um but but you will have a little bit of flexibility in that area okay thank you well and just on to follow up on that is it fair to say that um you you that we that even in our zoning ordinance as it is now events in a generic sense may or may not be able to be a permitted use in different districts I mean I I'm wondering about like events in a single family residential district you know I mean depending on how you define an event I guess but um do we already have some restrictions in our zoning code in that way that might get to some of those things I don't know for sure and Miss gunlock is puzzling on it so I think on the commercial districts as it relates to like outdoor storage or things like that maybe but I think the city has relied on the uh event permit that administrative tool that we use to sort of regulate events and there are certain events that are exempt but like somebody having a wedding at their single family home requires someone to fill out that event permit and then we already have a policy with established rules and conditions about what you can or can't do because generally the zoning code is kind of Silent on things like people having parties or you know businesses having sidewalk sales maybe outdoor storage isn't allowed and so there's those mechanisms that we've been using to sort of allow businesses to be able to do that okay thank you for that and that that means then that we could look at what's in our existing event permitting process and if there's something in there that we want to add related to these types of events or prohibit these types of events uh council member gra so just getting back to the original question I think that having that the zoning makes sense to me why add a different as as you said a different layer we're already going probably going to go into some sort of Regulation here and having to do that so I I think that makes the most sense to me and was cult outdoor outdoor cultivation the only type of use that really doesn't fit any of our existing zoning is there everything else that was listed pretty much falls into one of these I believe so y so indoor cultivation would be like hydroponic or something like that whatever you can do indoors I guess okay I do have a question about this and somewhat related um just wondering if um the owner of a building were to have approach someone approach them to be to lease their space and it was are they able to um if it's a permitted use are they able to reject that person based on what the what the use was intended council member St is your question whether the building owner could reject a potential tenant sure of course right just wanted to make sure there wasn't more like in housing you know you can't base well they they certainly could not base it on certain factors but the type of business can be something as it sounds like you're saying that a a a landlord of a business entity can decide on whether to have a tenant there yes correct as to the type of like if it's they don't want to have any fast food restaurants in their particular Center they could decide to do that because that's not necessarily uh targeting a a protected class necessarily and we don't have the same level of regulation of commercial property as we have of housing so got it thank you I I I would like to add one comment to though and correct me if I'm wrong but you know these businesses are required to be licensed by the state and part of that process includes a zoning certification at the city so they before they issue A license they will check with us about the location in the zoning to make sure the zoning is okay whereas there are lots of businesses that can just locate without that zoning certification and generally speaking that's never a problem and we get calls all the time but in this instance There's an actual formal zoning certification that ocm with the city got it all right M I think that gets to the uses in the in the table next question okay so if we can go back to the PowerPoint so the next question is whether you want to require buffers and this is both for cannabis businesses um the statute explicitly allows you to prohibit cannabis business distances from with from within 1,000 ft of a school and within 500 ft of a daycare Residential Treatment Facility are public park attraction that's regularly used by miners so than playgrounds and soccer fields and things like that um those are explicitly in the state law the um OC's model ordinance also says that you can prohibit from that you can prohibit cannabis businesses from being within a certain number of feet from each other there's no number in the ordinance there I I just point this out too because this it's not in the statute which gives me just the littlest bit of pause that that could change um so but at this point we think you can prohibit it if you wanted to have buffers from each other so there's kind of two theories when you're talking about uses like liquor and tobacco and adult uses do you want them all in one spot or do you want them spread out and so this is kind of what you if you wanted to prevent them from being within each other what you're doing is trying to prevent a concentration right from being in all in one spot um and then finally um the buffers can apply to all kinds of cannabis businesses or specific kinds of cannabis businesses so you could say you know we want um we're going to have the buffers only from retail if the manufacturing is up together that's fine or maybe you don't want to concentrate the manufacturing together for odor concerns and you'd want to have those buffers for example um low potency hemp same same discussion do you want to prohibit them from uses do you want to prohibit them from being close to each other the 1,000 ft and 500 feet requirements or limitations don't apply to low potency hemp you could prohibit you could have larger distances from the low potency hemp Edibles although there's this other open question in the law because low potency hemp Edibles are it appears you could use you have a can sell low potency hemp Edibles kind of as a matter of right in a li liquor establishment so um I don't think those buffers are going to be able to apply there again statute silent on that but it it seems like the way the regulation's written that that's kind of implicit so really just talking about the Standalone retail stores where you could perhaps use those buffer regulations and can you clarify in terms of the the way the statute is written um if a city wants to make a Prohibition with uh with respect to a School the city can cannot go less than 1,000 ft or can't go more than 1,000 ft or it has to be exactly 1,000 ft and there's no choice can you talk about what the range of options for cities are in specifically to that one but kind of conceptually with the others I would read that as an up to 1,000 ft up to okay so we couldn't say 5,000 feet from a school don't think so okay now we it's silent on a distance we could come up with our own if we wanted to correct all right and I appreciate uh Mr trean providing the information uh to us about how we deal with a lot of these issues with relation to alcohol and tobacco sales and as was noted in the chart currently we don't have any buffers for any of those businesses and license types um in our in our code so that's part of the discussion here thoughts from council members on buffers the planning the would you like the planning I thank you I was going to bring that up yeah and sorry we created the packet materials and so we weren't able to get the Planning Commission recommendation into the slide specifically but um the Planning Commission did specifically talk about this topic last week and they are recommending uh the maximum buffers of the 1,000 ft from a school and 500 ft from the daycare Residential Treatment Facility or public park attraction used by miners they felt like there were so many unknowns it would be easier to pull back later on than to be more restrictive after the rules are already set um they did uh recommend not to impose buffers uh on the lower potency hemp um but then they also and this was just from the schools and the daycares they also talked about um imposing buffers on the cultivators and manufacturers specifically so like a cult cultivator or manufacturer can't be a certain distance from another cultivator or manufacturer and the reason behind that conversation and ultimate recommendation and they didn't come up with a number but just to impose a buffer was to the to the odor concern what if one of them smells how do you know which one of them is responsible for the odor while it's easy to detect that odor and it's easy to detect if it's readily a detectable at or beyond the property line we need to be able to determined who's doing it and so they felt like they didn't want to concentrate cultivators and manufacturers all in one spot because we wouldn't be able to mitigate odor if we needed to after the business was already established potentially thoughts from the council Council M shter um actually I would agree with the planning commission's recommendations I was thinking the same thing the go with the maximum of the th000 Ft from the school and 500 from the daycare and in the courses you know we've already started talking about the older situation so I like that idea about the manufacturer and the cultivators not be next to each other so I I would support those recommendations other thoughts counc I think those make sense and then the other one I'm I'm just I need a little more conversation on is what is the logic for having a distance between each retail shop rather than allowing are we trying to not have them in a row somewhere something about concentration I think it's kind of the same idea it's better to have and we don't have that for anything else we don't right now liquor stor have any kind of right I think part of it is is if you don't limit the number you could end up with one every five fet and you can end up with 30 or 40 well I hope we're going to yes that conversation we'll have that discussion but I think that's part of the reason because in case you don't do that yeah other thoughts there's the appearance that if a strip mall has three in a row that that there's definitely going to be a perception by some that that changes what the what that strip Mall's all about whether or not accurate whether or not but there's going to be definite feelings on some people's part I was trying to think do we have any strip malls now that have three or two even liquor stores that close together I can't think of any instances right now coun I have a question first then I going come back to that um clearly I don't have a lot of experience with manufacturing or cultivating marijuana odor is a problem yes yes is a problem okay that's good to know um when we think about distance between retail businesses uh what we found actually with our alcohol ordinance is some of our owners of licenses wanted to have a buffer so they could have their own kind of zone of influence and people within this half mile area came to them they were actually looking for the space not to concentrate right it doesn't make really good sense to put two or three of the same kind of business right next to each other because then you're not going to get unique business and I think they were trying to push that part so I don't know that we need to have a spacing um thing within each other I'm generally supportive of the buffers I agree that we can go backwards um the low potency hemp Edibles I think our current system seems to be working uh I don't know that we have any massive problems in these uh few months of data that we have but we don't know we have big problems um so you know that we just leave that as it is and I just don't know so it's a problem when you're manufacturing and I don't you know if you're upwind or downwind of something you can quickly identify which building is I don't know maybe maybe maybe not I don't know so I'm open to that I think uh to the to the production or to the manufacturing cultivation um I think of other manufacturing uses and we don't require buffers between those because we can't figure out where the odor is coming from I just think that might be a solution in search of a problem um so I'm concerned about that and once again I think if we're going to talk about spacing of retail establishments uh if we want to put those in place we would have to do it for our tobacco and and alcohol as well because it's the same type of age restricted type of product um and we don't have that right now um so I I tend to lean away from putting any kind of buffers or spacing limitations on the retail um and I'm not convinced on needing it uh in respect to the cultivator and manufacturer I think part of it is our zoning limitations kind of we try to put manufacturing type uses in areas that aren't necess adjacent to um um residential for example but we do also have our environmental standards in our code that try to address some of those adjacency issues where they do exist so I think we can we can try to figure some of those things out um but I do get the philosophy of put it in place because you can always take it away I guess I would argue you know it works both ways but anyway um Mr Tron you had just clarify you talking about buffers between businesses or buffers before um between School locations and schools two different things right so that's a good point so I think my comment was specifically related to buffers between the two types of businesses but I will add that we don't have those restrictions with respect to schools and other and you know dayc carees and things like that so if we're going to put them in place for these types of retail establishments I would want to have a conversation about whether we do that with respect to tobacco and alcohol and if we haven't seen issues with our other types of you know tobacco and alcohol establishments in terms of spacing from these types of locations I don't know that we need to put it in place for any of them that's my thought other thoughts from Council Members or I don't know if we've got we've come to any kind of consensus yet as a council question what have other cities done or do we even have anyone down that road yet as far as the discussion on odor I I I I can't tell you I everyone is right where you are at the beginning having these conversations trying to get something through by the first we do have one local community that has put in place their ordinance that we found out Pat and I found out about earlier today and that is vness Heights they actually did it earlier this year and they had a discussion about buffers and distances and things like that and they ended up not putting any restrictions in in that regard uh that's what they reported to us obviously we can check the language of their ordinance to be sure exactly what they did or didn't do uh but that's that's where they were at for what that's worth Council M John well I believe if we put in the minimum allow the minimum of three retail establishments I think I would agree with council member Aton that they're likely to not be all in the same place for wanting to be spaced out across the city to have um you know not be in competition with the person next to them it might even be one organization that is a Meto facility I'm going to say it like a singer yeah Meto um but I think that that possibility exists I given our hesitancy and some of the other items I would be inclined to start with the three it can always be added to and then we can see if some of these problems are problems um I do think that I would agree that the buffer for schools seems and treatment facilities and such seems like a great idea to go with the max at this point I also agree that um on the low pocy hemp it doesn't seem like it's a reasonable um or really necessary item at this point but I I would be inclined and I I definitely understand um you're thinking about the restrictions and I actually was under the impression that there were restrictions that a school could be within a certain distance of a liquor store but I don't see that in I see it in St Paul in Minneapolis but not in Roseville and that was a surprise but I've never wanted to locate a liquor store so I wasn't aware of the regulations but I do think that does beg the question that if we have it on some then we we should understand the difference between those so I'm not sure where we stand well I would tend I mean if we limit the number I mean some of these are if we do this then this uh then I would see not putting the other restrictions on I could I could see it that way um if we're going to have 20 of them then I then it has to be a different discussion for me well just to just to be clear your ability to restrict the number is limited to cannabis businesses retail so not the manufacturing of the cultivation and I'm not sure end up by the schools anyway because it's not the zoning isn't correct for that so and I'm not sure we were talking about those those necessarily I think we were talking primarily about the retail right um so I think we've it sounded like there may be some sense of wanting to put the the max restrictions on the retail uh per the code but talking about also adding that to tobacco and and uh liquor stores off sale liquor is that what I'm hearing don't want to put words in your mouth I mean I think it's a good discussion to have I don't know that it needs to happen right now as we're approaching something that's a little more urgent um but I think for if we're talking Equity sake we need probably should have the same reasoning behind we would have one not the other just because it's the latest thing and it's scarier I guess is maybe why we but I just want to make sure especially around the S re and other things whatever racial Equity impact we would have that it would be um you know there would be good reasoning behind it but I don't see it as an imminent need I think we need to get to this and I would I would think that we have sounds like we are fairly agreement on a lot of the other items right other thoughts on the limiting the distance of retail establishments from the two categories schools and daycare Etc as the state statute talks about and then the the spacing any more thoughts from council members on those two areas with respect to retail Council Mor I think it was an interesting point brought up let's say the council chose to have three or four retail establishments then at that point all the other stuff becomes a whole new regulatory war to fight um I think of my children I think your children going to park viw and there's a liquor store across the street now there was an incident there of safety once but right um it wasn't because kids were going over there stealing alcohol or things like that we picking up alcohol in the parking lot so I think we do need to look at that and be thoughtful about not creating regulation just because we're afraid of it um and uh so I I would look more towards re restricting number total number of businesses over the buffers because the data seems to show that for tobacco and and alcohol sales we haven't limited that on either yeah and we don't have a problem that we can tie to those I don't think we've got a proximity issue right with those yeah well I would go for a less restriction if that's the case you're right I think it's partly we're worried about it so we're trying to yeah well and it was specifically mentioned in the state statute which they don't do about tobacco and alcohol uh yeah um does that answer the question on the retail um so we're not really talking it doesn't sound like about a spacing limitation from each other because we're going to be talking about the number of licenses or the number of registrations or whatever we're calling them assuming we have those in our scheme which is another part of the conversation um uh if we defer that to the county we may have to come back um and then in terms of the distance from the schools it doesn't sound like we're we're looking to do that am I wrong on that I don't think so I would be inclined to have would be limited right now because we have that opportunity um to to have that maximum but I again I think knowing if we are going to limit it to three or four establishments that are retail um there's going to be a you know it's going to be a different situation than it is if we say however many want to show well and certainly if we do decide from an equity point of view that we want to put the same uh limitations on spacing from schools and daycares for liquor uh off sale and tobacco we already have some issues as we pointed out with Park View in an existing business but those I would assume are pre-existing non-conforming uses and assuming they stay in place and aren't expanded more than 50% they can stay as long as they want uh council member shorter yeah I I mean I I would I'd still support the buffer from the schools and the daycare for now and especially since they put that in here you know from the state I mean there's a reason they're not telling us to do it but I know but for some reason they're putting that in there right so um who knows why the legislature does things I know and and again you could and you know of course the um Planning Commission um has already that's what they recommended as well on that piece I do though if we do limit it to three that you know I think that makes it become less of a a big issue definitely right and we can Circle back to it uh council member Aton just thinking going through the schools in our city and Park View and the North Heights Church private school are there only two schools that I can right now pull out that are close enough to a retail establishment this with matter I don't know that separating it from uh well we do have the daycare res dayare I mean it's not like four-year-olds are Marching over there picking up marijuana illegal you know it's it's I don't know I don't know I don't understand the Restriction from dayc carees that's that would be the parents making that choice and they're legal to pick it up whenever they want you so some of this I think is essentially a moot point um in most of our city and most of our schools and places we're trying to create safety the other is so it's it's the 500 foot category is dayc carees residential treatment facilities or a essentially a playground or athletic field when it'sin a park so um once again though if we're not looking at restricting from schools I'm not sure that those other categories a are even within those proximities or be make that difference yeah I think same thing for some of those other things there's almost nothing that we're we're going to have almost zero impact by having those buffers in there and it's because specifically those uses aren't those possible uses those zones aren't within those proximities yes we already keep we already baned in all our parks at this point consumption consumption in there well there's an open space in the mall next to that new Spanish Immersion daycare um where Old Mexico used to be yeah so I mean I I I think if we wanted to be consistent we could have it 500 ft really there's not many opportunities especially in the public schools in Roseville but if we said 500 feet it might give it a bit of distance and I'm thinking more just for oders um the old piece but at a retail establishment not allow to SM consumption isn't allowed is yes oh it can SM you smell remember when we could smoke in bars you know I never smoked but I always smelled like it you know it carries at a retail establishment yes where you can't consume it yep I don't understand how that can have an odor outside of because they have that flowers in there and the plants themselves give out the odor you don't actually have to light it to have it's like if you're growing it you can smell it but it's inside of a building so aren't they sealed packaging the doors are I don't know about but even if the door opens and closed I just don't I just don't understand what the what the odor issue is with retail but and if that's really what the state was trying to get at or if they were trying to get at underage use and consumption and potential purchase I mean I don't know what the state once again I don't know what the state was trying to get at but uh I I think it's a pretty common regulation for um tobacco and Al and I think that they were just trying to maybe allow a similar restriction for cities that have that as a regulation it's tied to the age restriction as opposed to odor or something like that I mean you know to I I don't know why we why we restrict from from liquor stores and tobacco stores you know for whatever reason that is some sort of a you know a vice regulation um I think that that's I think that that's what this is intended to be is a giving cities the ability to regulate cannabis in the way that a lot of cities regulate alcohol and tobacco right so if we're a city that doesn't regulate alcohol and tobacco that way do we want to regulate cannabis differently is the question I don't know it doesn't I don't I'm not 100% sure that we've got three of us that are interested in that just on the basis of the ation but I didn't want to lose track of it and be wrong in in that so I think maybe at this point we don't include the the distance limitation from schools and daycares and no spacing limitation from each other um I guess it depends on how many you're allowing well we have that so we can Circle back if we need to I was going to say I would I would feel like we need to start there yeah I would I would not make a decision on this until we make a decision on that we'll we'll set this one aside then uh and just back to the industrial or the um cultivation manufacturing um once again um do we want to look at putting some kind of space limitation or buffer in or do we need to to how do we do that with respect to other potentially stinky uses in those same districts I mean do we have to say they have to all be no closer than a thousand feet if you if you potentially could produce a smell with a use you couldn't be any closer than x distance from another potentially smelly use I mean travel a long way way it does definitely I will say there's one so there's the the cultivation and Manufacturing has the odor of fresh but there in um micro businesses there is the ability to have onsite use so that's the one time that you may have the actual order going out into the world so just in terms of of that mattering to you that would be the place where you would really be talking about the smell the odor of smoked marijuana right I would note that particular business on the proposed chart that staff put together that would be a conditionally permitted business so there's opportunity to evaluate what controls are in place during that process well and I I do need to check because now I'm my memor is I'm questioning my own memory that may be limited to it may be limited to Edibles I'm not sure I will get back to you on that but um but if you did want to regulate marijuana that's the only place that it might be able to be smoked is in the micro business that would be a different conversation yep that would definitely be a different conversation have we provided some guidance on the uh on the this question subject to circling back with I think what we're saying at this point is no buffers no buffers subject to subsequent discussion about numbers of licenses probably and micro businesses micro so we have to check back on the what you can do at one of those micro businesses and what we may need to do with restriction with related to that and does that just become one of the conditions on a conditional use consideration for that type of business rather than a a further restriction in the zoning code all right what's the next question so the next slide I think we kind of touched on I don't know Rachel if you want to yeah just just for your awareness um the ocm is going to seek a certification from the City that any before a license is finally approved they need to do a zoning certification and part of the reason I'm pointing this out is the city has 30 days to respond so while it may not be something that you put into your regulations it is something that you'll need to operationalize because if you don't respond in 30 days they'll just grant it so um just sort of FYI and that is an administrative function not it doesn't have to come to the council correct for that certification we don't have to pass thumbs up thumbs down okay does this comply with your zoning or not got it what if it's a conditionally permitted use and they they can't get that in 30 days does that mean they don't apply for the license until they go through that process I'm going to add that to the list of questions question it's a good question really good question all right next question yeah and do they have to have some type of lease agreement or lease tentative handshake on something to be able to provide a a probably address probably subject to with the landlord so they're going to have to that's part of the licensing process we'll have to make sure that they know where it's permitted and where not otherwise it wouldn't be able to know where to begin well and you know off the top of my head the answer might be that no they don't comply with zoning because they haven't obtained a conditional use permit so but I want to I want to think that through and look and look at the regulations and then it would be a then potentially their application for a license would just pend with the with the state until the certification comes through yeah got it okay and you would think that somebody looking into doing this kind of business is probably going to check with the local authorities about what the what the requirements are hopefully hopefully all right uh next question and here we are do you want to register businesses or do you want to leave it to the county uh here's what you get when you register you have the ability to oppose a registration fee I have in here $500 to issue $11,000 to renew the state regulation it depends on the license type it's half of the state license which it's very confusing let's just go 500 and a th000 as our working numbers but understand that that's not accurate for all of the licenses it's interesting that it's more to renew right you think it' be the other way around I think they want people will be able to get into the business well I think that serious I think well you're right when they're capping these licenses this is the only money you get for doing this regulation so this is how you're going to pay your costs of regulating so you know the the issuance of the license is a is a kind of onetime activity the the it's the renewal where you're doing the compliance checks and the monitoring and that kind of thing right oh true um you have the ability to require compliance with state law and local ordinances um lots of room for interpretation about what those local ordinances can say um you have the ability to require that businesses be current on all taxes and assessments for the location so they can't owe you any money you can deny their registration if they owe you money that's always helpful um and here's the big olded one you can ID you can you have the ability to limit the number of retail registration rosille has to allow three or Rose bille has three um you do get some ability to deny registration renewal or suspend registration reasonable Minds differ on whether you can issue a fine for violating um you can suspend registration for quote an immediate threat to the health and safety of the public it looks like that that suspension can last for about 30 days depending on what the ocm does with it again some some some further regulation and information from the state needed on those details um you can perform a preliminary compliance check before you authorize the registration itself that's kind of think of that as your zoning code building code fire code um in inspection and then the Run requirement is you have to perform an annual compliance check which is an age compliance check I don't think it's for anything else I think it's just an age compliance check and it's at least one you must perform at least one okay um and we do two on L right now um what was I going to say so on the so the ability to deny registration renewal or suspend registration um an establishment needs both the license from the and the registration from the registration entity to do business correct so that is essentially the power to put them out of business for up to whatever limitations we have on that for non-compliance with whatever the things we can get them for yes there's a lot of room in there about what requirements cities are going to be allowed to enforce um the state doesn't usually license this kind of thing so it's very unclear what level of regulatory authorities cities will have and this isn't just retail establishments this is registration of all of the different license types is that this is all cannabis businesses cannabis but it's it's not just the retail cannabis it's any any of the license types in the list right yes the registration part is any of the license types doesn't include limiting the numbers doesn't include compliance checks for the other types correct okay so the compliance check and limiting the numbers is only for the retail establishments yes yes thank you for clarifying that Council M ston thank you um attorney Tierney on the um registration that bolded ability to limit the number of retail regulation re registrations is that exclusively if we chose to uh register the business as a city yes you do not have the ability to limit if you do not register well there you go I think that answers the question answers the question easy I think there's two factors there is one when do we ever defer things like this to the county right we just had to fight for licensing for the hotel so right that that tells us right there yes exactly exactly obviously we defer a lot of things to the county that they do very well but when we have the choice especially in public safety we tend to do it council member I would agree we we must register them um I can't think of any other answer to that um I have a question on the compliance checks do we have the same latitude we have with alcohol compliance checks where we suspend business for a while find them and I feel like you said I don't know that's what I said yeah it's a good question I you know the the language in the statute says that cities can impose reasonable time place and manner restrictions that phrase is a is a phrase that lawyers are familiar with and probably you are all familiar with in the context of the First Amendment so it's hard to say what the legislature meant by that in this context clearly it means zoning regulations um it it means time regulations you can limit the actual opening and closing hours but the Manor part is it's hard to know how much cities are going to be allowed to regulate the state is taking on an awful lot of regulatory Authority so what are what is the city's ability going to be to regulate like a license you know or could we take the registration away um I think that there are a lot of cities that are going to there are a lot of cities that are going to impose those regulations until the state tells them they can't and that's something you should consider um how how much of it will hold up I I I can't say do we expect more guidance from ocm on any of that I don't know okay um do are there any limitations in the state law as to the total length of a suspension or the total amount of any fine under this category so one of the unique thing unique details that gives us pause is that so just a little bit of background unlike tobacco and alcohol the statutes for tobacco and alcohol both allow cities to be more restrictive than state law this statute does not contain that language um in within the stat the part of the statute that talks about suspension and non-renewal um there's one paragraph that says if a business operates without a registration or a valid license cities can issue a civil fine of up to $2,000 but that finding ability isn't elsewhere in that chapter whether that is to be read as limiting or not limiting is a open question so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to give the cities the authority to regulate if you're not going to have the authority to fine it doesn't make sense to say if you want to penalize someone you have to suspend their license that's your only choice but that may that may I don't know what the what where ocm is going to come down on it I don't know if the legislature will make changes to clarify these issues but those are some of the open questions so conceivably we could put in place a duplicate of our alcohol compliance failure regime you know one failure is this two failures is that Etc any more than three or four whatever you get this and until somebody tells us otherwise we we theoretically would have the ability to attempt to enforce that you absolutely could I would expect that some cities will the one thing that's going to give you pause though is I don't think that you will have the authority to absolutely revoke and refuse to renew again so if someone of a liquor license does four violations you can say you are done and you may not work here anymore I don't think you're going to get that Authority for this kind for the um cannabis well and if I remember right for under our alcohol licenses if we even revoke a license I think essentially they could still apply the next year if I remember how that works P does that sound familiar I mean I would have to look that up yeah I think under state law there's something that says that they you know revoking isn't like forever it's just like until the next round of opportunity to apply or something like that they can reapply but you could use their prior violations as a basis for denial okay and in this case I don't think that's the case got it okay until we understand that better right okay thank you council member Sher um just a question on uh the registration and to do the checks I'm assuming if we limit it to three the amount of additional resources we will need will be minimal or um do we need more resources to take that on as well Mr treas well so this type of licensing be through the administration department so we just added to the list of things that we sent out are you talking about the compliance checks part of it or the the license processing both I do we need additional resources to do both of those pieces I think where we struggle the most is not so much on the administrative side it happens once a year and obviously with anything new we'll have to learn and process to factor in it's the compliance checks right there just so many of them when you have alcohol and tobacco to do it twice a year takes a lot of time for officers to be part of that and that's why we struggle in getting them in a timely manner and when you have compliance failures it's even more work so we've been talking internally and how how do we remove some of that paperwork from the police side to follow up with all the uh managers to make sure you get training records and all the things and uh we haven't cracked that yet uh obviously you need some more administrative help to do that um but we don't have a firm proposal on that so it's really the compliance checks is the physical act of doing that but then also so the followup we have seven or eight failures uh a go around that takes a lot of time so if you added ju if we had just three but that'll still they are still very time consuming they can be I mean three is better than unlimited you know I think we would do do our best to absorb that but I think the larger conversations around the compliance checks when you have the THC you have tobacco you have liquor and now canabus right okay at least for what it's worth I think these registration fees are higher than the limited license fee for off sale liquor which is like 350 bucks and by statute on the onsale liquor there are higher numbers so for those licenses theoretically we're better recouping our costs to deal with compliance but at least for the for the potential 10 licenses on the on offsale liquor we we get 3500 bucks to cover all that for those 10 but or less if we don't have have that many but U so that's one potential other benefit if we go with these these fees another question for attorney TIY um if we were to replicate or pretty similarly duplicate our um violation schematic from another um one of our systems either alcohol or tobacco do you think that would have any greater um that would stand up any greater um if we were to be questioned on how we were implementing that so would they would that oh well we're just doing it the same as we do for our other rather than creating a whole different set of violations uh specifically for Canabis I think from a standpoint of having regulations that are internally consistent it that helps the defensibility of your ordinance in general but I think the real question with regard to the statute is whether the legislature wants you to have that Authority or not and we don't know that yet we don't know just one other issue um which thank you for yeah oh and we'll we can just put this in the drafting but one of the things if you're going to cap the number of licenses one of the things that we'll need to deal with in the ordinance is how you going to choose who gets them yeah um and so that's not only an issue for at the front end how do you choose who gets them but when one goes away or is revoked how how do you choose who get gets the next one so um there's a few options you know you can do kind of first come first thir which is always my preference but you know you could do a lottery if you know you have one coming or something of that nature so if you have preferences um let us know otherwise we can draft something for your consideration and we may do it differently for the initial round as opposed to when one becomes available you know that might be first come first serve maybe we do something else for the initial since it's a brand new type of license you know maybe if we only have three it's not as big of a deal to do a lottery or something but depending on what the number is it may affect our thoughts there but good to good to be something that we have to consider and I don't know if we have to have an answer this evening it doesn't sound like good right we like that register yes limit to three yes we don't know core pieces we register yes register yes is the only answer got so far oh okay not the limit okay limit to question mark okay until we have the conversation why you can have that right now I think that's it's the queuing up of that conversation consider yourself queed all right I heard I heard a number of people say three so that kind of seems like where there may be some some consensus going down however I will be the Lone Wolf saying perhaps more than three but I'm not not going to win that how many more did three of us put up three fingers three of us put up three fing three of us put up three fingers though three of us have three three is three three threes is all you need that's that's true it's also nine well you should be an [Laughter] engineer and just very briefly just in support of of MOA I once again I think we're we're sort of reacting to this being new and potentially scary and and I don't know what the Marketplace will look like I understand the theory that you could always add more but I don't know why we're being super restrictive to begin with but that's just because I'm not on the winning end of that we'll move on we don't need to have further discussion oh we don't you just want to throw yours well I mean you you win which if you want to say more tell us why you won Jason um try to convince me I think one of the important points has brought up the additional work for staff I think is an important point I think the amount of gray area that's sitting just to my right where every time she says Ah there's another thing there's another thing there's another thing once they're there it's they're there right let's let's find out how this works in our city in our state and things like that before I would start opening more and more doors that's why I would do and this is for retail specifically retail as far as we understand it there could be a thousand cultivating businesses in Roseville and we can't limit that as long as it fits in the zon zoning I don't know if we have Zoning for a th I'm just okay moving on are there any other uh so now based on the three do we have to revisit our spacing and buffering discussions or are we comfortable with where we're at on the at the end of that where would we at at the end of that well we said we said if we limited it to three we didn't have to put the buffers in that's what I agree with yeah okay the only question is around the micro businesses where they could smoke it and going to learn more and come back because then I would agree you end up with a strip mall where you have a daycare facility we have one in Lexington we actually have one at Lexington and B also um both of them happen to be Spanish language uh things within a half mile each other whatever but those are spots that theoretically the business next door could be a micro business and they could be smoking and that's that that is a time where I would want to be able to put a buffer in that sounds reasonable all right and I think again it's easier to put them in and take them out later um just like the massage parlers you know before we have 27 we maybe could have talked about a little bit more we just didn't know so it's it feels easier to Grant more if needed um but especially with all the gray I fully agree all right I got to say my opinion are there any other slides we have just a few more regulations to talk about um hours of operation so the you have the most restrictive you can be is 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days a week uh the state limits to 8:00 a.m. to 2 a.m. which is obviously the next day um Monday through Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2: a.m. on Sunday so you can anywhere between those two you can regulate so on our offsale liquor sales and I'm not sure if this is state law or just our own uh that is 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and Sunday 11: to 6 so conceivably we could allow retail to start at 8: a.m. to be consistent withh off sale and and it 10 p.m. and at 10: p.m. also to be consistent with off sale you could do it every day and then do we want to do any and then the 10: a.m. to 2 Sunday Sunday would be maybe 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. it's 11: a.m. to 6 it's 11: to 6 we we can't do it that restrictive as our alcohol is more restrictive than the state will allow for the tobacco license couldn't I I agree with Wayne just uh excuse me council member gra 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. U Monday through Sunday and just make it every day make it every day it's easier well Sunday the earliest open is 10 aay yeah and we don't necessarily have to go till 10 p.m. on Sunday but we can't go any later or any earlier as an end time than 9 so we could do 10 to 9 on Sunday well now that's odd because it says most permissive is 10:00 a.m. to 2 well most permissive most restrictive is the 9:00 p.m. it's 2: a.m. yeah I see that yeah so if we thoroughly confused ourselves so 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday mhm 10:00 a.m. to 900 p.m. on Sunday sure because that fits the what state that's what we are allowed to do all right okay next so I just listed odor um which is Janice and I have been talking about taking a a harder look at your odor odor regul and seeing whether we need some enforcement language um so unless you don't want us to do that we will keep doing that work and come up with a my concern with your zoning language is it's just a zoning enforcement tool what do you do if someone violates it and so to create an assist a system with maybe some administrative fines or or something that that gives it some teeth if they don't meet the zoning can we revoke their certificate of occupancy is that the way we enforce zoning violations no okay the attorney says no we I wasn't sure I wasn't sure even for businesses on selling that pump their meat smell out the wall boy if I was a vegetarian I'd hate to live on the corner of be and selling but if you weren't a vegetarian it all right um and then finally we haven't really talked about cannabis events um so you can require a permit for that event I have license or permit but I think the license is from the state um you can restrict onsite consumption you can prohibit on-site consumption you can restrict the location and you can restrict hours there may be other restrictions those for sure I think as a starting point any cannabis event under the statute probably needs to be subject to our permit proc ESS for events special events uh and I don't remember what all the requirements in there are so um we may have to get come back to it it's a lot about Amplified sound for sure we have no mention of liquor consumption either way in the policy right now just okay and if somebody were to at an event have liquor consumption it would have to be a licensed entity providing it and things like that yeah yeah um so we may it may be sensible to to within that framework have something come back with some suggestions and and I would suggest that Council seriously consider prohibiting on site consumption as we start off with that I think from the law enforcement side and the management side I think we need to make sure we really have our ducks in a row on these permits special events we can bring that back as part of conversation that just my plug I think from the law enforcement side and neighborhood compatibility I think better off I think that's probably a good starting point and definitely the difference with alcohol there is the environmental concern not not capital E environmental but just the notion of neighbor surrounding dealing with the odors and all that makes sense right and could be res and there may be consideration with respect to ours and some of those things too that that we may want to do differently with with respect to this type of event as opposed to others but I don't know what those would be necessarily but certainly if there are thoughts that staff has from that and want wants to propose those to the council for consideration any objection seems like there's that's like the way we want to go all right um finally um low potency hemp Edibles um do you want to do you want to register those like cannabis businesses you wouldn't have to um register those you could just allow them to open um they're not considered a cannabis business so I don't I don't think you're required to register um and I don't think that because you don't have to do compliance checks with those so I don't think that the county would register those either I think they would just exist with a state license um lcy is not age restricted or is age restricted well we have age restricted I think if it is a that's a good question I think if it were just a retail sale I think it's age restricted but keep in mind lots of low potency is in is in bars and liquor stores right and so not necessarily um I can answer that for you well I was going to say because our our current licensing of the these types of businesses we have a limit on the number first of all and second of all um we don't restrict the number of well the the the number of licenses isn't restricted unless it's a stand Standalone age restricted entry type establishment um so we have to understand how that fits with the new regime I guess um because if we have the ability to do some of those controls through registration we may want to register those businesses if there if there are age um restrictions on the sale and there's compliance check requirements and they're Standalone and not liquor like license holders we may have we may want to register those as well if we have to do the compliance checks I don't believe compliance checks are required um I will say um it appears that if it is a um if if it's a bar if they have a liquor restaurant or a bar with a on sale liquor license um that they will also be able to allow on-site consumption right of these edibles correct not panabas right um so the question becomes then those are going to be obviously subject to age compliance checks with their alcohol sales anyway we wouldn't necessarily be separately or somehow doing compliance checks because it doesn't sound like apparently that even though this is an age restricted sale the state requires compliance checks let me look into that more not that I'm aware of but but that that might have been a a piece I didn't catch so let me let me look into that more Council mad if we register them can we charge a registration fee to help pay for the regulation yes uh but your registration fee is going to be capped by the state let's say it's 500ish and a th000 but is but it's probably less even for the low potency yeah MH lower lower potency yes they are if if you do a registration you may charge a fee it is capped by by the state are there any responsibilities with that like you said probably well you're going to find out if we have to I'm going to find out not that I I don't recall seeing any compli any compliance check requirements that appli to low potency hemp but I'm I'm not 100% confident okay if we're allowed to collect and we don't have to have a responsibility we should be doing we should collect well I think I'm thinking under our licensing regime we were doing compliance checks THC um our C does require compliance checks that's what I thought yeah well then we under licensing and we were doing it because it's age restricted and I don't know that anybody is telling we telling us we have to and for that matter I'm not even sure how we're if we're told we have to do it for alcohol and tobacco too but I'm just not sure how that is all structured in the state statute so anyway but we do it clearly for those yeah so many eyes going so maybe for um the lower potent hemp Edibles we can write you something similar to what you currently have I'll fill in the information I'm missing and we could go from there right it would seem to me that if we can register them and we can do compliance checks or should do compliance checks then we want to do the registration I mean if there's no if it's just registration for the sake of registration I guess I get the point about collecting a fee but normally the fee is supposed to cover your cost of doing the registration so we shouldn't be applying it towards the cost of compliance checks for other of businesses or something what I will say is the low potency hemp edible the the language in the statute around low potency hemp Edibles is far less specific and therefore less limiting than the other than the Cannabis so we think you have more authority to regulate low potency hemp Edibles than cannabis so then it sounds like we should draft something with respect to registration and compliance jets with those okay no no question other than why why why us all right imagine municipalities all over the state okay yeah wouldn't it have been nice if they would have came out with rules and instead of each of us coming up with our own when there's an interesting thing that the observation we heard today from another city manager and another jurisdiction which is his experience with rule making at the state level is that it takes about a year oftentimes after the completion of the public comment period on the proposed rules before they actually go into effect the public comment period on the rules that have been out there ended August 31st for this stuff so it would seem under rule making tradition that it's going to be hard for them to have something in place by the first of the year based on that but who knows Miracles can happen all right have we completed our cannabis discussion for this evening first of many the only other topic I wanted to bring up related to this was how we want to handle uh public engagement on this do we want to do more than uh you know the typical notice of an ordinance and people have the opportunity to come and talk about it do we want to do any kind of public publishing of a story in the city news about that we're looking at this and here's what we're looking at and here's how you can provide input do we want to do any more more formalized engagement beyond that um do we want to try to reach out to the industry as to what they want to how they want to be regulated just throwing it all out there for Council consideration because that we don't want to not do engagement I would think as a city council member St I just think everyone knows that this is happening across the state right now we have three months with limited meetings we've had the folks from the the um from the Cannabis Association come to meetings we know what they want we also got a letter today from the association for non-smokers we know what they want is very different I appreciate all the different ideas but I don't know that in the interest of time we have a ton of time to to engage and collaborate uh to create also given the regulations that the state has Pro provided to us I I think that we will the people who are interested in concerned will reach out but I I don't know that we have a time to do a full on mass you know communication effort Council M shter I would agree with that with knowing as we move forward we can always update and change things so we could get something in place and then still engage and educate and have more public input and then knowing if there's enough public input that need to change what we've come up with that we're open to that so I but I do think we need to get something in place because we don't have a lot of time um I did want to check in terms of the like the timing of the next city news is that something that even would work to get in there or I know we just had one come out yeah we'd have one more we have to have something by the end of probably by the end of September so conceivably there could be an article that just says the council's considering cannabis regulations here's kind of a general discussion what what some of our options are them to the web page and you know yeah exactly when would that come out though that would come out November November 1 okay so three meetings get better than zero yeah it's probably I mean to make sure folks are aware of it and we could certainly do something earlier than that in social media I would imagine yeah we can push out social media we can have a I suppose a web page Landing even if the conversation isn't we can have people refer to that in November December I think we should do something uh even though I agree with Council M strong we need to get this through that's number one but I think we should do some Outreach so that people people don't like it if they feel like we did something in secret so whatever we can do we should do but we can also tell them we're under a timeline here and people understand that January 1 is coming quickly all right I did want to make sure we talked about that all right thank you everyone uh do we have anything else on our agenda oh yeah so we have um and again thanks to staff and our attorney for all the work that they've done on this next on our agenda we have a consideration of appointments to the equity and inclusion commission uh this is a brand new commission uh being formed by the city uh and needs to be populated with Commissioners um we have uh an I think it was 11 or there thereabouts total applicants and we conducted interviews with most of them uh and then had the opportunity to reach out uh to connect with the ones that weren't able to be interviewed um we have the information uh in the packet uh as to that I did provide a memo just to kind of give an outline to the the way we could think about the initial terms depending on exactly how many members we we put in there um and that we may come to some pretty quick consensus on that conceivably uh but I just wanted to put the options out there on a piece of paper for people to consider so we had um a number of applicants and we have to make some decisions I think the first decision probably is um whether we want to try to populate the full seven members under the code or something less than that uh and then how we want to break down the terms within the restrictions we have in our code to do that uh so I'll kind of put it out there for the uh council member Aton I would be in favor of having a five member commission at this point um looking at the kind of the super majority support we have for those members leaving room um for an appointment process in February March um of next year to fill that out ensuring that we try to get more folks who fit the scope that we've tried to outline for the members of that group that group i' second it is that where Council wants to go about five I would do six since there's one that was three and that would be a majority of the council that would have added that one in all right uh I don't know was that a motion I heard a second but I don't know that I heard a motion I'll make it a motion five okay all right then we have a motion from council member atton and a second from council member uh schroer to do five live discussion on that motion Council as the maker anything to add to your comments that you made to this point I think as we do this we want to make sure that we are very thoughtful about the the makeup of the group and I think it is good also as a separate thing that a group has to make a decision has an odd number um they can actually make a decision if they have a split vote on something um six can end up in a tie I don't know how boards do that but um all right so I think functionally it also might work better but those are my things for right as the second of council member shter you know and after I I looked at the numbers um I was thinking how important it is that the council is all on the same page as close as we can be to who were appointing to this because we've put a lot of work in this commission you know for we what worked on for couple years and a b time a lot of time and so I guess that um that's where I decided it made more sense to have four or five of us agree and not just three I mean that so I I am comfortable with trying to get that more of us on board with this and five um I also agree with having an odd number makes sense to me and then it also gives us more space to find two people that um will really fit what we're trying to do um with this commission that we're that we're looking for gives us more time on that side so that I guess that's where I came around to it um because you know I was one of the people who voted for that one person with the three so I guess I I'd be comfortable backing away from that and just go with the five right other discussion and I would say it would be in order if one wanted to move an amendment to go to Six that would be in order to do um subject to a second and a vote but uh council member St I'm also in support of moving forward with five um and I also was in support of the person who obtained three but um the gender balance would be off then and um I think it's important that we look at all different forms of um diversity and so I wanted to make sure that we didn't start off there'll be times when we won't have an opportunity um to make you know there'll only be two people and one of them is going to be the choice but we have this opportunity right now to try to um balance things as much as possible and given that I felt like the top five we were pretty strongly supportive of the top five people um and so I feel comfortable moving forward with five well as the third person who voted for the the third I will resend that then uh the the other logic I would put into that is we are we do our full uh this is an off time in the year so we hopefully would have more applicants and more attention paid to uh Commissions in January February March so we'd probably get a larger pool and maybe a little more advertisement and a little more in the city news so there might be more applicants potentially yes and we could actually perhaps get a wider voice represented okay uh so we've got the motion before us to appoint five uh to this to start this commission uh if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously uh then the question is do we go um 221 or 212 basically I guess is what it is Council I have a I have a question first are these like a three-year term are we doing the approximately 6 months between now and that plus three years is that correct yes and half years is just that extra half year I think the idea that when we had the last conversation with staff about these appointments and this timing was that it's that it would be a three-year plus X months you know so it would be through the 31st of March of year X and we can be clearer about that so it' be one year would be through 33126 two would be through 331 27 and three years would be through 33128 I probably didn't even have to write that down as I was saying it but anyway now it's there does that make sense to the council all right and I'm assuming we're not violating our own ordinance by doing that right council member Aton thoughts I think I think a 221 works for me that the uhu two that we're questioning would be that twoyear but theoretically those people could serve the longest um and for me I would appoint um looking at gender balance and some other things I would Point those folks who could be their longest um for that two for two years plus the three terms the other two terms plus that onee person as our five people that we got five votes for there's a lot of numbers in there so 221 all right so we have three people yeah three people have five tallies yes and two people have four tallies yes so how are you thinking of breaking that down so for going from the top and thinking about people who received four votes I would have uh miss sco and miss lrange there for the next one down for which length of term for a three-year term standard threeyear term okay theoretic those people can serve the least but who knows how this work out the next group could serve the longest and I would put Alfred Chan and Gabriel Philip Crawford there again looking at that balance piece a little bit right and then the next longest that someone could do I would put uh pral B ready all right is that a motion that's a motion second all right motion by council member Ratt and second by council member straw on the appointments as outlined and just to be clear that was Miss lrange and Miss schuver for the threeyear term yes that was uh Mr Chan and Miss Philip Crawford for the two-year term yes and uh the other person Mr V for the one-year term yeah just to make sure everybody's clear on that thank you all right with that we have the motion before us discuss on the motion anything to add council member Aton I I tried to as I thought through that I said who had the five votes and who could then serve the longest who knows if that works out that way in the end but that that was the logic in in that who had the complete unanimous support and put it in the longest potentially and coun Reston discussion on the motion nothing further right other discussion all right with that we have the motion before us to make those appointments as outlined uh there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I oppos that passes unanimously we have our initial five members of the EIC or equity and inclusion commission congratulations to all those appointments uh if there's nothing further on that item the next item is highly related to this which is to uh appoint youth Commissioners we have two uh proposed for the equity and inclusion commission uh I don't know Mr Tron uh if you had anything by way of Staff introduction as to uh these individuals no I do not um I would uh note that both of them have received parental consent to all right uh so we've got the two recommended appointments uh as outlined is there a motion so moved second it's been moved by council member St second by council member gra to make those youth commissioner appointments as uh outlined uh a discussion on the motion as uh the maker of the motion Council memb TR no I'm excited if we're going to bring in a less than five or less than seven um that these young folks get to be part of the process right from the G go to all right as the secretary council member gra I think it's important to have their opinion stated and and added for our discussions all right other discussion on the motion agre I think we appreciate their enthusiasm and interest in participating and and look forward to what they uh can provide in terms of that uh working on the commission with that we've got the motion before us to appoint those two individuals to the equity and inclusion commission as youth Commissioners uh if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously those appointments are made congratulations to everybody uh and we look forward to the work of this commission going forward and uh hearing more about that as we have the opportunity for joint meetings in the next year and things of that sort with that that brings us to the end of our business items because item 7D was pulled off the agenda uh that then brings us to consideration of city council minutes we've got two sets of minutes uh one from our August 19th I believe that was the special council meeting to Canvas the election and then also our August 21st council meeting or it's the other way around way the other way around it's the other way around all right with that do we have a motion or are there any changes or corrections to either of those sets of minutes or a motion to approve one or both I move to approve both second that can happen Wayne graph approves uh Jason seconds to approve both sets of minutes a discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I post that passes unanimously those items are approved and that brings us then to the consent agenda Mr treas can you give us a brief rundown of those items thank you Mr Mayor agenda item 10A approves payments the amount of $2,255 and44 item 10B approves a temporary liquor license to the new life Presbyterian Church for an event to be held on October 4th 2024 agenda item 10 C approves several expenditures for the public works department including the replacement of lighting for five poles in the city hall parking lot and pathway Way Extension of a storm St pipe in anticipation of a sewer lift station as well as other drainage improvements and the purchase of a replacement P truck and necessary equipment to put on the chassis to replace a 2013 vehicle item 10d approves a 2025 insurance benefit renewals and the city cafeteria benefit contribution for city employees the overall rate increase was 12% in 2025 and the employees will be covering 7% of the increase and the city budget will be covering 5% of the increase item 10 e approves the issuance of a short-term rental license for 1901 Shady Beach Avenue agenda item 10 F approves the issuance of a short-term rental license for 1277 Garden Avenue item 10f approves entering into Professional Services agreement with SE to design a new meter and meter Vault size for the joint watermain project with Arden Hills agenda item um 10h approves a resolution ratifying the labor agreement between the City of Roseville and the law enforcement labor Services local 478 which represents the rosille police a deputy police chief terms of this agreement which includes a pay increase to align with the market is contained in the tenative agreement as uh documented in attachment one and finally agenda item 10 I approves the resolution ratifying the labor agreement between the City of Roseville and the law enforcement labor Services local 431 that represents the Roseville Police lieutenants the terms of agreement which includes a pay increase to one with the market is contained uh in the tenative agreement document iners attachment one and that is the consent agenda all right thank you Mr Tron and just a note I think the uh the two short-term rental license are both renewals not new issuances okay thank you uh with that is there a motion to approve the consent items so moved second right it's been moved by council member Aton seconded by council member St to approve those items uh discussion on the motion uh the only thing I would note is these are a couple of law enforcement labor contracts and I appreciate our long history of good relations with our uh various bargaining units in law enforcement in Roseville and I think that's a testament to the the culture that was mentioned earlier uh in the discussion uh of the donation so I wanted to to highlight that and and thank again everybody on on uh both sides for working so constructively together over the years with that we have the uh motion to approve those items and the consent agenda before us if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously those items are approved uh finally future agenda review oh excuse me uh mayor I went back to the minutes for this Wednesday August 21 and it shows who's present there were two council members that weren't present and they're showing us present in the minutes okay so it's a technical change we should fix that on the August 21st no I appreciate that that was the special yeah that was the special meeting for the interviews yes yes so two two council members weren't president they sh pres all right and those were council members shorter and strong yep thank you thank you for pointing that out we zipped right through those minutes very quickly I was thinking it was the election results but it wasn't I think we're all there for that one uh council member or excuse me Mr Tron could you give us a brief rundown of the future agenda items here all right so we have a pretty full slide you have some more meetings coming up here so September 16th next Monday we'll start off from the Eda meeting to look at the preliminary Eda Levy and budget and have Eda make the recommendation to the full Council also consider entering into the professional service agreement with Stan Tech regarding housing the housing needs study Stant will be here to talk a little bit more about their um their study so be able to ask some questions of them at the uh regular meeting which will be a work session we'll have the finance commission recommendation on the city budget as well as a Park and Recreation Commission coming for a joint meeting on the 23rd uh the main item we have is the adopt the preliminary City budget and Levy that's the not to exceed amount on the 25th uh there is uh strategic planning meeting with the council that's focus group from 4: to 6:30 p.m. I I would know I'm talking to the consultant I was originally intending to be there but she thought it'd be best if just the council so okay do that October 7th uh we'll have the awarding of the recycling contract and War the recycling cart cart contract related depending on what B we take and then also consideration of various rightaway vacations this is round number four uh I think it's just a couple of them and uh I don't know much details about them but I know we spent a lot of time the P so we'll see October 11th is the uh joint uh meeting with department heads and uh city council uh for a first round Str planning that'll be 1 to 5:00 P PM in the Willow Room I should mention the other meeting will be in the Willow Room as well and then uh October 14th our tenative schedule is to receive uh Ramsey County uh commissioner Mary Joe McGuire's presentation and talking about some very specific issues um this is a new item this next one that will provide some background information prior to the meeting police department wants to start looking at um how they're organized it's not necessarily a staffing study a staffing count although that potentially could be a part about about it it's about how all the duties are assigned and what's the best approach there are so much more put on police officers that um there some interest in maybe looking can civilian staff off hold some of that so our officers can be doing more things in the street um it's a conversation I'm not sure if if that's where we end up going but we'll provide some additional background on that and then we hope to receive the utility rate study from ERS um to start looking at that as we gear into November for our utility rates that is what I have for now all right thank you Mr Tre are there questions on the future agenda items or council member initiated items for future agendas no any liaz on reports or announcements from Council Members council member St I just wanted to mention I went to the environmental action climate event uh last week which uh is Loosely affiliated with the Ramy County League of local governments and the claw which Robin probably knows the acronym for um but uh I was alone because um well ban was unable to attend but she received very high Kudos from uh her cooh reps and the amazing things that she's doing so um it was nice to hear how well we are doing but the list of things that we could be doing on our environmental action is endless and so um we have we have our work in place um as long as we choose to accept it um but there's a lot of things that I hopefully we move forward and see if there's additional items that we can kind of pick off a little bit at a time and see what we can do to improve our environment great other announcements or Communications don't we have an event coming up on Friday for the oh uh fundraising event tapped in on court yes I understand you can actually still get tickets I think it's a great time great cause I hear it is and it is a very good cause all right with that uh then uh the only item before us is adjournment move by all right council member schroer second by council member gra to ajour no discussion on a motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and we are adjourned at exactly 8m thank you e e